[QUOTE="glitchgeeman"]Interesting, glad to see people are stil capable of artistic debate. I agree that art is subjective, but what really gets me is that the TC accused Okami of being the result of laziness. As peoable have said, art is opinion and subjective, so how can you call Okami a work of laziness when you never even had a hand in developing it. Would these people perfer Okami to be realistic? With Ameratsu (sp?) having realistic fur, and life-like water rippling effects? Some games need realism to be artistic, but Okami is not one of them. Wanderer5
Yeah actually the developers did try to make it look realism, but it didn't seem to work, so then they came up with the japanase art design.
Well I wasn't aware of that so I guess I'm owned. :P
I perfer Okami's japanese art design though. After playing it and enjoying it so much, I think it's much better as it is now than it would have been realistic. I mean, how would they implement the paint brush realistically? If it was realistic, it would've just been another Zelda wannabe and probably gotten mediocre reviews, but thanks to its unique style, it did something no other game did, and that's why I feel it's special. The paintbrush and the style really go hand in hand together. Kind of how Gears of Wars dark style and its brutal weapons are a perfect match. I believe that if Okami was done in high-res Crysis-esque realism, it would've been a much worse game.
Log in to comment