As video games develop more and more over the years, companies have been making them more and more realistic-looking. I can guess this is related to expectations, but am I the only one who doesn’t care about graphics? We could be using the same processing power to store worlds that have as much exploration potential as the Earth itself if we weren’t afraid to save on processing power by going back to 8-bit.
I feel like people who talk about graphics fundamentally misunderstand what they themselves crave.
People want things that are nice to look at. Some artstyles require more computation than others, but ultimately all of gaming is art, and all of art is a conjuring trick, much like Cinema, how something is accomplished or how “believable” it looks is secondary to how invested you are in what you are consuming, yanno?
I do however have personal opinions, and my personal opinion is that gaming peaked during the PS2/GameCube/Xbox years. Hardware was just about good enough that pretty much anything developers wanted to make, they could achieve. Nothing looked like real life, sure, but it looked good enough. And the more detail you are throwing at the screen, the more expensive it is to make. So back then we had a lot of mid-budget games. That had resources not available to modern Indie studios to do ambitious things, but were also not these insane investments that had to please every executive under the sun and monetise everything in order to break even.
The perfect balance between niceness and feasibility.
You wouldn’t be wrong about games peaking in the PS2 years, in fact the PS3 specifically made itself backward compatible with the PS1 and not the PS2 because it would’ve given the PS2 an unwanted W in how utterly overshadowing it was.
PS3 had backwards compatibility with PS2 for the first couple of hardware revisions, it was removed later.
The move to “HD” when the PS3/360 were dominant was the death knell of hundreds of mid-sized studios, and gaming never really recovered from it.