Meh, who cares about graphics? This is the DM forum, dammit
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Personally I think DM has WAY to high resolution!Ameena wrote:Meh, who cares about graphics? This is the DM forum, dammit.
I don't. I think it's a prisoner who escaped and has been smashed by a car and now he's lying on asphalt (so it's a top-down view).Rasmus wrote:Anyone can see that this is a yawning mummy!
You know what.....? That is very much better thanAnyone can see that this is a yawning mummy!
Absolutely. I've been saying it for ages (and the game developers won't listenPaul Stevens wrote: I really think that more effort should be spent
on the game and less on the graphics.
It very much depends on how you define "great". There can be very nice and tasteful graphics which is simple and low-res (like in DM or many old adventure games) and you can have modern expensive super-dooper 3D graphics that is just ugly. I usually prefer hand-drawn graphics and tend to avoid anything that is computer generated.Gambit37 wrote:There's no reason why games can't have deep gameplay *and* great graphics.
I think you can substitute 'movies' for 'games' andThe result is that most of the games are a nice-looking crap.
Exactly. Woody Allen once said that the current appalling state of Hollywood production is caused by the fact that nowadays, nobody wants to produce (finance) a movie that will cost millions of dollars and make tens of millions of dollars - the producers are keen to finance movies that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and want to make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. IMHO, the same applies to modern games. As a result, the game producers concentrate on very mainstream things (i.e. stupid, for "wide" audience), graphically / technically perfect, without much innovation (i.e. risk) that are dull and most of them look like different levels of the same game. On the other side of the spectrum, you have various low-budget Indie games, sometimes with great ideas / innovations / enthusiasm / story-telling and fun, but without sufficient finances and skills the results are often unprofessional and don't move the gaming industry forwards. The "third" way between these two approaches has been lost and should be re-opened *somehow*.Paul Stevens wrote:I think you can substitute 'movies' for 'games' and
still have a true statement.
That's certainly true. But as I tried to say, the trend towards high-budget games and risk-avoidance go against this and mean that most of the professional games are aimed at sort of mainstream or "average" demand.Paul Stevens wrote:But, like food, architecture, and sex.....our
preferences vary wildly.