> It's found success in being the antithesis of a AAA game, which is usually beautiful but shallow. Funny i should come across this claim, as reading the ebook

> It's found success in being the antithesis of a AAA game, which is usually beautiful but shallow. Funny i should come across this claim, as reading the ebook collection of the filfre.net blog i came across a similar notion from Richard Garriott of all people. http://www.filfre.net/2015/07/the-14-deadly-sins-of-graphic-adventure-design/ http://www.filfre.net/2015/07/the-14-deadly-sins-of-graphic-... "Each time you get one of those major technology influxes, the quality of the graphics goes way up but the gameplay goes back to the simplest again because the bells and whistles have become so much cooler that you don’t need any depth. However, to compete with that [technologically pioneering title] you have to add depth, and to compete with that you have to add more depth, etc., until the next big technological advancement, when everything resets again back to that lowest common denominator of gameplay." And i think we can see this also in how over the years the sound and graphics staff of a games company has ballooned, while the number of programmers have remained largely the same.