pull down to refresh

(From the NYTimes via archive.is. If you want the fancy graphics at the top, here's the original link.)
Really good piece at how the high cost of graphics is in conflict with what the majority of game players actually care about. One bit that stood out is just how much filmed/passive content there is in these games now:
In 2007, the first Assassin’s Creed provided more than 2.5 hours of footage for a fan edit of the game’s narrative. As the series progressed, so did Ubisoft’s taste for cinema. Like many studios, it increasingly leaned on motion-capture animators who could create scenes using human actors on soundstages. A fan edit of Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla, which was released in 2020, lasted about 23 hours — longer than two seasons of “Game of Thrones.”
Studios believe that realism creates greater player immersion, but to me that kind of reasoning is completely wrong... gameplay has to be the main focus. Some Indie games are so good and deliver such a pleasant experience, and with a low budget that they should serve as an example for the gaming industry.
reply
I totally agree. One of my favorite games/series is Mount and Blade, which has great open world mechanics and really good simple fighting controls, but only decent graphics.
reply
My favorite one is the one set during the revolutionary war
reply
more focus on gameplay and story, graphics whores will always be a thing tho
reply
I remember the computer games I used to play had cool cinematic. Diablo 1 had them, then they got better in Diablo 2. Starcraft had them, now that I think about it.
reply