By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Frogger on 05 March 2025
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:

Xenoblade X (Wii U):

 

Pokemon ZA (Switch):

If you broke it down, Pokemon has "better" graphics in a lot of areas, but Xenoblade X just looks so much better. Most of that doesn't just feel like the tech, it feels like effort. Effort was put into filling out Xenoblade X's world with features and grass whereas Switch Pokemon games have always looked kind of lazy. I do think ZA looks better than some of the ones in the past, and the city actually looks pretty reasonable (and to be fair, the city in Xenoblade X looked like assssss) but Pokemon is putting nowhere near the best-looking games (graphics + art + effort) that the Switch can handle. 

Thank you for this good comparison. This is really all I mean. If you think Xenoblade looks better aesthetically, that totally makes sense to me, and this thread isn't directed at you. My issue is when comparisons like this exist, yet people act like ZA looks like a PS2 game, or even a bad PS3 game.

I personally don't think ZA looks lazy, but I get if you thought BDSP, Let's Go, or SwSh looked lazy. I'm personally against the idea that SV was a lazy game. I think it was a really ambitious game that wasn't very competently made. But even then, I'd get why someone might mistake the incompetence for laziness. I just see neither of those here. Or at least not incompetence to a large degree here.

Eric2048 said:
Frogger said:

I genuinely think Odyssey looks bad, so I simply don't agree there. (okay I just think it looks bad aesthetically and find it hard to look at it fairly lol) Luigi's Mansion 3 is a small game, so even if it was is graphically impressive, that's not saying much. Bigger games have to spread their graphics more thin so that they can run well.

People need to be pulling receipts with this 7th gen stuff. Show me some open world gen 7 games comparable in graphics to what we're seeing in ZA, and when you realize you're only looking at a small handful of the graphically most impressive realistic games on those systems, rethink some things.

Switch hardware can do a little bit more than PS3, but again, the system is still between PS3 and PS4. It's not some powerhouse system. It's basically a PS3 Pro. People have to stop expecting insane graphics from just this franchise and on this system.

Well, If we're talking open-world games from 7th gen that look visually better i would say Just Cause 2, inFamous 2, and GTA V. There are probably more i could list but those are the first that come to mind.

These are some of the most graphically impressive realistic games on a system close in power to the Switch. Are the textures better? No. Character models more detailed? Not really, save for the faces because one is realistic. Are the trees better? From what I can see, no. Foliage? From what I can see, no.

The buildings do look more complex and varied than in ZA. I can admit that. Enough were it makes ZA look like a game unfitting for it's generation or bad or lazy though? No. You didn't name any games in this style, and neither did curl-6. You are not seeing games in this style in this scale that have worlds that look like Infamous or GTA V, because that wouldn't fit.