I think the bigger takeaway from indie devs is to cut back on the graphical fidelity and stick with something stylized visually.
Even if you want some graphical “wow” factor, you can get a hell of a lot from good lighting and other shaders over a less detailed environment.
Ultimately I feel that’s what is making “mainstream” games take so damn long to develop: high quality “realistic” graphics take an absurd amount of work. The longer timelines mean bigger budgets, bigger budgets mean more incentive to “play it safe” and try to maximize appeal to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to break even.
When a game takes so many years and millions of dollars to make, there’s a lot less room to let them be a passion driven “art” based project. Why take a risk at something innovative that may fail at mind bending cost?
I think the bigger takeaway from indie devs is to cut back on the graphical fidelity and stick with something stylized visually.
Even if you want some graphical “wow” factor, you can get a hell of a lot from good lighting and other shaders over a less detailed environment.
Ultimately I feel that’s what is making “mainstream” games take so damn long to develop: high quality “realistic” graphics take an absurd amount of work. The longer timelines mean bigger budgets, bigger budgets mean more incentive to “play it safe” and try to maximize appeal to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to break even.
When a game takes so many years and millions of dollars to make, there’s a lot less room to let them be a passion driven “art” based project. Why take a risk at something innovative that may fail at mind bending cost?
I completely agree with this. Graphical fidelity can be cutback for faster dev times and faster iterations.