Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Technology is certainly improving and in many technical aspects, modern games are much more advanced than older ones (e.g. raytracing). Some aspects of graphical detail aren't really dependent on technology though, but on effort and skill. RDR2 is a great example of that, as the devs really went out of their way to add incredible detail to every part of the world and especially the animations. It must have been very time-consuming and prohibitively expensive to realize that level of detail. Even back then most devs didn't go through that kind of effort and now, with so many development studios getting closed or shrinking, most will take a much more economical approach to graphics. There are still some incredible examples of advanced graphics from recent years though, like Alan Wake 2.
They could... Scale down their games though. Smaller worlds, shorter playtime but with richer experience. That's why I love the remakes of resident evil games. The games look very good at the release, yes they're aren't the biggest but give me a better impression than the other big franchises with big less focused world and worse graphics.
Yes they can, that's how you get games like Hellblade 2. Short games often don't sell as well though, so devs are more likely to focus on content.
That's going to the other extreme though. I'm not asking for that, again, RE and God of War 2018 show us how it's done.
They can do anything they want. The question is, what will make them the most money? Usually the answer isn't short, offline games with great quality and value. It is cheap, micro-transaction maxed, whale-pilled, online service games. Graphics have become subservient to that. You're not buying random rock skins, so why spend manpower and time on that instead of the next Dragon-balls blue skin?
And yet those games get zero money from me. Meanwhile I'm ok with giving more money to Capcom and it's dlcs due the great RE experience.
I mean... Sure, but you're also supporting the company that put out Street Fighter, and their monetization scheme. What game do you think is making them take in the big bucks?
I don't care about street fighter tbh I got Tekken