Nope, they're right. Evil Within 1 is infinitely better looking.
Evil Within 2 has some great looking parts, but most of it is bland as shit. Evil Within 1 looks incredibly and is aesthetically WAAAAAYYY betted.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sequels that look worse than their predecessors
- Thread starter Phediuk
- Start date
Nope, they're right. Evil Within 1 is infinitely better looking.
Evil Within 2 has some great looking parts, but most of it is bland as shit. Evil Within 1 looks incredibly and is aesthetically WAAAAAYYY betted.
Spider-Man 2 looks considerably worse than Spider-Man. Which is understandable considering it was open-world and Spider-Man wasn't.
The combination of the low resolution and post-processing gives the game a real unique look that stands out.
I don't think the sequel looks bad by any stretch (at least what I've played) but it certainly goes for a different style.
Last edited:
I just played through RE5 maxed out and I'm currently playing through 6 also maxed out and can't agree with the sentiment. The art direction of 5 is very bland and uninspired. Only the temple area looks good.
In contrast from what I have played so far (2 episodes from Leon's campaign look much better. Better ilumination and effects, and way better textures. The campus area was really well done. I don't know if it keeps up for the entire game, though.
In contrast from what I have played so far (2 episodes from Leon's campaign look much better. Better ilumination and effects, and way better textures. The campus area was really well done. I don't know if it keeps up for the entire game, though.
I agree with halo 1 looking better than halo 2 from an art design standpoint (obviously not technically though)
I also liked the aesthetic of WCW World Tour more than WCW vs NWO
I also liked the aesthetic of WCW World Tour more than WCW vs NWO
I feel like people are exaggerating about dark souls 2. Its probably worse looking than dark souls, but it's not that bad at least in my opinion. Sometimes it looks better. Especially if we're talking Scholar of the First Sin, which I guess is the Canon version of dark souls 2 lol. I know people dislike the game but you have to be fair.
Whereas other games in this thread I can hard agree that the game looks worse than its predecessor, like Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, Xenoblade X and such
Whereas other games in this thread I can hard agree that the game looks worse than its predecessor, like Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, Xenoblade X and such
Last edited:
no, they`re really not. The Evil Within 2 is way more beatiful. The first one looks like hot shit in a lot of times, especially during the city.
No way. Not even close. Artistically, 2 is astronomically worse and waaaaay more boring. The city parts of 1 are a very small part of the game, while the ugly boring parts of 2 are the vast majority of it.
I disagree. 1 has a great art direction, but it is such a mess technically that 2, even though it is less inspired at moments, looks better.
Are you talking about the PS4 version?
Because the PC version isnt a mess at all and looks far better than PC version of 2
evil within 1 was such an incredible game artistically. Huge shame that the second game was so drab and uninspired, really not sure what they were thinking.eh I think it's a pretty good looking game actually, even if it's not the strongest graphics engine. The first game looks better due to better lighting, art direction and processing effects like all that film grain and fog and dust particles. It makes the game look sort of like moving concept art at times.
The second game looks a little too clean and simple, so even if it might have a bit better graphics it doesn't look as good to me.
All they needed to do was fix the engine and improve the controls/camera and they would of had a classic, instead they seemingly fixed the engine but fired all their artists and changed the games direction thinking it needed fixing when the main problems with the first were technical and control wise.
Art style yes, graphics no.
The art style in Reach is definitely my favorite in the Halo universe. it's very futuristic-cool but still grounded in today unlike 343's take on the universe lol
Overall yes imo. There was too much trickery being used that left the game looking quite shallow.
it was definitely more colorful and had more going on in the lighting department than 5, which was going for an intentionally desaturated look
But 6 also had way worse textures I felt
EDIT on the subject of TEW, 1 was certainly going for a more grungy decrepit horror aesthetic for most of the game, while 2 went for more realistic, modern areas with some clean sci-fi tech, and the nightmare/reality-bending parts going for more surreal than grungy
Last edited:
Pokémon began incorporating 3D from the moment it hit the DS. By Gen 5 everything was 3D except for the trainers and Pokémon (outside of cutscenes) themselves.
Mega Man 6
Mega Man 9
The inti-creates retro MM games are such basic-ass looking games.
Mega Man 9 is one of my favorite in the series but objectively speaking it's hard to debate it. I was not a fan of 10 at all though.
The thing about DS2 is that, when it wants to, it can be quite the looker, specially considering that the game was developed for 360/PS3. (These screenshots are SotFS on PS4 which slightly tweaked the lighting and uses the PC's higher quality textures)
You are absolutely right about the dynamic shadows and torch lighting. It was dissapointing not to have that in Bloodborne. It looks great, and it hints at what it could've been.
I think the problem with DS2 is that, when it falls short, it really sticks out.
Shaded Ruins and Harvest Valley are just abysmal. Not only is the lighting completely flat and the textures muddy; the geometry is blocky and simplistic. Those areas really leave a bad taste in the mouth. DS1 has Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith which look just as bad, but overall DS1 more simplistic, pre-baked lighting makes the game feel less uneven graphically, even if DS2's highest highs are higher than DS1's highs.
I much prefer Halo 1's art style to Halo 2's. And probably the rest of the games in the series.
Halo 2 offered a mighty impressive graphical upgrade next to Halo 1, but yeah. Style is more important.
Halo 2 offered a mighty impressive graphical upgrade next to Halo 1, but yeah. Style is more important.
If I remember correctly, Final Fantasy XIII looked considerably better than FFXIII-2 and XIII-3
A not insignificant percentage of this thread boils down to developers changing the art style in a sequel, and some people taking objection to that. "Worse" is such a difficult metric. For instance, Crysis 2 had better textures, better lighting, better post-processing, better character models, and pretty much better everything. But some people didn't like the shift to urban environments, so in their eyes the sequel "looked worse".
What?! KZ3 looked way better. Better textures and geometry. I think you might just like 2 because it's dark.
They dialed back the post processing significantly and I always figured it was because they didn't want to cripple the controls.
First of all.....the GBA Fire Emblems are 2D perfection. NONE of the Fire Emblems....right after it and presently look as good if you ask me
Fire Emblem Shadow Dragon is ugly as sin ... it is uglier both to Radiant Dawn
and even uglier to the GBA ones
Which one might say it is pretier even than radiant dawn
I think the issue with KZ3 was that it had quite a few "day time" levels. The lighting engine in that game can't really do high intensity lights well because all the lighting in those two game had LDR precision, what this meant was that even when it was day time the level looked like it was lit from a lightbulb rather than sun light. KZ2 avoided that by not having any level except the opening level and shanty town level set in day time.
It also had a lot more persistent and denser particle effects, its motion blur had a lot longer exposure time, KZ2 also had muzzle flash shadows for every gun be it your gun, or friendly or enemy...KZ3 did not. Basically the engine was originally built specifically with KZ2's look in mind so it sits really well with its art style so much so that even its drawbacks were factored into the look of the game (like the QAA blur). KZ3 on the other hand tried to branch out and as a result despite having better tech and cleaner look...may not have been as appealing as KZ2 with its muted colours and dark look.
That's due to American Nightmare being an XBLA spin-off, there were file size limits for Arcade titles, so they had to cut back in areas.
Star Control - the Thread
Fabulous Star Control 2
Abomination CGI of Star Control 3
Fabulous Star Control 2
Abomination CGI of Star Control 3
You are a good person.
Last edited:
Like people were more impressed with frame rates than the move from 2D to 3D 20 years go. Sure mate.
I remember when I tried to run Saints Row IV on my old PC I had to turn down all settings to lowest possible to get above 30 fps, and the game looked like shit. Meanwhile, I was able to run Saints Row The Third on the same PC on medium settings and it looked significantly better while getting solid 60 fps.
If you put both games head to head on highest settings, they're probably on par, but the optimization got a lot worse.
If you put both games head to head on highest settings, they're probably on par, but the optimization got a lot worse.
