>>972778
>trigger
Well, that is obviously a verbose joke post. Don't know how autistic you need to be to not catch that.
>brain damaged
Of course it looked like low quality, you retard. Thats how technology develops. And of course if it was better in '94 they would've done things differently. Doesn't mean it didn't have artistic value. You have this hate boner for software you've, most likely, never touched. What the hell is wrong with appreciating what was accomplished? Just because it doesn't match your aesthetic ideals? The better it got the less interesting it became. CGI is no longer impressive to the average Joe; it has become standardized. This is when you lose SOVL. Lacking appreciation for what came before is why a lot of things turn into shit. And saying it looked like shit back then tells me you weren't conscious in '94. Repeating Star Trek memes really give off the "um ackshually" vibes. You seem really insufferable and up your own ass.
>>972775
Don't care about muh strawman. And the coping thing is a fallacy, itself.

Sorry bros, it's fun to dick about but I actually have shit to make. Ya know, because I actually work in this field.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/3/

Thread:

What's so good about "retro CGI" anyway?