Whereas Shadow of the Colossus stood out technically and artistically, The Last Guardian stood out artistically but visually it received mixed impressions. It worked perfectly for the original Shadow of the Colossus though. Even the bloom had a less positive effect compared to ICO and Shadow of the Colossus. Graphics worked and didn't work in places. Probably deliberately, The Last Guardian wasn't particularly praised for it's graphics but AI and animation. They could have kept the somewhat ethereal aspects instead of making the world more conventional." People could then say sorry to OCASM for suggesting he was bonkers in seeing something they didn't, and go find something else to argue about. "Actually, it could have been more faithful. If you agree the look is different, because of technical changes, then that means we can go back to the first statement, "Eurogamer says it's very faithful," and retract that. Yet if you loved the original, you'd abhor their corruption of an artwork that was perfect with all its faults and limitations. If you don't care for the original art, you'd applaud the restorer for making the art the artist couldn't make. It's like an art restorer looking at some smears the artist put on their painting, deciding they were a mistake of the medium because the binding agents weren't very good back then, and 'correcting' the art with modern paints. The new games does not look at all ghostly. The bloom is one of the contributory factors that makes PS2 SOTC seem more ghostly. And in doing so, BP looking at the function, they lost the aesthetic impact.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |