nanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksM to Games@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · edit-24 days agoVideo Games can't afford to look this goodwww.nytimes.comexternal-linkmessage-square40fedilinkarrow-up163arrow-down15file-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up158arrow-down1external-linkVideo Games can't afford to look this goodwww.nytimes.comnanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksM to Games@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · edit-24 days agomessage-square40fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squarebrsrklf@jlai.lulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 days ago In the early 2000’s we had “beautiful” games (aka the most advanced graphics that technology could afford) but games were fun. You only remember the good ones. There has always been a lot of games that look good or even impressive, but play like crap. Today there are still critically acclaimed games that happen to look good too. They’re a tiny minority, but it’s always been like that.
You only remember the good ones. There has always been a lot of games that look good or even impressive, but play like crap.
Today there are still critically acclaimed games that happen to look good too. They’re a tiny minority, but it’s always been like that.