sundin13 said:
False. That is your subjective determination of "fine", not some universal objective standard of eye opinions, as is your evaluation of what looks "better". Why are you trying to die on the hill of "My opinion is objective fact"? That's a bad hill. Stop it. Come down from there before you hurt yourself. |
It's not about my opinion. It's about comparing the title to the competition.
You know we are buying from a market where developers/publishers compete right? Gamefreak and Nintendo do not exist in a vacuum.
The difference between us is that I am not taking the apologist route and giving things I enjoy free pass, I am able to critic when appropriate.
And criticizing the visuals in this instance when the issue is so glaring, is absolutely appropriate.
| Vodacixi said: A game can look good and be completely outdated on the technical front. The first Kingdom Hearts on PS2 is completely obsolete on a technical level. And yet, it still manages to be visually pleasing nowadays. Wind Waker is nothing compared to BotW on the tech front, but WW still looks good today. This happens even with more realistic looking games: Resident Evil 4 poligons, textures and shadows are a joke compared to the more modern Village, but that doesn't mean RE 4 looks bad. It looks dated, but not bad. There's a difference. |
Precisely.
It's the Switch.
No one is expect 4k+Ray Tracing+All the bells and whistles... And that is okay.
But we should expect a baseline when we are 5 years into a systems life... And I believe a 5 year old launch game is an appropriate measure for visuals.
I just personally believe a more stylized approach for the environments that are more inline with the models, would have been a more appropriate approach to showcase the games off in a better light if they aren't going to chase visual quality.

www.youtube.com/@Pemalite








