3 ms·
Undertale had really amateur art but it was cohesive and looked like someone actually cared about it, versus a bunch of parts-bin stock graphics some guy bought
by rubbingalcohol 7y ago
Undertale had really amateur art but it was cohesive and looked like someone actually cared about it, versus a bunch of parts-bin stock graphics some guy bought on discount.
I don't doubt the guy is successful, but he doesn't really bring up a convincing argument for his position. He could be potentially be MORE successful if he invested a little more in visual aspects of his games. Reading an article about why it isn't a priority for him isn't that interesting to me.
- zimpenfish 7y ago> He could be potentially be MORE successful if he invested a little more in visual aspects of his games. Covered in the article (and previous blog posts, I think): I have had games where I worked very hard to improve the graphics, spending a lot of time and money, and they really did look better! But when I released those games, the vast majority of people who had said, "Your games look bad." STILL said, "Your games look bad."
- tripzilch 7y agoThey really did look better, it's just that the vast majority of people didn't think so. Sounds like someone who worked at all the wrong things to "improve" because they don't listen to feedback.
- duskwuff 7y ago> Undertale had really amateur art Not sure I can agree with that. Undertale had lo-fi art, but there was a lot of care put into it.