←back to thread

1034 points decryption | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.22s | source
Show context
seabombs ◴[] No.44541090[source]
There's a term I read about a long time ago, I think it was "aesthetic completeness" or something like that. It was used in the context of video games whose art direction was fully realized in the game, i.e. increases in graphics hardware or capabilities wouldn't add anything to the game in an artistic sense. The original Homeworld games were held up as examples.

Anyway, this reminded me of that. Making these pictures in anything but the tools of the time wouldn't just change them, they'd be totally different artworks. The medium is part of the artwork itself.

replies(13): >>44541180 #>>44541815 #>>44541851 #>>44542274 #>>44542699 #>>44542899 #>>44542992 #>>44543278 #>>44543418 #>>44545440 #>>44547629 #>>44553341 #>>44557614 #
AndrewStephens ◴[] No.44543418[source]
I am not a game purist and modern games are just fine, but I do not see the point of AAA games employing 300 artists to model blades of grass that have no gameplay effect. Sure, the screen shots lot great but unless you are making GrassSimulator2000 it would have been better to use those resources for something else.
replies(3): >>44543656 #>>44543706 #>>44551118 #
1. noufalibrahim ◴[] No.44551118[source]
When id was pushing the envelope of technology (mid to late 90s) and creating more and more startling games, I remember thinking that none of them really had the appeal of many of the earlier games. And apparently Carmack thought that the story etc. of the game wasn't important. Reading masters of DOOM and watching my 8 year old play DOOM on an emulator made me reconsider. He had a jumpscare in a way that would have been impossible unless the game was so immersive and that is a technological feat. I do agree with you that one can go too far but it's not wholly a pointless side quest.