But you could also make the same argument about graphical fidelity, which has been pushed further and further for decades, greatly swelling the cost of production
But you could also make the same argument about graphical fidelity, which has been pushed further and further for decades, greatly swelling the cost of production
MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 1 day ago
Because it is an easy metric and looks good in trailers. Indie games prove again and again, that good games come from good gameplay and not from photo realistic graphics
samc@feddit.uk 1 day ago
I agree, but my point was that cost isn’t a sufficient explanation.
I think I particularly agree with @megopie@beehaw.org: one reason we see photo-realism instead of more stylised graphics is that it is more generic, and thus less dependent on a specific team.
The more artistic/creative your work, the less interchangeable your workers are.
megopie@beehaw.org 1 day ago
I hadn’t even thought about preferences for photorealism being a streamlining thing, but it does fit the idea.
I think it’s also a risk aversion thing as well. Few people will complain about a game looking realistic, so it’s very low risk from the point of view of publishers/investors/marketing. Most people will prefer a unique and stylized look that meshes with the game, but investors and marketing teams can’t be sure in any given case, so it’s written off as a risk.