Anyone 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.

im 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.

I 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.

Anyone 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.

Anyone 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 Sep 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 Sep 2023 at 1:12 pm UTC

Then 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.

Then 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.

Yeah that's the other one these days. Some of the 2D ones like Terraria have their own things going on, but i never got into those. Aside those, the only one I really got into for some time is Factorio, it was perfect while i worked a telecenter gig.

I also have the added frustration with Minecraft-likes that they never actually capture the charm of Minecraft. Even if i don't like where Minecraft's been going approximately since the food upgrade, I'll still take it over any of the free/non-free clones that have popped up. (I used to be a massive Minecraft fan, today i can't get into it much anymore, maybe because i have less free time)

I think Zelda might be a good comparison, or any Nintendo game really: they have nice graphics but they are never pushing the latest and greatest components in their hardware. Still, they are popular. If i'm ever getting a console, it'll be the actual Nintendo one for the current iteration of Mario Maker.

My recent experience that brought this rant out of me is Baldurs gate 3, although it's at least in part GoG's fault, redownloading the thing like 5 times really ground my gears a lot. I really like this game, partly beacuse Larian's done away with some of the larianisms from the dos games, and partly because it shows they put in the work, even though there are some annoying choices they made. Maybe it's unfair, but it's about 5 times bigger in size than wotr, and i don't think there is 5 times of content in there. Sure they have good graphics and full voice over, which is an impressive feet, but from what i read they also had to cut quite a bit of content. Makes me wonder how much more content could've been made if they skipped full VO or compromised on the looks a little more.

Seems like i can't stop rambling about BG3, but i really think it's a good game despite it's faults and can be a good 'gateway drug' for these kind of games to the average person.

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.

I wish there were similar opportunities here, I'd never play any multiplayer game online again.

Last edited by dvd on 16 Sep 2023 at 3:25 pm UTC

I wish there were similar opportunities here, I'd never play any multiplayer game online again.

Not sure what your area is like but I would start this this https://www.start.gg/ then check out place near you like Dave & Busters, Barcade, Playdate and others like it.

Most of the locals I hit are at bars so it's 21+ and bring your own USB-A based controller.

I think Zelda might be a good comparison, or any Nintendo game really: they have nice graphics but they are never pushing the latest and greatest components in their hardware. Still, they are popular

Completely understanding the irony of this coming from a Linux PC gaming person, but I think a strength of the game comes from it being a Switch exclusive. They are limited to a relatively weak hardware platform. I've casually read a few interviews with the devs, and they mostly all talk about gameplay because you're not getting high fidelity graphics out of that console. And honestly, I think the graphics will hold up better 10 years later, than a BG3 or Starfield, because of the art direction... it still provides beautiful graphics.

But yeah, I find a lot of the crafting mechanics that are bolted on to other genre games to be clunky and honestly very grindy, particularly the RPG's and actiony titles where it just seems to pull you out of the game loop while you search everywhere for a flower 🤦‍♂️

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

I do agree, there is taking it too far where poor graphics/art direction get in the way. Although for me, almost anything in the last 10 years is just fine in terms of quality, so I guess it's more the style to me.

I do agree, there is taking it too far where poor graphics/art direction get in the way. Although for me, almost anything in the last 10 years is just fine in terms of quality, so I guess it's more the style to me.

Oh Hell, I still play games older than that. What was Crysis, 2007? (OK, silly, atypical example lol)

But I've got good games from that time frame. Older even, like Quake 4. That's great graphics for 2005.

I'm not that fussy, for example that remake of the System Shock game, where they preserved the old look. That's good enough to be immersive, and they have perspective/scale right.

I'm not that fussy, for example that remake of the System Shock game, where they preserved the old look. That's good enough to be immersive, and they have perspective/scale right

Agreed! I just finished that game last week, and I really like the art direction. I think the use of the pixelated textures was a nice touch! I really like it when games try and do something more unique and artistic with the graphics.

I'm just trying my luck again here with Assassin's Creed Odyssey... it's a 108 Gb game and I had to free up space for it (my 2 Tb NVME is almost full again). That's going to leave a mark. It's a 5 year old game now too.

Only after downloading all that will I find out if Ubisoft's activation works for this game, this time. I bought it once before and it was asking for non-existent license key. Ubisoft said it wasn't their problem, they don't issue keys for Steam purchases. I saw all my other (Steam purchased, several years ago on Windows) games in the Ubisoft client if I brought it in the foreground, but AC Odyssey wouldn't activate. Refund... shrug.

I'm not fond of Ubisoft, their shitware client and their DRM, but I want that game, I've sat with my nephew while he played it. It's on for -80% right now.

P.S. YES, I got it activated and working this time. Working well so far, and with good performance.

Last edited by Grogan on 17 Sep 2023 at 8:41 pm UTC