Digital Foundry: Why the return of 30fps console games is inevitable

[AJ_Radio]

6 hours ago, here4headshots said:

My brother in Light, while I agree with your opinion on "next gen" resolution and framerate standards, your comment towards Sifferino are personal and somewhat rude. He conceded that his age and eyesight may be a factor in not being able to perceive the difference in 30 and 60fps, and that younger eyes may be able to see the difference more clearly, AND that he doesn't like being called a liar, blind, or have any personal insults thrown his way. Then what do you do? You tell him "age does not convert to wisdom" which sounds a bit like an insult to me and you tell him to stop being defensive and to look at these discussions objectively. He sounded defensive because he was being attacked, and outside of that his comments were very neutral. He literally said agree to disagree. 

It was a defensive tone. I don’t care how old somebody is, but I definitely don’t recall someone attacking him for his opinions, he just made a post stating he doesn’t like it when others insult him. So the tone of the post was defensive. 
 

This is very commonplace on the internet. I will make the argument that there is a clear difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. I would have a lower opinion of Dark Souls Remastered on the PS4 if it was limited to 30 FPS. It’s an already exceptionally stellar game, one of the best to come out in the past 10 - 12 years. Remasters should make improvements on the original games .

 

If the game sucks, I don’t care if it’s 4K graphics, 60 FPS, whatever. Games should be judged on their gameplay and fun factor. 
 

5 hours ago, mrmivo said:

I am older than this, wear glasses, and the difference is very visible to me. More importantly, though, it’s how 30 fps games “feel” compared to 60 or higher fps. There is a distinct sensation of sluggishness that only gets worse the bigger the display is.

 

I don’t believe age has much to do with this. It’s more likely that it’s about what you’re used to. I have been a computer gamer since I was a young teen and the PS5 is my first regular home console since the PS1 (I only had one game for it, because I stayed with computers). One of the reasons I picked up the system is because the hardware is now perfectly capable of at least 10800/60 fps. It’s not the only reason, but a significant one. Seeing that some developers fall back on 30 fps so early in the generation is a little disappointing for me. I won’t buy any game that doesn’t at least have a performance mode with 60 fps, which is really the only thing I can do.

 

I don’t disbelieve that some people genuinely can’t see the difference, but if you’ve spent years playing games at 60, 144 and more recently 165 fps, it’s a glaringly and painfully obvious difference. For me, the difference between 60 and 120+ fps isn’t actually nearly as significant as between 30 and 60. I’m happy with 60, at least for what I play (no competitive shooters).

 

I also don’t think the hardware is the main reason why some developers can’t manage to implement a 1080p/60 performance mode. Games like Forbidden West show what is possible.

This is one of the first times I heard someone say the PS5 was their first home console. 
 

You missed out on a lot. PC only gamers don’t care, but I’m curious as to why you decided to pick this generation to get a home console. PC already outperforms the PS5. Some of us stick with Sony because of the exclusives, and because we like trophies.

[mrmivo]

11 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

This is one of the first times I heard someone say the PS5 was their first home console. 
 

You missed out on a lot. PC only gamers don’t care, but I’m curious as to why you decided to pick this generation to get a home console. PC already outperforms the PS5. Some of us stick with Sony because of the exclusives, and because we like trophies.

 

It was my first home console since the PS1. My first home console was an Atari 2600, before I got my first computer (an Amstrad CPC 6128!).

 

I think no matter what you do, you always miss out on something. Even when I only played games on the PC, I couldn't keep up with everything I wanted to play. I did have handhelds (every single Nintendo one, a PSP, and a Vita), but they were never main platforms for me. Now I have a PS5 and a Switch, and I already can't keep up with games I want to play. It's like with books and movies. I'll never read or watch everything I am or would be interested in.

 

To answer the question why I picked up a PS home console now (a year ago): I hadn't really been happy with PC gaming for quite a while, for a number of reasons. One is that using the same machine and environment for gaming and work (I do freelance work) hasn't been working well for gaming or working (always felt like I was at work or should be working), and I wanted greater separation. Buying and maintaining two beefy computer systems wouldn't have been a sensible economical solution for me and I'd still have been at a computer anyway. I was also curious about some of the Sony exclusives that I had missed out. I had pondered getting a PS5 before already, but then I played Horizon Zero Dawn on PC and really enjoyed it, and I wasn't going to wait two or more years for Forbidden West, so this accelerated the decision. Ended up playing more multi-plat games, partly because of my girlfriend, but I'll catch up on Sony franchises.

 

Another reason was the hardware "arms race" on PC. While I need a good computer for my work, it was often gaming that was the driving force behind upgrades. No matter how much you spend on a PC, you always know that it could be better. It's easy to start obsessing over frame rates (at the higher end, not at 60), performance, temperatures, fan noise, etc. I used to love tinkering, tweaking, finding the best drivers and settings, but besides the cost factor (now further emphasized by the exploding energy costs here in Europe; good gaming PCs draw a lot more power than a console), all of this took up a lot of head space. Differently put, I wanted to simplify my gaming. I like that every PS5 is fundamentally the same. If a game runs like dog for you, it'll run like dog on my console too. If it runs well for another PS5 owner, I know it'll run well for me too. That alone frees up mind space and cuts down on research time.

 

I also wanted a "fresh" experience. Something new, something different. New franchises, new communities, new ways of playing (an advanced controller, now PSVR2). I realize that consoles and PCs aren't as different as they once were, but there is still a different feel. Trophies seem to enrich my gaming experience, in a way Steam achievements never did (they never did anything for me, and it surprised me that trophies do have greater pull). It's regrettable, but maybe fortunate, that I missed the days when trophies were a little more meaningful, and how all those 30-second platinums make leaderboards so much less interesting than they could be. Still, though, just things like completion rates, rarity, and trophy lists seem to help me focus a little more. I've finished more games this year than in quite a while before. There are some downsides with trophies, but I don't approach them from a competitive angle, just as game and experience enhancers.

 

So, in short: better separation of work and recreation, simplicity, convenience, new experiences, and lower hardware expenses. The first two being the primary reasons.

[here4headshots]

On 12/16/2022 at 7:56 PM, AJ_Radio said:

 

This is very commonplace on the internet. I will make the argument that there is a clear difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS. I would have a lower opinion of Dark Souls Remastered on the PS4 if it was limited to 30 FPS. It’s an already exceptionally stellar game, one of the best to come out in the past 10 - 12 years. Remasters should make improvements on the original games .

 

If the game sucks, I don’t care if it’s 4K graphics, 60 FPS, whatever. Games should be judged on their gameplay and fun factor. 

 

 

Side by side 30 and 60 is very easy to spot for most people. However, I think in making the case that the difference between 30 and 60 is vast, distinct and important to the game experience- the player should be made to hold the controller in their hand and play the frame modes side by side. I would imagine a fast pace, visually impressive game with lots of on screen particle effects like Returnal, simply could not be an enjoyable player experience at 30fps. Even if it was perfectly locked. 

[AJ_Radio]

On 12/18/2022 at 10:03 AM, here4headshots said:

Side by side 30 and 60 is very easy to spot for most people. However, I think in making the case that the difference between 30 and 60 is vast, distinct and important to the game experience- the player should be made to hold the controller in their hand and play the frame modes side by side. I would imagine a fast pace, visually impressive game with lots of on screen particle effects like Returnal, simply could not be an enjoyable player experience at 30fps. Even if it was perfectly locked. 

 

Depends on the game genre and the game itself. Resogun was far less enjoyable on the PS3 because it had lower framerate, which made doing some stuff more of a chore. On the PS4, the game is pretty solid and consistent. Runs much smoother and it's rather addicting.

 

Housemarque arcade style shmups are better at higher framerates.

[alexandra-jane09]

On 21/12/2022 at 9:32 AM, AJ_Radio said:

 

Depends on the game genre and the game itself. Resogun was far less enjoyable on the PS3 because it had lower framerate, which made doing some stuff more of a chore. On the PS4, the game is pretty solid and consistent. Runs much smoother and it's rather addicting.

 

Housemarque arcade style shmups are better at higher framerates.

 

I didn't mind playing Ratchet and Clank Rift apart recently at 30fps in 4K, in other modes the resolution was dropped for 60fps modes of course this may be okay with people whose TV's cannot play 4K resolution.  We borrowed an Atari in 1982 from someone my dad knew when he was working but the first official home computer we had was the ZX spectrum in 1984, then the Amiga in 1990 then a few Windows PC's.  We got the Playstation in 1997 and had Playstation ever since. 

[Conor]

60 fps should always be an option at this point. I'd happily take a resolution hit down to 1080p if necessary even though I use a 4K TV- once I'm off and having fun I don't care about a softer image or a few jagged edges, I find the frame rate much more important. 

There's just no way a more competent dev team couldn't make the likes of Gotham Knights- a game that doesn't even look as good as Arkham Knight from 2015- or A Plague Tale: Requiem- an excellent game and very gorgeous looking but not on the level of Horizon: Forbidden West and that was a cross gen open world title- run at 60fps with some sacrifices. God of War Ragnarok has an uncapped frame rate mode on PS5 and looks better than a lot of other new titles whereas I've seen rumours that Starfield will be locked to 30fps on Xbox Series consoles which judging by how that game is looking is utterly unacceptable. I'd say the real test will be Final Fantasy XVI and Spider-Man 2. 

I'm not an elitist and still regularly play games at 30fps without complaint but we've seen that better things are possible and if locked 30 with no performance option becomes the norm again I'll be pretty bummed.

[Darling Baphomet]

3 hours ago, Stan Lee said:

60 fps should always be an option at this point. I'd happily take a resolution hit down to 1080p if necessary even though I use a 4K TV- once I'm off and having fun I don't care about a softer image or a few jagged edges, I find the frame rate much more important. 

 

I'll definitely take 1080p 60fps over a higher resolution at 30, but I still feel 1080p 60 fps is a bit pathetic for this generation considered we had games managing it last gen (e.g. Apex Legends, Overwatch, and Titanfall 2). 1440p 60 fps should be the minimum devs are shooting for, IMO. There's been a few games (e.g. Dying Light 2) that I've put off playing in hopes that they fix their abysmal performance options.

[here4headshots]

On 12/21/2022 at 4:32 AM, AJ_Radio said:

 

Depends on the game genre and the game itself. Resogun was far less enjoyable on the PS3 because it had lower framerate, which made doing some stuff more of a chore. On the PS4, the game is pretty solid and consistent. Runs much smoother and it's rather addicting.

 

Housemarque arcade style shmups are better at higher framerates.

 

I can agree with this, but I'm going to go ahead and say an overwhelming majority of action games (especially free camera and first person) see huge benefits at 60 over 30. 

 

 I went back and platinumed PS4 version of Resogun on PS5, and I agree the experience was much better and easier with the higher frames. 

[Conor]

11 hours ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

I'll definitely take 1080p 60fps over a higher resolution at 30, but I still feel 1080p 60 fps is a bit pathetic for this generation considered we had games managing it last gen (e.g. Apex Legends, Overwatch, and Titanfall 2). 1440p 60 fps should be the minimum devs are shooting for, IMO. There's been a few games (e.g. Dying Light 2) that I've put off playing in hopes that they fix their abysmal performance options.

 

I think Dying Light 2 got a big update or is getting one soon enough. I've also put it off because of what I was hearing and because I'm kinda pushing myself to get through the original bit by bit. 

[here4headshots]

14 hours ago, Stan Lee said:

 

There's just no way a more competent dev team couldn't make the likes of Gotham Knights- a game that doesn't even look as good as Arkham Knight from 2015- or A Plague Tale: Requiem- an excellent game and very gorgeous looking but not on the level of Horizon: Forbidden West and that was a cross gen open world title- run at 60fps with some sacrifices.

 

God of War Ragnarok has an uncapped frame rate mode on PS5 and looks better than a lot of other new titles whereas I've seen rumours that Starfield will be locked to 30fps on Xbox Series consoles which judging by how that game is looking is utterly unacceptable. I'd say the real test will be Final Fantasy XVI and Spider-Man 2. 

I'm not an elitist and still regularly play games at 30fps without complaint but we've seen that better things are possible and if locked 30 with no performance option becomes the norm again I'll be pretty bummed.

 

I admit I know nothing of developing games, so I'd be happy to sit and listen to someone with knowledge (inside knowledge would be much better), but I do understand the concept of finite computing and rendering power the consoles are capable of. I think of games like The Division and The Division 2, that look absolutely stunning at 4k 60fps, while being as complex, or even more so than Gotham Knights. The Division 2 had PvP, a gigantic map, untethered co-op with up to 4 players, *waaaay* more loot (weapons, cosmetic clothing, armor and mods), more explorable buildings on the map, more NPC enemies wandering around, more world events, a day/night cycle with weather patterns, skill/abilities to balance out than GK. The current gen patch even has some ray traced puddles (maybe its baked in lighting, idk). The only thing The Division doesn't have that GK does have is a vehicle system.

 

I don't get it, and I would love to hear thoughts on this. I'm begining to think Ubisoft built themselves an underappreciated technical marvel. 

[Sifferino]

On 12/24/2022 at 4:55 PM, here4headshots said:

I admit I know nothing of developing games, so I'd be happy to sit and listen to someone with knowledge (inside knowledge would be much better), but I do understand the concept of finite computing and rendering power the consoles are capable of. I think of games like The Division and The Division 2, that look absolutely stunning at 4k 60fps, while being as complex, or even more so than Gotham Knights. The Division 2 had PvP, a gigantic map, untethered co-op with up to 4 players, *waaaay* more loot (weapons, cosmetic clothing, armor and mods), more explorable buildings on the map, more NPC enemies wandering around, more world events, a day/night cycle with weather patterns, skill/abilities to balance out than GK. The current gen patch even has some ray traced puddles (maybe its baked in lighting, idk). The only thing The Division doesn't have that GK does have is a vehicle system.

 

I don't get it, and I would love to hear thoughts on this. I'm begining to think Ubisoft built themselves an underappreciated technical marvel. 

 

I also know nothing of game development, but I do know a thing or two about general software development (or really should know, given that I am a software engineer). The technical difficulty is usually not where the layman thinks it is in. I frequently sit with a product owner who wants some small changes in the software and is looking for some generic estimates. He is always baffled when tiny request X turns out to be indeed a tiny change, the next tiny request Y turns out to require a lot of work and tiny request Z would lead to me resignation for having the audacity to ask for the impossible ?

 

My point is: we just don't know. It could be so many things. And it is probably not what we think that's made it impossible for them to do 60 fps. Me personally, I think it is arrogant to assume the developers of Gotham Knights are incompetent.

[here4headshots]

On 1/2/2023 at 9:44 AM, Sifferino said:

 

I also know nothing of game development, but I do know a thing or two about general software development (or really should know, given that I am a software engineer). The technical difficulty is usually not where the layman thinks it is in. I frequently sit with a product owner who wants some small changes in the software and is looking for some generic estimates. He is always baffled when tiny request X turns out to be indeed a tiny change, the next tiny request Y turns out to require a lot of work and tiny request Z would lead to me resignation for having the audacity to ask for the impossible 

 

My point is: we just don't know. It could be so many things. And it is probably not what we think that's made it impossible for them to do 60 fps. Me personally, I think it is arrogant to assume the developers of Gotham Knights are incompetent.

 

This is a great response. What's funny is that I work on the business side of these requests, and when the tech assigned to my ticket

 explains to me why I should shove tiny request Z where the sun don't shine, I usually get a much better understanding of the systems that generate my product lol. 

 

I don't think GK devs are necessarily incompetent. I think they may have been asked to create certain features by overzealous leads trying to push this game into new territories and make lots of money for WB Montreal. When they finally faced down the reality that those features were not possible, they had to switch gears and go a different direction using software that was already laid for the first direction the game was going. I've suspected they've toyed with the idea this game would be a live service title. Of course this is all speculative, and any number of factors outside of the devs' control could have forced them to change direction, but I do think something happened. I don't assume anything as a fact though. The only fact is that I, and lots of other gamers, were disappointed in the final product. 

[DaivRules]

On 1/2/2023 at 9:44 AM, Sifferino said:

I frequently sit with a product owner who wants some small changes in the software and is looking for some generic estimates. He is always baffled when tiny request X turns out to be indeed a tiny change, the next tiny request Y turns out to require a lot of work and tiny request Z would lead to me resignation for having the audacity to ask for the impossible 

 

My point is: we just don't know. It could be so many things. And it is probably not what we think that's made it impossible for them to do 60 fps. Me personally, I think it is arrogant to assume the developers of Gotham Knights are incompetent.

 

 

I frequently have very similar experiences as a software engineer. Luckily, the Business Analysts and PO's that I work with frequently are open to me breaking down what the solution looks like for what they're asking for and they're understanding about how simplistic things can look from the outside, but the implementation is borderline completely impractical without restarting the project essentially from scratch.

 

The false equivalence fallacy relied on to make the case for Gotham Knights, that generally just gets people to lean in harder to justify the fallacy for some reason, is rooted in ignorance. Speculation is just a guess and speculating is fine when it's called out as such, but claiming it as fact is just irresponsible.

 

[Snake_1302]

I'm tired of people who choose to remain willfully ignorant and dont even bother to look up the difference between 30 and 60 fps, or why people would prefer higher framerates in their games. If you want graphics over performance that's fine, but why throw those who prefer 60fps under the bus for it? Having the option to pick between modes is a good thing for everyone. Trying to justify less options as a good thing is only defending laziness. Let's go ahead and strip out accessibility and color blind options while we're at it. The average gamer doesnt use them, wont notice their absence, and it was standard to not have any of them in some of the best older games, so who needs them? Its probably too much work for the developers to implement anyway!

[here4headshots]

46 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

The false equivalence fallacy relied on to make the case for Gotham Knights, that generally just gets people to lean in harder to justify the fallacy for some reason, is rooted in ignorance. Speculation is just a guess and speculating is fine when it's called out as such, but claiming it as fact is just irresponsible.

 

 

What false equivalence? I think we all understand the theories are purely speculative. There are games out there we can match at least some elements with GK 1 to 1, and compare performance outputs. It is true we won't know what's going on under the hood with GK versus the comparative game, especially figuring game "complexity" but it still gives us a good idea of what is possible using the same hardware as a constant like a math problem. This along with the testing Digital Foundry did, which indicated poor CPU optimization can lead us down some logical routes. Again, because we do not know what's going on in the coding, we can't know for sure, but we can eliminate some hypotheses and elevate others. 

[DaivRules]

1 hour ago, here4headshots said:

What false equivalence? I think we all understand the theories are purely speculative.

 

1 hour ago, here4headshots said:

There are games out there we can match at least some elements with GK 1 to 1

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Elvick_]

Only reason it's inevitable is because consumers argue against better for themselves and corporations are greedy. 60fps is better. If you "can't tell" then play the same game at 30fps then flip flop between 60fps and 30fps. You'll notice. If you don't you're either lying or the type of person who thinks diet soda tastes the same as regular; ie; you're just wrong. 

The industry itself is trying so hard to get developers to defend this trash backslide away from options. "Well you can't get your ray tracing and 60fps at 4k tho", well I don't want it. Just give me 60fps no matter the visual sacrifices to get there. It's like how they try to also cart out the same morons to defend us paying $10 more for games while they also argue that the games should perform and be worse. And no game is truly '30fps'. It's so rare to get a game that has zero drops at 30fps. So enjoy the 22fps moments. If not worse drops than that. Even good performing 30fps games have drops like Horizon. The only rock solid 30fps I can think of in recent memory was Puppeteer. Now that was optimized beautifully. Most games are not.

 

GK looks like it's two generations old remaster. It looks worse than the last Batman game did visually. That they couldn't be bothered to give options is because they're lazy and know that people will buy it because -BRAND- anyway and can use multiplayer as a justification. As if you couldn't have 60fps for single player and then 30fps for the MP that nobody asked for. Wouldn't be the first game that changed framerate based on SP/MP. But that would require, you know, work. 

GK can't even use the excuse of having pores when you zoom in by 1000000x and wasting resources on that type of bullshit, since it looks like dogshit. It would look fine if it came out 10+ years ago. But it didn't.

[here4headshots]

32 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

 

Oh boy. Now you're falling into fallacy of composition and irrelevant conclusion lol. I said much more than what you quoted, and you even bolded the part which was intended to inform the reader that I wasn't comparing all elements of each game as equal. Good Lord, that was unproductive.

 

[DaivRules]

Just now, here4headshots said:

 

Oh boy. Now you're falling into fallacy of composition and irrelevant conclusion lol. I said much more than what you quoted, and you even bolded the part which was intended to inform the reader that I wasn't comparing all elements of each game as equal. Good Lord, that was unproductive.

 

The rest of your premises depended on your comparing just a piece of one thing to a piece of another, aka a false equivalence. Once that was identified as a logical fallacy, it doesn’t matter what else you wanted to go off on.

 

Could a different team make a different game with different resources, direction, support, and intentions? Sure. But that’s not the same thing as what’s being said above.

 

 

[Vault-TecPhantom]

On 02/01/2023 at 2:44 PM, Sifferino said:

My point is: we just don't know. It could be so many things. And it is probably not what we think that's made it impossible for them to do 60 fps. Me personally, I think it is arrogant to assume the developers of Gotham Knights are incompetent.

 

My understanding is that this is the same team that made Arkham Origins - a game I had to abandon shortly after beating the campaign because I could not deal with the crashing every time I fast travelled. Not to mention one of the collectibles bugged out which really soured me on the game - and I wasn't even a trophy hunter then; just wanted to 100% it for fun. If GK was a one time thing I would agree with you but these devs have a reputation for putting out subpar work.

[here4headshots]

13 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

The rest of your premises depended on your comparing just a piece of one thing to a piece of another, aka a false equivalence. Once that was identified as a logical fallacy, it doesn’t matter what else you wanted to go off on.

 

Could a different team make a different game with different resources, direction, support, and intentions? Sure. But that’s not the same thing as what’s being said above.

 

 

 

Me "comparing just a piece of one thing to a piece of another" is not false equivalence. I digress, though. I think the overarching point you're trying to make is correct. We cannot know what happened with any of these 30fps games. Everything not coming from the mouth of the developer is speculation. 

[Slava]

2 hours ago, here4headshots said:

This along with the testing Digital Foundry did, which indicated poor CPU optimization can lead us down some logical routes.

 

Speaking of which, they tested the PC version to try and locate the problem. Here's the video if anyone's interested.

[here4headshots]

5 minutes ago, Slava said:

 

Speaking of which, they tested the PC version to try and locate the problem. Here's the video if anyone's interested.

 

This is what I'm referencing. They looked at the CPU usage on a Ryzen 5 3600, which shares architecture with the PS5 and Series X, and saw a lot of low usage cores. Even a beefy CPU with lowered settings put out abysmal numbers. Swapping out from mid range to high end GPUs did not change the poor performance either. 

[Elvick_]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:06 AM, Darling Baphomet said:

This is a shit argument. Just because you once played games on the SNES doesn't mean you'd be content with modern games returning to a crisp, square 224p. Perhaps it's a minority opinion, but I expect games to look better with time, not worse.

Well that's a stupid argument too since those games automatically look worse due to changes in how displays work. Sprites from that era were designed with the CRT screens in mind to smooth out each sprite which created the illusion of depth and smoothness that wasn't actually possible at the time. Now those same games looks very pixelated and with very defined individual pixels. You have to add some kind of filter over the top just to try to mirror the actual effects of the CRT. So even if we did return to 224p and made pixel games, they'd still look worse just like all older games do on modern displays. Unless we also threw out modern displays and went back to CRT tvs. We'd all be a lot buffer if we had to cart those fuckers around again.

 

 

And GK doesn't look better with time, it looks worse than the last Batman game... GK looks like it came out 10 years ago and was just remastered for this gen. So what are we getting in exchange for shitty performance? Because it's not a game that looks better. It looks significantly worse than AK in every regard. The only thing you can claim we get in exchange is the multiplayer. But you can play alone, so why is single player restricted in both performance and visual fidelity based on something you aren't actively using? It's almost like the developers are shitty or something.

 

I expect games to perform better with time. We're at the point of diminishing returns with graphics. Something nobody is talking about as I go back through this thread. That's why the focus is on stuff like raytracing now. Because there's only so many pores you can put on a character model before nobody gives a shit or notices. It certainly doesn't push sales that when you zoom in 100x in photomode that you can see a defined Kratos nipple. Did that really improve the game? Even visually? Not really. 

 

And we're now at the point of many AAA games flat out casting models for characters instead of using character design. Which for me enhances issues with uncanny valley, particularly when they insist on making a character eat something. So the push for greater realism makes games look worse (nothing shows this more than the Last of Us "remake" to me, the "better graphics" look significantly worse to me because it lost the art design of the original).

 

The artistry is what makes games look good. Ghost of Tsushima is a great example. Incredible art design. Looking closely the textures are actually really shit. Despite that the game looks beautiful because of the art direction. Almost like you don't need the best textures on everything for a game to be stunning and impressive visually. GK could have at least leveraged a stellar art design. LEGO Batman, the original one so old it has no trophies (sad), looks incredible to this day due to it's art direction. Yet it didn't. It doesn't have a good art design. It doesn't have anything impressive on a technical level. And it performs like shit. Wow, what a next gen experience. ?

[Darling Baphomet]

11 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

Well that's a stupid argument too since those games automatically look worse due to changes in how displays work.

 

...I'm aware that older games look better on CRT monitors than LCD ones, yes. That doesn't change the fact that lower resolutions look worse than higher resolutions. Really, what are you trying to say here? That a 224p image on a CRT monitor looks better than a 4K one on an LCD monitor? Because that's a bold as fuck take if ever I've seen one.