Looks like someone saw the original and didn't know what it meant
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
626 points (99.8% liked)
196
16423 readers
1698 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What’s the original?
The same general idea, with better wording. Not really sure what OP was trying to add. In my experience critics aren't demanding hyperrealism, and are the first to praise unique art styles.
At this point almost everyone is aware that unique art styles age way way better than hyper-realism.
The original phrasing is " I want shorter games with worse graphics, made by people paid more to work less and I'm not kidding".
The point is to highlight the abuses of the games industry, while advocating for better treatment of devs. This edit adds literally nothing to the conversation
"I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less and I'm not kidding."
I read this meme as making fun of those people. Some people on Twitter have pointed to the recent King Kong game as an example of the original meme being bad. "See what happens when you pay workers more to make a game with worse graphics? You get this." Those people didn't understand the original meme. I see this post as an edited version to exasperatedly respond to those people with.
the original was better
Dude I'm still okay with ps3 level graphics as long as it has more vibrant colors. Back then colors were always gray.
It's been a hot minute since I've touched my 360, but I wouldn't even call that era of graphics bad. GTA V and the original TLOF were 360/PS3 titles.
But you should also consider the fact that even though the color was not that great, imagine how people felt 75 years ago when they hadn't invented colors yet..
I hate to break it to everybody sharing either version of this, but... yeah, it's not the graphics.
I mean, it's also the graphics, but it's not just the graphics.
Shorter helps in narrative games, though. Shorter is easier. Makes for better games, too, IMO.
Dwarf Fortress is an amazing game.
But if something came along and duplicated the game play exactly, from the surface down to the very depths of the mechanics, and also had passable 3D graphics even just like Minecraft style it would be even better.
I'd rather have a polished 10 hour game than a buggy 50 hour game
Cool, that helps a bit, if they're both the same kind of game.
But just so we're clear, you can have a 10 hour game that results from abhorrent crunch over several years. Or that is super buggy and unpolished.
Personally, I find that there is no perfect length for all games. If it's a narrative game it's easier to pace a shorter game, sometimes, and it's often easier to at least see the end, at least.
Of course you can also make a game with no ending at all. I am less and less interested in narrative games as time goes on.
I'm a sucker for a good story or just brainless fun. For example, rdr2 story would've been fine for me even without the open world, the storyline drew me in. I also like rocket league cos big ball and explosions.
it's not about graphics, it's about visuals.
Rain world and Hollow Knight for example, they don't have ray tracing or whatever the fuck everyone wants now, but they look gorgeous
Great example. That Hollow Knight expansion-slash-sequel thing that was supposed to be a smaller thing has been delayed multiple times and has been in development for four years. I have no idea what's up behind the scenes, but it sure sounds grueling.
Seriously, it's not the graphics.
Hard agree. Especially when a no small amount of gameplay is "postgame content" so you're basically expected to rush an 50 hour playthrough to unlock extra features just so you can play the game, at which point you might have lost interest already. I'd rather complete a full playthrough of a shorter story that holds my interest to the very end, instead of playing a game that takes so long to finish that it feels like a pointless chore towards the end.
It's not the critics. The games are there, it's just thap people buy AAA games.
I'm fine with ps1 and N64 grade polygons as long as the gameplay is good. Hell, even 8-bit is fine in my book.
Pseudoregalia
Pseudoregalia is so unbelievably fucking good, my absolute favorite 3D Metroidvania. Very short (I beat it in I think 3 hours), only like $6, so I absolutely recommend everyone who even remotely likes games with fluid movement and who has a few dollars to spare go give it a try
my first playthrough was a little over 5 hours, then i immediately went back and beat it 2 more times, at a little under 3 and a little under 2 respectively
I hope the dev gets some serious mileage out of the engine they built because that game is one of the precious few that makes the act of 'getting from A to B' a hell of a lot of fun. The shmoovement is real.
There was no fence here but you built one anyway just so you could ride it.
Stop buying AAA games then?
Somewhere between [insert most beautiful game ever here] and Rise of Kong would be ideal lol.
I hope to think No Man's Sky falls into the non-abused devc category
Well Spider-Man 2 just released
Just recently replayed the No One Lives Forever series with my SO and it holds up so wildly well. Highly recommend, fun gameplay, low grind, excellent narrative storytelling. Slightly more grind for the second game, but still nothing like AAAs now.
From a promotional image one of those is easier to prove than the others