• AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m not really sure it’s completely like that. In the early 2000’s we had “beautiful” games (aka the most advanced graphics that technology could afford) but games were fun.

    Devs invested in graphics, but they also invested in innovative formulas, in gameplay… You could tell a game was unique and beautiful.

    Today, AAA games are just a checklist of things that must be included (almost none pointed at making the player have fun) with an incredible level of detail that makes every single leave of every tree move independently from the rest.

    • HackerJoe@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      There have always been pretty tech demos without much gameplay. There was Incoming it was basically a super simple turret section showing off the awesome (at the time) capabilities of the first Voodoo card. It was impressive and fun for about 15 minutes. Still doesn’t look too bad considering it came out in 1998.

    • taladar@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      The main problem with pretty graphics is that you actually lose out on the kind of variety a more abstract graphics style would allow, e.g. by distinguishing objects in a textual description you can have millions of distinct objects (e.g. in something like Dwarf Fortress with its item and character descriptions), much more than you could if you had to represent everything graphically.

      • AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Indeed. Today’s problem is that graphical fidelity takes so much of the development time and resources that the rest of the aspects of the game are completely left aside.

        Yeah, I can count how many freckles this character has in their face, but that’s all these games offer now, and I don’t need to count freckles, I can do that in real life. I want to have a good time with the game.

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well, I am not even talking about the resources used but literally about the fact that you can’t make that many graphics because of the number of combinations of different properties you would have to model somehow.

          Plus there are some things you can describe in text that you can never portray graphically, e.g. concepts like “the most beautiful woman he had ever seen”

    • brsrklf@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      In the early 2000’s we had “beautiful” games (aka the most advanced graphics that technology could afford) but games were fun.

      You only remember the good ones. There has always been a lot of games that look good or even impressive, but play like crap.

      Today there are still critically acclaimed games that happen to look good too. They’re a tiny minority, but it’s always been like that.