Deoz said:
| Runa216 said:
don't even bother trying to push the agenda. the Vita has a 520 resolution screen, which is barely better than the standard definition 480, of course the textures aren't going to compare to a 720p or 1080i game, that'd be stupid to assume such. That said, given the OLED screen on the system and the way the game was designed, it looks just as good. it's just as vibrant (in some cases even moreso), has equally good animations, and it's just as pretty overall.
Graphics aren't all polygons, dude; art direction, animation, contrast, and various other aspects come into play, as well. Kinda sick of people pushing their negative agendas becuase "OMG a game isn't flawless, better slander the fuck out of it on a forum!" get a life, you'd likely be far happier if you thought more positively instead of focusing on negatives and trying to take small flaws and blowing them out of proportion.
Fuck's sake, this is why I should stay off the internet.
|
Technically, graphics are that, polygons, textures, how animations run,framrate. Pretty much everything that is technical. Art direction is more subjective and would fall in visual style. The strong in vita is that it can bring visuals at par with hd games, not with the same graphics but with the same sense of pleasent looking aspect as first console games. DOnt need to take it bad if some one think this, as selnor said it was the design of the game itself that didnt bring his attention. And you might be happier if you accepted that peole have a different point of view in what they consider good or bad.
|
This post.
I agree many 'tricks' have been used to make GA look really good.
When those over 'tricks' fail or are seethrough the tecnical underlay is actually pretty fugly.
