I am probably unqualified to speak about this, as I am using an RX 550 low profile and a 768P monitor and almost never play newer titles, but I want to kickstart a discussion, so hear me out.
The push for more realistic graphics was ongoing for longer than most of us can remember, and it made sense for most of its lifespan, as anyone who looked at an older game can confirm - I am a person who has fun making fun of weird looking 3D people.
But I feel games' graphics have reached the point of diminishing returns, AAA studios of today spend millions of dollars just to match the graphics' level of their previous titles - often sacrificing other, more important things on the way, and that people are unnecessarily spending lots of money on electricity consuming heat generating GPUs.
I understand getting an expensive GPU for high resolution, high refresh rate gaming but for 1080P? you shouldn't need anything more powerful than a 1080 TI for years. I think game studios should just slow down their graphical improvements, as they are unnecessary - in my opinion - and just prevent people with lower end systems from enjoying games, and who knows, maybe we will start seeing 50 watt gaming GPUs being viable and capable of running games at medium/high settings, going for cheap - even iGPUs render good graphics now.
TLDR: why pay for more and hurt the environment with higher power consumption when what we have is enough - and possibly overkill.
Note: it would be insane of me to claim that there is not a big difference between both pictures - Tomb Raider 2013 Vs Shadow of the Tomb raider 2018 - but can you really call either of them bad, especially the right picture (5 years old)?
Note 2: this is not much more that a discussion starter that is unlikely to evolve into something larger.
Honestly, I agree to an extent. I like watching at a well-designed scenery but I think it hurts games if it takes the priority. I'm not playing games for that, but for cool gamedesign ideas and my own experiences with mechanics. That's tl;dr, next is my rant, for I had a long bus ride.
Graphics are very marketable and ad-friendly, easier to implement\control rather than changes to engine or scripts (you need to understand first) and they may cover up the lack in other departments. Effective managers love that. CGI guys at Disney are on strike because this sentiment held as true in movie industry too, and they are overloaded, filming the whole movie over chromakey. Computer graphics almost replaced everything else.
In my perspective, this trend in AAA lowers the quality of the end product, makes it safer to develop (formulaic reiteration) but just ok to play, mostly unremarkable. Indie and small gamestudios can't compete with them in visuals, so they risk and try to experiment, bring novelty, and sometimes win a jackpot.
Like, obviously, Minecraft, that was initially coded by Notch alone. It invented indie scene as we know it now. It put tech and mechanics over looks, and the whole world was playing it. No one cared for how abstract it is being addicted to the gameplay.
Playing older games, I see, that they were in this race too, like how (recently remastered) Quake 2 was a great visual upgrade over Quake 1. People sold an arm and a leg to play them on HIGH at that time. And how they nodded like yeah, now it's just like a real life watching at a 640x320 screenshot, or how marketologists sold it. But somehow they were made completely different in many ways, not gfx alone, and that's for a braindead shooter. I feel it with my fingers. I see it in how the game logic works. This sensation was greater for me than anything I see on the screen.
Not being able to recall what happened in what CoD game, I become more amused with how gamedesign, presented via code, affects the feeling of a game. How in Disco Elysium all these mental features made it stand out. How Hotline: Miami did extreme violence so stylish. How Dwarf Fortress taught me to care about ASCII symbols on my screen but accepting the fun of loosing them. How the first MGS's Psycho Mantis read my savefiles from other games and vibrated my controller on the floor with his psychic power.
These moments and feelings can't be planned and managed like creation of visual assets. And they are why I like games, as outdated as NES ones or as ugly as competitive Quake config looks. They, like making love with a loving partner, hits different than a polished act of a fit and thin sex-worker. They bring unique experience instead of selling you a horse-painted donkey.
And that's why I don't really care about graphics and dislike their unending progress.
This describes my thoughts pretty well - in short, the chase for better graphics tends to hamstring innovation and other creative ideas; we end up playing mostly the same games but with better graphics. But I wanted to add something else, so I figured I'd use your comment as a jump-starting point.
The never ending race for better graphics that end up giving us diminishing returns, also ends up setting in us on a race of pure computing power where I feel like efficiency comes second - or not at all. It doesn't help that poor optimization is also so common in a lot of games.
I don't want to shill for Nvidia, but the response to the launch of the 4XXX generation was a pretty good example of that, and how a big part of the issue is also consumers. The 4060 card has great power consumption, to the point of being on par with the 1660, while performing about 2x better than it, and 1.5x better than a 2060. And to put it another way, it's sightly better than the 3060 while using between only 60% and 70% of its power. Yet, the card was widely trashed, by both reviewers and consumers, most of which (both former and latter) never mention the efficiency of the card. A quick look up of performance videos on YouTube, will show you how people will usually just show FPS, VRAM usage, and maybe memory usage too; quite a few will only show you FPS; a surprising amount will show you pretty much anything you can think of except GPU power usage.
This is especially worrying and disheartening, when I think about how we seem to be on the verge of an energy crisis.
Most (major) games nowadays don't look worlds better than the Witcher 3 (2015), but they still play the same as games from 2015, while requiring much better hardware with high levels of energy consumption.
And would even require Windows Eleven soon, banning older CPUs!
I agree with you. One factor I still have hope for in that angle are new handhelds. We had Switch, we had Steam Deck and its newer competitors. And they all judged by their battery life and also has small screen where gfx don't matter as much. Players on a long roadtrip or shift intuitively chose less consumptive games over those eating the battery in a hour. I wonder if Steam can make a special category for energy-light games, just for that obvious reason. And it, in reverse, inspiring devs to make games to cater to that usercase. I can dream.