Thread by @SmieGrin, So twitter is for personal thoughts to share with the public, right? [...]

So twitter is for personal thoughts to share with the public, right? Here are my personal opinions, thoughts, and feelings on the latest Unreal Engine Demo

I would like to lead by saying that what I saw of the demo was _very_ impressive. I'm a computer scientist by trade, so seeing how people can take complex information and process it within a strict memory and time budget will always fascinate me.

I'm also an artist, and I look forward to seeing the kind of works that the advances mentioned in the demo will allow people to produce. It's always frustrating to have an idea in your head that can't get out in the world because the tools aren't there, but maybe they are now.

I am met with concern, though, as someone who enjoys games. Not just as a pastime or as a rising spectator sport, but as a creative fusion of art and programming.

Demos like these are designed to show the full capabilities of something new so that the audience can understand what's now possible in the new medium. What I fear is that they can also lead to an idea that they demonstrate how things _should_ be.

Demos have to, by their nature, choose an ideal to move towards. In doing so, though, they also establish what they accomplish as an ideal.

This gamer is of the opinion that graphic super-fidelity should not be the ideal for games.

My thoughts are best summarized by a tagline I remember reading back when the Wii was new. Something along the lines of "Nintendo's intuitive gameplay is a pop to the eye of Sony and Microsofts Eye-popping graphics."

It is my experience that the power of entertainment and story telling within the context of a videogame derives from the player's interactions with that game, and any visuals, audio, ideas, or controls attached are simply meant to inform that interaction.

It doesn't matter if I'm watching the original Star Wars Trilogy on VHS or on Blueray, I'm having fun watching Luke grow in the force as he learns about himself and saves the galaxy! I'm enjoying the thrill of watching a fight unfold between good and evil.

For a game, it shouldn't matter if the player character is 16x16 pixels, 200 poly's, or an amalgam of 20 million poly's and half a dozen shaders. I'm stepping into another body for some fun, for an experience I couldn't otherwise enjoy or even know about.

And _occasionally_ that experience is "explore this beautiful world." That benefits greatly from high-fi graphics. But other experiences just don't.

Would the lessons on compassion and determination be any sharper in UNDERTALE if lighting could be rendered live at 120 frames per second?

Would Cave Story in 3D make a bigger blast out of crispy run-and-gun gameplay?

Would Oneshot be any more emotionally compelling and existentially engaging if Niko's scarf had realistic wind physics?

Would playing Super Smash Brothers in 4k finally let me get that 0-to-KO combo that I've practiced over and over again?

Lastly, and most importantly, would any of these games have been made at all if they had to keep up with the ideals of this demo? Furthermore, how many people would have been able to enjoy them at all?

Just as an example, I first played UNDERTALE on my 5-year old midrange laptop. If UT was even just 3D, I can't be sure that I would have been able to play it.

I'm gonna cut to the point because this thread is getting too long and preachy, I suspect.

My point is that seeing this eye-popping demo is cool for what we can do with graphics now, but I have a few values for games I play that I hope aren't left by the wayside.

tl;dnr

Graphics? Cool.

Will it run on what people have?
Will it tell a story worth hearing?
Are the graphics useful to the player's experience?

Can I make something valuable with this on my own, or is this just part of the corporate AAA hype machine?

And that's my hot take.

Latest Threads Unrolled: