tube82 said:
i don't like the trend of pseudo photo-realistic hd graphics because it makes game development a lot more expensive. therefore only the real big publishers usually provide the blockbusters. and because only they do, they mostly create what they know will sell. 9 out of 10 games are sequels to some 1st/3rd/actiongame-shooter nowadays. there is, sadly, not a lot of innovation in the blockbuster titles because the risk of a flop is too big. of course this leads to a lot of small indie games, but those are usually more like "minigames" with a very small budget. - still they may be the best games. and most medium sized publishers are struggling to stay alive because they can't compete with the big boys in terms of $$$, which means their games will not be shiny enough for todays gamers. so yeah, to me too much pursuit for better graphics DOES lead to less varied gameplay in the top tiles. oh, of course i like good looking games, but a great game shouldn't have to cost multiple tens of millions to make! THAT is what is hurting, not the graphics itself. |
Excellent point. I totally agree that the pursuit of ultra-realistic graphics is worrying in terms of cost. I think the cost of video game development these days is frightening. It was always my dream when I was a kid to be a games developer, but nowadays, looking at the cost, man hours and risk of making a single video game it doesn't really appeal at all. I would love to see a situation where the smaller, simpler, lower-budget games that are seen on the consoles' download services and handhelds are treated with the same reverence as the AAA mega-budget blockbusters, rather than just as cute throwbacks that are kind of pushed to the peripheries. I do appreciate amazing graphics, but not if it's unsustainable.







