this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

Casual Conversation

1622 readers
278 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As video games develop more and more over the years, companies have been making them more and more realistic-looking. I can guess this is related to expectations, but am I the only one who doesn't care about graphics? We could be using the same processing power to store worlds that have as much exploration potential as the Earth itself if we weren't afraid to save on processing power by going back to 8-bit.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Ghost Recon, Ravenfield, Battlebit etc are shooters with simple graphics. Ghost Recon was from constraints of its time (2001 release) but Ravenfield and Battlebit could be way more photorealistic (like Squad) but chose not to. And I like that. In shooters you want good visuals if you can but having consistent performance is a bigger deal than some other games. I don't care about frame rate stutters in a turn based game like X-Com for example.

Speaking of turn based, one of the graphically simplest games I've playes recently is Armored Commander II. It is very very basic graphically (think dwarf fortress or intellivision) and I shit you not it is more immersive than it has any right to. The graphics and display info gives you juuuust enough info to set your imagination into overdrive to fill in the rest.

When your Sherman is almost out of ammo, bogged down in a muddy field and taking fire from enemy tanks in a nearby farm the actual graphics don't really matter so much

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I think I remember that one from one of the Jampack discs. Good times.