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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
It's more about story and puzzles and combat than platforming. What little platforming Iconoclasts has is very easy and extremely basic.
But there are tons of uncanny similarities: Indie game, low difficulty, appears Metroidvania-y but is actually very linear, HUGE focus on story, lots of simple puzzles, absolutely fantastic pixel art, spent 10 years in development and the result isn't really good enough to reflect this, etc.
Iconoclasts is far and away the better game of the two imo, but how could you possibly overlook all the obvious parallels?
I honestly don't see any similarities between Owlboy and Celeste aside from both being indie games with pixel art.
Celeste is more similar to Super Meat Boy, except if you ask me with better level design, less technical issues, better exploration, and better/less frustrating level gimmicks (no fiddly ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ like magnets).
I have yet to finish the game, but Celeste is easily one of the best platformers in this sort of vein I have ever played. I don't know what else to say. It does basically everything it needs to get right perfectly.
The game just isn't for you, but there really is no need to trash it so much. I'm a huge Metroid and Castlevania fan and I played a TON of the games from those series and I will say that Iconoclasts and Celeste are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Iconoclasts is way more like Owlboy than Celeste is. As some other people have mentioned in both Iconoclasts and Owlboy there's a huge focus on story. Both games aren't metroidvania at all, they're pretty linear and platforming is minimal.
I wouldn't call Iconoclasts a straight up platformer at all because the main focus on the game is PUZZLES while Celeste is a straight up PLATFORMER.
I personally really like the art direction of Celeste, but what sells it is the gameplay for me.The challenge in Celeste is much higher and I enjoy that.
In the end I do love both games.
Especially for someone like you who put 70 hours into Super Meat Boy, its an absolute and no-brainer recommandation!
Although the gameplay is pretty awesome and not like your average platformer (especially on Nintendo Switch's Handheld mode) , it actually plays so well and it's satisfying ,
I can't argue with the vomitif graphics. It got cool colors but graphics are pretty bad even for an 8-bit platformer.
And whoever says "no they look so good" or "graphics doesn't matter" is simply being a fanboy.
Not much of an argument.
Somehow such pixel-art games always manage to surprise me in a good way. So did Undertale and Hotline Miami at least. I'm also very sceptical about them at first, but boy, do they deliver.
Even with such graphic this game can be beautiful sometimes. And the music is amazing. And the story seems to be interesting and touching (at least it seems so for me, but I think 90% of adequate people can relate to it).
Dunno, so far I really like what I bought.
Is it the most impressive pixel art title ever? Certainly not.
Does it look good? Yes, it does. You may not like it, but insinuating that they couldn't do any better given the attention to detail that is present almost anywhere in the game is just wrong.
It's not even a question of "graphics aren't important, gameplay is king". This is not bad pixel art and it does not look bad, you just happen to dislike a style that yeah, is well done here. There are a plethora of examples of bad pixel art. Celeste isn't one of them.
Well, because it's awesome!
-The platforming is tightly controlled and feels great.
-The difficulty is perfect.
-The discovery aspect is incredible, rewarding, and not too esoteric or unfair.
-The story is compelling. It's also sweet, but not cloyingly so.
Honestly what's not to love? The graphics? Well, that's a matter of taste. I think they fit the game very well. Also, gameplay > graphics. I'll take this over some bloated, 3D, VR, FPS, AAA $hitshow any day.
Yea... In the morning the Sun rises not in my opinion, it's just how it is
At night the Sun falls not in my opinion, it's just how it is
Witcher 3 has better, more detailed, High definition graphicas than Ocarina of time, it's not my opinion it's just how it is.
This game has bad Graphics , it's not my opinion it's just how it is.
Design is a matter of opinion, colors are a matter of opinion, art is a matter of opinion,
you might like the Colors / Design and Art of Celeste, that DOESN'T mean it has good Graphics.
Graphics aren't a matter of opinion. They are what they are
Do I seriously need to explain that to you like you are 5 ?
Jesus...
Oh I LAIK how the gaem looks so must has good graphics
Although I mentioned in another post that I don't want to support games that they don't put effort in their pixel graphics (well at least in my opinion they didn't put as effort as other games, they might just wanted the game to look this way I dont know) I didn't regret buying the game on my Switch not even for a momment.
As I mentioned countless times, it's enjoyable and worthy of all the praise.
The fact that it has poor graphics doesn't mean it's not a good game.|
Just be open minded and accept it for what it is. The fact that you like it
or the fact that it might be the "best game you ever played" doesn't mean you
don't have to fanboy protect the sh*t out of every "con" people point out.
And I say "con" in quotation marks because bad graphics might very well not
be a con for many people.
uhhh.... okay
Good Pixel Art
http://store.steampowered.com/app/393520/Iconoclasts/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/115800/Owlboy/
http://store.steampowered.com/app/418120/Callys_Caves_3/
(I could show you 10 more but I don't tend to Wishlist Pixel games on my PC since I play most pixel/indie games on my Hand Helds )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Celeste (in my opinion) got better Colors , Design and especially Gameplay than all of those 3 combined.
Does it have better Graphics though ? Do I really need to answer that ?
Looks Beautiful + I like how it looks ≠ Good pixel Art
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then again if in your eyes
This : https://imgur.com/a/XrDam
is better graphics or "pixel art" than
This : https://imgur.com/a/L0dt6
then I don't know what else to say here.
Such a long yet flawed argumentation.
"I like fries" is an opinion.
"Fries are good", also an opinion.
Being a critic usually means trting to be as objective as possible on something that is fundamentally subjective.
"Graphics are good" is as subjective that "that game is good" and I don't think I have to explain to you how subjective it is.
What's funny is that you kinda know it since in your Witcher3/OoT comparison you used objective, measurable criteria. Also you didn't say "OoT graphics are bad", you compared it to another game's graphics, which also helps.
Anyway, I don't know if graphics are bad or not.
I do know I like them and they appealed to me just by watching the trailer (so before any gameplay bias). I also recognize that they're much more simplistic than Owlboy's or other pixel art games mentionned here.
If you want to determine if it's bad, or if you just don't like it, let's consider the following:
It has consistent design. Everything uses the same set of shapes and the same block structures. Everything has similar art designs. There is nothing that feels out of place from the rest.
It is readable. You can immediately tell what everything is, what's safe and what's not, and where the player is at all times. The style, although minimal, does not get in the way of function and still has clear communication.
It is unique. This may come across as more opinionated, but you can't deny that this art stands out. You may remember it cause "it sucks," but point out another game that looks like this. Matt has a unique pixel artstyle for sure.
Based off of these three points, I don't think you can claim this art as objectively bad. It does a lot of things right, it remains consistent, and it clearly conveys everything the player needs to know.
If you want to argue specifically that the graphics are bad, well, now we're trending into a more technical debate. Yes, it requires less resources, uses less shaders, has much lower pixel density, and a way lower frame count on animations. It does not have the graphical intensity of a game like Witcher 3, but it absolutely isn't trying to.
These are conscious design decisions, made clear of their intent by the above points. They may not be completely unbiased, but I'm not judging the design choices here by the fact that a different game has a higher pixel count.
Take it or leave it. But don't try to claim that this game looks "objectively bad."