Why hasn't there been any noticeable improvement toward graphics in a fucking decade?

Why hasn't there been any noticeable improvement toward graphics in a fucking decade?

western devs are too focused on being "progressive" to actually be technologically progressive.

crysis is blurry and andromeda isnt

your obvious cherry picking aside, it's because "realism" is fucking boring and stylising to some extent subverts the uncanny valley and makes it easier to engage your brain.

I also personally don't give a fuck how many skin pores are visible on my character's face when I actually play games, anyway. A decent resolution and a comfortable frame rate combined with nice art is all that matters.

Realism is not boring.
It's the reason why half life 2 still looks good to this day without filters

Obessed much?

Consoles.

He's right, cuckboi

It's not worth it financially because casuals don't care about graphics.

it's because it was perfected with the current technology in 2007. once the next technological leap is made there' gonna be another crysis that will make graphicsfags drool for a decade

Diminishing returns. The better the graphics, the harder it is to push for better graphics. Most people won't spend thousands on a computer for one game

>he

Yikes.

no, that's because you can run it at an absurd resolution and it has good art direction. If it was a world war 2 shooter in the same engine it would look like trash by today's standards.

consoles

Monkeys are extremely difficult to render

I'd say that Witcher 2 was pretty impresive. More than Wild Hunt.

>comparing the best looking game of 2007 with the worst looking game of 2017
Gee, I don't know OP.

Consoles.

Too much emphasis on particles and lighting systems not on actually making things look good.

lies

RE7 looked pretty good.
So did PT.

this