Board 8 > What the hell is up with ugly games these days

(+) 1 Yeah! (+)

So with Axiom Verge 2 in the playstation plus games of the month I was intrigued by a decently rated metroidvania and I just can't get over how ugly this game is.

I'm not exactly sure when exactly game makers went from "Retro graphics are cool" which is true and I don't mind a lot of retro looking games at all to "Graphics don't matter at all and in fact purposefully ugly games are good.

Another game I really wanted to like was the adventure game that came out this last year that was just horrifically ugly

Not sure why this has become a thing

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.

changmas posted...

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.

The latest Pokemon seems like it's in the former category. If they had put in another 6+ months effort to make it look like a current gen game and to fix most of the bugs/glitches, it could have gone from a 6/10 to maybe an 8/10 game.

Axiom Verge is made by one guy. Like, everything, including the art/music.

I think Quest for the Golden Idol is similar, but I also think the artstyle is meant to be distinctive because you need to instantly be able to tell that you're looking at the same person from a previous scenario.

But if we're talking ugly games, someone's gotta mention Cruelty Squad.

Axiom Verge 2 definitely doesn't look "ugly" to me.

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.

There was clear effort put into Axiom Verge's style. I don't know how anyone can claim it to be a game that decided "graphics/presentation don't matter at all."

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.

StealThisSheen posted...

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.

GranzonEx posted...

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.

I was curious so I looked it up

TMNT for NES looks better than Axiom Verge 2

Man Axiom Verge 2 is actually really ugly, I've never looked closely at it before but the color palette and character designs are pure eyesores. It's kind of a shock because I thought the first game had a pretty cool look to it.

Trace and Indra (Axiom Verge protagonists) are extremely ugly characters. They actually look less ugly with the in-game art than their character designs.

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"

aesthetics aren't just a slider you just keep turning up until you get the best one

most people refuse to play animegames so these are the times we must live in

Everyone says Case of the Golden Idol is ugly and I don't get it, I think the art style is distinctive and interesting

Paratroopa1 posted...

Everyone says Case of the Golden Idol is ugly and I don't get it, I think the art style is distinctive and interesting

Why not say "beautiful" or "gorgeous?" Maybe you just find ugly art distinctive and interesting.

MacArrowny posted...

Why not say "beautiful" or "gorgeous?" Maybe you just find ugly art distinctive and interesting.

sure

MacArrowny posted...

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

Trace kinda, but Indra is an...interesting take

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

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"

aesthetics aren't just a slider you just keep turning up until you get the best one

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.

There are NES games that are ugly but many many many NES games that look much better than Axiom Verge 2.

Biggest issue with Axiom Verge 2 is not the look but the story and gameplay being inferior to the original

I did not know there was an AV2. I can definitely see how someone would think it's a graphical downgrade after just looking at it for the first time now.

I can see this as a trend in indie games as I wonder at some newer releases of older games seem like a downgrade to me.

What about Calico? Is this another "you don't get the artstyle" or is it jusf really ugly too?
I mean, some of the screenshots looks soulful...but....I dunno...
https://www.gamesreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Calicogame1.jpg
It's fucking ugly

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.

You cam have pretty out there art styles and Ill give you credit if I can tell a lot of work went into it. Return of the obra dinn had an extreme art style but I didnt mind it because it was obviously well thought out and had a lot of effort put into it.

Axiom Verge 2 looks like someone just didnt try very hard

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.

shane15 posted...

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 dont mind it sometimes if it is thematically appropriate and effort was obvious. Astalon Tears of the earth seemed to have shot for the embodiment of The best NES castlevania game ever made and I thought it worked. There was a lot of detail put into the style

I thought this topic was going to be about some AAA games focusing so much on so many dull landscapes for the sake of "realism" rather than someone complaining that someone who made an entire indie game by themselves apparently didn't work hard enough.

masterplum posted...

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.

your lack of intellectual curiosity is disappointing but expected

shane15 posted...

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.

sorry you don't like art

Of all games to pick as an example, Octopath

Natalie posted...

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.

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" metric

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

shane15 posted...

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!

I'm not sure I agree with the examples given in this topic, but there are definitely some games I've seen or played in the last couple years that I just find offputting because of their artistic style. I've noticed this especially when people talk about "pixel graphics" recently. When I think of pixel graphics, I tend to think of things that remind of the SNES, like CrossCode. When other people say pixel graphics today, they seem to mean really grainy, heavily pixellated games that look like Hyper Light Drifter but without the exceptional use of color.

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.

Some very odd takes in this topic

andylt posted...

Some very odd takes in this topic

I 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

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

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" metric

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

Oh, 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.

shane15 posted...

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.

Celeste I'd say has pretty low tier pixel graphics. Lots of better looking pixel art games out there

I'm alright with indie pixelblob for the most part, though authenticity is the other prevailing issue there. What really gets me are these triple A titles that strive for visual 'realism' and end up being less convincing than an episode of Re:Boot. The 2022 Saints reboot and Cyberpunk (at launch) to name a few. Ugly in the sense of being totally lifeless, weightless.

Natalie posted...

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.

Oh I'm not surprised, what I take umbrage with is equating it with an "objective" value judgement, like para says.

And I'll be completely frank: similar to the "modern art" debate there's a reactionary tinge wrapped up in that value judgement whether people realize it or not.

any time someone says something that broadly mocks the concept of modern art I automatically sort them into a not-nice place in my brain

(this, of course, does not mean that all modern art is good, but if you're a non-idiot I don't need to explain this)

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 or talent to prevent it from being so (or something else-- in the case of the cliche modern art that people make fun of in blanket statements it's usually exploitation tbh). 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.

Lopen posted...

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.

I even will take I like the thing despite the aesthetics being bad

Feels like people here are personally offended I am not ok with the graphics being ugly. It can both be a stylistic choice and people can not like it. It would be like someone getting offended that their favorite furry game isnt being played by people who dont like furry games

what is objectively ugly

VintageGin posted...

what is objectively ugly

This feels like an im14andthisisdeep question.

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

VintageGin posted...

what is objectively ugly

Everything I've ever drawn.

masterplum posted...

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

This is the Internet. Someone definetly would defend that.

masterplum posted...

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

LeonhartFour posted...

which could one day be considered fashionable, so it's not objective

If that day is not today then yes it is objective. :Because context matters.

VintageGin posted...

what is objectively ugly

Something that some extremely high percentage of people on the earth finds unpleasant to look at when they look at it. If you think such things don't exist and that a lot of video games don't fall into this blanket... if you're saying such things don't exist at all it's you showing your lack of education and nuance on the subject-- art is something you can teach exactly because there are certain principles when applied correctly are generally pleasing, and certain things when not tend to be met with revulsion. That doesn't mean that there aren't artists yet to come who will perfect styles that don't respect certain concepts, but that also doesn't mean joe schmo who didn't do that either retroactively becomes good when that artist tries something new-- it's a sum of its parts kinda thing.

But no, it's not every that 8-bit offering or retro looking game is ugly like some people are trying to dumb it down to. Plenty of NES games or retro games that imitate that look of many different styles look quite good because there is an artform to pixels too.

And then there are some that are just not pleasant to look at by pretty much any standard but some self righteous internet guy will defend to the death.

Lopen posted...

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

VintageGin posted...

oh cool can you point me towards this ever-changing set of criteria that defines what is ugly and what is not, objectively

Sure. Go get some air and talk to people about stuff and get out of your padded echo chamber on the Internet that says everything is completely wonderful in its own way.

I feel like we are half a logic hop away from someone claiming pong doesnt have worse graphics than anything made today, it just has a different art style and you are wrong if you think its objectively worse