Spukc
always chasing the next thrill
Yup it’s T R A S HIt does look like shit. Why are they not getting rid of that flash game look. Fuck this.
MAKE IT LIKE THIS FFS
Yup it’s T R A S HIt does look like shit. Why are they not getting rid of that flash game look. Fuck this.
Thanks to early flash games, when I see Sprite scaling or rotation without pixelization, I think it looks cheap. My first introduction to sprite scaling / rotation was the SNES so that's what I consider real video game graphics
Exactly. It's cheap and it also looks cheap. That's the issue here.That's because it costs money to animate detailed cartoons. There's a reason that they're mostly just thick lines and solid colors.
Exactly. It's cheap and it also looks cheap. That's the issue here.
Maybe it looks good enough for most people. But after growing up during the golden age of Capcom and SNK, cheap 2D graphics like these don't do anything for me. The only modern 2D game than managed to impress me is Cup Head. So yeah, i guess my standards are unrealistically high. But that's me, i want new things to be just as good or better than the ones i already have. Don't like regressions, especially considering how modern hardware doesn't limit what a developer can do anymore. So, low production values and indie developers who cut corners by using "easy to make" art styles don't interest me, unless the gameplay and level design is extremely good.
You are judging entire genre on games that has been surpassed. It's like judging character action (that you said is an evolution of beat'em ups btw) as a genre on DMC1. I gave you the list, "old man", you should try it sometime. You can also try DnD games or late Capcom titles, such as Captain Commando and Knights of the Round.
Exactly. It's cheap and it also looks cheap. That's the issue here.
Maybe it looks good enough for most people. But after growing up during the golden age of Capcom and SNK, cheap 2D graphics like these don't do anything for me. The only modern 2D game than managed to impress me is Cup Head. So yeah, i guess my standards are unrealistically high. But that's me, i want new things to be just as good or better than the ones i already have. Don't like regressions, especially considering how modern hardware doesn't limit what a developer can do anymore. So, low production values and indie developers who cut corners by using "easy to make" art styles don't interest me, unless the gameplay and level design is extremely good.
The issue is that high budget 2D animation is a thing of the past. Animating 3D objects/skeletal animation was always more convenient (you don't have to redraw the same characters over and over again) so now that there are ways to move an already existing asset, very few developer are going to bother with anything else. So the chances to see a game with high quality hand drawn animation/assets and game design at the same time are at the lowest right now. Which is a shame because as Cup Head proved, modern hardware poses no limits in what can be done with 2D animation.Cuphead really didn't deliver the gameplay goods though IMO. The "platforming" levels were complete trash, the hitboxes were weird, and the control felt sloppy and loose. It feels like we're trapped in some gaming hellscape where we have to choose between being punched in the balls or slapped in the face. Everything's a compromise. You can't just get what you want. This game plays right but looks like shit. This game plays badly but looks great.
Considering what can be done with modern hardware, most 2D games do look cheap. There are always just enough animation frames to "do the job" unless they use the ugly skeletal animation technique (Cup Head looks amazing because they are using tons of frames for all animations. Google "frame-by-frame" animation and tell me if you can find one example that doesn't look good). Also, the shading looks usually simple and flat and many times there are all kinds of post-processing and lighting effects to mask all that and make these games look "artsy" and impressive enough. You can always make even a shitty looking game look nice if the lighting is good.But does it look cheap because it is cheap?
I disagree with this. Personally, the low frame rate in movies always bothered me. Because i know the 24fps was a "just good enough" standard. This may sound like a heresy to some but i did like using motion filters when watching movies. So i loved the 48fps standard some movies tried to push. I don't think people thought it looked "cheap", it just looked unfamiliar (compared to what they watch in cinemas) or "weird".It reminds me of the cinematic 24.4 fps standard; higher frame rates look cheap, because they were used in broadcast television, commercials, and "home video" pornography.
The issue is that high budget 2D animation is a thing of the past. Animating 3D objects/skeletal animation was always more convenient (you don't have to redraw the same characters over and over again) so now that there are ways to move an already existing asset, very few developer are going to bother with anything else. So the chances to see a game with high quality hand drawn animation/assets and game design at the same time are at the lowest right now. Which is a shame because as Cup Head proved, modern hardware poses no limits in what can be done with 2D animation.
Considering what can be done with modern hardware, most 2D games do look cheap. There are always just enough animation frames to "do the job" unless they use the ugly skeletal animation technique (Cup Head looks amazing because they are using tons of frames for all animations. Google "frame-by-frame" animation and tell me if you can find one example that doesn't look good). Also, the shading looks usually simple and flat and many times there are all kinds of post-processing and lighting effects to mask all that and make these games look "artsy" and impressive enough. You can always make even a shitty looking game look nice if the lighting is good.
I also notice "cheap" art direction decisions in some games, like this one. Like how the backgrounds are more detailed and better shaded because the artists know they only need to make them once. But then, they cut corners with the animated assets. That makes the sprites look like they don't belong in those backgrounds. (Also, what's the deal with the huge outlines in this game? Backgrounds don't look like that...)
And let's not talk about the "8-bit" looking games with blocky sprites that look nothing like the actual 8-bit games of the past. The huge, sharp pixels was not even a thing, on the Atari 2600 maybe, but after the NES the pixels were not as obvious, CRTs also masked the games enough to look smooth. So anyway, most indie developers will pretend they are "artsy" with their blocky, low resolution assets but i know the only reason (most of) these games look this way is because it's cheaper. And that bothers me a bit. Like i said, i was pretty much spoiled by the likes of SNK and Capcom in the 90's so i can't be bothered with lower tier productions anymore. Guess the indie scene is not for me.
There are a few exceptions. Axiom Verge looks like a NES game in steroids (and has a good level design). Shovel Knight also looks like that although i haven't played it. And the only "fat pixels" game that looks good to me is The Last Night but who knows if we are ever going to play that.
I disagree with this. Personally, the low frame rate in movies always bothered me. Because i know the 24fps was a "just good enough" standard. This may sound like a heresy to some but i did like using motion filters when watching movies. So i loved the 48fps standard some movies tried to push. I don't think people thought it looked "cheap", it just looked unfamiliar (compared to what they watch in cinemas) or "weird".
The issue is that high budget 2D animation is a thing of the past. Animating 3D objects/skeletal animation was always more convenient (you don't have to redraw the same characters over and over again) so now that there are ways to move an already existing asset, very few developer are going to bother with anything else. So the chances to see a game with high quality hand drawn animation/assets and game design at the same time are at the lowest right now. Which is a shame because as Cup Head proved, modern hardware poses no limits in what can be done with 2D animation.
Considering what can be done with modern hardware, most 2D games do look cheap. There are always just enough animation frames to "do the job" unless they use the ugly skeletal animation technique (Cup Head looks amazing because they are using tons of frames for all animations. Google "frame-by-frame" animation and tell me if you can find one example that doesn't look good). Also, the shading looks usually simple and flat and many times there are all kinds of post-processing and lighting effects to mask all that and make these games look "artsy" and impressive enough. You can always make even a shitty looking game look nice if the lighting is good.
I also notice "cheap" art direction decisions in some games, like this one. Like how the backgrounds are more detailed and better shaded because the artists know they only need to make them once. But then, they cut corners with the animated assets. That makes the sprites look like they don't belong in those backgrounds. (Also, what's the deal with the huge outlines in this game? Backgrounds don't look like that...)
And let's not talk about the "8-bit" looking games with blocky sprites that look nothing like the actual 8-bit games of the past. The huge, sharp pixels was not even a thing, on the Atari 2600 maybe, but after the NES the pixels were not as obvious, CRTs also masked the games enough to look smooth. So anyway, most indie developers will pretend they are "artsy" with their blocky, low resolution assets but i know the only reason (most of) these games look this way is because it's cheaper. And that bothers me a bit. Like i said, i was pretty much spoiled by the likes of SNK and Capcom in the 90's so i can't be bothered with lower tier productions anymore. Guess the indie scene is not for me.
There are a few exceptions. Axiom Verge looks like a NES game in steroids (and has a good level design). Shovel Knight also looks like that although i haven't played it. And the only "fat pixels" game that looks good to me is The Last Night but who knows if we are ever going to play that.
I disagree with this. Personally, the low frame rate in movies always bothered me. Because i know the 24fps was a "just good enough" standard. This may sound like a heresy to some but i did like using motion filters when watching movies. So i loved the 48fps standard some movies tried to push. I don't think people thought it looked "cheap", it just looked unfamiliar (compared to what they watch in cinemas) or "weird".
I wholeheartedly agree with you, but something is better than nothing. I wouldn't even mind if they remade one of my favourite games with this art, The Revenge of Shinobi. In fact all the Shinobi games, including the Game Gear games.Exactly. It's cheap and it also looks cheap. That's the issue here.
Maybe it looks good enough for most people. But after growing up during the golden age of Capcom and SNK, cheap 2D graphics like these don't do anything for me. The only modern 2D game than managed to impress me is Cup Head. So yeah, i guess my standards are unrealistically high. But that's me, i want new things to be just as good or better than the ones i already have. Don't like regressions, especially considering how modern hardware doesn't limit what a developer can do anymore. So, low production values and indie developers who cut corners by using "easy to make" art styles don't interest me, unless the gameplay and level design is extremely good.
Me either, but I'll wait to give it a shot.
I wish the M2 SoR collection was on current gen consoles. I have to play it on my 360 still.
What constitutes a good game for you then when practically every good gamer has a shitton of issues in your book?Cuphead really didn't deliver the gameplay goods though IMO. The "platforming" levels were complete trash, the hitboxes were weird, and the control felt sloppy and loose.
That was Final Fight. And she wasn't a tranny.all i wanna know is will it have trannies?
I LOVE CUPHEAD SO MUCH, but if you imagine it without the incredible art, how would it hold up?What constitutes a good game for you then when practically every good gamer has a shitton of issues in your book?
You are the guy who would trash on Mario Oddysey and Zelda BOTW, or RDR2, and now Cuphead.
I am not going to deny all these titles have flaws, but the way you speak of them, in such expletives, you would think they were programmed by a box full of monkeys.
This frequent usage of hyperbole is readily apparent in most posts you make and its far from actual reality. We get it, you don't really like games. And if you do, feel free to showcase that for once. The gaming hellscape you refer to is created and maintained by people like you who never let a day pass by being incredibly negative about any aspect of the video game industry.
You are my new best friend on this forum. <3The issue is that high budget 2D animation is a thing of the past. Animating 3D objects/skeletal animation was always more convenient (you don't have to redraw the same characters over and over again) so now that there are ways to move an already existing asset, very few developer are going to bother with anything else. So the chances to see a game with high quality hand drawn animation/assets and game design at the same time are at the lowest right now. Which is a shame because as Cup Head proved, modern hardware poses no limits in what can be done with 2D animation.
Considering what can be done with modern hardware, most 2D games do look cheap. There are always just enough animation frames to "do the job" unless they use the ugly skeletal animation technique (Cup Head looks amazing because they are using tons of frames for all animations. Google "frame-by-frame" animation and tell me if you can find one example that doesn't look good). Also, the shading looks usually simple and flat and many times there are all kinds of post-processing and lighting effects to mask all that and make these games look "artsy" and impressive enough. You can always make even a shitty looking game look nice if the lighting is good.
I also notice "cheap" art direction decisions in some games, like this one. Like how the backgrounds are more detailed and better shaded because the artists know they only need to make them once. But then, they cut corners with the animated assets. That makes the sprites look like they don't belong in those backgrounds. (Also, what's the deal with the huge outlines in this game? Backgrounds don't look like that...)
And let's not talk about the "8-bit" looking games with blocky sprites that look nothing like the actual 8-bit games of the past. The huge, sharp pixels was not even a thing, on the Atari 2600 maybe, but after the NES the pixels were not as obvious, CRTs also masked the games enough to look smooth. So anyway, most indie developers will pretend they are "artsy" with their blocky, low resolution assets but i know the only reason (most of) these games look this way is because it's cheaper. And that bothers me a bit. Like i said, i was pretty much spoiled by the likes of SNK and Capcom in the 90's so i can't be bothered with lower tier productions anymore. Guess the indie scene is not for me.
There are a few exceptions. Axiom Verge looks like a NES game in steroids (and has a good level design). Shovel Knight also looks like that although i haven't played it. And the only "fat pixels" game that looks good to me is The Last Night but who knows if we are ever going to play that.
I disagree with this. Personally, the low frame rate in movies always bothered me. Because i know the 24fps was a "just good enough" standard. This may sound like a heresy to some but i did like using motion filters when watching movies. So i loved the 48fps standard some movies tried to push. I don't think people thought it looked "cheap", it just looked unfamiliar (compared to what they watch in cinemas) or "weird".
If it forfeited its artstyle for something more common, it would still be a very decent game.I LOVE CUPHEAD SO MUCH, but if you imagine it without the incredible art, how would it hold up?
That was Final Fight. And she wasn't a tranny.
Diamond? I always thought a little?
Amazing how SNK could do all kinds of awesome hand drawn fighting and Metal Slug games, since the 90s. And somehow other devs can' do it.Yup it’s T R A S H
MAKE IT LIKE THIS FFS
Others can, it just takes time, money and passion.Good high quality 2D animation isn't cheap or easy.Amazing how SNK could do all kinds of awesome hand drawn fighting and Metal Slug games, since the 90s. And somehow other devs can' do it.
Don't really like the way it looks tbh. If they wanted to hold on close to the original I think they would have been better emulating a style closer to Mother Russia Bleeds :
Still retains the retro look while not looking too outdated. The way it currently is, it's a bit like a flash animation and just doesn't seem right.
True.Others can, it just takes time, money and passion.Good high quality 2D animation isn't cheap or easy.
However in the era of deep learning neural networks, there are ways to achieve getting at least half-way there quicker and cheaper than throwing armies of off-shored filipino artists at the problem.
Dunno what it is that makes these games look unnatural to me. Like 99% of mobile games. They look too clean or something? I always disliked that look ever since adobe flash games on Newgrounds were a thing.
Maybe not.No, that's an upscaling tool. If you want smooth animation, someone still has to draw every in-between frame, regardless of its resolution..
Graphics are terrible. I am sure the developers put plenty of thought and time into this but the clean art style really is rubbish. Nintendo stated that the leap to hi def was a struggle so can only imagine how small/tiny developers manage.
Looking cool. I hope the classic voice sample was just a placeholder, but at the same time I want an option to have them in case the new voices suck.
New trailer:
The characters have normal-mapped lighting! I love that effect on sprites.
Looking cool. I hope the classic voice sample was just a placeholder, but at the same time I want an option to have them in case the new voices suck.