|
Post by akumajobelmont on Oct 18, 2014 8:08:58 GMT -5
I think it's always important to look at games with the proper perspective. No game will ever look any better or worse than it did on the day it came out (unless it gets patched or something); the only thing that changes is your own perspective. The games that were visually impressive at launch are just as impressive now, unless the only reason they were found impressive was because they were current gen using the latest technology. Most games aren't particularly impressive visually, even if they are on par with their contemporaries. Many are bland and uninspired on an artistic level, and many are content to stick to the status quo on a technological level. The games that are TRULY impressive visually are those that have a good aesthetic style and/or push the limits of what the hardware is capable of. And time doesn't change anything about that. So yeah, I am still impressed by the graphics of early 3D games, and more often than not I prefer their look (and the look of more recent games on DS/PSP that resemble PS1/N64/Saturn games) over the latest home console games. I feel like, since the technology was a lot more limited, developers spent less time pursuing realism and focused more on giving their games a distinct visual style (and in that kind of way, I prefer looking at something like a Katamari game over a "AAA" game; I care far more about the artistic vision). I still love the design style in stuff like Mega Man Legends and Tail Concerto (they have a similar look). And this isn't particularly relevant, but I also like how 32/64-bit era games feel more "game-y" rather than trying to be some movie-like "experience". If I want a good story in a video game, I'll play a visual novel kthx. Yeah, it always comes back to whether the art style is strong enough to overcome the technical limitations of said systems. That said, I think it's also a case of whether the actual art style has a timeless quality or not. There are so many variables in what quantifies aesthetics, so it isn't gonna be set in stone for the rest of time. For example, I think Virtua Racing still looks super. Those extreme low poly counts work in its favour, to the point that it looks surreal. It flaunts the very basics of what we know our 3D graphics of today to comprise of. The bold colours, geometry and models of the 3D environments and objects are so, almost impressionistic, that it's pretty much art in my books. However, things that look beautiful and that are of that moment and time, well, I don't think that really becomes clear till much further down the track. Maybe something like Gran Turismo? Stunning at the time, it was modern, sleek, minamlist. Really nice looking. Yet the idea has been re-iterated on so often (and bettered) that it can't help but look early and basic now - prototypical. The aesthetic was stunning and 'mature' at a time where everything was still larger than life and bombastic, but now not so much. It's all in the approach, I think. A game that slavishly attempts photorealism is sure to date a bazillion times faster thank something that shoots for just looking good, and maybe not getting the finer points true to life. All of this is purely subjective, of course. Pretty much what you said anyways, but meh, haha
|
|
|
Post by spekkio on Oct 18, 2014 11:06:30 GMT -5
Hmm, one game that I do not think has aged well graphically would be Nights Into Dreams. Now personally, I've only played the Remake version of the game, which features a choice between the original version, or an updated version that in my opinion looks to be between Dreamcast and Playstation 2 graphically. While I didn't play through much of the original version due to it glitching out, I was left with the impression that the updated graphics provided a much smoother and enjoyable experience. Which is a great thing, because at its core Nights Into Dreams truly is a lot of fun, and the gameplay itself does stand the test of time.
Again, I didn't play the game when it first came out, so this if from someone trying out both versions from a modern perspective. I'd be curious to hear the opinion of someone who played the game when it was first released.
|
|
|
Post by strizzuth on Oct 18, 2014 11:32:41 GMT -5
I fucking love Battlezone and I, Robot! They totally hold up!
|
|
|
Post by cambertian on Oct 18, 2014 13:11:38 GMT -5
I like a lot of early sprite-based 3D games. Stuff like Tomba/Tombi or Guardian Heroes. To me, there's a certain charm there that can't be replicated in any other form, save for 3D models in a 2.5D world.
I really like low-poly stuff. Wouldn't mind if after the "pixel-art" craze came whole heaps of low-poly games.
|
|
|
Post by Terrifying on Oct 18, 2014 15:57:44 GMT -5
The 3DFX-era games, which include the N64 games have aged horribly IMO. But then again, I was never fond of that era. Very few exceptions being Unreal, Half-Life and System Shock 2.
I think that a lot of PlayStation games have aged at least decently, because of the texture-mapping.
The even more earlier 3D games, like Elite, Sentinel, Starglider, Star Fox, etc have aged the best; I still thoroughly enjoy playing these games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 16:00:35 GMT -5
N64 dithering is really hard on the eyes these days.
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Oct 18, 2014 16:26:24 GMT -5
The only thing I don't like about old 3D is when a game has massively limited viewable distance. N64 games arguably have this the worst, with games like Shadows of the Empire constantly being fogged in for no reason, but pop-in is much worse than fog. The PS2 generation was a huge, huge eye-opener for that; I almost can't function in a game if I can't see more than about ten meters.
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Oct 18, 2014 17:12:58 GMT -5
I'm going to say in some cases yes, but in the general case no, but not for the obvious reasons. Sure, low poly models, blurry textures can be a bit ugly in places, but those generally aren't the reasons I wouldn't enjoy a game. No, the problem is the 'harder' issues of control, camera and often simple animation. And, of course, framerate and draw distance . On the animation front, I'll use an example that has generally aged reasonably well: Quake. Quake has a series of keyframes and interpolation between the frames. It makes moderately smooth animation, but it just isn't fast and often can't keep up with the game. Compare the instant pain animations when peppering a horde of imps and demons in Doom to the slow doubling over animation that you (sometimes) get in Quake, and you'll see how much of a difference this sort of feedback can make. It doesn't break anything (Quake is a fine game), but it's endemic of the problems the industry had adapting to newer technology around this era. Looking back at my collection, the PS1 and N64 consoles are some of the sparest groupings of games I have. While it's true I was a PC gamer at this era, I did go back to try and fill out my collection in the early 2000s. I found that unless I had nostalgia for the era, or the game is excellent, it just didn't seem to be worth it. Syphon Filter? Nope. Spyro? Nah. Ape Escape? No thanks. Akuji the Heartless? Ha ha ha. I couldn't really get into Mega Man Legends either, despite the love it gets everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Oct 18, 2014 17:45:03 GMT -5
Syphon Filter? Nope. Spyro? Nah. Ape Escape? No thanks. Akuji the Heartless? Ha ha ha. Are there any people who still actually care about Akuji the Heartless? Those games are more along the lines of stuff that was really huge and mainstream back when it was current but isn't cared about that much these days, even among people who still play and love a lot of PS1 games. Spyro is probably the one I see getting the most love still, but it's mostly just from furries these days, haha.
|
|
RAGilmour
Full Member
please visit my gallery please
Posts: 205
|
Post by RAGilmour on Oct 18, 2014 17:51:18 GMT -5
When PS1 came out I had difficulty accepting 3d graphics, I felt as if it was a dumb move when 2d graphics were getting really excellent in some games. And it felt like a long time before I ever heard many voices of people who thought 2d games should still be made in the future and that added to my distaste for 3d, but I came around eventually.
Sorry if some of these games are too late on.
- Tekken 2. When I first played it I thought it looked pathetic. Yes the polished cutscenes often look quite bad but I look back fondly on several aspects of this game. The lighting and the spaciousness of the settings along with the great soundtrack and echoey sound effects really sucks me in, in a way the later games don't. Although it feels pretty slow now, I found it more satisfying than most 3d fighting games.
- The pre-rendered backgrounds in the survival horrors and jrpgs. I thought the generally quiet lonely tone of the early Capcom survival horror games was great.
- Silent Hill 1. The textures and colors are visually the saving grace of the play sections, great setting designs too. Sato's cutscenes are look better and more distinct than any others I can remember. Of course almost everything else about the game was good too.
- Banjo Kazooie. I think the landscapes in this one were far better than the later Rare platformers. I think the later ones possibly kept everything bigger and wider without the twisty turny intrigue of this one. Maybe I'm just remembering it better than it was though.
- Quake 1. I was never actually much into this type of game but I thought there was a harshness and brutal minimalism in this which was quite scary.
- I remember liking the way 40 Winks looked.
I didn't play very widely.
|
|
|
Post by akumajobelmont on Oct 18, 2014 19:14:09 GMT -5
Hmm, one game that I do not think has aged well graphically would be Nights Into Dreams. Now personally, I've only played the Remake version of the game, which features a choice between the original version, or an updated version that in my opinion looks to be between Dreamcast and Playstation 2 graphically. While I didn't play through much of the original version due to it glitching out, I was left with the impression that the updated graphics provided a much smoother and enjoyable experience. Which is a great thing, because at its core Nights Into Dreams truly is a lot of fun, and the gameplay itself does stand the test of time. Again, I didn't play the game when it first came out, so this if from someone trying out both versions from a modern perspective. I'd be curious to hear the opinion of someone who played the game when it was first released. That's very interesting! I bought the game day one (and still have my original copy), and I was hooked. I pull the Saturn version out often and give it a play through. The modern versions of the game run at the same framerate as the original, so for me, they all play identically. Looks wise, the Saturn version is still gorgeous in my eyes. I love the chunky aesthetic, and the dream setting really helps hide any technical deficiencies. The only area the Saturn game falls down is in the background pop-in - the draw distance isn't so great, and isn't handled too well. The original version in the PS2 and HD Remaster is, from what I remember, different to the Saturn version. I've just brought the game on Steam, so I'll test the Saturn mode and let you know Very much like the SEGA Ages version of Panzer Dragoon for the PS2, it's an approximation, rather than an emulation, so it's a little different. Here's a comparison between the original and the remaster. EDIT: The Saturn Mode is indeed an approximation. It's close-sh, but clearly the same base game as the HD Remaster using Sega Saturn assets. No Dithered Transparancies, 30 fps background scrolling (the original was like Sega Rally - 30fps gameplay with 60fps background scrolling). Also, on the Steam version at least, everything is up-rezzed and filtered, so the look isn't too far from the Remaster. - Tekken 2. When I first played it I thought it looked pathetic. Yes the polished cutscenes often look quite bad but I look back fondly on several aspects of this game. The lighting and the spaciousness of the settings along with the great soundtrack and echoey sound effects really sucks me in, in a way the later games don't. Although it feels pretty slow now, I found it more satisfying than most 3d fighting games. I feel the same way about both Tekken 2 and Tekken 3. The lighting really is beautiful, and the particle effects for hits and impacts still look gorgeous. This was one effect that I had to covert from afar - being a Saturn teen. When Burning Rangers implemented similar kinds of transparency effects, I was jumping for joy
|
|
|
Post by spekkio on Oct 18, 2014 23:16:23 GMT -5
Hmm, one game that I do not think has aged well graphically would be Nights Into Dreams. Now personally, I've only played the Remake version of the game, which features a choice between the original version, or an updated version that in my opinion looks to be between Dreamcast and Playstation 2 graphically. While I didn't play through much of the original version due to it glitching out, I was left with the impression that the updated graphics provided a much smoother and enjoyable experience. Which is a great thing, because at its core Nights Into Dreams truly is a lot of fun, and the gameplay itself does stand the test of time. Again, I didn't play the game when it first came out, so this if from someone trying out both versions from a modern perspective. I'd be curious to hear the opinion of someone who played the game when it was first released. That's very interesting! I bought the game day one (and still have my original copy), and I was hooked. I pull the Saturn version out often and give it a play through. The modern versions of the game run at the same framerate as the original, so for me, they all play identically. Looks wise, the Saturn version is still gorgeous in my eyes. I love the chunky aesthetic, and the dream setting really helps hide any technical deficiencies. The only area the Saturn game falls down is in the background pop-in - the draw distance isn't so great, and isn't handled too well. The original version in the PS2 and HD Remaster is, from what I remember, different to the Saturn version. I've just brought the game on Steam, so I'll test the Saturn mode and let you know Very much like the SEGA Ages version of Panzer Dragoon for the PS2, it's an approximation, rather than an emulation, so it's a little different. Here's a comparison between the original and the remaster. EDIT: The Saturn Mode is indeed an approximation. It's close-sh, but clearly the same base game as the HD Remaster using Sega Saturn assets. No Dithered Transparancies, 30 fps background scrolling (the original was like Sega Rally - 30fps gameplay with 60fps background scrolling). Also, on the Steam version at least, everything is up-rezzed and filtered, so the look isn't too far from the Remaster. Cool, interesting to hear your take! I also wasn't aware of the difference between the Saturn original and the "Saturn mode" from the remaster, so learned something new there. I guess having played with the updated graphics first, the chunky Saturn aesthetic stood out to me a bit more. Even so I was going off of memory on that initial post, and having watched some gameplay footage again, it actually doesn't look as glaring as I remembered. I still would probably go for the updated graphics between the two, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Oct 19, 2014 0:42:29 GMT -5
For me, no, the warping textures and flickering polygons of most PSX games really get on my nerves!
Early hardware accelerated 3d on PC (3dfx) looks awful to me. Filtering low res textures looks way worse than just leaving them unfiltered in my opinion (Quake for instance looks way better unfiltered).
I recently have been playing Saturn, and some of those 3d games are actually pretty impressive. I know it technically is weaker than PSX when it comes to polygons, but less texture warping and undithered graphics really make the image look solid.
Early 3d games with little or no texturing still look good though. Rockman Dash looks very nice (except for texture warping) on PSX, Tobal looks amazing, and even the battle scene in FF7 still look nice. Some of the N64 games looks great today, especially Mario 64.
I've found that playing PSX/Saturn/N64 on a nice CRT in their native res helps to hide a lot of problems. These games can look nice scaled up to HD, but it makes polygons seams etc. more obvious.
I really dislike PS2-era graphics. At the time they seemed amazing, but now it is just full of low res filtered textures unless the camera is "fixed" as in fighting games. It's like polygon counts and special effects kept improving, but texture resolution stayed the same throughout the life of the system. Having said that, running some PS2 games upscaled to HD using emulators can look pretty stunning.
|
|
|
Post by akumajobelmont on Oct 19, 2014 1:10:33 GMT -5
Cool, interesting to hear your take! I also wasn't aware of the difference between the Saturn original and the "Saturn mode" from the remaster, so learned something new there. I guess having played with the updated graphics first, the chunky Saturn aesthetic stood out to me a bit more. Even so I was going off of memory on that initial post, and having watched some gameplay footage again, it actually doesn't look as glaring as I remembered. I still would probably go for the updated graphics between the two, but that's just me. Yeah, you may as well play with HD graphics, since the game is pretty much identical, all things considered. I guess I'm lucky that nostalgia allows me to change between the two and I don't feel like I'm losing out on anything For me, no, the warping textures and flickering polygons of most PSX games really get on my nerves! Early hardware accelerated 3d on PC (3dfx) looks awful to me. Filtering low res textures looks way worse than just leaving them unfiltered in my opinion (Quake for instance looks way better unfiltered). I recently have been playing Saturn, and some of those 3d games are actually pretty impressive. I know it technically is weaker than PSX when it comes to polygons, but less texture warping and undithered graphics really make the image look solid. Early 3d games with little or no texturing still look good though. Rockman Dash looks very nice (except for texture warping) on PSX, Tobal looks amazing, and even the battle scene in FF7 still look nice. Some of the N64 games looks great today, especially Mario 64. I've found that playing PSX/Saturn/N64 on a nice CRT in their native res helps to hide a lot of problems. These games can look nice scaled up to HD, but it makes polygons seams etc. more obvious. I really dislike PS2-era graphics. At the time they seemed amazing, but now it is just full of low res filtered textures unless the camera is "fixed" as in fighting games. It's like polygon counts and special effects kept improving, but texture resolution stayed the same throughout the life of the system. Having said that, running some PS2 games upscaled to HD using emulators can look pretty stunning. Yeah, the Saturn doesn't handle 3D quite as convincingly as the PSX, but you're right, it does pull it's weight in other areas - the 3D and geometry are indeed more solid, with less warping. On the Saturn, I tend to notice the break-up more along the edges of the screen. I still think Sonic R is a marvel - everything just looks so solid, and the textures on the environmental objects are beautifully done. EDIT: TOBAL!!! Tobal 2 is probably one of the best looking PSX titles... it focuses on the strengths of the hardware whilst pretty much sidestepping the weaknesses. And that soundtrack - holy hell
|
|
|
Post by zerker on Oct 19, 2014 7:44:38 GMT -5
Are there any people who still actually care about Akuji the Heartless? Those games are more along the lines of stuff that was really huge and mainstream back when it was current but isn't cared about that much these days, even among people who still play and love a lot of PS1 games. Spyro is probably the one I see getting the most love still, but it's mostly just from furries these days, haha. No idea about Akuji, but they were all games that came up as well reviewed and/or recommended when I was looking for games to get for the PS1. And none of them 'held up'. The ONLY 3D games that held up for me on PS1 were Metal Gear Solid, Soul Reaver, Einhander, Strider 2 and an assortment of RPGs. The latter two still play on a 2D plane even...
|
|