Let's talk about graphics.

Over the last month, I’ve found myself spending the vast majority of my gaming time playing Saints Row 2, which was available for free as part of the Games with Gold programme in July 2020. Even though I originally played the game over a decade ago, I’m still having a lot of fun in single-player, thanks to its captivating campaign and enjoyable side activities.

Something that should probably bother me about playing a game from 2008 is the dated presentation. Even for its time, Saints Row 2 had fairly lacklustre visuals, and the frame rate would often drop dramatically during intense scenes. However, these issues barely faze me, which got me thinking: how much value does superior graphical performance really add to a gaming experience these days?

When I was younger, graphics meant a lot to me. When I first got an Xbox 360 in 2006, I was amazed by how realistic Project Gotham Racing 3 looked compared to the games I used to play on the original Xbox. Seeing highly detailed vehicles and environments was just as exciting to me as the gameplay and progression itself. It genuinely felt like I was stepping into a new era of gaming thanks to the stunning visuals. Even now, when I look back at gameplay footage of Project Gotham Racing 4, I still think both games hold up remarkably well graphically despite their age.

The reason I want to talk about my stance on graphics is because both Sony and Microsoft have recently showcased what we should expect from next-generation games, and I was left feeling surprisingly underwhelmed afterwards. The Halo Infinite gameplay reveal sparked such a controversial reaction that the head of Xbox had to address the criticism publicly. The issue wasn’t that the game looked bad, because it actually looked very good. It simply didn’t feel like a huge generational leap over current-gen systems. The most visually impressive moments were reserved for CGI trailers of games like Fable and Forza Motorsport, both of which were still at least a year away from release at the time.

We’ve reached a point where generational leaps shouldn’t be defined purely by visuals, but by other technological advancements made possible through more powerful CPUs and SSDs. Towards the end of the PS360 era, games began looking so realistic that the pursuit of ever more lifelike graphics started to lose some of its impact. The Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart showcase demonstrated this perfectly. The ability to switch between worlds instantly during gameplay felt far more exciting and innovative than simply adding more visual detail.

Graphics will always play an important role in gaming showcases, but I think the industry should focus less on photorealism and more on creating distinct visual identities. Take Art of Rally, for example. Its low-poly art style gives the game a retro and distinctive feel, and as a result, its visuals are likely to age far more gracefully than games chasing realism. I’d also point to the art direction used by DON'T NOD in games like Life Is Strange. While these games don’t aim for ultra-realistic visuals, they blend cinematic presentation, lighting, and mood-fitting music to create a unique atmosphere that feels memorable in its own way.

To summarise, I think we place far too much emphasis on how realistic games look nowadays. We’re seeing diminishing returns when it comes to visual fidelity, and expecting massive graphical leaps every generation is only going to lead to disappointment. Instead, developers should focus on creating visually distinctive art styles while also embracing the wider benefits of next-gen hardware, such as faster loading times, more adaptive worlds, and improved sound design, just to name a few. Gaming is poised to become smarter and more immersive than ever over the next decade, and I think it’s time we started shifting our priorities accordingly.