242
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
242 points (99.2% liked)
PC Master Race
21210 readers
1656 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I keep recalling this comparison:
We’ve long since reached “good enough” graphics, and incremental improvements are simply not going to be noticeable.
This is probably why so many game releases this console generation have been remasters.
It's a good examples but geometry isn't everything
It applies to every aspect of game design, not just geometry: texture resolution, lighting, audio fidelity, enemy AI.
It’s just that geometry happens to be the easiest to use as an example.
Of course
I feel like there has been a lot of regressions in enemy AI and physics over the years.
I can still imagine a lot more physics in my games.
But I agree on the rest yeah.
Definitely, we're at a point where geometry isn't a key factor in rendering times - at least for a decently optimized game (I'm looking at you, Cities Skylines 2 and all your teeth).
Games are going ham with the lighting - ray tracing and all that jazz that help with photorealism.
There are workarounds that have been used for a long time to "mimic" these effects but with a big quality Vs speed trade-off. Since computational power is now so cheap (or used to, before ai...) they're removing those crutches and using techniques that give better results, but it's definitely marginal improvements.