lol. lmao.

  • Skyline969@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s because these companies keep driving up production costs on their own. Their next game has to top their last. At what point do we say that graphics are good enough? Who needs these insane amount of details? Why does a game absolutely need to be 100+GB in size? Is Bloodborne not visually appealing enough? What about God of War (2018)?

    Can we not find a “good enough” acceptable baseline and just work with that? This infinite growth is annoying as both a developer and a player. Like okay, ooooh, you can render each individual hair on someone’s head and they each have their own physics. Congratulations. How’s the story for the game? Ah, broken to the point of unplayable, but you pinky swear a patch is coming.

    • mint@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      ·
      9 months ago

      i want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and i’m not kidding

    • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      9 months ago

      This infinite growth is annoying as both a developer and a player.

      wait until you find out what the world economy is built on…

    • Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      I still play Dishonored every year. Those are not realistic graphics in the slightest, but it still holds up pretty well. Why? Style. I would 100% take a “lower” graphics game with style than a 100GB game with exquisitely modeled sandwiches.

      Stylistic games also age better than realistic games in my opinion. Look at other 2012 games like Mass Effect, Far Cry 3, and Borderlands. Mass Effect and Far Cry went more realistic, and I think they suffered a bit for it in the long run.

      Not saying Dishonored didn’t age tho. It does have that 2012 feel, lol.

        • DrPop@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Borderlands even looks great on potato settings, , graphics are nice and all but being able to tell what I’m looking at is more important and sometimes that said gets lost in the highest graphics range.

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      No offense but 100gb really isn’t that big in the year 2023… I keep seeing people complain about this and I just don’t get it. 5-7 years ago? Sure. That was unusual. Now? Nah.

      I mean 4k HDR Remux files are often upwards of 80gb, and that’s just a 2-3 hour movie. Games can have hundreds of hours of content and also have high quality textures/HDR/HQ Audio/etc. Is it really that surprising that a bunch of games are 100+ gigs?

      • Skyline969@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Let’s say you buy an Xbox Series S. At the current going rate of games, you can fit four, maybe five games on the thing, assuming you don’t play older or indie titles. You can buy an external USB hard drive, sure, but you can’t play games off it. You’d have to awkwardly shuffle games around any time you wanted to play something else. Wanna expand it with storage that can actually be played off of? You need to pay the same cost as the console for proprietary storage.

        It’s different on PC and PS5 since you can upgrade storage relatively easily but even then, a 1TB NVMe disk can hold a maximum of 10 games at today’s storage requirements. Want something bigger? Get ready to shell out some serious cash.

        Storage has not kept up with file size. And to be fair, 4k HDR Remux files are just as bad. You can’t tell me the average person can even tell the difference from a 1080p WebRip (a fraction of the size) and one of them. Not unless you’ve got the high end hardware to make use of it, and I highly doubt the average person is shelling out the $5000+ required for that to be a thing.

        • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Are you questioning whether a typical person can tell the difference between 1080p SDR and 4k HDR? If so, yes. Anyone can tell.

          Also it does not cost $5,000 to watch 4k HDR.

          Nothing you said makes sense.