Were games better off with simpler graphics?

Attached: links-awakening.jpg (734x736, 119K)

The most soulful one is probably the one in the middle.

No.
What ruins gaming is leftists and corporate greed.
Games were better off when it was all about building brand recognition, not short-term profits and marketing campaigns.

Absolutely not.

Games were better when people made them to have fucking fun. Realism doesn’t mean shit if your game isn’t fucking fun

>you'll never live in the time line where at the start of the 7th gen developers focused a lot less on hard graphics/realism and focused on AI and game mechanics while using original art styles to stand out

Attached: 1260729772020.gif (631x627, 153K)

>Devs make graphics

Are you fucking retarded?

Artists are developpers.

yes, they cost less to develop and could take bigger risks

PS2 was the pinnacle of videogame graphics. Everything that came later was just fluff, we didn't need anything past PS2.

Attached: HauntingGround_10YR.jpg (620x400, 219K)

I don't know. The competition had way more vibrancy.

Attached: image.jpg (500x375, 80K)

It's more about the story and how well you can pull players into the game rather than the graphics that are used to create it

Yeah sure, assuming you are a AAA company who decides to devote all your time to make your game look flashy, just like real life, cinematic or anything like that. The tools we have nowadays make game development more accessible than ever and high-quality effects which aren't pixelfucked to look good as possible are still entirely possible, so when you get down to it, it's still just the developer's stylistic decision to go "yeah, our audience cares more about graphics than gameplay, so we're going to try and squeeze more visuals out of our games than try to make them fun".

Yes but not in the way you're thinking. Too many game environments these days waste resources on complexity for the sake of complexity when 99% of players won't give a shit, as well as going turbo-retard with realism. Streamline the process and develop a good art process and they can do much more with less. Like I highly doubt that simulating a million individual strands of hair real-time has actually made a noticeable positive impact on how a game looks, meanwhile it just kills performance which limits what developers can do for the rest of the game.

Yeah, I mean to say the 6th Gen reached the pinnacle of everything we needed. Even the Game Boy Advance.

Too bad people keep focusing on more polygons.

Not really. Games from the early days of 3D were right at the frontier of what was possible with gaming.
People didn't really know what would work and had alot of limitations, so they experimented and came up with great solutions to make their games look good.
These days consoles and PCs have more than enough power to shit out a photorealistic game so companies just stick with the easy but far less intresting art styles.

Straight up better? No, but at some point during the PS2/PS3 years we hit this stage where graphics could be considered "good enough" and everything made since has been diminishing returns, especially as more and more time and resources are spent chasing after graphical fidelity which both inflates budget and comes at expense of gameplay.

Too many people are conflating "the improvement of computer graphics" with "some of the mainstream game industry's insatiable lust to make things look like movies" to the point at which they assume that the increased pressure on development is a universal issue that everyone is beholden to. Ignoring the swathes of indie games which became just as popular as their AAA counterparts which were either graphically limited with a compelling artstyle or entirely gameplay-centric, as well as ignoring titles like CS;GO and Titanfall which despite their aged game/graphics engines still command the attention of the games industry as AAA titles because of their entertaining gameplay.

Attached: 1514443728037.jpg (369x493, 15K)

And let's not forget the dawn of smartphone games which despite being rehashes of flash games or otherwise small titles that have to go back to graphics limitations from generations before ranging from low poly meshes to relying on stylized art instead of realism to older rendering techniques that the generally less powerful smartphone can afford to render. Titles like Angry Birds and Candy Crush don't even have 3D graphics and rely entirely on the gameplay appeal and artistic style of the game and they are so lucrative that they make big budget cinematic games quiver at the knees. And then there's the whole retro revival with remakes of old games and retro console releases proving that either nostalgia still sells hard or that the gameplay of these older more considered games is timeless where graphically impressive games without that have since fallen by the wayside or found niche appeal.

So yeah TL;DR: If the devs spend all their time making their games look graphically impressive and not fun, that's their fault, not the hardware/software's fault.

>bad graphics good

CREATIVITY

Attached: tumblr_oaamc51Jiv1v0jfsto6_r1_500.gif (480x270, 1.95M)

What about graphics that intentionally have low polygon models and low resolutions?

Attached: ss_27ebb40c8186b926befe4cb95d73904471427636.1920x1080.jpg (1920x1080, 368K)

Any pleb off the street can make something using UE4 blueprint with minimum effort.

I miss sprite based graphics, indie games try to utilize them but they have no "soul".
Games like Castlevania: Symphony of The Night still hold up today because those beautiful sprites are timeless.

Its because a ton off effort was put on them

>GOOD GRAPHICS GOOD
>BAD GRAPHICS BAD OOGA BOOGA
retard.

Youre a fag

Maybe I have to see the thing in motion to actually know for sure, but Devil Daggers looks like complete garbage to me.

No.

Making good sprites is hard and indies use sprites because they're "easy".

Attached: 1500438419079.png (912x479, 124K)

That's the worst of all. All three of the objects in the OP have the same polygon count for example, there's no reason low poly should intentionally look like absolute shit.

>no soul
fuck off, there are more than enough indie games with great sprite based graphics that have loads of "soul"
Hell, one literally released a few days ago even:
youtube.com/watch?v=c10AKSa1Il0

Attached: SQ_NSwitchDS_DevilEngine.jpg (1000x1000, 402K)

early 3d is mostly shit because people were trying to make things realistic so it all looks like absolute trash now
go back and look at vanilla skyrim, it looks like dogshit compared to modern "graphics" games but games from a decade before look much better because they had a graphical style in mind instead of "uhhhhhhhhhhhh try to make it look real"

But it doesn't intentionally look shit?
It does indeed look better in motion, literally just look up some gameplay.

Attached: s0qrYVa.gif (480x480, 3.08M)

Shoot em ups are lost to me and it hurts so bad.
>amazing art
>amazing music
wow this is great, what's the gameplay?
>remember patterns
>make your cursor avoid them
oh ok never mind

left ball > right ball > center ball

>Hating on soulful gouraud shading

I like the style, but does it really have to be low resolution?

As far as I'm aware, devi daggers actually uses a downscaling filter on it's graphics to intentionally make it look more aliased and low rez. It certainly does make things look older and more retro but I assume there's some way to disable it.

Here's a modern intentionally low poly PS1 style game which doesn't have that downscaling filter. youtube.com/watch?v=bcAC47ZcOw4

Graphics have no significance on whether a game is good or bad. Obviously better graphics are objectively better, but the art style is more important. Better quality sprites = better graphics, for example.

I believe when graphics were shittier, people could focus more of the budget and effort on the actual story or gameplay of the game rather than devoting so much time to the "visuals" as a selling point. This is a reason why you get games like Kingdom Hearts 3. They're objectively more beautiful than any previous entry, but it suffers from lack of depth.

Attached: 1432765931123.jpg (955x951, 265K)

>tfw I still love shmups
I can understand that they don't have the same appeal as modern games so it's completely understandable that they died out, but it still sucks.

Attached: KP278_DAIOUJOU_typeA_04.jpg (800x534, 94K)

Cant you do shit with your reflexes?

I wish I could love them but frankly, I think they enjoy a better place in older games and niche titles just because it means the only people involved are people who are super passionate about shmups. Sure it also means you'll have a bunch of elitism and a smaller community but it could certainly be worse.

You can technically and it does come down to making sure you dodge out of the way of things in time, but then it gets to a point where your reflexes don't mean shit if you can't memorize a complex pattern that requires you to perform a certain set of actions even with high reflexes.

constraints reward innovation.
but then again comparing Metal Slug 3 to some contemporary asset grab unity game is fucking stoopid

hold the fuck
this looks like horiz stg someone at /agdg/ was making
congrats if he made it

hand drawn is best

Attached: corcyra_00.jpg (1920x1080, 1.44M)

Phong lighting is fairly simple compared to global illumination.

Yes and No
I really dislike the soulless post processing filters that bloat games try playing any frostbite multiplayer game you'll want to take your eyes out
same goes for any recent game trillions of filters when instead games should shine through good texture work e.g. Stalker, Silent Hill, Metro those games still hold up today

best gen