My goodness, this is some insane mountain out of a molehill reporting. The article is extrapolating a lot based on some vague and not particularly noteworthy qualifications bulletpoints that should be expected for military shooter VFX work.
Can I ask who cares about this kind of thing? Why don’t they have more jobs for “making the games fun”? There seems to me to be a point where added realism is detrimental to fun, especially when resources are directed away from the fun.
That would be the game designers’ and game director’s job. The listing in the article is for a VFX artist, who is working on the visual side at the direction of the game director.
Just screaming “make the game more fun!” at VFX artists is misplaced. These people are necessary on games, but unless it’s a small/single person team, they don’t have any hand in the game design mechanics aside from implementing what is coming from the director.
Nothing in the job listing seems like it is looking for a revolutionary destruction system. That seems like flourish added by article. It looks like a much more mundanely written job listing for destruction VFX, which is a role that shouldn’t be surprising in any way in a military shooter.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
So… COD is planning on doing what Battlefield: Bad Company 2 did 14 years ago?
Congrats, I guess
Just a side note that you can still play battlefield bad company 2 online with project rome.
Remember when CoD bragged about having reactive fish when Mario 64 did it years earlier?
Found it.
I was watching that during the event and I immediately brought up Super Mario 64. Guess I wasn’t the only one to think that.
Also red faction: guerrilla. had fantastic building destruction
My goodness, this is some insane mountain out of a molehill reporting. The article is extrapolating a lot based on some vague and not particularly noteworthy qualifications bulletpoints that should be expected for military shooter VFX work.
Can I ask who cares about this kind of thing? Why don’t they have more jobs for “making the games fun”? There seems to me to be a point where added realism is detrimental to fun, especially when resources are directed away from the fun.
Bad Company 2 was fun as hell and it had lots of destructive environments. I’d argue that was part of the fun.
My favourite game is Just Cause 3 and it’s the same. But would it be better if it was more realistic destruction? No.
That would be the game designers’ and game director’s job. The listing in the article is for a VFX artist, who is working on the visual side at the direction of the game director.
Just screaming “make the game more fun!” at VFX artists is misplaced. These people are necessary on games, but unless it’s a small/single person team, they don’t have any hand in the game design mechanics aside from implementing what is coming from the director.
Nothing in the job listing seems like it is looking for a revolutionary destruction system. That seems like flourish added by article. It looks like a much more mundanely written job listing for destruction VFX, which is a role that shouldn’t be surprising in any way in a military shooter.
Guess the headline shoulda been slightly better written to clarify.