It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:57 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:43 pm
Posts: 1312
Alright, I'll say it - I think the animation and odd mishmash of styles is really bad. The art and animation looks rushed, or just done by people who weren't particularly inspired. The music is alright, but it seems a little unfitting. The sound design reminds me of a cheap flash game. The cheapo presentation of the first game was likable in its own right, and it was consistent throughout. The second game had excellent presentation and consistent style. But this one? Animations look wobbly and in need of a few iterations and reviews. Sequences don't have good timing, the characters don't convey any inertia in their movements, and the playfield looks like a wreck.

Now that I've seen the gameplay footage for the game, which I've avoided for the longest time, I feel that my early fears about the future of this game have come true, and I feel very let down. Of course I'll want to try the game, but this looks like it didn't turn out well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:35 pm
Posts: 3969
It looks alright to me, the only hodgepodge is the backgrounds vs the sprites. But it still does look unpolished, it could use a lot more transition effects.

_________________
Here come the fortune cookies! Here come the fortune cookies! They're wearing paper hats!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:43 pm
Posts: 1312
My beef with that style of animation is that it looks to me like a cheap flash cartoon, with inadequate keyframes and far too much tweening. Interestingly, this promotional music video features animation with lots of keyframes and much less tweening and mutation, and I think it looks a lot more presentable and likeable, even if it's "not as smooth".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:35 pm
Posts: 3969
The style kinda reminds me Ittle Dew 2, but the background graphics really do clash with it. Otherwise, it looks fine.

_________________
Here come the fortune cookies! Here come the fortune cookies! They're wearing paper hats!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:03 pm
Posts: 5899
Location: Canada
They had a slightly different style earlier on which I liked better, but I'm kinda okay with the current iteration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 7:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2016 11:15 am
Posts: 221
Did they not improve the dated gameplay at all? It looks exactly the same as the 1991 version, just with worse graphics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:11 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:43 pm
Posts: 10173
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
If there's nothing new about the gameplay, I don't understand why this game was even made... There are hardly any sound or graphics improvements... those walk cycles look floaty as hell, Earl has no weight whatsoever. I rented the original game several times back in the day (and also the sequel), but not understanding English at the time meant I often didn't know what was going on... Now that I do understand what they're saying, I kinda feel like playing the original rather than a pointless remake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:03 pm
Posts: 5899
Location: Canada
Here's some earlier footage where things looked a little different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMcQJfv3DmY

Also there was a strange point in the campaign where they asked for feedback on it:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1578116861/toejam-and-earl-back-in-the-groove/posts/1154110

Some later screenshots where it was a little closer to the current version:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1578116861/toejam-and-earl-back-in-the-groove/posts/1476548


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:43 pm
Posts: 1312
The animation for all of them is still so bothersome to me. Not enough keyframes, lots of tweening, and no inertia. Breaking the character into body part images and rotating and skewing them for movement looks really when it's [all you're doing. There's a reason no high profile animated works are created that way. It worked for cheap flash animations, and it's the backbone of beloved animutation, but here I think it just looks like a turd.

The hula dancer's front-facing animation is a mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tokumaru and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group