Why All of Our Games Look Like Crap
There is a big gap between &quot;crap&quot; and AAA for sure. But think about this (in today&#x27;s time):<p>* Half Life 2 looks like crap<p>* Fallout 3 looks like crap<p>* Actually any game from more than a few years back, looks like crap<p>But any of those are hopelessly out of reach for any Indie developer even with today&#x27;s tools.<p>There is real AAA from earlier days, that still looks good these days, like:<p>* Battlefield 3<p>* Crysis 2<p>* Call Of Duty Modern Warfare<p>* etc.<p>But these games have among the highest budget in history of game development and a respectable revenue stream...<p>What the author is trying to say is that most people think most games looks like crap (I think so too). There is no point in making AA games (let&#x27;s assume he didn&#x27;t mean actual AAA games) as an Indie developer, because people will still think your game looks like crap. And those people who don&#x27;t (I for instance really like SNES games still), will also be satisfied with the art he can create.<p>Let&#x27;s look at Anno 1602 vs. Anno 1800. This is more in the domain of the author. I really like both games and I have to say, Anno 1800 has AMAZING graphics. But the game gets boring after playing it one time to the Investor level... Anno 1602 has graphics that you can probably manage as an Indie developer these days (since you don&#x27;t need to optimize it at all and have much better tooling). This game never gets old ;). I have more fun playing that one than Anno 1800. Which is another reason why AAA graphics is unneeded. You need shiny graphics if your game sucks. And creating games that suck is what todays AAA industry is all about.