Anon is a game dev
-
Graphics can be part of the fun. What's so difficult to understand?
Of course, I don't want my game to look like utter dogshit, and graphics can be apart of the fun, but my biggest concerns with games are how they play and what the story/characters is like (if it's that type of game).
There can be times that I can appreciate more realistic looking games, but honestly it's boring to see so many games try the same style over and over again, especially when it isn't executed well. And if worrying about graphics causes my game to be an unoptimized game with a lackluster story, then I'd rather people just stick with a less detailed style to preserve the the fun (imo) part of games, which is literally everything else.
-
Just to nitpick, the HD remaster is a remaster of the 2002 remake, so it's a bit older than 10 years.
Yeah, but its still using rebuilt HD assets which make it look way better than the original game its based off of.
-
Anon is not entirely wrong though... we have become pretty lazy regarding optimizing software.
It's not laziness, it's bottom line and chasing the dollar. Management doesn't give a shit about optimization, just MVP (minimum viable product). Speaking as a developer, the mindset of 'we will fix it after deployment' is fucking everywhere.
-
Graphics can be part of the fun. What's so difficult to understand?
REbirth sure does look better than Fortnite, and REbirth sure does need a ton less of GPU and CPU.
-
It's not laziness, it's bottom line and chasing the dollar. Management doesn't give a shit about optimization, just MVP (minimum viable product). Speaking as a developer, the mindset of 'we will fix it after deployment' is fucking everywhere.
Except in 99.9% of cases nothing gets fixed after deployment either. That's just an excuse not to admit that from the get-go.
-
Is it though? I mean big companies most probably tweak whatever engine they use too, and the whole game is closed source, so company specific stuff is obiqutous to say the least.
Good points otherwise IMO.
yes, but tweaking whatever engine they have, still uses a lot of the underlying engines code, which more freemarket devs will use. There's a huge reason why a lot of the companies who build engines in house are in japan, because labor laws in japan makes it so developer retention is usually very high.
Kojima and fox engine is an example of a well designed and optimized engine, but konami didn't like it because of how much millions kojima spent developing both it and MGS5 hence the bad blood between them
-
I blame REmake for my impossibly high standards of what a remake should be
Re-makes are not the same as re-masters are not the same as re-releases.
-
Graphics can be part of the fun. What's so difficult to understand?
Graphics and jiggly physics.
-
This is only a problem if you want unsustainable growth/enshittification and to treat your devs like shit with bad pay and endless crunch time.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Kojima is an example of giving dev too much freedom that its basically further putting you into the red had he been strung along for the ride during metal gear solid 5's development and the money spent optimizing fox engine. Theres a fine line between endless crunch time/micromanaging, and letting your devs do work. Take another company like capcom as japanese company dev retention is high. RE Engine is used over several games now. and people agree it performs like shit for open world games.
to put up a few examples, The upcoming Metroid prime 4 is an example when a company gives devs too much freedom. The original japanese studio didn't know what hte fuck they were doing, so Nintendo pulled them off hte project, and gave their project to retro, who was working on the "Project harmony" game, which looked very bad, to the point that nintendo was fed up with the hands off approach and Kensuke Tanabe reinserted himself back as director to get prime's development back into production getting Prime 4 out later this year.
Part of the reason for the huge microsoft layoff that happened a few days ago is mainly because of microsofts more handsoff approach they gave their developers. they gave ninja theory 5 years to develop Hellblade 2 (which is a relatively long time). They gave Compulsion games 5+ years to develop South of midnight. neither game remotely probably paid of their development cost, in juxtaposition to a studio like Obsidian, who has in the same time frame, released 5 different games, some arguably more expansive than the previous 2 studios games, due to being well managed.
and I'm not really pointing fingers here, but keep in mind, its not solely due to unsustainable growth/enshittification and treating devs like shit and endless crunch time causing this problem. It's mainly lack of better people/resource management because there are countless numbers of studios who get significantly more time than they should on a project with not much to show for it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That's remastered...
-
Except in 99.9% of cases nothing gets fixed after deployment either. That's just an excuse not to admit that from the get-go.
Yyyyyuyup
-
Graphics can be part of the fun. What's so difficult to understand?
It looks so marketing driven.
We are in decades of video games. Look at very old game and assess how "ugly" they are by today's standard while at their time they were "the best graphics ever seen in history!" or something.
And so, the big question: we were having fun with games decades ago already. If graphics were part of the fun, your brain should explode under the immensely higher level of fun you have on modern games vs 20y old games. And… well…nope. Same as before, just higher expectations.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Normal maps are pretty easy to make, they're just time-intensive.
-
Graphics and jiggly physics.
If it's just the tits, it's not physics; it's fetish.
-
Re-makes are not the same as re-masters are not the same as re-releases.
I know, but look me in the eye and tell me REmake 3 is as good as REmake 1. You can't even tell me it's as good as RE3
And REmake 2 doesn't feel like a redo of RE2 but a completely separate game with RE2's story. So I felt a little robbed
-
It looks so marketing driven.
We are in decades of video games. Look at very old game and assess how "ugly" they are by today's standard while at their time they were "the best graphics ever seen in history!" or something.
And so, the big question: we were having fun with games decades ago already. If graphics were part of the fun, your brain should explode under the immensely higher level of fun you have on modern games vs 20y old games. And… well…nope. Same as before, just higher expectations.
wrote last edited by [email protected]very well said. I think the last time i got excited about graphics was when Final Fantasy X came out lol. then they kept getting more realistic but never actually became real, they stayed video games. even VR. so... maybe graphics aren't what we need to keep working on
EDIT: *aren't, not are, FUCK. I'm saying no matter how much graphics improve, it's still just a video game, good or bad
-
Graphics can be part of the fun. What's so difficult to understand?
Good graphics are fine, but not at the expense of creativity and fun.
-
If it's just the tits, it's not physics; it's fetish.
It's the ass as well.
-
I know, but look me in the eye and tell me REmake 3 is as good as REmake 1. You can't even tell me it's as good as RE3
And REmake 2 doesn't feel like a redo of RE2 but a completely separate game with RE2's story. So I felt a little robbed
Full disclosure: I've only played a little bit of REmake 2 and none of the originals or REmake 3. I have a friend who has, and he says that REmake 3 was a pretty big letdown.
-
Graphics can be part of the fun. What's so difficult to understand?
And the most fun graphics are stylized graphics!
