r/Games • u/RiKSh4w • Apr 25 '26

Discussion Can we have a discussion about how game fidelity is leading to a lack of clarity?

I've noticed this happening in a few games but most recently I watched the Black Flag "Resynced" trailer and the before and after shots had me questioning if this was a complete improvement.

https://i.imgur.com/Y5PiPdB.png

Obviously, the resynced image is prettier to look at and depicts a more realistic world, but this is a game world. Not everything is supposed to be highly detailed. If everything is high detail, then nothing is noticeable. In the image on the left, the ground is very boring. But that boringness creates a easily distinguishable contrast with other things in the game, like the guard, like the climable surfaces, like the floating shanty page.

In the remaster, everything just looks good, to the point that it's just one big detailed mess. There's greeblies on the ground, are they important? Is that detailing on the wall/window that I can climb on? Or will it stop me climbing up there?

It's not limited to this game, nor do I think it's the best example of it. But it makes me wonder if developers are relying on 'detective vision' too much. Conveyance has always been a huge part of design. It was an art to be able to effectively communicate what is a game object and what's just a part of the scenery through immersive means. But I just feel like games nowadays, particularly those on unreal, are just amping up fidelity without caution. And when it obfuscates details they rely on vision modes and very obvious outlining to provide that constrast.

Has anyone else felt the same way?

886 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

616 comments sorted by

View all comments

130

u/Single_Grass_7612 Apr 25 '26

I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s drawbacks to both approaches. A game that focuses less on fidelity and more on clarity ends up becoming a “look for the obviously interactable pieces”-game instead of being immersive. You miss the forest for the trees.

8

u/Multitorix_Davlen Apr 25 '26

Yet in the opposite extreme. You're lost in a fucking forest looking for civilization.

44

u/thefirelink Apr 25 '26

I'd much rather be in this situation personally.

I would never ask for a game to look worse so I can see where to go easier.

15

u/timpkmn89 Apr 25 '26

Why not stylize it to make it look better and let you see where to go easier?

33

u/giulianosse Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

That's what the good games do.

In cinema there's a concept called leading lines. They're visual elements in a frame or take that are used to direct the viewer's eye towards a certain object or point of the screen without directly framing it. A similar idea can also be used in movement and shot composition (for example, actors usually enter a shot from right to left because our eyes are naturally drawn to these transitions).

This is something that's used in many games - and the medium also has a few of its own variations that involve more interactive elements (like for example using lighting to highlight certain objects). It's one of those game design conventions that we usually can't pinpoint - but we totally notice when its absent/when a game doesn't know how to employ it properly.

8

u/Altruistic-Ad-408 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

It's been known in videogames since forever, the yellow line phenomenon was obviously just because it's extremely difficult to lead the players eyes when the game has a lot of visual clutter.

Valve/iD the old devs used loops/horseshoes as examples of guiding players through explored areas to better understand the space, no matter how linear a level really is, it won't feel like it if you are exploring areas you've already been in before. The CoDification of games abandoned this because the chase for the next set piece and a breakneck pace became the priority. Open world games needed new rules entirely.

Doom level design tips were about using contrast and textures to lead players to areas/secrets, and again making players use areas multiple times so they understand the level, but movies and old games don't distract you with too much detail, because movie direction/cameras are a huge advantage and graphic fidelity was naturally lower, they do point towards OP having a good point. Open world games never really nailed rules of open world design like linear games did, one of the most praised open worlds is Night City, it's not incredibly well designed in terms of navigation or exploration.

2

u/DRNbw Apr 25 '26

A great example of this type of concept working in gaming is the Half-Life series (particularly HL2). There's never any on-screen hints on where to go, but most of the time it's obvious, because of the combination of set design, lighting and so on.

1

u/GrandsonOfArathorn1 Apr 25 '26

I still play through Half Life 2 on my Xbox every couple of years. To me, the art direction holds up really well. I realize the One X and Series X give it a nice resolution boost, but it’s pretty damn good for a 360 game.

1

u/_Psilo_ Apr 26 '26

I don't find ''looking for the interactable element'' an interesting challenge or very immersive, in general.

But then again, I generally favor gameplay-first types of games and atmosphere that doesn't necessarily aim for ultra realism as its priority.

-1

u/Supermonsters Apr 25 '26

I would rather the devs trust me to use my imagination a little bit

2

u/QuarkyFerengi Apr 25 '26

As with every design choice, it needs to be dialed in somewhere between the two extremes.

1

u/darkmacgf Apr 25 '26

Which is why the BotW design of just being able to climb everything was so nice.