Gaming

The problem as I see it is that there is an upper limit on how good any game can look graphically. You can't make a game that looks more realistic than literal reality, so any improvement is going to just approach that limit. (Barring direct brain interfacing that gives better info than the optical nerve)

Before, we started from a point that was so far removed from reality than practically anything would be an improvement. Like say "reality" is 10,000. Early games started at 10, then when we switched to 3D it was 1,000. That an enormous relative improvement, even if it's far from the max. But now your improvements are going from 8,000 to 8,500 and while it's still a big absolute improvement, it's relatively minor -- and you're never going to get a perfect 10,000 so the amount you can improve by gets smaller and smaller.

All that to say, the days of huge graphical leaps are over, but the marketing for video games acts like that's not the case. Hence all the buzzwords around new tech without much to show for it.

I don't understand why developers and publishers aren't prioritizing spectacle games with simple graphics like TABS, mount and blade, or similar. Use modern processing power to just throw tons of shit on screen, make it totally chaotic and confusing. Huge battles are super entertaining.

There's no better generational leap than Monster Hunter Wilds, which looks like a PS2 game on its lowest settings and still chugs at 24fps on my PC.

I don't mind the graphics that much, what really pisses me off is the lack of optimization and heavy reliance on frame gen.

To be fair there isn't just graphics.

Something like Zelda Twilight princess HHD to Zelda Breath of the wild was a huge leap in just gameplay. (And also in graphics but that's not my point)

I feel like we won't be able to see the difference until a couple of years, like CGI in old movies.

I would argue that late SNES era games look far better than their early 3d era follow ups

Games did teach me about diminishing returns though

This is what a remaster used to look like.

They said we'd never have consumer tech that could white clip in real time but look at us now.

I mean, how much more photorealistic can you get? Regardless, the same game would look very different in 4K (real, not what consoles do) vs 1080p.

Let's compare two completely separate games to a game and a remaster.

Generational leaps then:

Good lord.

EDIT: That isn't even the Zero Dawn remaster. That is literally two still-image screenshots of Forbidden West on both platforms.

Good. Lord.

The question is whether "realism" was ever a good target. The best games are not the most realistic ones.

This is true of literally any technology. There are so many things that can be improved in the early stages that progress seems very fast. Over time, the industry finds most of the optimal ways of doing things and starts hitting diminishing returns on research & development.

The only way to break out of this cycle is to discover a paradigm shift that changes the overall structure of the industry and forces a rethinking of existing solutions.

The automobile is a very mature technology and is thus a great example of these trends. Cars have achieved optimal design and slowed to incremental progress multiple times, only to have the cycle broken by paradigm shifts. The most recent one is electrification.