4 ms·
>While we're discussing how high tech isn't required in a game, I feel the need to say that they aren't mutually exculsive, either. That's fair. I think part o
by korethr 10y ago
>While we're discussing how high tech isn't required in a game, I feel the need to say that they aren't mutually exculsive, either.
That's fair. I think part of the whole pixel art thing is a backlash against modern graphics tech, born of one-too-many experiences with a game that, while using the latest and greatest tech to achieve visually-stunning results, was no fun to play. Taken to the extreme, it can easily become a reverse-pixel-tax attitude: A game using modern graphics tech wont be fun, or at least, not as fun as it could have been.
Such an attitude is as equally silly as a pixel-tax attitude, and I think part of what drove the the author to write the original article is realizing such.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoActually, literal cases the of the reverse pixel tax, while rare, is very visible: When you try to create a game that's technically impressive, or even one that's not especially so, and you don't have the time or technical chops to back it, you wind up in a bad situation: Assassin's Creed: Unity would have been the mess it was without this, but the attempt to be technically impressive and up the crowds just made the problems worse, and further highlighted the embarassing pop-in, and embarrasing problems prior games never had. Meanwhile, the latest Call of Duty makes a hojillion dollars, still running on a heavily modified Quake 3 engine, with relatively unimpressive graphics for its time. Meanwhile meanwhile, Valve makes another smash hit, still running off of a heavily modified Quake 1 engine.