Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
in term of realistic graphics, i hate the one that focused too much on realistic graphics but not focus on the world itself. it makes the world feels empty which subsequently makes the graphics uncanny
as of cartoony graphics, my issue is that half of them (at least the 3d ones) use outlines. i hate outlines. it feels artificial and fake
so a bit of both but with certain exception
If I had to choose one forever, I guess I'd go with cartoony. But
they cant be put under a microscope and see its component.
make some good art work, so it doesn't hurt eye.
In video games?... it depends on the video game... some work for some, not for others.
Even consoles have a reason to warrant a purchase outside graphical tech demos.
I'm pretty sure this also holds true to today's titles, as I'm pretty sure what we consider photorealistic now will look dated in twenty years, too.
A consistent art style is more important than photorealism.