i agree that there's a lot of ugly games that I wouldn't even want to try because of it but I will make the distinction between ugly games because of lack of effort and ugly games because of a personal distaste for the style (nobody saves the world, for example), which clearly still have a lot of effort put in to their graphics.
I think people need to start accepting that there is a difference between "ugly" and "style I don't like," and that... Yes, there are going to be games that exist with styles you don't like.And then there's Nidhogg 2, which is just both.
Wait til you go back and play actual 8 bit games and realize they were ugly as shit too. You've played too many of those nostalgia bait "8 bit" games that use 5 billion colors and shading.
Everyone says Case of the Golden Idol is ugly and I don't get it, I think the art style is distinctive and interestingWhy not say "beautiful" or "gorgeous?" Maybe you just find ugly art distinctive and interesting.
Why not say "beautiful" or "gorgeous?" Maybe you just find ugly art distinctive and interesting.sure
Trace and Indra (Axiom Verge protagonists) are extremely ugly characters. They actually look less ugly with the in-game art than their character designs.Googled these characters having no familiarity with them
again this just seems to be the art style being not to taste and slightly amateurish, not "this game has bad graphics" or "is ugly on purpose"I mean yeah, obviously it's not just trying to look bad, but that doesn't mean there's no room for critique of its visuals. Axiom Verge 1 was very much Metroid by way of Amiga, which wasn't my favourite style but certainly worked alright. From what I've seen of AV2, its use of textures feels like a major callback to shareware and early indie games, and that does tend to evoke a "cheap" feeling.
aesthetics aren't just a slider you just keep turning up until you get the best one
I'm not a fan of all these retro looking games. The devs are just pumping out these games to cash in on nostalgia. Why make a game like Octopath Traveller in full 3D with modern graphics when you can do it for a fraction of the price with a retro look but still charge full price. They've found a way to make 30+ year old games again and got people to buy them. They do the same with the anime style game. Only difference is they at least keep them a few generations behind at most graphics wise.
Saying an ugly game just doesnt have an art style to your taste sounds like the people who criticize people who dont get modern art in museums.
Your art exhibition of 10 coke cans stacked on top of each other isnt art Jerry.
I'm not a fan of all these retro looking games. The devs are just pumping out these games to cash in on nostalgia. Why make a game like Octopath Traveller in full 3D with modern graphics when you can do it for a fraction of the price with a retro look but still charge full price. They've found a way to make 30+ year old games again and got people to buy them. They do the same with the anime style game. Only difference is they at least keep them a few generations behind at most graphics wise.
I mean yeah, obviously it's not just trying to look bad, but that doesn't mean there's no room for critique of its visuals. Axiom Verge 1 was very much Metroid by way of Amiga, which wasn't my favourite style but certainly worked alright. From what I've seen of AV2, its use of textures feels like a major callback to shareware and early indie games, and that does tend to evoke a "cheap" feeling.
I'm not a fan of all these retro looking games. The devs are just pumping out these games to cash in on nostalgia. Why make a game like Octopath Traveller in full 3D with modern graphics when you can do it for a fraction of the price with a retro look but still charge full price. They've found a way to make 30+ year old games again and got people to buy them. They do the same with the anime style game. Only difference is they at least keep them a few generations behind at most graphics wise.I'm not gonna defend SE's "HD pixels" style too much but in general I really like pixel art and think it's the best looking art style for video games. It also looks to me like a whole lot more care and effort goes into beautiful pixel art than most other games, even those with technically superior graphics, but admittedly I don't have the expertise to know if I'm right about that. Regardless it's pretty strange that you're acting like people get somehow tricked into buying these games rather than genuinely preferring them this way. There's a reason (well, multiple) I buy barely any AAA games but tons of indie ones!
Some very odd takes in this topicI feel like I shouldn't need to explain to an adult the difference between ugly as a descriptor, i.e. "this is ugly because it deviates from the aesthetic norms that we think of as beautiful", vs ugly as a value judgment, i.e. "I don't like this, therefore it is ugly, therefore it is bad", but here we are
you can critique visuals all you want but most of the "critique" in this topic is just equating an art style being objectively bad on some sort of "good art" metricOh, I'm with you there, I really dislike the slant towards a linear scale of quality that some people tend to have. But I also can't be surprised when a game like Calico, which reminds me of early PS2 graphics mixed with an N64 blur, draws a mixed response. It doesn't make it outright bad , but there's a question of efficacy that's fair to ask even when you understand where they're coming from.
Like I'm not actually familiar enough with AV and AV2. But Golden Idol I have no problem with calling "ugly" because it is very deliberately a grotesque version of classic adventure games and like SCUMM stuff. That is way, way different from saying "graphics don't matter," it is actually the exact opposite.
Likewise a game looking "cheap" really doesn't bother me much because the reason indie games look cheap is because they...often are? Like Calico I've seen played and it looks fine, even good! It's a 3d indie game, they look like that. But it doesn't have "bad graphics," the effort is going into the visual design and color pallette rather than sheer graphical fidelity. Is it MY preferred aesthetic? No but who gives a shit. It accomplishes the goals it sets out to do.
Games can miss the mark with this all the time (Octopath, for example, has a neat style with a lot of visual effects that end up muddying the look in an unfortunate way) but it's unclear to me what people think the mark even is
End of the day the retro pixel style should be left to indie devs who have no money to work with. The big publishers should be working in 3D. If companies like Idea Factory and Falcom can work do it then there's no excuse.Hard disagree. We need just the opposite, big budget developers doing true spritework. There's a reason no sprite-based game in the last 25 years has matched the visual impact of Symphony of the Night: nobody has the time and budget to put in that work. I like a lot of big pixel indie games, I think stuff like Celeste looks excellent, but there's an uncanny nature to a lot of them and I'd love to see that overcome.
But I also can't be surprised when a game like Calico, which reminds me of early PS2 graphics mixed with an N64 blur, draws a mixed response. It doesn't make it outright bad, but there's a question of efficacy that's fair to ask even when you understand where they're coming from.
Here's a hot take
You can subjectively like something that's objectively ugly and not all things that look aesthetically bad are some sort of bold new art direction-- sometimes it's just the creator doesn't care if it's ugly and/or has no budget to prevent it from being so. It's not always people being troglodytes who just don't understand this amazing thing but rather it's you needing to cope with your insecurities by trying to devalue their opinion of the thing that doesn't line up with your opinion of the thing.
Instead of saying people are overstepping by calling this thing objectively bad or ugly, you can have some self-confidence and say "it's okay if the thing I like is objectively bad" because you know what? You like it just for being unique or different. And that's okay.
what is objectively ugly
what is objectively uglyEverything I've ever drawn.
You know what is aesthetically poor. If I wore a bright yellow jumpsuit to a formal dance you wouldnt jump out and defend me for having different tastes
You know what is aesthetically poor. If I wore a bright yellow jumpsuit to a formal dance you wouldnt jump out and defend me for having different tastes
which could one day be considered fashionable, so it's not objective
what is objectively ugly
If that day is not today then yes it is objective. :Because context matters.
oh cool can you point me towards this ever-changing set of criteria that defines what is ugly and what is not, objectively