4 ms·

But everything is relative. I started gaming in the early 1980s and so those 1990s/early 2000s games had incredible graphics compared to what I was used to. And

But everything is relative. I started gaming in the early 1980s and so those 1990s/early 2000s games had incredible graphics compared to what I was used to. And I'm sure people who grew up earlier on things like 1970s Pong would think my 1980s games had amazing graphics. The argument "Games back then cared about gameplay rather than graphics" ignores that every era has tried to make graphics as good as possible; I'm sure the future will look at our nearly-photorealistic graphics of current games and find them quaint compared to their holographic graphics or whatever.

boredhedgehog 3y ago
What amazes the audience might be relative, but there are objective components to different styles of graphics. Take clarity in communication. Pong is maximally clear: the background is black, an interactive object is white. Every white object is integral to the game. The further you move away from this ideal towards photorealism, the less clear this distinction becomes. You must add more UI elements on top to compensate for the loss of clarity, creating mounting tension between the functional and the ornate.
- fendy3002 3y ago
  Playing witcher 3, I don't think it'll be enjoyable for me without the witcher senses. It really emphasis the interact-able things over the environment.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    It's why "just make everything have a billion polygons" is actually terrible game development. Scenes are so goddamn noisy nowadays that it's really hard to parse them.
    - Arrath 3y ago
      Sure does suck to find that camouflage is actually effective in shooters. When a bush has the gall to shoot you.