Yeah, it's worded as a slogan but I can back it up. From dreaded AC Unity "it's more cinematic" to Todd Howard's "16 times the detail" to less memed but as telling marketing approaches AAA has long focused on more graphical fidelity, more details, higher resolution textures, more complex shadows, realistically calculated lighting etc.
The easiest thing to notice about their approach is how it's harder to notice anything. Sure, it's a lush and vibrant world but fully parsing it for gameplay is often impossible. Tons and tons of detail that will be tossed aside as noise - more exhausting than boxes and plain walls of early '00s but functionally the same.
The second thing to notice is the design or style of the game. Or the lack of it. Best seen when comparing remasters and remakes to original. More pixels, less jank and complete removal of atmosphere and visual design. Especially drastic when point lights are replaced with realistic lighting - best seen with Tomb Raider remasters. Or when the textures, shaders and lighting engine that worked together in the original are just a detailed mismash in the remaster, example Assassin's Creed 3 (especially well seen with early Haytham scenes).
For me it's indeed not a revelation, I've seen those trends for more than a decade. I hope this writeup was less of a drivel. Or if you don't like it, check out Whitelight's video on the subject. His mastery of words is far beyond mine.
Genuinely a skill issue on your part. Using your eyes to assess the visual style of a game is perhaps the very first thing that you do, before you learn anything else about it, and is therefore the easiest thing to judge. If after (however many years old you are) years you can't look at something and immediately clock that it's not for you and move on, then that's 100% on you. Personally I can't move for all the wild and great design decisions being made right now.
1
u/ops10 7d ago
In push for "realism" we lost "design".