this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
138 points (87.9% liked)
Games
16742 readers
764 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For one, the last 10 years didn't really do much in terms of graphical improvements, most games just have denser environments and more detail on the parts that need animating, like faces.
For 2, what you're looking at is not really a comparison of graphics, it's a game where a lot of care and dedication went into the art direction and aesthetics, versus one that looks like generic schlock.
A game with a great artstyle that works with what was available at the time instead of being limited by the technology level will age a million times slower.
Compare and contrast the old killzones on PS2 vs games like XIII.
Or look at Super Mario 3 on NES, which imo still holds up today. A well crafted game is timeless.
Oh for sure, but the reason i invoked those two specifically is that they're very similar outside of their approach to aesthetics, and that they came out at a time when looking for fidelity over having a real art style was becoming a possibility.