The Linux GOTY Award 2019 is now open for voting

I don't play for score anymore, I don't play to win at a strategy board. I play for immersion. For fantastic experiences, gorgeous landscapes, excellent acting, touching characters, and a freedom to be and do what I want in a universe like the ones I see in the movies I love.
I don't sit on a machine capable of delivering me a holodeck experience just to play pong again. That's where you have me. Is that really something to patronise?

That was some brilliant writing. I am also from this time, also played games since PONG in "telejogo" circa 1979. And I also avoid small games like the Plague. And I am also angry at the developers that try and use Pixel Graphics as pretending "being artsy" instead of plainly saying it's the small budget. And I look for the same kind of experience as you, but never had read it explained so concisely and perfectly.

I guess I'm the counter point. I'm also from that era - I'll be fifty soon, but still gaming anywhere between 10 and 40 or so hours a week, depending on my social life. But most AAA titles last decade have bored me. For example, I loved the first two Nathan Drake titles on the Playstation, but only managed about 3 hours of the fourth. And the third was a drag from the midpoint on, although I completed it.

Similarly, I loved the first reboot of Tomb Raider, then played only about 4 hours of the second. I haven't bought the third yet, but likely will just to support Feral. It's not so likely that I'll invest much time in it.

Look at the candidates this year! Sure, we only have maybe four titles in that AAA bucket, but then there is:
SteamWorld Quest (beautiful hand-drawn graphics with intense card-based mechanic)
Supraland (stunning UE4 FPS)
Iron Marines (IronHide's usual high quality cartoon graphics and voice-acting)
Slay the Spire (hand-drawn cards, insane replayability)
Indivisible (fantastic animation work)
Pine (could almost be a Nintendo title, it's so pretty)
X4 Foundations (Massive, brave open galaxy sim/fighter)

...and I haven't even mentioned Streets of Rogue! :D

So I just don't get the negativity. I really don't!

I know the polls were open for items to add, but somehow I failed to add one of my favorite developer, which would be Shiro Games. The Evoland games were great. Northgard is so much fun (though very difficult). And their upcoming 2020 title looks really good as well.

I seriously considered nominating them for Northgard, which is one of my favorite games right now - however, having never played any other titles by them I chose to put other developers with multiple titles I enjoyed (Paradox and Arcen, though I was torn about Zachtronics). But Northgard is hands down my vote for best update, because Conquest was awesome.

at least to me this indie stuff is more interesting anyway because indie games feel like they at least have some soul

And that's your opinion, and one you are fully entitled to, of course. Just like I am entitled to mine. I respect your point of view. I'm glad for you. Cool! Enjoy the small games!

Your argument hinges on the absurd point that indie games would be small.
Small?!
Games like RimWorld, Stardew Valley, Dwarf Fortress, tons of Roguelikes, Atom RPG, Pathfinder, the list is endless .... they all have more depth, more gameplay to them than the majority of AAA titles combined.

I couldn't even spend more than 6 or so hours in the latest Tomb Raider as it was just so devoid of challenge, played itself for the most part (even went so far as to introduce skills that actively remove some of the gameplay that was left, now that's true AAA design) and was basically exactly like the one before.
Good port, though ;)

Meanwhile, something like Supraland with its singular vision and brillance in every detail didn't allow me to put it away from beginning to end.

Every once in a blue moon, a AAA title comes along that is actually more than just pretty to look at for a handful of hours and has something akin to actual challenge, creativity and good worldbuilding.
And it usually makes headlines when that happens.
But all the rest might as well just be a movie, because it is as deep as a pachinko machine. Just instant gratification in a Hollywood movie dress.

But I've been a gamer for four decades now. I have played Pong on coin-up arcades back when people still paid to play that black'n'white game with coloured transparent stickers to create an illusion of colour. It's not like I've never played anything but the flagships of today.

Quite the contrary. I've played sprite based 2D games for thousands of hours back when that were the bleeding edge technology - there wasn't anything else. I played games back when they had to make them unfairly hard just to make them last, as they could not write bigger programs, the machines would not tackle it.

So for me, to go back to that kind of software - low budget, short games, small team efforts, limited resources, limited everything - well, I played nothing but that for years.

This is so incredibly sad to read.
You were never interested in what games are actually about: Gameplay.
You just went running after the currently best possible method to lull your brain to sleep that was one step above just being a movie, weren't you?
Well, you finally got what you always wanted. Just not on Linux.

If you want to lull your brain to sleep with AAA graphics - because that is exactly what happens, your brain got nothing to do there as it doesn't need to fill any blanks, the more realistic the graphics get - well, that's your choice. But then why not just watch movies and series (or read books)? Those can focus on nothing more than "graphics" and acting and stories - which seem to be the most important things to you.

I always watch one or two episodes of some series before going to bed. Or a movie. It's nice. Shuts me right down and makes me ready to sleep. Just like most AAA titles would.
But why the hell would I want to do that for the rest of the day (well, the free time part, anyway)?

And I am also angry at the developers that try and use Pixel Graphics as pretending "being artsy" instead of plainly saying it's the small budget.

Not saying this is never true, as it sometimes is.
But nowadays, you can definitely go for more modern graphics with a small budget, too.
So I would argue that the majority of titles that do use Pixel Graphics or sprites do so not because of budget reasons but because they simply want to go with that style.

Because that's what it is, believe it or not: A style.
And a good one, too.

Since no amount of realistic graphics can ever replace the best renderer that ever was, is and will be: The space between our ears.
The early era (90s- early 2000s) had the incredible advantage of being restricted in graphical possibilities, and the solutions they came up with have advantages that are (thankfully!) being rediscovered today. And used for reasons other than technical or budget limitations.

Just like you still have all the classical instruments around, even though we now have the capabilities to do tons of other stuff electronically. They aren't "just old", they are different.

They spark the imagination, they are just more interesting to look at than "realistic plant and rock number 67632487", they make your brain go into (or stay in) active mode.
If I wanted high-end realism, I could spend my time hiking through the forest. No PC could beat that. Yet.
There is so much more a title like Ion Fury or Dusk offer to you (single-player-wise, anyway) than something like the last 10 Call Of Duties or abominations like the latest Wolfenstein would. It's a damn shame you are declining the offer.

Edit: Sorry if that all sounded too aggressive, but graphics-whorism always gets to me.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 February 2020 at 7:30 am UTC

oh my f***ing (no)god! I again discovered a pack of FOSS game (red eclipse2, wideland, zero-k, mindustry, wyrmsun)!!

Edit: Sorry if that all sounded too aggressive, but graphics-whorism always gets to me.

Then stop assuming everyone you disagree with are just whores. Cause what you released there was plain ignorant nonsense, hot air.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 8:48 am UTC

I think it's more a case of the attitude. We're a niche, a tiny one and nothing has changed on that. Seeing people repeat the "there's no AAA games" thing over and over again just gets tiring. We are where we are, a lot of us enjoying what we have.

fair point. I'm just sitting here, eagerly, worked up by the massive whirl around the "Steam Machines" a while back. It was a glimpse of what COULD have happened, had that thing been handled with enough focus while it was hot. The response from various devs and distributors demonstrated to us with no doubt that it *is* possible - had just Valve made the Steam Machine and pushed it on market the year after.
If only they did things in a different order - earned some experience with making hardware first and then launched the Steam Machine, then we quite likely would have been in an entirely different situation now.

But point taken.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 8:50 am UTC

I don't play for score anymore, I don't play to win at a strategy board. I play for immersion. For fantastic experiences, gorgeous landscapes, excellent acting, touching characters, and a freedom to be and do what I want in a universe like the ones I see in the movies I love.
I don't sit on a machine capable of delivering me a holodeck experience just to play pong again. That's where you have me. Is that really something to patronise?

That was some brilliant writing. I am also from this time, also played games since PONG in "telejogo" circa 1979. And I also avoid small games like the Plague. And I am also angry at the developers that try and use Pixel Graphics as pretending "being artsy" instead of plainly saying it's the small budget. And I look for the same kind of experience as you, but never had read it explained so concisely and perfectly.

I guess I'm the counter point. I'm also from that era - I'll be fifty soon, but still gaming anywhere between 10 and 40 or so hours a week, depending on my social life. But most AAA titles last decade have bored me. For example, I loved the first two Nathan Drake titles on the Playstation, but only managed about 3 hours of the fourth. And the third was a drag from the midpoint on, although I completed it.

Similarly, I loved the first reboot of Tomb Raider, then played only about 4 hours of the second. I haven't bought the third yet, but likely will just to support Feral. It's not so likely that I'll invest much time in it.

Look at the candidates this year! Sure, we only have maybe four titles in that AAA bucket, but then there is:
SteamWorld Quest (beautiful hand-drawn graphics with intense card-based mechanic)
Supraland (stunning UE4 FPS)
Iron Marines (IronHide's usual high quality cartoon graphics and voice-acting)
Slay the Spire (hand-drawn cards, insane replayability)
Indivisible (fantastic animation work)
Pine (could almost be a Nintendo title, it's so pretty)
X4 Foundations (Massive, brave open galaxy sim/fighter)

...and I haven't even mentioned Streets of Rogue! :D

So I just don't get the negativity. I really don't!

I'm not quite as... old ;) however I did grow up playing Amiga 600 and Sega Master System and the Mega Drive. Even games in the same genre, like pixel platformers and so on have come a very long way. Trying to play some of the classics... terrible controls for starters. My point, I also grew up with some ancient gaming and I also get highly bored of the majority of AAA games.

I think it's more a case of the attitude. We're a niche, a tiny one and nothing has changed on that. Seeing people repeat the "there's no AAA games" thing over and over again just gets tiring. We are where we are, a lot of us enjoying what we have.

fair point. I'm just sitting here, eagerly, worked up by the massive whirl around the "Steam Machines" a while back. It was a glimpse of what COULD have happened, had that thing been handled with enough focus while it was hot. The response from various devs and distributors demonstrated to us with no doubt that it *is* possible - had just Valve made the Steam Machine and pushed it on market the year after.
If only they did things in a different order - earned some experience with making hardware first and then launched the Steam Machine, then we quite likely would have been in an entirely different situation now.

But point taken.

Totally get that. I know developers who banked on Steam Machines, I myself had a fair bit riding on its success as the owner of this site. Imagine where GOL would be... still, things continue to progress in lots of ways and I've found so many fucking awesome games in the last year it's crazy we even get what we do at a 0.90% market share.

Edit: Sorry if that all sounded too aggressive, but graphics-whorism always gets to me.

Then stop assuming everyone you disagree with are just whores. Cause what you released there was plain ignorant nonsense, hot air.

Of which you did not counter a single point, so I am most likely simply right about you.
If someone by their own admission primarily cares about secondary attributes of games like graphics, then sorry, but those people are graphics whores. That's kind of the definition here.

But hey, despair not! I know many people who are proud of that status, for some reason.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 February 2020 at 9:36 am UTC

Of which you did not counter a single point, so I am most likely simply right about you.

Again an assumption. You are really eager at judging others, aren't you.
The problem is your attitude, it's not one I care to spend time on. Be a bit more inviting and not so full of attitude and you may establish an interesting conversation. I don't have a single thing against people with different perception on things than me. But I do have a thing against people that respond like you.

And quite frankly you already found the answers in the post you replied to, had you bothered reading it without already having made up your mind about your response.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 12:26 pm UTC

Seriously, can you name 5 quality AAA games released in 2019 that you "can't live without" and are not playable using WINE? I can't.

I agree! At least if we now only talk single player games.
Generally speaking I don't find many games worth playing each year. But then again - I don't need to when one game alone represent potentially hundreds of hours gaming time.

This year? What are the really cool AAA games we need? Well, there is Cyberpunk 2070 (the main reason i am keeping the Windows 10 partition), what else?

For me maybe the most anticipated game this year is Vampire Bloodlines. That game, if done right, has huge potential of being a GOTY this year. And the ingame videos so far are really¸really promising. It's SO great getting an action RPG that's not a cookie-cutter fantasy setting. Gothic modern day urban vampires... I mean how can that not be cool :)

And yeah Cyberpunk is of course practically guaranteed to be epic.

Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Skyrim SE, Deus Ex MD, the Tomb Raiders, the Far Cries, Grand theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption 2 and a few more. Some of them are native on Linux or playable under Wine+DXVK/Proton.

Indeed. And that is also why I said that I am happy we got Steam Play. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 2:51 pm UTC

Of which you did not counter a single point, so I am most likely simply right about you.

Again an assumption. You are really eager at judging others, aren't you.

An assumption in a sentence with "most likely"? Why yes, yes it is!
And one you continue to reinforce by evading all points made.
I am not one of those people who pretend judging others would be something bad. All of us judge everyone else (and ourselves) all the time, we do it since we walk around on this dirt heap. I'm merely as open about that as I am about anything else and do not care for initial handshaking to get a discussion started.

The problem is your attitude, it's not one I care to spend time on. Be a bit more inviting and not so full of attitude and you may establish an interesting conversation. I don't have a single thing against people with different perception on things than me. But I do have a thing against people that respond like you.

I have no interest in being inviting. My interest lies in speaking my mostly unfiltered mind and receiving an equal response.
Take it or leave it, but know that leaving it will only reinforce my "assumptions" about you - not that I could give you any real reason why you should even care about what a random online person thinks about you.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 February 2020 at 12:40 pm UTC

Take it or leave it, but know that leaving it will only reinforce my "assumptions" about you - not that I could give you any real reason why you should even care about what a random online person thinks about you.

Like I said, you have your answers to that in the first post you replied to. There is no reason for me to repeat that.

Don't suppose we can stop the grumbling at each other and move more back into discussion territory?

Good suggestion.

My own view of course is that I think more people should try spend extra time on indie gaming, just to expand their experience.

That (imo of course) is actually the only solid argument *for* our lack of "headliner" games. There are indeed games I discovered "out of boredom" in the period before Steam Play were launched. But I hate to admit it (seriously, I do), while entertained I was only so for a relatively short period of time. There was too much lacking for me to really find them to be worth extended investment of time.

And it wasn't only because they were too small/basic/retro (pick your adjective :) ). I miss the layer of polish that high budget games have. They are simply more professionally made, created by experienced designers and it obviously makes a difference.

And no, I do not now talk about graphics (in fact there's plenty indie games with great visuals - I'm not one that demand "realistic" graphics at all, and rate artistic style much higher than the number of polygons or the visual effects).
No, the polish I talk about is on all the other things. The hundreds of little components that makes out a game. Everything from an intuitive interface to a well thought out tutorial to fluid mechanics, responsiveness, camera control, map design, every other little thing that isolated doesn't mean all, but each on their own adds up.

And THEN, on top of THAT, we can start talking about content: Voice acting, scripting, story line, animations, cut scenes, visuals, audio, network play, size of player base (in multi-player), freedom of movement, character creation, etc.

And the closer we conceptually get to the big budget games I love, the more the indies falls behind. With today's engines "anyone" can make a sleek twin stick shooter. But if you seek open worlds to explore, then the indie scene don't have much to offer at all. We got 7 Days 2 Die (who is a great game by the way). But that's about it.

There's a reason why those games are built by the large developers. It takes a hell of a lot of manpower to create something adequate. Again, not just in regards to graphics, but in regards to sheer content. Map design. Story lines. Assets. Scripting. Mechanics. It's a massive endeavour.

There are some attempts at this from small developers - and I believe I own a good share of them (Planet Explorers springs to mind as a hugely ambitious example) - but I am sorry to say they all fell short. Some adorable attempts, especially when we talk about a team of 2-3 guys or even solo projects - and I can totally see what they try to do, but it just doesn't cut it. It's too big of a task.

(btw: When I talk about "AAA" I don't mean the strict meaning of only games from devs owned by the big distributors. From that definition CD Project Red was an indie. Obsidian would be an indie. I essentially talk about the games created by larger developers, backed by high budgets.)


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2020 at 9:13 pm UTC

Funnily enough, I get Beamboom's point about AAA not just being graphics. That's spot on. For me though, what make's a game "AAA" is many things, but often (for me, as I say), hinges upon good acting. Voice acting, or movements in game. Not many indies get this right.

Some do though. Games like Mark of the Ninja, or An Elysian Tale have this in spades, but are from small outfits. Similarly, the Windows-only games from Spearhead Studios are indie but have IMMENSE story telling, voice acting, movement and polish - both Stories: Path of Destiny and the "sequel" (it's not really) Omensight are just amazing because of this, but of course, they'll never get true "AAA" categorisation. Both play near-perfectly in SteamPlay btw - the former is platinum, the latter should be platinum, but needs the media foundations installed to play the tutorial thumbnail videos sadly. It's a 20 second fix to install it, but pretty infuriating that Spearhead adopted such a shitty technology... for a sequel!! Both are still well worth playing though.

Wow, Favourite long-term supported game is a hard category to pick!

I miss the layer of polish that high budget games have. They are simply more professionally made, created by experienced designers and it obviously makes a difference.

And no, I do not now talk about graphics (in fact there's plenty indie games with great visuals - I'm not one that demand "realistic" graphics at all, and rate artistic style much higher than the number of polygons or the visual effects).
No, the polish I talk about is on all the other things. The hundreds of little components that makes out a game. Everything from an intuitive interface to a well thought out tutorial to fluid mechanics, responsiveness, camera control, map design, every other little thing that isolated doesn't mean all, but each on their own adds up.

This is just straight up bullshit, and disrespectful of the skill demonstrated by some indies. Just because a game has a larger budget doesn't make it more "professional" or more polished.

As a random example off the top of my head: Shovel Knight. Anyone can cobble together a basic 2D platformer, but designing a game of Shovel Knight's quality takes genuine skill. Coming up with novel obstacles that one might take for granted as a player is not easy, nor is designing levels that are challenging but fair. It takes real creativity, and real design skill.

I would argue that Shovel Knight is actually better than a lot of the games that inspired it, and that's because Yacht Club didn't just haphazardly throw down tiles or blindly mimic what came before. They're not just quaint hobbyists dicking around. They're skilled professionals with a deep understanding of game design, who applied that knowledge to create a product that was highly polished.

It's fine if games like Shovel Knight don't interest you, but it is undeniably exceptionally well-crafted, and just as "professional" and polished as any AAA game.

And THEN, on top of THAT, we can start talking about content: Voice acting, scripting, story line, animations, cut scenes, visuals, audio, network play, size of player base (in multi-player), freedom of movement, character creation, etc.

You said your issue wasn't with indies being "too small/basic," but you're talking about scope here. And again, it's totally fine if you prefer games with more to them. But just because a game has a larger scope doesn't mean it's better, or more professional, or more polished. It just means it's bigger.

This is just straight up bullshit, and disrespectful of the skill demonstrated by some indies. [...]As a random example off the top of my head: Shovel Knight.

(my bolds)

Sigh. I had a feeling this would come. I was about to write one more disclaimer but felt I'd written a long enough post as it were. But here goes:

I am obviously now talking about the big picture. The general situation. There's always exceptions, the world is not black/white.
It's very easy to come up with examples of small games that does a particular thing well. There's also plenty, plenty!, examples of big budget productions gone horribly wrong on pretty much every single aspect of the game. Oh good grief, the examples stand in line.

It's also quite symptomatic that an indie game does some parts well, but are very weak on others. A direct consequence of being so few on the project. But the small scope concepts, like puzzlers, platformers, are often done well. Perfect genre for a small developer to create.
And you got the ultra rare exceptions that turns out to be pure pieces of interactive art. Like Flower from Thatgamecompany. But those are few and far between.

I purchased The Pedestrian yesterday. A real charmer of a game. Excellent visual idea. Smooth execution. Will be fun for an hour or two. All good. But at the core of this game lies a very small scope. It's just another small puzzler. It just looks really good.

Generally speaking, the tendency is that the bigger the scope of the game is the harder the small developers will fail. Because, at the end of the day a large scale game totally depends on having enough competence and manpower behind it.
And that, inevitably, costs.

But yes, of course there exist small games that does what it does well. I mean... Come on.


Last edited by Beamboom on 4 February 2020 at 11:27 am UTC

I think it is fair to say that in general, the majority of games are not well done.
No matter what industry or kind of skill you talk about, people who are truly good at what they do, the top of the class if you will, are in the minority. Thus, it is only natural that the majority of products in any sector is not good - while the few that are good crystallize and become apparent over time.

The thing is just that there are a lot more indie than AAA games, and with that naturally also comes a larger number of good indie games compared to very few good AAA games.

AAA games have the advantage of being shiny on the surface level - and many players rarely look further than the surface when it comes to games.

I'd compare it to cinema - are all the movies that are most successful also the best movies? Certainly not.
They are just good popcorn cinema. Won't demand much from your audience, will show quite a spectacle on the screen, people leave with a good feeling (well, if the movie wasn't downright terrible) while not really being richer in any meaningful way and having no thought provoked.
Truly great movies rarely achieve a high level of success, even though some certainly do, often over time.

I don't think there's anything wrong with popcorn cinema, and I'm definitely mostly a popcorn cinema viewer.
My standards when it comes to cinema or movies in general are a lot lower than when it comes to games.
But I'd never even get the idea of saying that large scale cinema movies are better than their lower-budget counterparts in any way other than surface-level bling.
Quite the opposite, actually. In true artistic value, not a single movie by Marvel comes close to anything put out by Von Trier, for example. I watched Antichrist once and it still finds its way into my thoughts every now and then - that sure won't happen with a Marvel movie.

It is very, very similar with gaming.
Just that indie games are a lot easier to access and consume than indie movies and therefore can find a potential audience more easily.

It's also quite symptomatic that an indie game does some parts well, but are very weak on others. A direct consequence of being so few on the project.

The parts that indie games do well are the parts most important to any game, those related to gameplay, to whatever the core of the game is.

The parts that they don't usually do well in are art and, to some degree, audio. And I'm not talking about high-end effects or models here, those have nothing to do with art quality. What's important about quality game art is its consistency and (usually) variance. That's where many indies fail to various degrees, and not always because of budget.

Just to make it clear, I'm talking about good indie games here; that bad ones fail at what they do is kind of a given.

AAA on the other hand focuses on high-end art and audio - because that's what will rake the cash in big time, with the casual audience. While gameplay, if things went well, is serviceable at best. Which is kind of funny, because great gameplay can be achieved by very few people and is thus actually much cheaper than high-end art which requires lots of manpower.
A AAA game that is also truly good or even great in gameplay and not just a boring rehash of things devoid of challenge and creativity?
Dark Souls comes to mind. I'm struggling to name more.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 4 February 2020 at 12:58 pm UTC

It's not a method to lull our brain to sleep. Is to make things believable. Ever heard of suspension of disbelief?

Absolutely.
And there is absolutely no problem in suspending my disbelief if the graphics are consistent and well implemented. If they are realistic or not is rather irrelevant.
Because I'm actually using my imagination. Not actively, mind you, like most things mind-related, it happens "in the background".

If you want to lull your brain to sleep with AAA graphics - because that is exactly what happens, your brain got nothing to do there as it doesn't need to fill any blanks, the more realistic the graphics get - well, that's your choice.

So, making the brain tired with artificial, non-believable graphics is something you enjoy? Curious. I'd think they get in the way of enjoyment, not somehow improve it.

You're not painting a very optimistic picture of your brain if a bit of imagination is already tiring it.
The brain is like a muscle, excercise it. It is not too late (assuming you are not 60-70+ and the cells are actually decaying).

I continually use it from working to learning a language to playing games that require actual thought and imagination - and I'm not having tiredness problems with any of it.
Of course I rest it, too. Rest is important. I usually do it before going to bed, helps with sleeping.

because you are not even first-person (except for Hardcore Henry, a truly amazing flick).

I see a pattern forming here.
First person makes immersion a lot easier, no doubt about it.
But it isn't the only thing allowing it, it can be done with pretty much any perspective.

Though I do agree that was maybe not the best example. Series and movies are almost exclusive watching someone else do stuff, you are not the protagonist.

Simple graphics .... They instead offer you a simplified, flat version of what you would be supposedly interacting with -- a token of an entity, and not by any means an attempt at a convincing exposition.

Exactly. And everything they do not show you, every thing lacking to complete the "picture" and form a non-flat version of what you are seeing, all of that is done by your imagination.

At no time you have to really imagine something, but if you really had -- like in those games made for blind people, with sounds alone, where you have to use the imagination all the time -- it would likely be a bad, tiresome game, at some point you would really demand to see the monster, or whatever that is it should offer.

So you acknowledge that your brain goes active if it is presented with a lack of information.
Good, that is correct. That's how brains work, filling the gaps and completing patterns is what we're really good at. Especially if trained correctly.
But retro graphics are full of a lack of information. The only difference between something like an audio-only game and something with a simple graphical style is the amount of information lacking.
Your brain doesn't care, it becomes active either way, the only difference is in how active it has to become.

You don't have to take my word for it. I would seriously recommend reading some books about how brains work, or at least what we know so far.
We got recommended these two in a completely random course at my "vocational school" (not sure what the correct translation would be) years ago, or at least older printing of these:
https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Mind-How-Brain-Works/dp/0393974464
https://www.amazon.com/Imagination-Understanding-Minds-Greatest-Power/dp/1643132032

Though I didn't finish the latter, to be honest, it was a bit "out there" with its excourses into psychology.
Edit: The latter one says it was released in 2019. Uhm... I'm either mixing it up with another one with a similar name or they got the dates wrong.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 5 February 2020 at 6:55 am UTC