Hynad on 19 June 2016
| Zekkyou said: The issue with arguments like this is that their solution requires people to live in a relative void. Even if graphics tech had halted, it wouldn't have stopped people's graphics standards increasing. With every game someone plays, the relative pool of knowledge by which they will judge the next game they play grows. If something stays static as that pool grows, they'll just judge it harsher. They'll focus more and more on the things they want to be better (a fairly good recent example of this would be AI). Eventually someone, whether it be the established industry or an outsider immune to the stagnation agreement, would capitalise on people's dissatisfaction. Thus begins progress again. The fact is, regardless to individual people's opinions on graphics, the collective market wants progress. It doesn't want to be content, it wants to be continually impressed. It wants games to get bigger, for worlds to look and feel more alive, for their TVs and monitors to feel more and like windows into other worlds, rather than just coloured squares on a screen. They want the wheel to keep spinning. You could certainly make the argument that graphics specifically needs to progress slower. I'd disagree (at least right now), but it's at least an argument I can see the merit in. What you're describing in the OT though, while I'm sure made from a position of good intentions, isn't viable. For better or worse, people just don't work like that. |
Graphics advancements: detrimental to the industry since 1972.
