安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I have to disagree here. Sky / Crossbell 's art style is timeless, however CS1 and 2 looks terrible today even compare to CS3, especially Rean's low poly spiky hairs.
It's a 2017 game. Like I said, the engine they used are quite outdated. I think the reason they are still using it has something to do with Sony helped them financially and technically. They would go bankrupt years ago if Sony didn't helped them, that's why for years they only develop and release on Sony's platform with really old toolset.
https://www.gematsu.com/2019/12/falcom-developing-proprietary-game-engine
I hate to dig up all the old stories. I assume that most Falcom fans know that Falcom is one of the oldest Japanese game developer still around, and it used to exclusively develop PC games. In fact the Trails of Sky were originally PC games. You know PC gaming really died in Japan years ago, Falcom almost went bankrupt before Sony stepped in.
And that game is what, 12 - 15 hours long at max?
So, that shortness alone makes it already not worth the tradeoff for it's good graphics. Still much better for Falcom to stick with their "bad graphics" and 100+ hour long games.
It may be it a legitimate question, but it also has a legitimate answer which isn't the one you were hoping for.
The answer is because with top line graphics come other tradeoffs that aren't worth the cost that comes with having top line graphics.
How long are those $10 indie games with vastly superior visuals? Are they 100+ hours long? If not, then they are already inferior to Falcom games by default.
And if we start comparing the content between them vs. Falcom games, no doubt there will also be a great multitude of other areas in which they also come up way short.
That's really sad...
I guess you could still create amazing art style like Persona 5 to work around the outdated engine, but using and maintaining such old engine on future console is going to be a lot more work not to mention the limit of scope.(like the limitation of on screen characters, objects, map sizes)...
Falcom is really stubborn, the last time it insisted on developing PC game almost cost the whole company. I hope they will make that jump one day instead of clinging on outdated tools like it's their tradition or something.
Falcom had a deal with Sony after the disaster that's Zwei, and the deal saved the Company. The Cold Steel engine was provided by Sony as well.
It's concerning for me because:
- They don't have a glowing technological track record. Their games are far from programming marvels, are often programmed weirdly (see Ys 8 porting trouble with their old in-house engine), and are often unoptimised. E.g. I doubt PhyreEngine was truly incapable of showing 40 unique models on screen without tanking performance. It's more like Falcom couldn't manage to utilise it properly and find a way to achieve what they wanted. They have also always been a generation behind with graphics.
- Making and maintaining an engine from scratch is a MASSIVE undertaking. Making an actually good engine is even harder. They will have to face problems that have been overcome many times by the hundreds of dedicated engine developers employed by e.g. Epic.
- They have like 3-7 programmers on their games' credits, in a company of slightly more than 60 people total. It would be a herculean task to make a half-decent in-house engine with that few people. They don't plan to expand significantly to accommodate that, either.
I would be truly elated if Falcom could prove me wrong, but as you can see, I'm not too hopeful right now.