Quoting: dvdAnyone else wish that new games (by and large) stopped focusing on ultra-detailed, high resolution models and textures, to reduce their insane size? I mean 100+ Gbs, come on.

It's probably dumb but i feel like there could be big improvements in other aspects of games.

Agreed. Games nowadays look great anyway. Devs should rather focus on gameplay first , then optimization and afterwards graphics. Personally i would prefer if they would just make a 4K texture pack DLC or something along the line where you can decide yourself if you want that.

gameplay > visuals

I mean i like shiny graphics and the progress with realistic visuals.. but in the end.. gameplay is most important.
If gameplay is superb then i have no concern how small or big the game is or how it really looks

I don't care about game sizes as much as I care about how buggy games are; microtransactions; DLC; season's passes; and DRM. I'd take a 100GB game in a heartbeat if the rest of that got cleared up.

Quoting: I_Hate_Windowsim noticing a trend of people with shitty video cards complaining about framerates...... do you have a brain and do you know how to use it? buy moar gpu and quit bitching, post a real problem next time

You sound like a developer. "Our games run great on our RTX 4090's with DLSS 3 obviously all those who complain have bad PC's its totally their fault and our games are perfectly optimized".

Surely you can expect a game to be optimized? I dont expect to have 60+FPS in every game and especially in games coming in the next few years. But on lower settings a stable 30/60FPS depending on it should not be a problem IF the game is optimized in the first place. But nowadays most of the devs dont care about actual optimization. Just slap FSR/XESS/DLSS on it and call it a day.

Quoting: XpanderI mean i like shiny graphics and the progress with realistic visuals.. but in the end.. gameplay is most important.

Agreed, but if I may take it one step further, I'd go as far to say id prefer better art direction over the "realism" or resolution or texture size.

For me, it's more memorable, ages less, and really sets the theme of the game really well.

Quoting: dvdAnyone else wish that new games (by and large) stopped focusing on ultra-detailed, high resolution models and textures, to reduce their insane size? I mean 100+ Gbs, come on.

It's probably dumb but i feel like there could be big improvements in other aspects of games.

Totally agree...... As a person with a 300GB data cap per month the size of games is getting out of hand.......
Even if I had unlimited data I would still be saying the same thing......

They care so so much about how the games looks and not how the game plays....... I would much rather play a game that looks like a PS2 game with great gameplay than a game with the latest and greatest shiny graphics but the gameplay is complete crap......

#1 is and should always be gameplay....... and THEN focus on the graphics.......

My favourite kind of game is a big, open world game with rich graphics. It's also got to be interesting too though, of course. I don't mind downloading 100 Gb if it's good.

I know it's not what it's supposed to be about, but I don't care how good gameplay is if the game is ugly. It doesn't have to be fantastic, but it has to be good enough to be immersive. One show stopper for me, even more so than ugly graphics, is perspective. If everything looks like a bunch of lilliputian props, it's not going to be immersive for me.

My biggest criticism is that publishers and game distribution services are IRRESPONSIBLE with forced, large updates. If they keep hitting me with tens of gigabytes of updates multiple times, that game cannot stay installed and then I'll probably never play it.

Quoting: dvdAnyone else wish that new games (by and large) stopped focusing on ultra-detailed, high resolution models and textures, to reduce their insane size? I mean 100+ Gbs, come on.

It's probably dumb but i feel like there could be big improvements in other aspects of games.

This is why I like Stadia because I was never going to install games like MK11 on my hardware. I like to keep my install sizes low so that I don't spend much on hardware. I'm never chasing tech to play games so I'll just stick to older titles and indie titles that are small.

The good thing for me is that locals with free play are plentiful so I just go to my locals to play games like the latest fighters and it's no skin off my back outside of bringing my own controller.

Last edited by Mezron on 16 September 2023 at 1:53 pm UTC

Well i prefer simple graphics in game; to speak about larian again, i much preferred DOS1 to DOS2 in this regard too. The cartoonish look made it that much better for me.

Then again if you look at gameplay most mainstream games are basically Skyrim simulators now, and they don't really make an effort to do something "new". One of the purchases i regret is Skyrim (i dont know which umpteenth edition it was), as i had to realise that my good memories were only due to nostalgia and the hard work of modders. (And i even had more of that going with oblivion).

One good example of this is Cyberpunk, it was bad in almost every way, truly a game where you have to suffer the game to get to the 1-2 interesting cinematics with the characters.

Last edited by dvd on 16 September 2023 at 1:12 pm UTC

Quoting: dvdThen again if you look at gameplay most mainstream games are basically Skyrim simulators now

Lol.... I just played Skyrim for the first time a little while ago. As a massive Morrowind fan, I never played 4 or 5 as I was worried the game wouldn't compare to modded Morrowind. I think it part nostalgia and part trying to chase the awe and wonder if that first experience. I'm sure people have the same feelings toward Skyrim that I have toward Morrowind.

Reading this thread, I keep thinking of the 2 recent Zelda titles. By every measure, those are actually very good, big, games, BUT, the graphics are pretty basic. The switch is not a powerful system. While they are not games for me, as I watch my family play, I can't but wonder why Skyrim and Co couldn't do some of the things Zelda does. I totally realize it's not a fair comparison. I'm comparing a 12 year old game to a modern title (with all the improvements in game design in between). Perhaps Zelda to Starfield (is there another modern game that would be a better comparison?)

Going a totally different direction, I complain less about things being Skyrim like and more them being Minecraft like. I find the evolution and inclusion of the crafting mechanics to be really annoying. I would never have bought No Man's Sky had I realized it was just Minecraft with a space theme.