The generation of physics/attention to animations downgrade

Avatar image for jahnee
#1 Posted by jahnee (3996 posts) -

https://youtu.be/JalWT8oNxhk

There is 11 years between these games, the difference is animation quality and physics are sometimes absurd. This reminds me of the case between Far Cry 5 vs Far Cry 2, Halo Reach vs Halo 4, or Crackdown 2 vs 3, gta 4 vs gta 5 and so on.

It's a shame most titles prioritize looks over the feel of a game. For example Far Fry 5 looks realistic, but Far Cry 2 is realistic. Big difference. It's like all the advanced coders moved away from game design.

Avatar image for Pedro
#2 Posted by Pedro (35601 posts) -

As I have stated to someone else, most gamers don't care about these things.

Avatar image for jahnee
#3 Posted by jahnee (3996 posts) -

@Pedro: Gamers don't care for immersion? Highly doubt it. Most of them might not be able to pinpoint consciously what makes a game immersive, but it does take away from a game's atmosphere greatly.

Avatar image for ButDuuude
#4 Posted by ButDuuude (1426 posts) -

Your opinion is wrong ?

Avatar image for Pedro
#5 Edited by Pedro (35601 posts) -

@jahnee said:

@Pedro: Gamers don't care for immersion? Highly doubt it. Most of them might not be able to pinpoint consciously what makes a game immersive, but it does take away from a game's atmosphere greatly.

Which part did I say gamers don't care about immersion? Gamers don't care about trivial elements that adds nothing to the actual gameplay. Gamers don't sit around and admire the attention to detail, accuracy of reflection, physics, notes left around the world, the subtle lore etc. Enthusiasts and fans of an IP would. Immersion can be achieved at varying levels. The current level of immersion is simply good enough for most gamers.

Gamers:- generalization of gamers as in not all gamers.

Avatar image for jahnee
#6 Edited by jahnee (3996 posts) -

@Pedro: I disagree that they are trivial elements, AI and physics can be more than that. It's just that the bar was set so low gamers of this 7 year long generation don't know better. The Far Cry 2 vs 5 video gathered over 5 million views https://youtu.be/FCeEvQ68jY8

Not as trivial as you suspect it to be

Avatar image for Pedro
#7 Posted by Pedro (35601 posts) -

@jahnee said:

@Pedro: I disagree that they are trivial elements, AI and physics can be more than that. It's just that the bar was set so low gamers of this 7 year long generation don't know better. The Far Cry 2 vs 5 video gathered over 5 million views https://youtu.be/FCeEvQ68jY8

Not as trivial as you suspect it to be

Far Cry 2 flopped, Far Cry 5 didn't. Far Cry 5 is one of the top 10 selling games of 2018, Far Cry 2 was no where to be found in 2008. So, this isn't a matter of opinion. The numbers are saying you are wrong and that 5 million views didn't stop Far Cry 2 from flopping and Far Cry 5 from selling.

Avatar image for jahnee
#8 Edited by jahnee (3996 posts) -

@Pedro: You isolate one case of sales when there could be a ton of external factors at play affecting sales. Marketing, console sales, past success of Far Cry 3/4/primal/etc. Sure, most gamers are casuals without a good sense of taste and can be fed the same rehash years on end, but there is a big crowd that have an eye for quality and that is certainly marketable as well.

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#9 Posted by freedomfreak (51267 posts) -

Yeah, this gen showed developers don't go for that kind of detail anymore. Real shame.

Avatar image for Pedro
#10 Posted by Pedro (35601 posts) -

@jahnee said:

@Pedro: You isolate one case of sales when there could be a ton of external factors at play affecting sales. Marketing, console sales, past success of Far Cry 3/4/primal/etc. Sure, most gamers are casuals without a good sense of taste and can be fed the same rehash years on end, but there is a big crowd that have an eye for quality and that is certainly marketable as well.

I can throw the same logic right back at you "You isolate one case of a Youtube video when there could be a ton of external factors at play that increased its viewership and relevance for instance Far Cry 5 recent release."

Whether you like it or not, the reality is that most gamers (the casuals that you claim lack taste) don't care about these nuisances and they ALWAYS going to out number the self righteous gamers. You can bitch and moan, crank up the views on video X on YouTube but as long as the the vast majority of gamers don't care its a poor return on investment for developers.

Avatar image for jahnee
#11 Edited by jahnee (3996 posts) -

@Pedro: True about the video example being singular as well. Doesn't take away the fact the standard has been set abysmally low to even the previous generation, when it comes to ai/animation and physics. Given the current available hardware that is definitely lazy coding. Market or not, if most gamers don't know what they are missing then they can't miss it in the first place can they not? It's just a damn shame, progression being held back by producers who see the market as a still ocean and not as a moving current.

Avatar image for Yams1980
#12 Posted by Yams1980 (3600 posts) -

Lots of games tend to nerf different gameplay aspects of sequels or games in similar genres... its pretty frustrating.

Look at Sims 4 vs Sims 3... they removed the open world that you had in Sims 3, so you end up with nothing but loading screens constantly with Sims 4. Even the color wheel in CAS, for some reason removed that so you gotta edit items yourself with photoshop and recolor them, easy to do but time consuming and annoying and very stupid considering Sims 3 had a color wheel.

Also Simcity 4 vs Simcity 5 [2013]. The sequel was a step back in every way. The city sizes were reduced, the game was broken at launch with DRM and it felt and looked like a mobile game, everything felt dumbed down too much.

Or even Civilization 5 vs 6. Civ 6 looks like a trash mobile game when compared to the crisp & realistic graphics of Civ 5.

How bout Silent Storm? It's a 16+ year old turn based tactical game from 2003. Its physics are insane and are filled with destructible environments. You can destroy almost anything in the game. Then compare it to a more modern turn based game like Xcom or Divinity OS.... those games have laughable physics that only have a small handful of objects that are destructible.

Avatar image for Litchie
#13 Posted by Litchie (24303 posts) -

I guess it's not profitable for devs to put time into that anymore. Most gamers don't notice such things anyway.

Avatar image for warmblur
#14 Posted by warmblur (2979 posts) -

8th gen Jaguar CPU's are to blame for the most part.

Avatar image for dimebag667
#15 Posted by dimebag667 (1302 posts) -

This is yet another reason why I have hated this gen. Weakened games for disposable minds.

Avatar image for Ant_17
#16 Edited by Ant_17 (12861 posts) -

@jahnee said:

@Pedro: Gamers don't care for immersion? Highly doubt it. Most of them might not be able to pinpoint consciously what makes a game immersive, but it does take away from a game's atmosphere greatly.

Far Cry 3 got shit for the loot body animation, which is why they gave the option to remove it in Far Cry 4.

I would love RDR2 to not be so picky when i'm looting dead things.

There is a line in game imersion that goes from good to a damn chore.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#17 Edited by uninspiredcup (34917 posts) -

A good developer knows were to prioritise resources just as a good painter knows where to prioritise attention.

Avatar image for PernicioEnigma
#18 Posted by PernicioEnigma (6119 posts) -

I was kind of shocked by this video. It's like so much care was put into all the actions you take in Gears 1, but in 5 it's like all the effort went into making the game look pretty and how it actually feels was an after thought.

Gears 1 still looks fine to me as well. I actually quite like the almost monochromatic aesthetic with certain elements like blood and fire in full colour to exaggerate them. Using the chainsaw was actually an event, whilst in Gears 5 it's pretty mild and boring.