Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I even checked the name of the game on google because on console it was more beautiful than this, the ugly screenshots put me in doubt ><
Really?
When it first came out, I remember watching a few gameplay videos; perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me. ^^'
Considering your instantaneous thought is to invalidate what others have to say, I'd say I've contributed more than you have...
But even taking that into consideration, I do agree that whoever took the screenshots seems to have done so haphazardly; they actually make the game look a lot worse than it actually is.
Back then I played on 8 bit home computers like the C=64 and Amiga (16/32bit). On the C=64, most of the games looked like a truckload of crap, but the gameplay was able to captivate the player and keep them entertained for a long time. Pixel art is still popular today but there is no comparison to a sprite with a maximum point size of 24 × 21 pixels (HiRes) and a memory size of 63 bytes at a screen resolution of 320 × 200 pixels.
THAT is bad graphics. :D