| Xxain said: Too long OP; and after skimming it may satire but; I think for as huge as Pokemon is and the amount money it brings in these past Pokemon look sub par. We have developers like Gust, Compile Heart, Sting + indies; MUCH smaller developers producing more visually satisfying games. I can't see any reason why Pokemon can't reach this visual quality other than just not wanting to. My biggest problem are features that go missing every game. Why did difficulty levels, something that every RPG series is doing, disappear after 1 game? |
You have to actually read the post, or it's not worth replying to substantively 🙃
| Zippy6 said: Ni No Kuni on the PS3 is gorgeous. |
Okay, great example I can use. We both agree that Ni No Kuni on PS3 looks great. But obviously Z-A looks more graphically impressive, right? Like it's not even close. If you like the style more, I think that's fair. I may even agree with you.
But NNK isn't even, for example, more graphically impressive for PS3 than Z-A is for Switch. The character models in ZA don't have a low poly count. The textures aren't low res anymore (compared to other open world Switch games). Like I said, the lighting is a bit flat, but I don't see why that can't be seen as an artistic choice. The world looks very toy like, and not every game needs to have lighting like Link's Awakening. Even then, the lighting looks better than SV.
I just don't understand what people are expecting a "more graphical" Switch open world Pokemon game to look like, outside of nicer lighting. Like genuinely, take something Like Xenoblade Chronicles 3, for example. A lot of people think that a peak game in terms of Switch graphics. I genuinely want to know what looks graphically better in your minds than what we're seeing in Z-A that is possible to replicate while keeping Pokémon's art style. XC3 definitely doesn't have better animations than what we've seen so far. It doesn't look like there are more polygons on the models of the humanoid characters, and it wouldn't make sense to put more polygons on the Pokemon themselves than some of the more detailed monsters and enemies in those games.
We can look at TotK. When I see the floor textures, they just straight up don't look more detailed than what's in ZA. With Arceus, there was a clear difference in fidelity. I don't see that in ZA so far. TotK seems like it has better aliasing? Is that that big of a deal, or even what people are talking about? Foliage looks about on par-just in different styles. We don't have any good evidence for the draw distance in ZA compared to TotK, but we do have comparisons at least compared to some things in LA and SV, and ZA looks better than both of those. The clouds definitely look better in TotK, but again who is complaining about the clouds, and how are we to tell if that's a graphic issue or a style issue? The buildings in TotK look better, but the buildings in ZA don't look cheap. And again, I'm only talking graphically here.
And again, I don't even see why Pokemon needs to be compared to games like this at all if the final product looks good, which I think it does. I don't see why the amount of money Pokemon makes should matter on a game looking graphically impressive when it looks aesthetically good already. Platinum and HGSS looked amazing compared to other DS game because of the style alone, and not because of how they graphically stacked.
I think ZA can look graphically more impressive for sure. I just don't think most of those improvements would be that noticeable in a game with Pokemon's art style. I don't think people would notice more polygonal buildings in a game like this very much. The Switch Zeldas look way better than ZA, but it's mostly due to artistic choices from what I can see.
Essay Pro