By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Frogger on 05 March 2025
Edit Thread
Eric2048 said:
Frogger said:

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:

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.

I couldn't find an example of a cartoonish open world game so those are the examples i used for 7th gen.

I'd say they do absolutly look better. especially in terms of lighting. I think that's what really hurt Z-A the most as lighting can change the way a game looks significantly even if every other aspect remained the same. The lighting looks very flat like a PS2 game but considering this is on a system that has better graphical capabilities than a PS3 you would expect better. Look at Xenoblade 2 on Switch. It's not a realistic looking game but the way the lighting is implemented gives the game lot's of depth in it's visuals compared to ZA which looks flat in comparison, of course the overall art direction probably helps too.

You won't find me disagreeing that the lighting isn't great on ZA. I just don't think it makes for a game that looks bad. I don't think it looks flat like a PS2 game. It's not remotely that bad. Again, you need to actually go back and see how those games used to look before making statements like that, but it does look flat. I don't think it looks any less flat than P5's for example, which also doesn't have great lighting, but also doesn't ruin that game's aesthetics imo. I'm realizing that I probably think P5 looks a lot worse than many of you lol. I

I don't think the way XB2 looks has anything to do with the lighting. I think that's all texture stuff and the specifica way the environment is being constructed there. I think the lighting is about the same.

But in the right conditions:

I see no reason why Z-A can't look like this too under the same lighting conditions. It's just a matter of if ZA will construct those or not. I hope so.