I’m tired. Honestly, I think we’re all a little bit tired. You come home from work, you look at your digital library, and there it is: a 150-gigabyte behemoth that promises "unparalleled realism" and 150 hours of content. It looks beautiful. The skin pores on the protagonist are so detailed you can practically see their DNA. But then you realize you have to spend the first six hours following a NPC at a snail's pace just to learn how to crouch.
I want shorter games with worse graphics. That isn't a joke or a meme anymore. It's a genuine plea for the industry to stop suffocating us with "more." We’ve reached a point of diminishing returns where the push for graphical fidelity is actively making games less fun, more expensive, and—frankly—boring as hell.
The High Cost of Looking Good
Graphics aren't free. I’m not just talking about the $70 price tag, though that’s part of it. I’m talking about the development time. When a studio decides they need 4K textures for every rock and blade of grass, they are committing thousands of man-hours to things that don’t actually affect how the game feels to play.
Look at the development cycles of modern tentpole titles. We used to get a full trilogy of Halo or Mass Effect in a single console generation. Now? You’re lucky if a major studio puts out two games a decade. Rockstar Games released Grand Theft Auto V in 2013. We are still waiting for the sequel. That is a twelve-year gap. A child born when the last game came out is now nearly old enough to drive a car. This happens because the "fidelity bar" keeps moving. Developers are trapped in an arms race where they have to spend $300 million just to stay relevant.
It’s a bubble. It has to be.
When every game needs to sell 10 million copies just to break even, publishers stop taking risks. They stick to the formula. They give us the same map towers, the same skill trees, and the same "cinematic" walking sections because they can't afford to fail. When I say i want shorter games with worse graphics, I’m asking for the budget to be moved away from the art department and back into the "weird ideas" department.
The Rise of the "Boomer Shooter" and Retro-Aesthetics
People are already voting with their wallets. Look at the massive success of the "boomer shooter" genre. Games like DUSK, Ultrakill, and Warhammer 40,000: Boltgun aren't trying to look like real life. They look like 1997. They have chunky pixels, low-poly models, and limited color palettes.
✨ Don't miss: Ben 10 Ultimate Cosmic Destruction: Why This Game Still Hits Different
And they are incredible.
They’re fast. They’re responsive. Because the developers didn't spend three years motion-capturing a horse’s anatomy, they spent that time making sure the movement feels like butter. You can finish DUSK in a weekend and feel like you’ve actually accomplished something. You don’t need a second mortgage for a GPU to run it, and you don't need to clear your calendar for three months.
Complexity vs. Depth
There is a huge difference between a game being complex and a game being deep. Modern AAA games are incredibly complex—systems layered on systems, crafting, gear scores, battle passes, and intricate animations for opening a single drawer. But does that add depth? Not always. Sometimes it’s just friction.
I miss the days when a game knew when to end.
Remember Portal? You can beat it in about three hours. It is arguably a perfect video game. If Portal were made today by a major publisher, they’d probably feel pressured to add a loot system, an open world with 400 "test chambers" that all look the same, and a story that drags on for 40 hours. It would be a worse experience.
Why Shorter Is Better for Adults
Let's talk about the demographic shift. The people who grew up during the golden age of the PS2 and Xbox are now in their 30s and 40s. We have jobs. We have kids. We have mortgages. We do not have 100 hours to spend wandering around a photorealistic forest looking for hidden collectibles.
🔗 Read more: Why Batman Arkham City Still Matters More Than Any Other Superhero Game
When a game is 8 to 12 hours long, it’s a commitment I can actually keep. It’s the difference between watching a great movie and starting a TV show with 15 seasons. Sometimes, you just want the movie.
- Respect for time: A shorter game focuses on its best ideas.
- Replayability: I am way more likely to play a 6-hour game three times than a 60-hour game once.
- Lower stakes: If a $20 indie game is "just okay," I’m not mad. If a $70 "AIEEE" title is mediocre, I feel cheated.
The Aesthetic of "Worse" Graphics
We need to stop using the word "worse" and start using the word "stylized."
Valheim is a perfect example of why i want shorter games with worse graphics. It uses low-resolution textures and low-poly models, but the lighting and atmosphere are breathtaking. It looks better than many "realistic" games because it has a cohesive artistic vision. Because the assets were "simple," a tiny team of five people at Iron Gate AB was able to create a world that millions of people spent hundreds of hours in.
If they had tried to make Valheim look like The Last of Us, it would still be in development. It would have required a staff of 200. It probably would have been cancelled.
There’s a certain charm to the PS1-style "low-fi" horror movement happening right now on platforms like Itch.io. Games like Iron Lung or the Dread X Collections use limited visuals to let your imagination do the heavy lifting. Realism is the enemy of imagination. When everything is shown to you in perfect detail, there's no room for your brain to fill in the gaps.
The Sustainability Crisis
We are seeing massive layoffs across the industry—Sony, Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft. Everyone is cutting staff. Why? Because the current model is unsustainable. You cannot keep doubling budgets and development times forever.
💡 You might also like: Will My Computer Play It? What People Get Wrong About System Requirements
When people say i want shorter games with worse graphics, they are also advocating for a healthier industry. Shorter development cycles mean less "crunch." It means developers don't have to spend five years of their lives on a single project that might get cancelled or flop. It means more studios can exist because the barrier to entry isn't a billion dollars.
Look at Palworld. Or Among Us. Or Phasmophobia. These weren't "graphical powerhouses." They were fun, relatively simple games that captured a moment. They didn't need to be 100 hours long. They just needed a hook.
Breaking the Cycle
How do we actually get back to this? It starts with us, the players. We have to stop punishing games for not being "long enough." We’ve spent years using a "dollar-per-hour" metric to judge games, and it’s the most toxic way to evaluate art. A two-hour experience that changes the way you think is worth more than a 100-hour experience that you play while listening to a podcast because the gameplay is so mindless.
We also have to stop "pixel peeping." Who cares if the shadows aren't ray-traced in real-time if the game loop is addictive?
Real World Examples of Success
- Hades: It’s not "bad" graphics by any means, but it’s 2D and stylized. It’s built on repetition and tight design. It didn't need a massive open world.
- Vampire Survivors: It looks like a SNES game. It costs less than a fancy coffee. It is more addictive than almost any AAA game released in the last five years.
- Hi-Fi Rush: It used cell-shading to look like a cartoon. It was vibrant, punchy, and relatively short. It was a breath of fresh air because it didn't try to look "real."
Actionable Steps for the Disenchanted Gamer
If you’re nodding your head and thinking, "Yeah, I really do want shorter games with worse graphics," here is how you find them and support the movement:
- Stop buying the 'Gold Edition' on day one. Don't reward the bloat. Wait for reviews to see if the game is actually "content-rich" or just "padded."
- Explore the 'AA' Space. Look at publishers like New Blood Interactive, Devolver Digital, and Annapurna Interactive. These are the sweet spots. They have production value, but they aren't trying to be "everything to everyone."
- Search by "How Long to Beat." Use the website HowLongToBeat.com. Before buying a game, check the main story length. If it’s under 15 hours, that’s often a sign of a tighter, more focused experience.
- Embrace Itch.io. Some of the most creative work in the industry is happening in the "lo-fi" scene. Download a few "trashy" looking horror games. You’ll be surprised at how much more tension they can create with 10 pixels than a AAA game can with 10 million.
- Change your review criteria. When you talk about games online or leave Steam reviews, praise brevity. Mention that you appreciated the lack of filler. Let developers know that "short" is a feature, not a bug.
The obsession with photorealism is a dead end. We are chasing a horizon that keeps moving, and we're losing the soul of the medium in the process. Give me a game with a strong art style, a three-day completion time, and a mechanic I haven't seen a thousand times before. Keep your 400-gigabyte installs and your "live service" roadmaps. I just want to play a game and then get on with my life.