gaming The "BotW" Fallacy

[Cruising 9]

19 minutes ago, Usager said:

nice cherry picked image you got there pal. both games looks gorgeus.

Cherry picking is my special talent, bro.

Spoiler

 

Behold! My ultimate comparative work!

[Usager 433]

one image is with a far background while x is a near area. put more effort. played both, both looks better than these 144p screenshot from youtube.

[Jeric 46,851]

Even though the OP was a ban evader, I am sooo keeping this discussion going. As I implied earlier gaming has reached a stage where visuals compliment the experience instead of become the experience. This isn’t a new debate.

There are definitely moments in games on some hardware where the team has to compromise, but what makes BotW and other NES games curious successes in this is that they allow any limitations to guide their art design. To me it’s no different that realizing that water colors won’t give you sharp lines, so you paint a picture that fits the tools available. 

 

[Celli 4,338]

21 minutes ago, Jeric said:

There are definitely moments in games on some hardware where the team has to compromise, but what makes BotW and other NES games curious successes in this is that they allow any limitations to guide their art design. To me it’s no different that realizing that water colors won’t give you sharp lines, so you paint a picture that fits the tools available. 

 

What I like about Nintendo is they usually go for stylistic visual designs over realism, and their games tend to age better graphically as a result IMO, partly due to hardware limitations. BotW will still look good in 10 years, while Red Dead 2 will probably not age as well.

[Will Guide 21,360]

16 hours ago, Jeric said:

Even though the OP was a ban evader, I am sooo keeping this discussion going. As I implied earlier gaming has reached a stage where visuals compliment the experience instead of become the experience. This isn’t a new debate.

There are definitely moments in games on some hardware where the team has to compromise, but what makes BotW and other NES games curious successes in this is that they allow any limitations to guide their art design. To me it’s no different that realizing that water colors won’t give you sharp lines, so you paint a picture that fits the tools available. 

 

 

16 hours ago, Celli said:

What I like about Nintendo is they usually go for stylistic visual designs over realism, and their games tend to age better graphically as a result IMO, partly due to hardware limitations. BotW will still look good in 10 years, while Red Dead 2 will probably not age as well.

This is why I love Nintendo more than Sony. Nintendo work their games in fun ways despite their technical limitations compared to more advanced hardware like Playstation. Playing a great game made with technical limitations is more surprising and impressive than a game that doesn't have those technical limitations and so is already expected to look good.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Will Guide

[Envy 6,168]

I don't think Pokemon S/S's subpar graphics have anything whatsoever to do with technical limitations, though. There are games on the Switch that look way better than S/S, and S/S especially have no excuse considering they aren't even open world.

It's fine to acknowledge that there are multiple styles a game can take, and the highest-tech realistic take is not the only valid one. However, I'm kind of tired of this being used to excuse lousy graphics. When it comes to "cartoony" games there are still graphics that are far and above others. Kingdom Hearts III is gorgeous, and Dragon Ball FighterZ nails the cel-shading style like I've never seen before.

Sorry, it's just I've seen these same excuses of "Well, it's cartoony! Be nice to it!" leveraged to support The Sims 4, which looks like a flipping PS2 game and is not exemplary of the cartoony style anyway, but because it is cartoony, it gets a pass.

Yup, that's certainly going to age well. Certainly. It might have aged a couple of years... If this were 2004.

Now, I know I've gone off from Pokemon S/S, here. Clearly they are better graphically than The Sims 4. But that isn't necessarily saying a lot. I feel like GF gets away with a whole lot of holding back with their Pokemon games, and as a Pokemon fan of a very long time (coming up on twenty years this summer) I don't appreciate it. Obviously, the graphics are really the least of the worries. But I still don't like seeing flat, square locations. I don't like cardboard cutout backgrounds. I don't like The Sims 4-esque plants. I don't like not being able to control the camera.

Pokemon is one of the most successful franchises ever. GF should be held to better standards. In every way.

[CypherHoof 26,483]

There is a snes game - Super bomberman 3 - that is CRAZY fun at parties, and as you can imagine from the snes, you can get wristwatches with better sound and graphics than that now

[Jeric 46,851]

4 hours ago, Envy said:

I don't think Pokemon S/S's subpar graphics have anything whatsoever to do with technical limitations, though. There are games on the Switch that look way better than S/S, and S/S especially have no excuse considering they aren't even open world.

It's fine to acknowledge that there are multiple styles a game can take, and the highest-tech realistic take is not the only valid one. However, I'm kind of tired of this being used to excuse lousy graphics. When it comes to "cartoony" games there are still graphics that are far and above others. Kingdom Hearts III is gorgeous, and Dragon Ball FighterZ nails the cel-shading style like I've never seen before.

Sorry, it's just I've seen these same excuses of "Well, it's cartoony! Be nice to it!" leveraged to support The Sims 4, which looks like a flipping PS2 game and is not exemplary of the cartoony style anyway, but because it is cartoony, it gets a pass.

Yup, that's certainly going to age well. Certainly. It might have aged a couple of years... If this were 2004.

Now, I know I've gone off from Pokemon S/S, here. Clearly they are better graphically than The Sims 4. But that isn't necessarily saying a lot. I feel like GF gets away with a whole lot of holding back with their Pokemon games, and as a Pokemon fan of a very long time (coming up on twenty years this summer) I don't appreciate it. Obviously, the graphics are really the least of the worries. But I still don't like seeing flat, square locations. I don't like cardboard cutout backgrounds. I don't like The Sims 4-esque plants. I don't like not being able to control the camera.

Pokemon is one of the most successful franchises ever. GF should be held to better standards. In every way.

I think, and I may be wrong here, that they are reusing assets from prior games (including GO) in S/S which may make your point a valid one. Then again, rescuing assets is not an issue exclusive to GF, but it’s using in same-console sequels that you see that happen. 

Anyway, if someone can correct me or validate what I am seeing on asset usage, I would appreciate it. 

[The Historian 516]

This was an interesting topic but what I find a little strange is that very few actually make a distinction between graphics and aesthetics. Graphics are little more than the technical rendering capability and software techniques used to display what we see. Aesthetics is how well all elements of a game blend together to create a unified whole. So, for example, while something like, say, Killzone 2 is graphically impressive, it is aesthetically boring. Whereas something like Parappa the Rappa is graphically inferior but has a well designed aesthetic that makes it look better. Breath of the Wild has an impeccably crafted aesthetic that blends all elements of the game together in a wonderfully unified whole. That's why so many people say Breath of the Wild looks so incredibly good. Honestly, I haven't seen a game look that visually stunning and interesting in a long time. Looks even better being emulated on a PC with the right kind of shaders in play, but that's outside the scope of WiiU and Switch. Pokemon Sword and Shield, however, do not benefit from quite the same care as Breath of the Wild did. It looks okay and the aesthetic isn't terrible but it's not polished and has some very lazy elements to it. If it's a handheld title, you can excuse the blocky designs but the visuals I've seen have a lot of color clash to them. Things just don't compliment each other as well and you notice those elements, which gives it that less than appealing look to it. 

[ChB 18,557]

On 3/2/2019 at 4:51 PM, Cruising said:

Why do people pretend that this:

 

Looks "much better" than this:

Because Zelda fans like me look at the former and think, “OH MY GOSH! *Squee*”, and look at the latter and say, “What’s that?”  

[Envy 6,168]

Excuse me for bumping up this topic, but I just thought I might have something to contribute.

Obviously, this is a comparison shot between OOT and BoTW, right?

Right?

...

No... Wait. I've been told that the left image is actually from Pokemon Sword/Shield and not OOT. o.o

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,532]

10 hours ago, Envy said:

Excuse me for bumping up this topic, but I just thought I might have something to contribute.

Obviously, this is a comparison shot between OOT and BoTW, right?

Right?

...

No... Wait. I've been told that the left image is actually from Pokemon Sword/Shield and not OOT. o.o

Yeah, the more I see and hear about Sword/Shield,  the more I am not liking it. The graphics, including the overall style, looks bland as hell and these entries don't seem to be branching much at all. Considering the power of the Switch relative to all past main series games, you would think they would go above and beyond, but we clearly are not seeing that here.

Also wanted to say that, I have tried BOTW since this thread was made and so far I am not impressed by the game overall. It looks pretty, and overly shiny, but I am not into it so far. More effort seems to have gone into it than the new Pokemon games at least.

[Envy 6,168]

2 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

Yeah, the more I see and hear about Sword/Shield,  the more I am not liking it. The graphics, including the overall style, looks bland as hell and these entries don't seem to be branching much at all. Considering the power of the Switch relative to all past main series games, you would think they would go above and beyond, but we clearly are not seeing that here.

Also wanted to say that, I have tried BOTW since this thread was made and so far I am not impressed by the game overall. It looks pretty, and overly shiny, but I am not into it so far. More effort seems to have gone into it than the new Pokemon games at least.

It's ridiculous. Pokemon is one of the biggest media franchises out there. There certainly should be ample funding toward GameFreak to be able to produce a better product than this. In fact, Pokemon games should easily have the highest production values of any video game coming from Nintendo. Yet they turn out like this... I don't know if it's complacency ("We can make a ton of money, even if we churn out laziness like Lets Go Pikachu/Eevee!"), if it's straight-up incompetence, or if GF somehow just is struggling. Perhaps it's an odd combination of the three. Something's going on. Pokemon games should not look like this, nor should they have to cut out Pokemon.

The funny thing is that they're touting the game being better with better animations and graphics to excuse the removal of Pokemon... But the game's footage is making a mockery of that idea. I saw this GIF/video of the animation of Wingull's on the field and it was so bad it actually made me laugh out loud.