386
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
386 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
88835 readers
6411 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'd rather see the "bad" things than Ai.
Honestly if the rest of the game is good, I would rather have some napkin sketches, or a computer based paint software.
I'm 100% with you. Bad art with genuine effort put into it has a charm of its own. I understand the team's mistake, but it's still a mistake.
"Sentinels of the Multiverse" is a fairly popular board game (within those circles) and it looks pretty rough. Pokemon S/V got rightfully dunked on for looking like shit but it still made a bunch of money. "The Case of the Golden Idol" is highly regarded. Runescape.
No one really gave pokémon any s*** for the art. They gave s*** for the performance such as like the pop-in and reused assets.
But the actual art is fine. No one really had issue with that. It's pokémon for heaven's sakes. Not crisis.
That's why people got mad. It's basic 3D models in really simple backgrounds and it ran like s***. There's no reason for something that looks like pokémon to run poorly.
I think pokemon was so heavily criticized partly because it's developed by a veteran studio that really should be able to do better. And the way it looked bad wasn't so much the art style, but how it was loaded into the game.
You had a lot of pop-ins, things not being animated in the distance, and every npc using the exact same animation at the exact same time, as well as some truly uninspired textures out in the wild.
Gamefreak is clearly capable of better when you look at Beast of Reincarnation or Little Town Hero, they just don't seem to care about pokemon anymore.
Effort, talent, technology, taste, there's lots of reasons for something to look bad.
Most obvious example I can think of is Cruelty Squad, the art style is intentionally eye-searing there though.
Five Nights at Freddy's is popular if nothing else, but the art in the early games isn't bad on purpose.
No you wouldnt. 4 decades of whining and bitching by gamers have proved that. There is no winning with this lot.
Do you genuinely believe this is true for even just 10% of gamers? 10% of people? I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't believe any relevant amount of people give a damn about the purity of art for most things.
Most art the average person interacts with is mainly utilitarian. Marketing and porn is probably like a good 80% by mass. As long as the art does it's job, I just don't believe most people give a fucking damn.
You'd honestly be hard for us to find even 1% of the population gives any real f*** about the source of art. They pretty much only ever care about the actual final result and maybe at most a name attached to it because it's of value in some nebulous fashion. Not the reason why that value is there. Just that it has it.
Hell honestly, most art is utilitarian. You're entirely right on that. It's made to serve a purpose either for the artist themselves or for the person consuming it. Most communal forms of art are made as a way to do something more efficiently or as part of a ceremony to accomplish something.
Art for Art's sake is kind of an extreme rarity.