143
submitted 23 hours ago by ampersandrew@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 41 points 20 hours ago

How hard is it for them to realize this? Graphics are a nice to have, they're great, but they do not hold up an entire game. Star wars outlaws looked great, but the story was boring. If they took just a fraction of the money they spent on realism to give to writers and then let the writers do their job freely without getting in their way they could make some truly great games.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 19 hours ago

Look, I'm gonna be real with you, the pool of writers who are exceptionally good at specifically writing for games is really damn small.

Everyone is trained on novels and movies, and so many games try to hamfist in a three-act arc because they haven't figured out that this is an entirely different medium and needs its own set of rules for how art plays out.

Traditional filmmaking ideas includes stuff like the direction a character is moving on the screen impacting what the scene "means." Stuff like that is basically impossible to cultivate in, say, a first or third-person game where you can't be sure what direction characters will be seen moving. Thus, games need their own narrative rules.

I think the first person to really crack those rules was Yoko Taro, that guy knows how to write for a game specifically.

[-] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 20 points 20 hours ago

It's hard for them to realize because good graphics used to effectively sell lots of copies of games. If they spent their graphics budget on writers, they'd have spent way too much on writing.

[-] Grangle1@lemm.ee 14 points 19 hours ago

Yep, it's a byproduct of the "bit wars" in the gaming culture of the '80s and '90s where each successive console generation had much more of a visual grqphical upgrade without sacrificing too much in other technical aspects like framerate/performance. Nowadays if you want that kind of upgrade you're better off making a big investment in a beefy gaming rig because consoles have a realistic price point to consider, and even then we're getting to a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the real noticeable graphical differences. Even back in the '80s/'90s the most powerful consoles of the time (such as the Neo Geo) were prohibitively expensive for most people. Either way, the most lauded games of the past few years have been the ones that put the biggest focus on aspects like engaging gameplay and/or immersive story and setting. One of the strongest candidates for this year's Game of the Year could probably run on a potato and was basically poker with some interesting twists: essentially the opposite of a big studio AAA game. Baldur's Gate 3 showed studios that gamers are looking for an actual complete game for their $60, and indie hits such as the aforementioned Balatro are showing then that you can make games look and play great without all the super realistic graphics or immense budget if you have that solid gameplay, story/setting and art style. Call of Duty Black Ops 48393 with the only real "innovation" being more realistic sun glare on your rifle is just asking for failure.

[-] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago

Baldur's Gate 3 showed studios that gamers are looking for an actual complete game for their $60

This language always misses me. Every game I buy is complete. Adding an expansion to it later doesn't make it less complete, and it's not like BG3 wasn't without major bugs.

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 2 points 16 hours ago

I think we landed in a situation where some people don't understand the different between graphical style and graphical quality. You can have high quality graphics that are still very simplistic. The important part is that they serve their purpose for the title you're making. Obviously some games benefit from more realistic graphics, like TLoU Part 2 depicted in the thumbnail & briefly mentioned. The graphics help convey a lot of what the game tries to tell you. You can see the brutality of the world they are forced to live in through the realistic depiction of gore. But you can also see the raw emotion, the trauma on the character's faces, which tells you how the reality of this world truly looks like. But there's plenty of games with VERY simplistic graphic styles that are still high quality. CrossCode was one of the surprise hits for me a couple years ago and became one of my favorite RPGs, probably only topped by the old SNES title Terranigma. They both have simple yet beautiful graphics that serve them just as well as the realistic graphics of TLoU. Especially the suits / publishers will make this mistake since they are very detached from the actual gaming community and just look at numbers instead, getting trapped in various fallacies and then wonder why things don't go as well as they calculated.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 19 hours ago

Yeah, but you can't make a TV ad about good writing.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago

Sure you can, just do like "reviewers/players gush about 'riveting plot' and 'characters that feel real' and 'a truly compelling story'" or whatever it is.

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
143 points (91.8% liked)

Games

32980 readers
2489 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS