| Gaming was always an expensive hobby. But this - > Budgets for games are skyrocketing, graphics requirements are skyrocketing Is unrelated. AAA Gaming companies relied so heavily on technical improvements when things were new and genuine leaps in ability that when we hit the graphics are good enough instead of just making great games that are fun, they had to do stupid graphics tricks. Did every strand of hair need to be individually rendered to act as real as possible so the one guy who is dissecting ever frame would be happy?
Did that horses scrotum need to be animated at all, let alone react to the environment?
Did that thing that basically no one will ever see need to be created over the course of 9 months? These stupid, pointless things to try and chase the same technical breakthrough selling points they had 25+ years ago are one of the major things driving the development costs. Then of course there's the, 'ya whatever, you'll still pay for it, fuck you'[1] that publishers are latching on to. [1]https://youtu.be/vBG3OYSa3YQ?t=50 |
I understand that maybe pixel graphics games can be really mindful and charming, but sometimes the AAA games have not only tech, but all the rest too.
Not that it's a sure thing. I also recall roger ebert reviewing transformers: revenge of the fallen
"Of course there will be many more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive (more than $200 million)."
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/the-fall-of-the-reven...
but the funny part is about climax.