>>13449584Me again.
HOKAY... so in short, technology hasn't actually increased as much as you might think, what has increased is how pretty things can be.
So, we are working with a very very limited budget as it pertains to CPUs, but no so with GPUs.
This is where things get fucked and why games these days suck ass: They are too complicated and superficial at the same time. This requires explanation.
Because everything CAN be pretty, it MUST BE in order to compete from a marketing standpoint. PRETTY equates into QUALITY as it pertains to the customer base.
So, you want a pretty UI with bubbly and responsive menus? The thing that drives the UI costs CPU. Lets compare that to PKMN, GEN1/2/3, they didn't have a pretty UI with bouncy text... it was spartan utilitarianism. Black arrow pointing at shit, pretty much "what the fuck do you want boss" attitude.
So want to have your character fly around in a jetpack, because it looks cool and stuff? Not quite as easy to do for that poor cpu to do as just moving your character over one slot like in pkmn.
So, want cool animations for your cool attack? Most animations are driven from the CPU (gpu is not impossible, but kinda ganky at the moment, sort of a budding technology). What was your pkmn sprite shaking to show attacking, now has bone simulated 3d models.
Pretty much if you take anything that a game does and compare that to pkmn, what is left over, a good portion of that costs CPU time.
This all results in less stuff being able to be done on the CPU worth a damn, and it was already a fucking stretch as it was with simple games.
I think that is the major contributor. Some other notable points are: No refunds on crap games, more depth costs more money and results in less shareholder profits, if gpu technology was shit (as it was back in the day) then you really have to give your player an experience but if everything is movie quality and flashy then you can sell games with virtually no depth or challenge.
