the worst thing about the sprite based games is how the flying pokemon are perpetually flying and can't ever stand on the ground
>>57285454It least it's flapping its wings and not hovering like swellow, xatu, or tropius
>>57285460>It least it's flapping its wings and not hoveringlmao
>>57285454IMO it looks fine precisely because they’re sprites, it would look lame as shit if they were just standing there, birds are at their best physical expression when their wings are spread.
>>57285454as opposed to?
>>57285475This
>>57285454As opposed to being permanently grounded or weirdly perpetually gliding like in the modern models?
>>57285475>IMO it looks fine because I arbitrarily reduced my standards for games I likeftfy
>>57285487None of the models do that, though. Why are you lying?
>>57285467That's flapping more than this shit
>>57285489Sprites are by their nature abstract. They're representations of things, not the things themselves.
>>57285489Were you always a schizotypal autist who seethes about words nobody says?
>>57285454Funny because I thing FLYING opponent should ALWAYS fly in game. And I was annoyed many NON flying mons are flying/levitating
>>57285496yeah that's some crazy cope
>>57285497>That's flapping more tha-ACK!
>>57285506>Sprites are by their nature abstractNo they aren't. What the fuck are you on about?>They're representations of thingsThe most literal definition of models is that they're representation of things, you colossal retard.
>>57285489In what way have I lowered my standards? In pretty much any game, a good sprite will optimally feature a dynamic pose, and being airborne is objectively, literally, more dynamic than being grounded. My reasoning is incredibly simple and straightforward.
>>57285487That isn't the case in PLA or SV. Whether they stand or fly in battle depends on where the battle is taking place.I.E. Mewtwo will stand on the ground if there's ground, but on uneven ground or above water, it levitates.
>>57285540>a good sprite will optimally feature a dynamic posea character perpetually being in the same pose isn't dynamic.
>>57285546The entire concept of a dynamic pose is based around the notion that a particular pose can convey movement without actually moving (picrel)
>>57285531>deflects to different animation to distract from the shitty oneThanks for conceding>>57285534>no they aren't yes they are.The things they are representing aren't canonically flat sprites>muh definitionYes, all virtual creatures aren't real, we get it. But 3D models are more literal in reference to the pokemon than the sprites are
>>57285565>without actually movingi.e. not dynamic
>>57285593
>>57285595Oh, so you're a retard who knows that by avoiding defining terms you can avoid losing the argument. Yes, dynamic poses can look more dynamic if they're good dynamic poses, all while not moving. Let that fact simmer before you post again.
>>57285605If they're not moving then they're not dynamic. In fact, they're drastically less dynamic than the models. But somehow you specified it's ok because they're sprites. Hence, you're lowering your standards for games you like.
>>57285595>If I just pretend that I wasn’t btfo just now, it’ll be as though I really wasn’t! lol
>>57285611But when the poses for sprites are clearly more dynamic than the posing for models, people are allowed to call that out without you seething. Now please stop seething.
>>57285467>>57285497>>57285531Do people have problems with Wingull soaring? Like the soaring bird it is based off, which soars?
>>57285611You’re mixing up anons. This guy >57285605 isn’t me, these posts >57285475 >57285540 >57285565 are. I am not making any statements about the Gen 6+ models, I think the models are fine, mostly, outside of a few outlier oddities anyway. My only real issue with them is that they should’ve been updated/revised more significantly each Gen, but they stepped up their game in Gen 9 so it’s whatever. The point that I’m trying to make is simply that 2D sprites work best in dynamic poses since they’re more interesting to look at than stationary ones. Your attempt to ignore the distinction between the two in light of them both lacking active movement is embarrassing and I’d advise against it; the reality is that stillshots of things IN movement will convey that movement well enough if posed stylistically, and this gives these poses an objective superiority to poses like >57285576 which are more basic and don’t convey characteristics nearly as well (Swellow is fast but this sprite presents it as low energy).
>>57285693>But when the poses for sprites are clearly more dynamic than the posing for models,Why lie?
>>57285725feel free to name the species of seagull that can hover and turn in place like a drone
>>57285754>deflects to a different animation to distract from the shitty oneThanks for conceding
>>57285755Soulless has a new definition
>>57286362>w-wait no you’re supposed to pretend the model isn’t dynamic because it ruins my argument stop it!!
>>57286371>pretend the model isn’t dynamicNot what anyone said, schizo. People are pointing out that the main poses, which are what you see for all but a split second, are much less dynamic of poses. That's the criticism, making the models look worse and less dynamic more of the time.
can't believe you retards are falling for OPs bait
>>57286582>People are pointing out that the main posesThe dynamic ones? That change into different poses as shown in >>57285754 ? That you're trying to arbitrarily not count because it completely destroys your post?
>>57286645Stop shifting away from the ones that are actually being compared. I am comparing the ones that you see 99% of the time. Sure, the one you just linked is good and lively-looking in that screenshot, but the one on the left is what you see the majority of the time, and it looks boring and lifeless, with the split second the lively one shows up not changing this obvious reality. Meanwhile, before the Pokemon were 3D, they usually took on a pose that looks that lively and energetic 100% of the time. I want them to look good for more time anon. You maybe don't think it's so important, but I do.
>>57286663>Stop shifting away from the ones that are actually being comparedYou're comparing the sprite to the model. I'm showing poses of the model and you're having a meltdown because it destroys your narrative.>I am comparing the ones that you see 99% of the timeI see Politoed making that pose plenty of the time. Do you actually play the game? Or do you just sit on your armchair making genwar posts all day?
>TH-THE MODELS ARE LESS DYNAMIC! JUST IGNORE THE PARTS THAT MAKE THEM DYNAMIC!compelling argument
>>57285454This whole thread is gay and invented a problem for people to have yet another flame war about Gen 5 and Gen 4 with.If you engaged in real discussion here you're either a troll or a retard.
>>57286686>You're comparing the sprite to the modelCorrect, and the model looks good only some of the time while the sprite always looks good.>I see it pose many timesBut the pose lasts less than two seconds each time. It goes back to the shittier and lifeless looking pose for the vast majority of the time you'll be looking at it. Meanwhile, the sprite always looks alive.>>57286689No one said the models are less technically dynamic, just that the individual poses are less dynamic.
>>57286700>and the model looks good only some of the timeIt looks good all of the time, because it's actually dynamic, unlike the sprite which is perpetually sitting in one pose statically while horribly tweening.>But the pose lasts less than two seconds each timeAnd?
>>57286700>just that the individual poses are less dynamicWhy lie?
>>57286720>It looks good all of the time, because it's actually dynamicAgain, technically dynamic. But pose by pose, the model looks less dynamic in any given moment if you look at individual poses. You keep deflecting away from this because you know it's obviously true.>muh tweeningnon argument>And?And so the model reverts to the worse pose for more time.
>>57286732>But pose by pose, the model looks less dynamic in any given moment if you look at individual poses>>57286724>non argumentargument>And so the model reverts to the worse poseWorse according to who?
>>57286724>posts brief snapshots instead of dot how they actually look most of the time, which would prove they look worse more of the timeThanks for conceding again.
>>57286700>Meanwhile, the sprite always looks aliveyeah politoed looks very alive being in the same pose forever even when it attacks or takes damage because the developers were lazy
>>57286737>the models look less dynamic in given moments>W-WAIT NO THOSE GIVEN MOMENTS DON'T COUNTHow far are you going to keep backpedaling? This is hilarious.
>>57286736That image ignores how the model looks most of the time.>argumentThen explain it instead of of throwing around buzzwords.>worse according to whoTo you, who's literally trying to ignore them.Please tell me which screenshotted pose looks worse without deflecting>>57285693>b-but there are more-Hold that thought, we'll get to it
>>57285497This is so weird because one of the wingull sprites literally has it flapping its wings
>>57286739>politoed looks very alive being in the same poseYes because it's a dynamic looking pose>>57286741Meaning the majority of the time. Stop intentionally misreading anon.
>>57286742>That image ignores how the model looks most of the timeTrue. >>57285693 ignores how the model looks most of the time by completely ignoring the dynamic attributes of the models in order to suit a desperate forced narrative.
>>57286750>Yes because it's a dynamic looking poseIt's not dynamic looking if it's in that pose literally all the time.>Meaning the majority of the timeSo you're just retarded and don't know what "moment" means, and now you're backpedaling after embarrassing yourself. Got it.
>>57286778>>>57285693 (You) ignores how the model looks most of the timeNo....it posts the pose that is on screen like 95 percent of the time.>>57286789>it's in that pose literally all the timeWhich is a dynamic looking pose>doesn't know what an idiom is>forces a backpedal when there was noneThe vast majority of moments the comparison would look like this>>57285693so for the vast majority of moments the 2D would look more alive and thus better.
>>57286821>No....it posts the pose that is on screen like 95 percent of the timeMaybe if you stare at Showdown gifs like a retard instead of palying the game.>Which is a dynamic looking poseNot if it's like that all the time.>so for the vast majority of moments the 2D would look more aliveStaying in a single pose perpetually isn't "more alive"
>>57287544>maybe if youNo no, I didn’t say 100 percent of the time. I mean the actual games, where they are in those poses MOST of the time, do their animation for 1-2 seconds, and then return to that more stationary pose for the next while until the next action>not if it’s like that all the timeYes, it can be because the pose itself is a dynamic looking pose, like that Pokemon card posted for example>staying in a single poseIt can be if the pose itself looks more aliveWhereas if you have a mon switch between two poses, one lively, one not, but the other ”not” one majority of the time, the version without switching can be more lively
>>57287556>No no, I didn’t say 100 percent of the timeYes you did.>where they are in those poses MOST of the time,Maybe if you stare at Showdown gifs like a retard instead of playing the game.>Yes, it can be because the pose itself is a dynamic looking pose,It's not dynamic if it's stuck like that forever.>It can be if the pose itself looks more aliveStaying in a single pose forever isn't; alive.
>>57287586>yes you didNo I didn’t. I said most of the time.>showdownNo, showdown is one pose. In the real games, it’s that pose MOST of the time.>stuckIf it’s stuck in a dynamic looking pose that looks dynamic, then it’s dynamic>staying in a single poseIf said pose is lively, then he’s, it’s lively.
>>57285576How does this thing avoid an earthquake if it's not flying
>>57287653>No I didn’tYes you did.>it’s that pose MOST of the timeNo, it isn't.>then it’s dynamicNo. It's just static. You don't know what dynamic means.>If said pose is livelyA single pose isn't lively.
>>57290423>Yes you did.Nope. Show me where.>No it isn'tYes it is. The mon does that pose indefinitely until the next action animation, then returns to the same animation.>it's staticUnless it's a dynamic looking pose. You don't know what a dynamic pose is.>A single pose isn't livelyUnless it's a lively pose, which you're denying the existence of.
>>57285454Just give it a static position on the ground and when it attacks a simple flapping animation, you can play with this resource in different ways like in aerial battles using a static pixel art with the wings extended, and when the Pokemon is limited to the ground by some movement it stays in its static position, like the old paralysis animations.This could be done since old games like Mario 3, remember the flying movements of the paragoombas or the flying bum bum?
>>57285534why do you think they're called sprites?
>>57291072That DQ3 raven in super ness has only 3 images for its animation (side, front with wings up, front with wings down) and it's enough for a fight, why can't GF do something as simple as this?
>>57291101why do you think they're called models?
>>57291102>animating 20 monsters + filling the rest with recolorsvs>animating 1000 monsters two sprites each for front and back
>>57285584You deflected to the worst one you could possibly find in the first place. You're so autistic.
>>57291883>deflects to a term already definedAnswer the question.>>57291907Yeah because that's the one I'm criticizing. It shouldn't have been made and should be replaced with one flapping better.
>>57285454Sprites have more artwork accurate colors compared to the models, which for the most part, drained the colors and made them more dull.
>>57285725Soaring makes sense when a Pokemon is high in the sky gliding on air currents to move in a direction.It doesn't make sense when a Pokemon is several feet off the ground, gliding on nothing and moving nowhere, but still sustaining itself in the air regardless, somehow.
>>57285534>person who is completely and utterly artistically clueless decides to voice their opinion on art over and over and over again
>>57293253Stop feeding the troll.
>>57291941>>deflects to a term already definedYou didn't define it though.
>>57293253>y-you're clueless>doesn't actually refute the postevery time
>>57294236I didn’t say I did. I said it was defined. And it was in this thread more so than sprites.
>>57294241What is there to refute? You’re pretending models are abstractions while sprites aren’t. That’s simply false, plain and simple.
>>57294251>That's simply [SUBJECTIVE OPINION], plain and simple.Maybe if Pokemon were trying for an ULTRA HD REALISM look, but it's a fucking cartoony anime game for kids.
>>57294253What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.Go ahead and explain how models, which can’t get any closer to how the min would be in existence short of actually existing, is TOTALLY an abstraction, but a sprite that condenses it into pixel art in fewer dimensions somehow isn’t an abstraction.
>>57294251>that's simply false because...uh...I said so
>>57285454>he likes his games as static as possible>just like his life
>>57294308>it’s simply true because….because I say so!See>>57294287
>>57294324>What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidenceGlad I can dismiss your post then.
>>57294707>n-no uYou’re the first one to stop arguing properly, so it applies to you actually.
>>57295755>You’re the first one to stop arguing properly,That was you, actually.
You're both faggots with no friends that everyone hates.
XY animations are shit when compared to Stadium and Colloseum.
BW animations are shit when compared to XY.
>>57296302>n-no u! AgainNot working. Anyone can read the thread and see that it’s you.>>57296487Every main series game improves animations mainly because of new hardware. Now the question is which one is better for its time and hardware?
>>57296501> Every main series game improves animationsGlad we agree XY has better animations than BW.
>>57285506Static sprites are abstract, once you add animation there's no ambiguity, what you see is what's actually happening Pic rel 7th Dragon for DS and old Etrian odyssey uses static sprites and they look really good
>>57286724Those are dex entries, and actually it's proving >>57285540 right, 2D or 3D doesn't matter as long as they have a dynamic pose that reinforces the 'mons image/strength/features
>>57296503Not for its time and console kek. Even gamecube games destroy XY animations>>57296517They’re less abstract when they move, but they are still abstractions to an extent, except for maybe paper mario who actually doesn’t exist in 3D dimensions when discussing canonicity.
>>57296547>Those are dex entries,No they aren’t.
>>57291901Most gen 5 sprites are recycled from Gen 4 (Platinum or HGSS most of the time)
>>57296548BW’s animations are worse than GBA games. XY’s animations are better than some Switch games. So no, not really.
>>57296362Wtf is that
>>57296501>the question is which one is better for its time and hardwareDo you think BW looked good compared to other ds games?
>i-it was the hardware that prevented the animations from not looking like shit!
>this kills the bort
>>57296570It wasn't the Hardware, The DS was more than capable to display a lot of colors, pic relGaogaigar in Super Robot Wars W LITERALLY uses schenshots from the series when using certain attacksOr Megaman ZX having fully animated cutscenes
>>57296552Right, they are "attack animations" which are the same used in USUM dexAlso it's the same thing as a 2D sprite, just with more depth
>>57296563Yes.
>>57296637No.
Also >>57296649 is a starting areaWhile Pokémon looks like pic rel
>>57296649looks like a gba game
>>57296663Shiren 1 looks better than Gen 4 Pokémon
>>57285755That's down to general laziness, though, not poor model design.
>>57296790No one knows what you're trying to say.
>>57296819>Anon can't readThat explains a lot
>>57296821>r/pokefagcirclejerkThis is intelligible to you?
>>57296663And btw both Gen 4 and Shiren 5 have roughly the same color limitations (16 colors per sprite) and still manages to make incredibly detailed environments so gen 4/5 is 100% a product of GF incompetency
>>57296845>Anon is ALSO an ESLKEK, Anon learn to read.
>>57296845yes
>>57296867What other English words start with r/? I can't even find that one in the dictionary btw
>>57296900>What other English words start with r/?holy fucking shit anon just stop posting please, for your own good
>>57296900This shit can't be real LMAO
>>57296910>>57296920What does the r/ mean?
I genuinely can't tell if you are serious or a retard LMFAOI was about to spoonfeed you but you can just Google it real fast anon
>>57296790>>57296821>>57296867>>57296868>>57296910>>57296920>>57296976>reddit
>>57297035You finally learned to read, uh?
>>57297109Not all of us are reddit experts like you.
>>57297131Not everyone lives under a rock like (You)
>>57285454THREE BULLETS yawnie.
>>57297035for you to know that we know that "r/" comes from reddit, you yourself had to have known that "r/" comes from redditso suck a dick
>>57296555Yet they added dozens of frames of animation, which you seem to be ignoring on purposes, plus every single back sprite revamped.>>57296559Care to actually back up that absolutely ridiculous claim? No? Thought so.>>57296649Looks like even worse pixel vomit than anything gamefreak shat out.
>>57298019>Care to actually back up that absolutely ridiculous claim?As a local schizo once said, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”
>>57298474Except I'm asking you to prove your assertion. There's literally nothing from the GBA posted ITT yet.
>>57297155>>57297225>seething reddit expertskwab
>>57298485>Except I'm asking you to prove your assertionYou didn't prove your assertion so why should he?
>>57300750There were GameCube animations posted that are better than XY animations, so it was already shown. Meanwhile, not a single GBA gif. Funny how that works coming from the guy who’s demanding evidence now.
>>57300839>There were GameCube animations posted that are better than XY animations,Cool. How does this make BW look better again?
>>57300845>proof is posted for one side but not the other>o-okay so what?So your statement isn’t substantiated while mine is
>>57301113Where’s the proof that BW’s animations are better? All you did was deflect to a completely different game as a shitty distraction, like usual.
>>57301126The claim was they’re better for their time, and we had two demonstrations via claiming both are worse than older consoles, of which only XY was shown to be via proof. So XY sucks for its time and BW hasn’t been shown to suck for its time.
>>57301195The super nintendo has better graphics than BW. Yoshi's Island alone beats it.
>>57301463Yet you, again, aren't posting proof because you know if you do, it'll obvious be a clear falsehood.
>>57301195>The claim was they’re better for their time,Which you’ve done nothing to remotely prove so far and instead deflected to talking about spin-offs because you realized you don’t actually have any way of defending BW.
>>57301476If you don't know what Yoshis Island looks like you're not worth talking to when it comes to this stuff.
>r/pokefagcirclejerk trannies itt
>>57301517based tranny obsesser
>>57301490>Which you’ve done nothing to remotely proveexcept that no one posted proof it looks worse than equivalent or older games ? That's proof to meMeanwhile look at XY's failure compared to proof posted from older games ITT>>57301505I know what it looks like you fucking retard. That's the basis I used to say it doesn't look as good as BW.
>>57301551>I know what it looks like you fucking retardThen why are you so blatantly lying about BW looking better? It's okay if a game you like looks bad.
>>57301563>Then why are you so blatantly lying about BW looking betterBecause it looks better than Yoshi's Island ?
>>57301563Show me an animation in Yoshi's Island that approaches how good the BW animations are. Go ahead and post any animation.Of course you won't. You'll just keep screeching that BW somehow """""objectively""""" looks bad without ever having to post evidence.
>>57301551>except that no one posted proof it looks worse than equivalent or older games ? You haven’t posted proof that it looks better than equivalent or older games. Instead deflected to talking about spin-offs because you realized you don’t actually have any way of defending BW. The most hilarious part is that you’re still ultimately admitting that BW is worse than XY.
>>57301569Feel free to prove it because no one agrees with you.
>I bounce up and down and sway side to side on legs that barely move80% of BW sprites
>im trans and shitted and flopped 99% of xy models
>>57301614>You haven’t posted proof that it looks betterI didn't say this, I said compared to XY for it's time, so if there's negative evidence for XY but not for BW, that means BW's better for its time than XY until more evidence I posted to the contraryNow you're just coping and saying spinoffs somehow don't count when the discussion is timely appropriate graphics>>57301625>n-no one agrees with you!YOU'RE the one who brought up Yoshi's Island with a claim, yet didn't post proof.
>>57285454I prefer the pixel style sprite. But if you like the 3D models more, thats alright too!
>>57301856> I said compared to XY for it's timeWhich you haven’t proven, because you instead deflected to talking about spin-offs because you realized you don’t actually have any way of defending BW.
>>57304925>Which you haven’t provenXY was shown to be bad for it's time via proof.BW was not shown to be bad for its time via proof.So until more evidence is posted, BW is better for its time than XY is.Me bringing up a spinoff isn't deflecting at all. It's using proof of what animations should look like in XY, but don't. You're welcome to bring up another game to compare against BW to declare it should look like that, like the other anon did with Yoshi's Island, except include actual proof unlike he did.Also you're wanting me to defend BW, but defend it from what? You haven't offered any proof to show it's bad for its time like you claimed, but proof was shown against XY.
>>57298019>Looks worseLmao keep your shit taste to yourself anon
>>57306112>observable facts are "taste"
>>57305336>BW was not shown to be bad for its time via proofIt wasn’t shown to be good for its time either. i.e. you still haven’t proven your statement because you instead deflected to talking about spin-offs because you realized you don’t actually have any way of defending BW.
>>57301463That's not a high bar to surpass anonPic rel is Yggdra union a GBA game that looks way better than Pokémon Emerald
>>57306123>Observable factsAnon Gen 4 interiors look barren and lifeless, Shiren has a ton of detail.
>>57306131>It wasn’t shown to be good for its time eitherNo one claimed this, just that to was better for it's time than XY was for its time, which has proof because there's negative evidence for XY but not for BW, that means BW's better for its time than XY until more evidence I posted to the contraryNow you're just coping and saying spinoffs somehow don't count when the discussion is timely appropriate graphics. Are you illiterate?
>>57306150>muh detail spam is goodit looks clustered and over designed like al the bad ones on the right here>>57296637
>>57306152>just that to was better for it's time than XY was for its time,Which you still haven’t proven because you instead deflected to talking about spin-offs because you realized you don’t actually have any way of defending BW.
>>57306159At least the sprites don't break like in BW2
>>57306161>Which you still haven’t provenYes I have.XY was shown to be bad for it's time via proof.BW was not shown to be bad for its time via proof.So until more evidence is posted, BW is better for its time than XY is.Me bringing up a spinoff isn't deflecting at all. It's using proof of what animations should look like in XY, but don't. You're welcome to bring up another game to compare against BW to declare it should look like that, like the other anon did with Yoshi's Island, except include actual proof unlike he did.Also you're wanting me to defend BW, but defend it from what? You haven't offered any proof to show it's bad for its time like you claimed, but proof was shown against XY.
>>57306173Explain what you mean by "break" and how BW2 does it. Because I'm not aware of them breaking.
Here's proof bw is ugly without having to mention other games.
>>57306195How's that ugly? That's not proof.
>>57306195
>>57306180>BW was not shown to be bad for its time via proof.NTA but BW was released in 2010-2011, by that point the DS was deadThere's plenty of games that released before that look really good like Megaman ZX/Advent, Knights in the Nightmare, Magaman Starforce, Shiren, Solatorobo and a few morePokémon (in the context of the DS) was OK-ish in the graphics department (if you don't Cherry pick akward 3D DS games to make Pokémon look better)
>>57306180No you haven’t.XY was shown to be bad for it's time via proof.BW was not shown to be bad for its time via proof.So until more evidence is posted, BW is worse for its time than XY is because you keep blatantly deflecting instead of actually defending BW, lmao.
>>57306203
>>57306186This
>>57306204Okay I'm not saying you're wrong per se, just post the screenshots.Then we can discuss which one falls short more: BW compared to those or XY compared to older 3D pokemon games.
>>57306180>So until more evidence is posted, BW is better for its time than XY isHow the fuck did you leap to that conclusion? This is the most schizo disingenuous logic I’ve ever seen.
>>57306208
>>57306207>until more evidence is posted, BW is worse for its time than XYHow do you come to that conclusion? You claimed BW was bad for its time but posted no proof, so you can't say this. I can say the reverse about XY's animations because someone posted older animations that are better.>defending BWFrom what?
>>57306225>but posted no proofMissed the gifs above you?
>>57306225>How do you come to that conclusion? The same way you came to your conclusion. By pulling shit out of my ass to fit the narrative I want.
>>57306221It's simple fucking logic you chip idiotXY was shown to be bad for it's time via proof.BW was not shown to be bad for its time via proof.So UNTIL MORE EVIDENCE IS POSTED, BW is better for its time than XY is for its time.Notice the bolded words.
>>57306217I did post Shiren 5 and Yggdra unionHere's Knights in the nightmareAs I said Pokémon was OK, it could have been better, more detailed and polishedHell Shiren 5 is like 50MB while Platinum is like 100MB for some reason
>>57306227Those gifs aren't bad though, you're just seething about pixels existing for some reason.>>57306229I didn't do that though, I walked you through step by step my logic. Where's YOUR evidence?
>>57306233All you did was restate your shitpost. You didn’t actually explain how you logically got to that conclusion.
>>57306195>>57306203>>57306208>>57306209>>57306222Where's the "breaking"? What's even bad about those that aren't even worse in pic related?
>>57306240>you're just seething about pixels existingSame as you but it's bad when I do it I guess. You haven't posted any proof.
>>57306240>I walked you through step by step my logicNo you didn’t. You just went “BW is better because I said so”. Therefore I can also claim BW is worse because I said so.
>>57306246That is the logical explanation, and if you don't see it I don't know what to tell you. If athlete A was shown to suck, and athlete B wasn't shown to suck, then UNTIL MORE EVIDENCE IS OBTAINED, athlete B is better than A
>>57306252>its not bad because this blown up picture is also badLeast disingenuous unovafan
>>57306252I'm the anon who posted the Lucario GifHonestly it's hard to see with background Maybe a Frame by frame on white background image could be nice
>>57306263>if A beats B but loses to C then C beats Bretard logic
>>57306269Without a contrasting background*Guess I'll have to do the image myself
>>57306253>Same as youWhen did I do that? Only you did.>You haven't posted any proofI posted animations older than XY that show XY should have been better and that XY was not good for its time. You have not done the same for BW.>>57306255>You just went “BW is better because I said so”No, I went "BW is tentatively better because that's where the evidence leans"And instead of providing counter evidence, you're making a big fucking song about it
>>57306276No, I went "BW is tentatively worse because that's where the evidence leans"See? I can pull shit out of my ass too.
>>57306276>You have not done the same for BW.I've posted several bad animations that are literally from the games being discussed. This is much better proof and argumentation than deflecting to other games.
>>57306274Unironically correct logic because of the caveat that's subject to chang when more evidence's posted. Why is this tough to grasp for you?
>>57306279But the evidence doesn't lean your way.>>57306280>I posted bad animationsYou posted animations, but what's bad about them?
>>57306276But the evidence doesn't lean your way.
>>57306283>Unironically correct logickek
>>57306287Except it does.>>57306289>no argumentkek
>>57306286They're ugly and move the same way as every other sprite. Shitty swaying and bouncing up and down on broken ankles and legs.
>>57306295>no uWho let the brownies out?
>>57306298>they're uglysubjective>they move the same as every other spriteBut you have to explain why that's bad. Most XY idle animations are even worse and just stand there even when they are IN battle.
>>57306286Except it does.
>>57306305meant for>>57306287
>>57306308No it doesn't. Evidence was posted that XY was not good enough FOR IT'S TIME like the claim was. This wasn't equally true for BW.
>>57306314No one claimed BW is good, retard. The claim was that it's bad FOR IT'S TIME compared to XY for it's time, and pointing out that no evidence was posted to prove that isn't saying "nuh uh".
>>57306306>subjectiveReally? My opinion on the beauty of something is subjective? Well I'll be.>But you have to explain why that's badThings moving unnaturally on broken limbs looks bad. >Most XY idle animations are even worse and just stand there even when they are IN battle.And, like the rest of your posts, you have said nothing to explain why that's bad.
>>57306295No it doesn't. Evidence was posted that XY was not good enough FOR IT'S TIME like the claim was. This wasn't equally true for BW. Therefore we can assume BW is worse.
>>57306319>Evidence was posted that XY was not good enough FOR IT'S TIME like the claim wasCool. How does this prove BW is better again?
>>57306324>The claim was that it's bad FOR IT'S TIMEBut the first person to bring up "for it's time" was >>57296501, a person defending the unova sprites.
>>57306331>My opinion on the beauty of something is subjective?Um, yes ?They are certainly not "objecitively" ugly, wouldn't you agree?>things moving unnaturally on broken limbsI really don't see these happening in those gifs, but you can elaborate if you insist so.>you have nothing to explain why that's badJust like you in the above point?I'll explain: When in battle, a pokemon should look like it's in battle, as in ready to anticipate a move at any moment, but instead we get them standing and staring into space within energy whatsoever and a breathing animation.
>>57306252>>57306269Here: from left to right you can see how in the first 3 frames Lucario breaks (Granted Lucario is one of the less egregious examples, Sudowoodo and a few others are worse)
>>57306346>How does this prove [thing that's different from the topic we're discussing]Read and keep up.>>57306351How is that post defending sprites?Also that's not the first post. Here's the instigation of this discussion:>>57296362>>57296487
>>57306355>he can't detect obvious sarcasmAutism.>When in battle, a pokemon should look like it's in battleYeah, which is why 95% of unova sprites are bad.
>>57306368What's broken though?
>>57306368Also I want to point out that the sprites used in Showdown break even more fore some reason (I'm guessing they actually reconstruct the animation from the base sprite/parts)Pic rel Showdown's Lucario sprite
>>57306375>which is why 95% of unova sprites are badMany of unova sprites look ready for battle and active, so no. it's clear BW is better than XY in this regard.
>>57306369Not seeing "for it's time" in the supposed instagations. Can you exactly quote the first post to bring up the for it's time argument and tell me which games he's defending?
>>57306369Glad we agree you deflected to spin-offs for zero reason and still haven’t proven BW’s animations are better.
>>57306379In lucario's case:the tail and the head As I pointed out before Lucario is OK since he doesn't move from the waist down
>>57306390>Not seeing "for it's time"showing a game decades older than XY having better animations than XY is definitely the same message, retard.>>57306392>you deflected to spin-offs for zero reasonTo discuss how animations age? This is warranted.>still haven’t proven BW’s animations are betterI didn't claim this. I just claimed XY is worse for it's time than BW's is for its time
>>57306407>I didn't claim this. I just claimed this
>>57306403It's not really "broken" in any real sense, it's just rotating in physical space and causes aliasing.
>>57306407>I just claimed XY is worse for it's time than BW's is for its timeAka>I just made up a new off topic argument so that I can pretend bw doesnt look like trash
>>57306403Also I could check Frame by frame but imo I feel that's excessive, I guess you get the gist of it: BW sprites could have been better (I'm not outright saying they are bad but rather unpolished)
>>57306411Those are not the same claim you fucking retard.SMO looks better than SMG2, but if SMG2 came out fifty years ago it would look better for it's time than SMO looks for its time.
>>57306420>I just made up a new off topic argumentExcept it was perfectly in line with where the discussion was at the time. How's it off topic?>so I can pretend B doesn't look like trashThis implies BW looks like trash and you showed it as such, neither of which are true,
>>57306417Wait, are you the aliasing anon from >>>56969293On the topic of breaking IIRC Lucario does break a bit later in animation, let me check
>broken is some nerd termThey're broken because bodies don't move like that.
>>57306431>I’m not claiming it’s better, I’m claiming it’s better>please ignore how I still haven’t actually proven any of my claims btw
>>57306460"better" is not the same as "better for it's time"ignoring the proof won't serve you.>>57306456People have translated the sprite animations onto a 3D model, so no.
>>57306456I mean he's right tho the example sprite it's not outright "Broken" (as in body part's literally detaching from the body)I'm still checking the sprite since for some reason it uses a really weird animation method, I really can't explain it
Closest thing to being broken is this frame... I might have mixed up the Showdown and the In-game BW sprite.
>>57306534The leg's dissapear?
>>57306545That's a thing of the GIF, for some reason the pixels that remain unchanged from one frame to the next aren't shownAs I said here >>57306403 Lucario's legs barely moves so...
>>57306556This has got to be some Mandela effect shit because I had a Lucario in BW2 like every good normie. I did a little research and it appears it's only bulbapedia's version. Not sure if it's an inherent things about the sprite or if they fucked it up, but maybe you can help me look into it?None of these disappear like that>>57306209>>57306388 so I'm inclined to believe an editor on their site imported it improperly or file compression mistakes or something when ripping it from the game.
>>57306607It might be file compressionFrom my experience Lucario in game looks identically to >>57306209 (this sprite is from pokemondb)Showdown Lucario is a bit different (see the Tail and Snout)
>>57285593Mf is tweaking
>>57306666Based quads, but Zekrom looks cool.
>>57285755I remember Joe Merrick defending this on Reddit like his life depended on it
>>57306470>>I’m not claiming it’s better, I’m claiming it’s better>please ignore how I still haven’t actually proven any of my claims btw
>>57311340"better" is not the same as "better for it's time"Ignoring the proof won't serve you.
