> > more detail doesn't make a game better

> Have you played red dead redemption 2? The detail elevates the game to one of the greatest masterpieces of all time.

Absolutely. Graphics do have their place, but most games don’t need to be that extreme level of detail. For one, I played RDR2 on a stock PS4 and the level of detail and immersion was incredible, despite the hardware already being underpowered by the time RDR2 was released. Ie you can achieve the level of immersion and masterpiece without pushing the limits of graphics.

And the most successful game ever is still minecraft.

As someone that first played it on a PS4 and then again recently on a maxed out PC, I can confidently say the immersion was superior on the better machine. In fact, I was salty that I first experienced it on such a gimped device.

Yeah, I have a bit of regret first playing the Witness on an hd520 then PS4 then rtx2060 :/.

I have the exact opposite experience when I get to play a game again with better graphics. It's like I get to experience it all over again, which is great

Good for you if have the time to replay the same game with different graphics. I don't, which sucks and which is why I'd rather play if first with best graphics.

Yes, RDR2 is closer to a simulation than a game, and fidelity matters.

Rockstar knows their community. They spent around $1 in marketing for every $1 spent on the development of the game itself, totalling around $500mil, and the game paid for itself opening weekend with over $700mil in sales.

The studio has managed to master this sort of high-fidelity development while fully recuperating all costs, and fostering an incredibly loyal fan base. (Personal data point; replayed every single Rockstar title last year)

You cannot criticize such a company for delivering high-fidelity projects and pushing the edge. (You can criticize their working environment, however)

And without such companies blazing ahead, we wouldn't be currently undergoing a revolutionary phase in tech history as we explore the power of massively-parallel, computationally-intensive AI algorithms.

Superior, sure. I’m not saying that better graphics aren’t, well, better.

But I am saying that it’s unnecessary for a deep immersive experience. I was equally immersed 20 years ago playing Gothic and Oblivion as I am playing recent games, graphically speaking. IMHO the differences only become apparent if you play the same game with different visuals, as you did playing RDR2 on PS4 and again on PC.

It’s also worth remembering that the vast majority of players also don’t have access to a maxed out PC.

No video game has made it to the other side of the uncanny Valley. That's the trouble with realism.

There is one coming out I think called Unrecorded which to me looks quiet uncanny and close to actual body cam footage / realism. It's in dev anyways.

And the control schemes drag it back down into the quagmire of unplayable mess despite all that work. An excellent example of the broader point about development focus.

I've never noticed this, but I also play on the PC.

The only control stuff I don't like is fabricating arrows, notching ammo, cooking food, etc. But that's not clunky, it's just time consuming. It's also optional, so I just don't bother.

The clunky controls of rockstar games is intentional! They think it's "more immersive" for your character to just not do what you want it to do.

Saints Row 4 is better than GTA 5, change my mind.

Fundamentally different games, Saints Row 4 is silly sci-fi. I personally enjoyed it more.

I felt the actual game flowed better, GTA is all about playing in a sandbox and seeing all the various things you can do.

Saints Row is more of a straight up action game.

At some point they reacted to the "murder simulator" hysteria by pivoting from action games to sims.

I played on PC. Mouse and keyboard. The controls were excellent.

We're just not going to agree on that. I don't think it's a good game and a lot of it comes down to controls, but it isn't just that.

I picked up that game and put it down an hour later because the detail of the character movement and how tedious it is to climb a ladder or do anything killed the fun.

I played Demon Souls and Dark Souls and Elden Ring. The controls of RDR2 are like the opposite of those games, clunky and imprecise and full of unneeded animation. Souls has very tight mechanics in comparison

Not really.

Aiming and shooting is far more precise in red dead. Combat controls are instantaneous. You fire your gun, the bullet comes out and goes in a straight line towards an enemy on every click. You can headshot an entire gang of people no issue in red dead if you used PC controls.

Dark souls has delay. Not precision at all. Every movement is unresponsive and the point of those games is to get used to the delays and imprecision. You rapidly press hit 3 times in dark souls your character hits maybe once. In red dead that's 3 shots with the pistol.

Rdr2 movement outside of combat is built for immersion. As in the delays are variable based realistically off the environment. The combat however is by far significantly more precise then any dark souls game and as a result is actually the easier game.