this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
229 points (100.0% liked)
Games
21115 readers
530 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
- Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review. :silly-liberator:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I remember the first time I saw Doom on the SNES. It was the most realistic thing I'd seen a computer render, the equivalent of playing the latest FPS game. Then I got a Nintendo 64 and Super Mario was the most realistic thing I've seen. Each successive generation of game has been both the most realistic thing I've seen and the theoretical limit of realism for computer graphics. Something makes me unable to imagine a higher level of fidelity than 2024 releases without it just becoming haptic sensors, and if I see a female character in that 2024 game it's as realistic as a body can get. While I didn't play Tomb Raider because CDs were obnoxious, I remember the characters in Golden Eye and Perfect Dark being vaguely attractive to a child who had never seen a naked woman.
We've reached a point where the major bottleneck on realism isn't the hardware you run on, it's the size of your dev team and the amount of time you spend working on your graphics. That's part of why triple ayyyyyyyyyy games are so much more expensive to make than they need to be, because they're throwing money at diminishing returns and they always have to outdo the last game that came out.
Halving the size of the triangles each generation eventually hits a point where the difference is negligible.