/vr/ - Retro Games

>>10730764
>>10730778
>Let me ask you a question, when you play a game, do you think "wow they really cut corners here and saved money, this is so marketable and cost effective?".
I do. That was my inner monologue when playing the majority of Nintendo Wii games (and to some extent the GameCube). I understood what Nintendo was doing from a business perspective, where they intentionally kept costs low or where they relied on filler to extend the length of the game.

>Do you not want art to be the highest standard it can be? I just don't get where you're coming from. It's like fast food vs gourmet food. Sure fast food is fine sometimes, even enjoyable. But you will never remember it or enjoy it like you would a high class meal.
I do. I would love it if everything was high-quality. That is why I'm not projecting myself onto the world. I'm reflecting reality, not my own personal taste. You guys were projecting arguments onto an imaginary fantasy strawman anon. The reality is McDonald's makes billions of dollars every year, most people eat like garbage, and don't take care of their health. I don't live in fantasy land where everyone is cooking their own meals and exercise daily.

It just happens that I prefer simplicity. Like pic related is the perfect amount of detail for me, personally. I never said I like AI: I said that to majority of the people (that live on planet Earth), AI pixel art will look the same because they do not care about details. Business-minded people who fund said games (and pay the salary of pixel artists) know this.

>>10730778
If you stopped 100 random people in Best Buy and asked them to name 10 visual artists they would not be able to do it. If you asked 100 anons to name the person who drew the art for Super Mario in the early 1990s, I'd wager majority of passive readers (not the 1% that actually post in threads) wouldn't be able to name him. I'm in the minority, speaking about the majority.