I really don’t game. And so yeah. It is odd for me as when I look for a laptop, for example, I want a 16 inch, without a gpu. I do text and VNC. Please sir, may I have more screen?
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
74 points (85.6% liked)
Casual Conversation
1688 readers
122 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ironically advanced graphics processing is likely what shortened the life of my last device.
sounds like PC gamers should fire up an Amiga emulator and learn what gameplay could be.
I do this sometimes. Emulators are the best. I wish game companies would use them as a cue to revive the concept of having events around games they consider far in the past.
When you say graphics...
I'm my opinion games, like movies or comics are a form of medium for sharing ideas, feelings, escapism or enjoyment. Graphics can be good without being realistic, I think it's art not realism that matter so we may have to have a semantic argument about the terms 'graphics'. We all remember those 8 bit games that brought us joy. Just finished playing Dave the Diver, a modern game in pixel at form, which conveyed so much feeling and care that I was moved by so much of it.
You're not the only one, realise that it's just a means of covering thought or feeling and worry less about the realism.
I thought graphics meant anything that has to do with visual representation. Like when I look at the graphics for Pokémon Gold/Silver versus the graphics for Pokémon Heartgold/Soulsilver, I think of the complexity.
Ghost Recon, Ravenfield, Battlebit etc are shooters with simple graphics. Ghost Recon was from constraints of its time (2001 release) but Ravenfield and Battlebit could be way more photorealistic (like Squad) but chose not to. And I like that. In shooters you want good visuals if you can but having consistent performance is a bigger deal than some other games. I don't care about frame rate stutters in a turn based game like X-Com for example.
Speaking of turn based, one of the graphically simplest games I've playes recently is Armored Commander II. It is very very basic graphically (think dwarf fortress or intellivision) and I shit you not it is more immersive than it has any right to. The graphics and display info gives you juuuust enough info to set your imagination into overdrive to fill in the rest.
When your Sherman is almost out of ammo, bogged down in a muddy field and taking fire from enemy tanks in a nearby farm the actual graphics don't really matter so much
I think I remember that one from one of the Jampack discs. Good times.
While there are many fans of pixel art and low poly 3D, majority of gamers actually want high fidelity graphics. There are very few indie success stories with low quality VFX like Stardew Valley and pretty much no AAA games like that. Games like No Man's Sky won't be such hits if they were made in pixel art.
The reality is that it's not that games with good graphics are bad, it's that you can't afford RTX4090 and a QD OLED 4K monitor. There are plenty of great games with awesome graphics, it's time for you to upgrade.
It's not that I don't care at all about visuals, but I look at a machine like the Nintendo Switch, which currently hosts a number of Pokemon games in complete 3D and two enormous open world Zelda games, and I think how cool it would be if the graphics went back to 8-bit (like they were for the first Zelda and Pokemon games) and they used all that data to make a bigger world, which could now be literally a hundred times larger, and while they were at it maybe put in MMORPG functionality. If they could replicate the whole country of Denmark in a Minecraft server, they could replicate the whole world in something that sacrificed some of the visual advancements. It feels weird we're increasing our capacity for data power only to waste it all more and more as it progresses.
Again, No Man's Sky is an example where nothing is sacrificed.
yeah, but I assume you are a terminal nerd and not a normie. I kinda feel same like you however I do so because I can't afford a graphic card. I wonder if someone has already made a text based open world game.
plus it also depends on your age. I assume you are a old and don't like new stuff. but graphics has it's own place. eg, you can play plain minecraft and you play minecraft with realistic graphics mod. you will find a huge difference.
I'm 24 and do like new stuff, I just think of visual appeal as secondary. Imagine if the same processing power for one 3D Pokémon world powered all the Pokémon worlds in two dimensions.
2D Pokemon games are really great. I used to play Pokemon firered in a potato mobile phone for hours and hours. even though It didn't have great graphics it was fun. I agree with you that some games can be really good in 2D too. however modern games like COD and GOW has their own place.
TIL you can play Pokémon Firered on a phone.
Oh man, you are gonna love emulators.
I have one, just didn't know any were phone-compatible like that.
load more comments
(3 replies)