TheInvisibleSun, on 18 February 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:
As I said before, I would find it acceptable only if it was part of a stage transitional-effect. Even if that that isn't the case and they were being lazy, this is such an inconsequential, minor and insignificant complaint to have when looking at the entire game! Surely you understand that something this innocuous and (and not always very visible) bears such little importance compared to the more important and prevalent problems of the game's art in the end. In other words, it may be a problem, but it's not the huge issue that its being made out to be, at all. I'm surprised that not many people complained about the 2D foreground textures that look a little awkward in the screenshot.
That you're still clinging to the idea that this can be passed off as a transitional effect is seriously pushing me to say some things that aren't likely to go unpunished in a Shark Year thread! A stage transition can be accomplished with a 3 second cutscene, or a handful of tiles from the previous stage that immediately segue into new art assets, right? What you're suggesting here is that we needed a transition spanning 6 entire acts
because we wouldn't have gotten the fucking idea otherwise. And I guess it was totally necessary that they only use one tree, because multiple trees would've confused us, right? I think there's a base misunderstanding here: I'm not talking about using the same species of evergreen in two separate zones, I'm saying that they drew one tree and Photoshopped iterations. This isn't minor, this is one asset taking up a massive chunk of the backgrounds. Snow stage could've gotten away with it because there's actually quite a lot of foreground detail obscuring the forest. The upper half of ARZ doesn't have anything to hide behind, and it's ugly. Bad for one stage, unacceptable for two.
Honestly, I'm really not all that concerned about it- they could've used multiple trees and it wouldn't have made either stage look appealing when considered as a whole. But when I can't otherwise convince everyone to see what I'm seeing here, I thought it'd be profitable to latch onto an objectively poor design decision and see how logically you all dealt with that! I mean, it seems everyone's only gripe with E1's art was the lack of polish and effort, and what we're discussing here is a clear-cut lack of polish and effort. The game has been in development for well over a year now, they're only doing 4 zones, and they're still cutting corners? Even if style and polish don't concern you, you should still be up in arms over the lack stage variety. 50% of the game is now coniferous forest. 25% of that is shoddy remake. They're both water stages.
Metal Man88, on 19 February 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:
Yet it became confusing as to why, having determined the game and all other games like it would interminably suck, they continued to post about it, since clearly background tree #356 billion being reused had already sealed its fate, and there was no more discussion to be had—only repetition about the devil tree and it's vile powers of Sonic gameplay destruction.
Rusty, bro, this post was kinda retarded! First, the tree isn't even the issue, I just explained that. Second, every Sonic game that ever went criticized for its appearance has always been met with the argument that screenshots weren't enough to judge the art. Not once has it ever held water. 2 screens are enough, I've got at least 6 for each zone here. Third, why are you trying to make gameplay an issue here? I wasn't, I don't need screenshots or video to know this is going to suck. I'm not even concerned
about that. The art style is what hooked me on this franchise to begin with and it's all I really watch these games for. This is launch day for me and I'm laying it down.
You people have relapsed something fierce and the illness is now inoperable. I fought hard to set you guys straight over the years, but there's nothing left to be done! I should've left when Chimpo did!