I can probably see comparisons with your show and "Extra Credits" for intellectual discussions and seeing where our view falls in the two directions, but that is the only time I would mention them here. I think it might be people favoring one show over the other. Or maybe people prefer to just listen to one view and get confused when more information on an old topic is brought up.Jimothy Sterling said:Comparison, sure, but this idea that I'm in some sort of race with them. You do realize this topic has no deadline, right? It's not like I entered into some Phineas Fogg style wager with Extra Credits to see who could do a graphics episode first. You're acting like I'm "late" to a discussion as if there was a sell-by date on it, which is relatively demented.trollpwner said:They are intellectuals speaking on the gaming industry. So are you. Comparison is natural and inevitable, whether you like it or not. Ditto for Yahtzee.Jimothy Sterling said:Why do people think I am in some sort of arms race with Extra Credits?
On-topic: I agree that having abstract characters tend to give more "character" and "life" to a game, but I think one reason this is not encouraged so much in these days is due to cost to make games and marketing. I'm taking a Maya class in college and the tool seems like an expensive canvas that has a complicated user interface. Plus, I assume anyone taking a 3D modeling class are only familiar with making the model for a human body. So doing an abstract model like, say, pinatas, are never covered in modeling classes in college.
As for the marketing, most of these games are meant to show how awesome their graphics are in commercials and cutscenes. Since other grim/gritty games like "Call of Duty" sell well, developers will probably mimic that graphical approach to get some profit. This might explain why a lot of "WoW killers" try having the same graphical approach like WoW, but doesn't look original (like 38 Studios' "Project Copernicus" MMORPG).