Lower graphic quality in video games? Yes, please – the daily wildcat

It was not too long ago when the top-of-the-line video game graphics were two white lines that bounce off a ball from one side of the screen to the other. Since then we have steadily developed from the pixel -like style of old arcades to advanced models that look more and more indistinguishable from reality. It is impressive, breathtaking, something that amazes people with anticipation in the kind of games that we could play in just a few years.

When a new free roam game conquers the internet in the storm and the players post screenshots of their great adventures and things that impress them about the game, they may see close-ups of a small detail that would normally overlook the eye. Something like the leaves on a tree, the springs on a bird or the texture of the water. Fans always praise the worthy efforts that the developers put into these tiny things.

However, when I see these details, I sometimes can't stop looking at them confused. If these details were so small that they would otherwise overlook, why should they make additional efforts?

When video games are advanced, you need additional everything to do the job. A larger team, more time, more money – and to better process the end of the player. A larger environment will need greater efforts to achieve this. Advanced consoles or PCs are becoming increasingly the only thing that newer video games with the top-of-the-line graphics are involved Some titles be exclusively for the next generation consoles. In combination with the price increases, which are associated with the introduction of more people and the development in the direction of advanced graphics, partly responsible for the regular counter -reaction towards the production companies that we see online about how video games cost so much. In recent years, 70 US dollars have started to become a normal price for big games.

However, money is not the only costs that arise when a game makes the most attractive visuals for their top priority during development. Instead, all of these necessary efforts could be directed to provide more meat and more content for the game itself. This could not mean more not -player characters in one place to do more action suddenly, to do more quests for players -and with it something that takes longer to complete what it takes, which it does to something that a player can always return in his free time. More for the money.

After all, video games survived many years with graphics that we now see as outdated, and they contain many good games that have survived the test of the time. It was obviously not the graphics that made a classic a classic, it is the game itself. It obviously appears that player should make it a top priority to offer an entertaining experience before you usually want the eyes.

The way we play video games has progressed a lot since the Arcade era, and that is a fact that everyone would like. However, I think that our priorities for what we should advance are wrongly placed. Graphics are really just something to make their game pretty and conspicuous, and they no longer give the players of what they really want. I would rather play a game with a rich story and graphics that can be described as good enough than a game that tries to make the jump to be flawless and visually groundbreaking.

For me it seems to be a simple trade: chunky leaves on the virtual trees in exchange for more history. Unpolished birds in the sky exchanged more characters with which they could interact. Imperfect water flow if it means that a less advanced device can do it without any problems.

Why are more striking if you can be more fun?

Follow The Wildcat every day To Instagram And Twitter/x

Ian Stash is a junior who studies journalism at the University of Arizona. In his free time he loves video games and chill with his cats.