| Slarvax said: I dont know if unrelated, but I find it funny how some developers want the most powerful hardware even though they cant optimize their games on PC... Graphical improvements are the most simple, unimpressive, and unnecessary evolution in gaming. Games look better over time, duh. Show me other cool stuff; physics engine, independence of RNG, perfectioning AI, a living world that gets affected by your actions. |
Agreed. The most impressive thing to me this gen hasn't been the mocap in Uncharted 4 or the particle effects in Infamous: Second Son. It was the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor. That's something that 1) couldn't have been done 15 years ago and 2) actually enhances gameplay.
@OP: I don't agree with you 100%, but I sympathize with your ideas. The march forward into higher resolution and glossier graphics hasn't produced superior games. In fact, one could argue the opposite. That the time, energy, and resources dedicated to making games look better has made publishers less likely to take risks and, in terms of gameplay, cater to the lowest common denominator.
Would I be fine if gaming development froze in 2003? Personally, yes. I believe that games were best in the years between 1991 and 2005. But I am open to new technologies. If I was stuck in 2003 I would never experience the tactile joy of Wii Sports or the Nemesis system I mentioned earlier. There IS utility in advanced graphics, physics, AI, etc. But I think the industry needs to slow down, and spend money within its means.
