Which game do you feel is the ugliest?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzI1RBdK2_g
 
That's a given Atari remasters of Mario games all look bad.
 
Those playdoh animals from WarioWare just looks like someone's first time trying to use Z-Brush.
 
Donkey_Kong_Intellivision.png


attack of the humongous sentient booger
 
I don't know why there's a positive correlation between ugly games and Yoshi but here's a screenshot from Yoshi's Story and I think it looks pretty hideous

FruitFrame.png


It certainly doesn't help the game has enemy designs such as these

Attacky_Sack.PNG

Yoshis_Story_Spiny_Fish.png

Blargg_YS.png


(at least Wooly World breaks the trend and makes up for the ugly Yoshi games by being pretty nice to look at)
 
Lord Bowser said:
possibly controversial opinion, but super mario 64's graphics (and n64 graphics in general really) are hideous

yeah i'm aware of the whole "it's 20 years old, it was a landmark, first time, etc." argument but that doesn't really shake off the fact that they look really ugly. of course the games are still fun but the graphics did not age well at all
Click to expand...
I gotta agree with this, Super Mario 64 and 64 games in general (aside from maybe Paper Mario) look really eh

I mean just look that this image:
Q9gmDn4.jpg

Both Mario and Bowser look way better in DS than in 64, and I'm fairly sure that the DS models have even less polygons. The 64 art style just doesn't look as good.
 
DS models have more polygons than 64's model, most certainly.

It's just their texture resolution is eh, but it's better quality than the single-color textures from the 64 version.
 
Well that's surprising. Tells you how much textures make or break models.
 
Baby Luigi said:
DS models have more polygons than 64's model, most certainly.

It's just their texture resolution is eh, but it's better quality than the single-color textures from the 64 version.
Click to expand...
The DS is more powerful than say a N64 or PS1 in terms of graphics but yet it is weaker than say a Dreamcast, PS2, GameCube, Original Xbox, and hell even its handheld competitor the PSP which probably goes about closer to PS2 level.
 
My criticism of the video is that they failed to show us the actual textures (I mean the images) and also not telling us the texture resolution of the models. Not to mention, the later models have the nice stuff like normal maps and specular maps, stuff that used to be reserved for full-on artwork. Also, no mention of bone structure, that's also important, though I guess it concerns mainly with animation. Finally, the Galaxy Mario appears distorted relative to later Mario models, as you see the proportions around the stomach look a little stretched.

I think the 64 Mario might have marginally more faces because the body and arms themselves are composed of whole pieces of polygon rather than being a unified model like in 64DS (meaning the pieces are essen.ially floating circles and therefore, faces normally not visible since they overlap with other polygons would be counted). They talked about it earlier in the video at 2:00 or so.

I also think the Mario Party Mario looks marginally better despite being lower poly.

IDK the models in the video look pretty dang messy in terms of mesh makeup. The Melee Mario has an n-gon (a face with more than 4 vertices) in the palm of his hand and the Galaxy model also has two n-gons on Mario's body and the edge flow around the leg looks bad: there seems to be an n-gon there too. The Brawl Mario has an n-gon in his hair. I don't know if it's supposed to be like that, only partially triangulated or even has a n-gons, or not. Models I usually see have ALL tris (for optimization reasons such as fixing nonplanar or concave faces, as tris are to be mainly avoided in modeling) or 99% quads. The edge flow just doesn't seem clean to me at all and I don't think the video shows an accurate representation of the mesh I fear. I mean, the Galaxy one has a very bad geometry.

And no Ultra Smash model in that video. FOR FUX SAKE THAT TEXTURE HAS 1024 x 1024 pixel RESOLUTION. The rest are only a measly 512 x 512 at most, including 3D World.

Still nominate Mario Kart DS Mario for ugliest Mario. Dat texture stretch where the mustache is... NO.

Otherwise, great video, complaints are kinda pet peeves.
 
LeftyGreenMario said:
My criticism of the video is that they failed to show us the actual textures (I mean the images) and also not telling us the texture resolution of the models. Not to mention, the later models have the nice stuff like normal maps and specular maps, stuff that used to be reserved for full-on artwork. Also, no mention of bone structure, that's also important, though I guess it concerns mainly with animation. Finally, the Galaxy Mario appears distorted relative to later Mario models, as you see the proportions around the stomach look a little stretched.

I think the 64 Mario might have marginally more faces because the body and arms themselves are composed of whole pieces of polygon rather than being a unified model like in 64DS (meaning the pieces are essen.ially floating circles and therefore, faces normally not visible since they overlap with other polygons would be counted). They talked about it earlier in the video at 2:00 or so.

I also think the Mario Party Mario looks marginally better despite being lower poly.

IDK the models in the video look pretty dang messy in terms of mesh makeup. The Melee Mario has an n-gon (a face with more than 4 vertices) in the palm of his hand and the Galaxy model also has two n-gons on Mario's body and the edge flow around the leg looks bad: there seems to be an n-gon there too. The Brawl Mario has an n-gon in his hair. I don't know if it's supposed to be like that, only partially triangulated or even has a n-gons, or not. Models I usually see have ALL tris (for optimization reasons such as fixing nonplanar or concave faces, as tris are to be mainly avoided in modeling) or 99% quads. The edge flow just doesn't seem clean to me at all and I don't think the video shows an accurate representation of the mesh I fear. I mean, the Galaxy one has a very bad geometry.

And no Ultra Smash model in that video. FOR FUX SAKE THAT TEXTURE HAS 1024 x 1024 pixel RESOLUTION. The rest are only a measly 512 x 512 at most, including 3D World.

Still nominate Mario Kart DS Mario for ugliest Mario. Dat texture stretch where the mustache is... NO.

Otherwise, great video, complaints are kinda pet peeves.
Click to expand...
The N64 is more capable than that. We've seen other N64 games look much better than Mario 64. Even some PS1 games look much better than many N64 games. PS1 games had more room for textures due to the big storage capacity of the CD whereas N64 carts didn't hold as much due to the very small capacity of the cartridges.
 
Can't forget the GBA version of DKC 1 and 2

DKCGBA-brselection.png


maxresdefault.jpg


dkcheadtohead_map_small.jpg


To be fair, part of the reason they went overboard with the brightness and saturation is to compensate for the lack of backlighting on the original GBA. The DKC 3 port made after the SP came out looks much better. Still ugly.
 
On the other hand, Super Mario Advance: Super Mario World is less saturated than its SNES counterpart.
 
Super Mario Kart absolutely pales in comparison to the more recent kart games. I know it's an unfair comparison given the evolution of graphics and technical capabilities of game systems since then, however 2d racing games are like day and night when compared to more recent ones. Although stacking up Super mario kart against the likes of Mario kart 8 is like comparing apples to oranges, i still think it was revolutionary for its time in terms of both graphics and gameplay, when compared to other racing games on the SNES, and also important because it gave way to future and better Kart series games. :boshi:

Additionally, i hate the graphics on most Game Boy Advance titles. Don't know why nintendo would choose to make a SNES-level console (even if it was a handheld and had more technical limitations as opposed to home consoles) when they already had the Gamecube which was much more powerful, and essentially went back 10 years in terms of technical evolution. The DS was a much better handheld and caught up well to Nintendo's home console specs, and was a good way to discontinue 16 bit and the likes. :boshi:
 
calling the GBA "SNES-level" is ridiculously wrong

Don't know why nintendo would choose to make a SNES-level console (even if it was a handheld and had more technical limitations as opposed to home consoles) when they already had the Gamecube which was much more powerful, and essentially went back 10 years in terms of technical evolution.
Click to expand...

one device sold 81 millions and the other sold 22 millions. Hint: it's not the Gamecube.
 
Almost like Nintendo are the kings of handheld gaming or something.
 
It's not like you can take your Gamecube everywhere and play it too.
 
But then what was the handle for?

On a more serious note, Super Mario RPG. Most of the elements exclusive to that game just look so out of place, and the color scheme is so muddy that even SMB1 Mario looks considerably less vibrant when he makes his cameo.
 
I've noticed a trend that games brought up as being the ugliest are usually games with pre-rendered graphics.

I think it makes sense. This art style can either make or break games. It worked for Donkey Kong Country rather beautifully and failed miserably in Yoshi Topsy Turvy. Makes we wonder why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back