- 0 Posts
- 7 Comments
“devs too focused on making a game pretty instead of fun” is talking about making the art photorealistic with fancy hair engines and such, when doing so doesn’t add meaningfully to the experience and only serves to needlessly complicate development and inflate the cost.
We can tell that making all these 3D models and animations is a problem for the devs because they’ve said so repeatedly. They’ve even said they can’t have every Pokemon in the same game as a result. Instead of the lovely pixel art of FRLG we have a mish-mash of dead-eyed, poorly-animated cartoons with PSP-quality “realistic” terrain that grate against each other. And for what? Why do 3D when you can only do 3D so poorly?
None of that makes any sense. An old book and a new book aren’t different in the way a rotary phone and a smartphone are. They are functionally the same object: text on paper.
You could have, for example, a story about someone stranded on an island, and the era it was written in would make almost no difference at all because technology doesn’t have any bearing on the story, and we haven’t changed as a species. The culture of the author would influence things, but that’s true even of media today since we don’t all share the same culture.
Old media can also be very illuminating when it does affect the story because it can teach you something about the era in which it was made. You might think to yourself, “Gosh, people used to be able to feed and house their families on a single paycheck? Why can’t we do that today?”
And yeah, having stuff in black and white is less visually interesting, but I’m not going to rule out something I might find enjoyable just because of that. I watched quite a few old sitcoms in my childhood that I enjoyed just as much as the modern cartoons, and I still enjoy some of those cartoons today alongside modern TV.
Do you think the Home Alone sequels are better than the original?
Maybe he should get Mexico to pay for it.