You're viewing a single thread.
People seem confused. The left one is the older game.
Wait…that’s a joke, right?
Nope, the left one is Arkham Knight.
I didn’t know graphics were even possible to be that good 9 years ago. How can that be
For one, the last 10 years didn't really do much in terms of graphical improvements, most games just have denser environments and more detail on the parts that need animating, like faces.
For 2, what you're looking at is not really a comparison of graphics, it's a game where a lot of care and dedication went into the art direction and aesthetics, versus one that looks like generic schlock.
A game with a great artstyle that works with what was available at the time instead of being limited by the technology level will age a million times slower.
Compare and contrast the old killzones on PS2 vs games like XIII.
Or look at Super Mario 3 on NES, which imo still holds up today. A well crafted game is timeless.
Oh for sure, but the reason i invoked those two specifically is that they're very similar outside of their approach to aesthetics, and that they came out at a time when looking for fidelity over having a real art style was becoming a possibility.