| curl-6 said: You're telling me this isn't lazy:
On a system that can do this:
|
I'll personally tell you straight up that no, that is not "lazy". You can't compare complex, "realistic" graphics to simplistic, cute, cartoony graphics and call one "lazy" over the other. "Lazy" is what Nintendo did graphically with Mario Kart Wii, where the game really looked no better at all than Double Dash.
Mario 3D World is not "lazy" by any stretch of the imagination. It looks far better than 3D Land, and for that matter, while the ART STYLE is not as flashy (more basic, simplistic), the actual fidelity of the graphics themselves are in fact better than Super Mario Galaxy. We have yet to see more than a handful of clips/images from 3D World, so it's not fair to judge a what was obviously not-final-version footage of a game, nor have we obviously seen any of the TRULY impressive level designs, as traditionally as far back as Mario 64, Nintendo likes to keep those kind of levels a surprise if they can.
But regardless, the graphics are not "lazy". Could they be flashier, like Galaxy, with more realistic textures for the landscapes and objects, etc? Sure. But are the graphics NOT better than what Wii or 3DS could produce? Hell no, they're definitely superior visuals. You're right, "X" looks gorgeous. But that isn't to say at all that Mario 3D World ISN'T itself a pretty game. It has a more simplistic, cartoon look than Galaxy did. And that's fine. But the models themselves, and everything I've seen in the game so far, looks very smooth, very well made, great lighting, particles, shading, etc. I think the final product will impress you more than you think. And if not, well........you've always got "X". But like I said, intentionally "realistic" graphics are a different beast than intentionally cartoony, it's not always a matter of actual graphical fidelity, but art style. You're basically arguing that you think 3D World needs a more sophisticated art style. But honestly, while you're welcome to your opinion, it looks fine.
