Are DS graphics gonna become the new "aesthetic" for indies?

That game is comfy
Kinda wish there were more like it

I'm talking about the new "aesthetic" for indies. Also you type like a woman.

>you lived in an era where portable gaming held its own merit

>now it's mobile and gacha shit

how can zoomers cope?

I’d prefer PS1 type graphics.

Attached: 86C8515F-EFB9-4695-A6FD-CDF145362B8C.jpg (1280x720, 156.04K)

This game looks like what botw defenders claim botw is, I hope it's good

Yea but except dumb SJW

This. DS 3D was screwed because of the D pad. Wish Nintendo at least made a add on Joystick

Attached: NamelessGame.png (958x634, 127.22K)

PS1 looked like shit. N64 was a million times better.

those aren't too far off from one another

God no, N64 was blurry, ran like shit and fogged to hell and back.

Attached: mmlps1-n64-draw-distance.jpg (1968x786, 662.61K)

where's the jump scare?

PS1 and DS graphics are a very similar aesthetic, the only reason to say you prefer one over the other is if you're a consolewarring faggot.

Probably not. The reason 2D pixel art is big with indies is because it's easy enough to make even someone unskilled at art can make it "good enough." There is currently no easy way to make 3D such that even someone unskilled can make 3D models; if you're making 3D you're a skilled artists, and if you're a skilled artist you're not going to bother doing low poly models, you're just going to make a good looking model.

It's the same idea with pixel art as a cost-cutting method: less details means less work.

In some games yes that was a problem that makes the PS1 look better in still images. But at the end of the day, the N64 represents textures and models accurately whereas the PS1 has hideous shifting and other disfigurations that look horrible in motion purely because Sony was cheap and resorted to using integers when they should have used floats.

Man, I was musing the exact same thing when they showed this trailer. "NDS super-aliased low poly" isn't a look I ever thought people would actively try to achieve. I honestly dont know how to feel about this.

So they're porting this game to the switch?
I always thought it'd be good there. It's really short however.

>N64 represents textures and models accurately
Lower resolution textures than the PS1
Lower poly models than the N64
>disfigurations that look horrible in motion purely because Sony was cheap and resorted to using integers when they should have used floats.
Most games don't have this problem. Games usually mitigate it and they look great. The asset quality in PS1 games is basically a generation ahead of N64 despite the N64 being TWO years newer.

Attached: tof.jpg (1920x1080, 412.56K)

indie devs would go low poly/ early 3d but theyre literal hacks who can barely finish pokemon .exe rom hacks after a decade

Thats not true, it's very easy to make simple models in free 3D software and then just use basic textures for details. In some ways it is easier than lowres 2D animation these days. At least "16 bit style" 2D, doing really low res/low detail 8 bit type is probably still a bit easier than low detail 3D.

>posts 1080p image
Anyways, virtually all PS1 games that are 3D have the shifting issue user. It's because of the PS1's architecture, there is no escaping it. There were tricks to try to mitigate it but it's always there, even in the games that do impressive feats to try to hide it.

what's the game in the OP?

>virtually all PS1 games that are 3D have the shifting issue user
It's really not an issue in 99% of circumstances. It's frankly barely noticeable.
>'s because of the PS1's architecture
Only when using textured polygons, FF7 for example doesn't have this issue. FF7 also literally couldn't run on the N64.

Attached: ssoft642.png (1104x1290, 429.78K)

Attached: 90336557204_0.png (667x499, 133.8K)