this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
194 points (98.5% liked)
Games
17028 readers
666 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
… terrible example as a lot of fans would claim the originals were the best ones and it’s been all downhill from there, especially since the prequels are now seen in a positive light cause how bad the sequels have been.
Come on, I am obviously referring to the original trilogy which was famously innovative. No one is fawning over the CGI in the prequels (especially in retrospect), why would you think I meant them??
I'm not a fan of the series but I still geek out about the production of A New Hope. It was groundbreaking work by some serious visionaries, look at any film before it and it's obvious what a huge jump they made.
Now I feel the need to clarify further that I mean THE ORIGINAL special effects. NOT any of the rereleases with "updated" CGI.
Slight question/nitpick over the prequels' CGI; is the opening space battle [over Coruscant] of Revenge of the Sith somehow not up to par with its contemporaries? That sequence still holds up in terms of visual spectacle that takes advantage of its medium (3d rendering in this case vs practical effects) to do specific shots and set pieces.
Or am I just ignorant of how much the original trilogy pushed things?
The original film used tons of technology and techniques that had never been tried before. It was a truly innovative film for special effects.
No shade to the prequels, their graphics just weren't a huge leap. Not to say they're bad or that there was no innovation! If I remember correctly, Jar Jar was a pretty big deal for the industry.
The reaction to Phantom Menace might have been "Wow that looked great!" but for A New Hope it was "HOW THE HELL DID THEY DO THAT???"
I’m confused. How did the originals peak multiple times? They were all made a few years from each other so imo they all represent one data point.
Do you mean special effects peaked after that? Cause a lot of people don’t like CGI and some would say movie effects actually peaked at terminator 2.
The point would be valid if movies in the 90s looked terrible and then movies now look objectively better than Star Wars (which many would argue that they don’t cause it’s all CGI)
When Star Wars was released, people said technology had peaked because it was such a huge jump in quality. Similar things were said about Avatar for the same reason. Both films are notable for inventing new technology to fulfill the vision.
I'm just saying (and I mean it encouragingly!) there will come a time when Avatar looks dated. We'll be marveling at things we can hardly fathom today
But that’s because the quality was as good as it’s ever been so far.
The example I’m saying is that it peaked, as in it got noticeably better, and then noticeably worse for at least a decade.
It’s not the same example.
With all due respect, I feel like you're only thinking of Marvel films if you think CGI has become noticeably worse since Avatar. I'm very confident you've watched movies with fully CG characters in scenes and didn't notice they weren't real - something not possible a decade earlier
Which is why I put "peak" in quotes. They're more like spikes in capability. The techniques developed for Avatar (virtual cinematography for one) are widely used today, they're just not the focus like in a movie about giant blue humanoids on an alien planet.
The next major innovation will become the standard and we'll think the same thing. "Man, nothing has blown me away like [movie that invented something]"
Well I would definitely agree with that, things are not linear.
Right now we live in a time of hidden gems and lacklustre AAA. The actual underlying technology has gotten better, but overall due to increase investor pressure and general focus on safe bets, we get mostly meh content while the great technology and creativity available goes to waste.
I hope the next spike is just around the corner but we are during times of low innovation, so I think the economic drive needs to be there first.
I'm with you there on AAA games but I think there's been another shift happening you didn't mention, too - people realizing that indie games with "bad" graphics can be extremely fun which cuts into the AAA sales.
Don't kill me but I think the next huge breakthrough in gaming is going to involve AI, not graphics..but it's not going to come from a major studio. Some dedicated group of developers are going to figure out how to use advanced LLMs in an RPG to allow players to go beyond the main storyline.
You did say that something can peak multiple times, so your original comment sounded like you were implying that Star Wars peaked multiple times, hence the response.
I suppose so but I did specifically say technology can peak multiple times, not a franchise