I think the question shouldn't be "Why do these god-tier games always have simplistic and shitty graphics/mechanics" but instead "Why don't triple-A game dev's make games with writing, atmosphere, and experiences as unique and high quality as these WITH the high budget, allowing for better graphics, better and complex gameplay, and better music?
Because higher budget studios have too many people on staff which hinders the creative process, with many companies settling for a high selling game, rather then a game a few people will really like.
because with higher production values comes higher risk, and no big publisher is willing to fork out money for a game like LISA or Undertale. I mean if I went to EA and pitched Undertale they'd think I was an idiot, if I pitched LISA they'd think I was an asshole. Between them, they break a lot of basic game design rules, are somewhat difficult to market (in the conventional way, e.g. tv adverts), have very limited franchise\DLC potential, and both come from two no-name game designers with no track record.
>Toby has no excuse.
His excuse was to make this fight a lot more visually jarring. The worse the main graphics look, the more jarring and surprising this fight will be.
I believe it to be a good excuse.
Sales. Think about the type of games that sell the most. It'd be a waste of time, money, and resources to not make something with fantastic 3D graphics and either a big focus on online or some sequel story.
Big name companies need big name games. That means flashy and fantastic looking. You can't wow someone with a commercial showing Earthbound gameplay.
Because directing an orchestra it's not as easy as directing a 4 member rock band
It's easier to create something that appeals to kid and young adults, than something that appeals to a more mature audience
That's actually a really good question OP, you should try to make the thread with an image that will actually get you replies without shitposting.
>Because higher budget studios have too many people on staff which hinders the creative process
As somebody working on a game with a team of about 30 people, that's certainly a factor, but I don't think it's as big of one as you might think.
In my experience, what ends up suffering due to that are design choices, not content.
>with many companies settling for a high selling game, rather then a game a few people will really like.
I think this is also a huge factor, but it's not as big as you think either.
I think the actual problem is that due to the latter point, people's perceived minimum expectations for stuff like graphics, details, sound design and art already require like 100 hundreds and musicians and a few million dollars, and writing/atmosphere/"feeling" are all really intangible things. With a 3d model or a sprite, it's usually pretty obvious which is better looking, and it's a lot less interconnected then those things are, and you can't just throw more money at those parts like you sorta can with artists to solve it.
No, it's called being creative with your lack of talent, and therefore your talent is allocated somewhere else. As a result, it is talent. Nobody was praising Undertale for it's graphics, but it's genius to take it's lack of quality graphics and allow for a strong emotional experience and reaction while using the bad graphics as a gear for the machine.
>Game has shit graphics with easy to moderately challenging gameplay.
>Game proceeds to have a boss fight that has hyper realistic graphics and extremely difficult gameplay (though with extended health to make it more fun.)
Something being surprising/jarring is subjective, sure, but the irony of this is a fact and to say that this isn't "surprising" in any way is complete bullshit.