Yes, because it is beta is an excuse to have good graphics. I guess I am not allowed to criticise any part of this game because "its a beta not finished"? No. Even if they announced a complete graphics overhaul for release, that is no reason not to criticise the graphics.

And "deal with it" is not a valid response to criticism...


I reworded your post to demonstrate how ridiculous what you are saying is.

Flaming is completely uncalled for, so was the PMs. We have a thread to discuss this.

It is obvious you have never played the game nor even seen any screenshots or videos from the game (I wouldn't be surprised if sid's screenshot is the only pic you have seen, obviously you skipped over the OP)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPFQY_DPpkk
Try watching this, it is an official video. Watch that and see if you can't see my points about contrast, saturation, form, definition, value. Just because I used sid's pic as an example doesn't mean it is the only example. Look at the grass and the tiles, hell the "shadows" option makes things look MUCH worse. Look at the polygons and textures on the roof of the barn (house??), and the repeated textures on that cliff (holyshit talk about repeating mistakes that have not been made since the NES era, I thought people learnt to use randomized tilesets and doodads to break up large sections of cliffs! And damn that contrast on a tiling texture is HORRIBLE). Even look at those trees, obviously they never heard of bill-boaring. Look at the unsightly terrain deformations and the overall over-contrasted over-staturated un-focused poor use of contrast. Ugh Salem is practically a textbook example of what NOT to do.

How can a game with such amazing concept art be implemented so poorly. I honestly would not be surprised if this was programmer art. And Jelly I do hope they clean it up by launch.



Discussion about a game's graphics are perfectly fine to have in a thread about said game.
Despite what some people think, graphics are a big part of games.