If you’re sick of massive AAA developers running cash grabs, my suggestion is stop patronizing their games until they get their sh*t together. An excellent alternative if you’re looking for a fun FPS game is Battle-Bit Remastered. I personally love this game, and there is a long running joke that the three guys that made this basically shat on the AAA developer world when they released a full featured FPS for $15 that is enjoyable and has 0 micro transactions.
I totally respect what they’ve done, and I admittedly am not a Call of Duty player, but Roblox graphics are an instant turn off for me and I really don’t think the general CoD player base is going to be drawn in by it either. If there was a graphics pack that made it look modern and zero percent like Roblox I might be able to get into it, but not as it is.
I’ve played some surprisingly good games with untextured polygons.
Star Fox
Race the Sun
Carrier Command 2
That’s not to say that you couldn’t take the same games and make a flashier version that I wouldn’t like more, but I do kind of think that it forces the developers not to use glitz as a crutch. Like, if you’re going to make a game with untextured polygons and sell it, you are going to have to have solid gameplay.
Another benefit is that it’s easier to revise a game if you haven’t committed a lot of expensive assets into particular game design decisions. I think that a long, iterative development process with gameplay revisions is probably a good thing for gameplay.
I kind of wish that one could more-frequently get commercial “HD” DLC for small-budget games, like indie pixel-art games. I think that low-res pixel art is a good way to reduce asset costs, let the player’s brain fill in a lot of the detail, but if a game does turn out to be successful and I like it, I’d like to be able to also get a more-detailed version. That way, I’m only paying for assets on games with good gameplay.
I’ve seen a small handful of games do that, but it’s definitely not the norm.
If you’re sick of massive AAA developers running cash grabs, my suggestion is stop patronizing their games until they get their sh*t together. An excellent alternative if you’re looking for a fun FPS game is Battle-Bit Remastered. I personally love this game, and there is a long running joke that the three guys that made this basically shat on the AAA developer world when they released a full featured FPS for $15 that is enjoyable and has 0 micro transactions.
I totally respect what they’ve done, and I admittedly am not a Call of Duty player, but Roblox graphics are an instant turn off for me and I really don’t think the general CoD player base is going to be drawn in by it either. If there was a graphics pack that made it look modern and zero percent like Roblox I might be able to get into it, but not as it is.
I’ve played some surprisingly good games with untextured polygons.
Star Fox
Race the Sun
Carrier Command 2
That’s not to say that you couldn’t take the same games and make a flashier version that I wouldn’t like more, but I do kind of think that it forces the developers not to use glitz as a crutch. Like, if you’re going to make a game with untextured polygons and sell it, you are going to have to have solid gameplay.
Another benefit is that it’s easier to revise a game if you haven’t committed a lot of expensive assets into particular game design decisions. I think that a long, iterative development process with gameplay revisions is probably a good thing for gameplay.
I kind of wish that one could more-frequently get commercial “HD” DLC for small-budget games, like indie pixel-art games. I think that low-res pixel art is a good way to reduce asset costs, let the player’s brain fill in a lot of the detail, but if a game does turn out to be successful and I like it, I’d like to be able to also get a more-detailed version. That way, I’m only paying for assets on games with good gameplay.
I’ve seen a small handful of games do that, but it’s definitely not the norm.
Maybe AI upscaling will help.
It’s funny because it’s true.