Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="MasterYoraeRasante, post: 258007, member: 81210"] There is one thing people mix together but mean different things. Graphics and Visuals. Graphics are what we don't care about. Pixel art with limited colors can be beautiful. Old N64 or PS1-style 3d models. They can all be considered beautiful even nowadays, in a rustic way. Look at Symphony of the Night, with pixel art during the "everyone wants 3D" era. Undertale, with Earthbound-like graphics. So many beautiful games emulating 8-bit ones. And then there is VVVVV with its Atari-like artstyle. Visuals, on the other hand? You can have something with much more advanced graphics, but with vosuals that are eye-bleeding. Lots of brown and low saturation together with a lot of bloom to be "realistic" like in the later PS2early and early ps3/xbox 360, for example.. AAA games are investing so much into mind-bending and photorealistic graphics, they ignore the visuals. Which is funny, because we are now at a point we barely notice the graphic advancements in the game itself unless we just stop midgame and watch everything just for the sake of it, only usually noticing how detailed they can make the 3d models everywhere without massive slowdowns. And even that had many ways to trick - compare Pokémon Scarlet&Violed to any Xenoblade game on the Switch, and keep in mind that [I]graphics-wise[/I] Pokémon is the better one, but [I]visually [/I]it certainly does not seem so. [/QUOTE]

Totals may include hidden visitors.