45 ms·

I'm having trouble being convinced that this isn't more subjective than the author implies. I never liked how SFIV looked, either, but not because it works or d

I'm having trouble being convinced that this isn't more subjective than the author implies. I never liked how SFIV looked, either, but not because it works or doesn't work with the medium, I just think it looks awful. It may be problematic if one has to do things that are not really compatible with the medium, such as trying to put high poly models on a low-poly screen, but a lot of games cannot really achieve the right feel by working with the medium. One of the issues I have with a lot of retro-style games is that they're almost automatically limited into certain genres and feels. Diablo using properly pixelated art just wouldn't be Diablo anymore, and for all the muddy, I love how it looks to this day. I always liked the 2.5D style, really. But for me, this is subjective either way.

emodendroket 10y ago
> I never liked how SFIV looked, either, but not because it works or doesn't work with the medium, I just think it looks awful. Isn't that what he's saying?
- projektir 10y ago
  Perhaps I'm misinterpreting his point, but the impression I got is that he things people like how SFIV looks because it's not pixelated, and that people dislike how other pixelated things look because of the "pixel tax". But, I think lots of people genuinely like how SFIV looks and have not played neither KOF III nor SFIII. Even if they see the bad animations they don't have a problem with it because they think it's part of the style. Just like, people like me genuinely like how Diablo looks and he things it's a muddy aliased mess.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    They "genuinely" like it, sure, but not because of the quality of the animation.
dota_fanatic 10y ago
Just chiming in to say Diablo on a CRT looks damn good, played it on one back in 2012 and as a kid back when it was released. Very immersive. On your typical LCD screen? Yech. The difference in quality of experience is huge. Diablo on a CRT looks better and feels better than Diablo 2 on any monitor imho, and is on par with Diablo 3's visuals (and still has a better feeling of physicality, unlike D3 where bodies are clipping left and right).

emodendroket 10y ago

> I never liked how SFIV looked, either, but not because it works or doesn't work with the medium, I just think it looks awful. Isn't that what he's saying?

projektir 10y ago
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting his point, but the impression I got is that he things people like how SFIV looks because it's not pixelated, and that people dislike how other pixelated things look because of the "pixel tax". But, I think lots of people genuinely like how SFIV looks and have not played neither KOF III nor SFIII. Even if they see the bad animations they don't have a problem with it because they think it's part of the style. Just like, people like me genuinely like how Diablo looks and he things it's a muddy aliased mess.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  They "genuinely" like it, sure, but not because of the quality of the animation.

dota_fanatic 10y ago

Just chiming in to say Diablo on a CRT looks damn good, played it on one back in 2012 and as a kid back when it was released. Very immersive. On your typical LCD screen? Yech. The difference in quality of experience is huge. Diablo on a CRT looks better and feels better than Diablo 2 on any monitor imho, and is on par with Diablo 3's visuals (and still has a better feeling of physicality, unlike D3 where bodies are clipping left and right).