>The gamedev era is entering an age of minimal games, with games that have gameplay, that are played, games SHOULD NOT try to be on the bleeding edge of graphics, it's a big waste of money and developer work.
Preach it. Games like Battlebit and the resurgence of Boomer-Shooters (originals, remakes and clones) are proving this, and it's the perfect timing too, considering the GPU prices since the pandemic.
I guess people in the 90 also somehow fought against 3D games as being pointless compared to 2D games, but 3D games did bring cool things to gaming.
I am not against good content, good looking textures, good level design, something that looks pretty, but 3D games cant be pretty without millions of triangle and gigabytes of textures.
Even 144hz sounds pointless to me, since you need a very good eye notice the difference between 30 and 60hz.
It's already quite expensive to make 3D games, it would be nice for game developers to stop the GPU frenzy.
> Even 144hz sounds pointless to me, since you need a very good eye notice the difference between 30 and 60hz.
This is false by demonstration. I can tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz. The idea that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between 30hz and 60hz is preposterous.
I can say that from 144/165 to 240 or higher is barely noticeable.
Back when 240hz monitors were still gaining traction, I visited the Dell booth at ESL One 2018 and they had 2 monitors, side by side, one 144hz and one 240hz. The difference was barely noticeable, if any.
Maybe it was an old model and not as good as today's models, but I really don't think it's worth the premium price tag.
The jump from 60>75 is already very noticeable, from 60 to 144 is a big difference, unfortunately from 144 to 240 doesn't seem to be the case as the former example.
Yeaaah, the whole "you cannot tell" thing is demonstrably false and a mere rationalisation. The correct argument is: does not having this meaningfully detract from the experience. Does having 60hz instead of 144hz ruin Stardew Valley? Or Baldur's Gate 3? Probably not. It's only once you get into fast-paced and first-person games that it starts to become a disadvantage to not have these things.
For me it's the opposite. In fast paced games I have to concentrate more on gameplay and have no attention left to adore graphics, so my perception of graphics becomes schematic: enemies look like featureless hitboxes. In slow paced games I sometimes can allocate some attention to account for graphic details.
I think the reference was to the fact that with 144hz is possible to hit your target more easily as "demonstrated" by ltt. The experiment was pretty good though, so if you are playing competitive it might makes sense.
This isn't a matter of 3D vs 2D, just of graphical quality in general. The comment you're replying to mentions only 3D games, they just happen to be low-poly rather than attempt photorealism.
Preach it. Games like Battlebit and the resurgence of Boomer-Shooters (originals, remakes and clones) are proving this, and it's the perfect timing too, considering the GPU prices since the pandemic.