Currently Online 
| palou said: The proposition is more against higher definition, more polygons than needed, etc... Modern games could be played just fine in 480 p... |
That's totally subjective where you draw the arbitrary line of "good enough".
| palou said: I never said that. However, good graphics take up alot of ressources, that could be used to produce several games, or further unique concepts in the game being made. What good graphics are is a completely relative term, we always fawn upon whatever currently is the highest standard, even if the same graphical performance could give us difficulty appreciating the game ten years later. I believe, would progress stop in this partocular aspect of the industry, or simply develop more slowly, so that all companies would have no trouble catching up to the standards, more games would be considered to have «good graphics» by the current generation. |
Yeah, good graphics take up a lot of resources. But you are forgetting that these resources to spend for games would be smaller, if graphic standards were frozen on 2003 levels. A lot of people wouldn't be interested in these games and wouldn't spend money for video games.
Ockham's razor: if better graphics wouldn't broaden the audience and improve sales in general, the publishers wouldn't invest in that area.
