Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Games made to make money instead of games made to have fun. Almost every big budget game of the last two decades has been at BEST a lazy sequel now with more microtransactions.
Indie games are still fun, but big budget gaming is a corporate hellscape equivalent of walking in to Walmart when all you want is a grocery store that sells actually edible food.
I still game but I feel this. I haven't bought a AAA game in a long time. It's all fewer and fewer features and details wrapped in shiny graphics using copypasta code from 20 years ago. All the big studios got bought by entities whose only concern is driving up share value, run by people who don't even play games. Capitalism ruins everything.
To add to this, indie games can be a nightmare if you don't have great hardware.
I had a low end graphics card in my PC for a few years because I rarely gamed. I looked at some indie games to see if I wanted to get back in to gaming with a low priced game first, so that it didn't matter too much if I didn't like it. There were loads of games that had late 90s style graphics, that looked like the platformers I used to play, but they needed quite high end specs to run, especially the graphics.
That put me off looking at indie games for quite a while. Something that looks worse than my SNES asking for at least a 1080 seemed wrong.
Yea, some are definitely made by amateurs, but there are many that don't need crazy hardware, too.
The reason the big budget games look good is because full time artists and full time optimization of assets is a whole-ass job many indie teams won't have the budget for. Creating art is one thing. Making it render efficiently is a whole other ball game.
Game engines are getting better at helping small teams, though. Unreal Engine has quite a large suite of tools just for cleaning up and generating lower detail models and baking in vertex/parallax mapping, adding culling planes to maps so it doesn't render the whole thing at once, etc. It is a HUGE task to take good looking assets and also make them render quickly. Especially if they avoid something with tons of provided tools like UE. Then they have to do all that optimization in other ways or just skip it.
In the SNES days, everything had to be optimized. Nowadays, you don't need to optimize anything because most people have hardware that's overkill for that era of gaming. Even the engines are probably geared towards hardware that the "average" Steam user has.
That's a good point, and it's a shame that it's correct. There seems to be a load of games that could run on a SNES if they were optimised, but need a proper gaming PC instead.