Why have video games stagnated in every technical aspect besides graphics?
Come to think of it why was the graphical leap from 2000-2007 so huge but the leap from 2010-2017 so minimal in comparison?
Why have video games stagnated in every technical aspect besides graphics?
Come to think of it why was the graphical leap from 2000-2007 so huge but the leap from 2010-2017 so minimal in comparison?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
They haven't stagnated technically. They've stagnated artistically.
lack of mous
Diminishing returns.
Peak graphics
you can only progress so much in AI before it becomes too difficult to enjoy
Diminishing returns in hardware development and optimization. Instead of just increasing the polygon count, graphics are now only "good" if they're extremely polished in terms of lighting, textures, and whatnot. It's often just not worth it.
That's a cute rabbit
>there is not a single company or developer out there right now content to work with current hardware and limitations and push the envelope from a narrative or gameplay perspective instead
why Sup Forums
...
>this is what normalfriends actually believe
what about textures
post more rattos
Thanks user this pic was the first thing to come to mind reading the thread I didn't have it.
Vastly diminishing returns on graphics, coupled with very limiting hardware on consoles, the main market. Stuff to push the envelope would be shit like proper voxel engines, actually simulative physics engines and other stuff that would make the ingame worlds way more interactive and breathing. Or using machine learning to create smart, adapting game worlds that react to your actions without the need of the devs to hardcode the view interactions they have time for. Or actually smart autogeneration of content, not in the shitty procedural meme way.
But that shit ain't happening because it's not flashy. It doesn't draw the mainstream in. A good looking screenshot and twenty seconds of scripted ingame footage does, who cares if the game runs at 22 FPS and dropping? The mainstream certainly doesn't.
Not artistically, creatively.
Because there's no money in it now that casuals have taken over the consumer side.
Have you forgotten that we are at the beginning of the VR gaming era? I'd say that's fairly revolutionary technology for gaming.
>They've stagnated artistically.
That's what happens when a medium starts trying to be artistic and progressive and political
Can we just agree they've stagnated in just about every way possible?
So called "VR" is just a screen infront of your eyes + Wii controllers. It's the same shit we had 10 years go with teleport bullshit, or nauseating using the gamepad for movement. It's not going to be anything worthwhile until it comes with a 3d treadmill type thing and becomes more polished overall.
You're looking at probably 50 years until that
VR won't take over until we have actually immersive, high resolution screens in the headset. As it stands, it's a funny novelty thing that's not good enough to draw most people to spend the cash on it or even more than a few hours of their time.
You'll also probably need some nerve-controller anime type shit to make the games truly playable. At that point it'd be revolutionary enough to actually have an impact.
VR is fucking dead you mong
Based Chris Roberts is our last hope for genuine innovation.
Because you dumb asses keep crying if a game is not photo-realistic
Because from inception literally nobody has ever cared about anything besides graphics, people don't want to play, people want to look. Why do you think the core theme of every console vs pc shitfest is "my shit looks better than your shit"
wasnt this shit debunked
...
>VR is fucking dead you mong
Absolutely uninformed
yeah but developers don't do that
because that's not how any engine works
What?
Actually yes.
It's impossible to create models this complex with modern game dev workflow. Every model goes through hundreds of versions usually.
>no game will have AI as good as F.E.A.R (2005) ever again