It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:41 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:29 am
Posts: 444
Location: Denmark (PAL)
tokumaru wrote:
Early 3D graphics, just like early 2D graphics, aged very poorly. Most N64 games look like crap, but we were so amazed at the fact that they were in 3D that we didn't notice it.

As for the gameplay, I believe that a game that's fun to play will always be fun to play, regardless of how old it gets, which is why I never understood why people often got rid of their old game consoles whenever they got a new one.


I think it's fine to claim that graphics "aged poorly" for rhetorical purposes, purpose, cause I get what you mean.
But early 3D graphics ALWAYS looked like crap unless the developers were able to stylize their graphics in a way that would make the technical limitations work as less of an obstacle (think Wind Waker). That was REALLY rare that early, though, and the first example I can think of with a 3D game that I genuinely though looked good despite the polygon count was American McGee's Alice, but there were probably a few others around the same time.
No graphics automatically turned into crap over time. Sure, some people were amazed simply because they saw 3D graphics, but I know for a fact that myself and a lot of other people didn't understand the affection to it, and were really disappointed in everyone suddenly making butt ugly games when we finally got the technology to start making really gorgeous 2D games.

"Does something look good" is always a pretty subjective concept, so you can't really argue either way, but whenever I hear someone say "this or that aged poorly", I always read it as "I was wrong about something, but now I know better".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:46 am 
Offline
Formerly WheelInventor

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:55 am
Posts: 1114
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Quote:
American McGee's Alice
This game really looked gorgeous. I still think it does. But i'd say quake looked great and still looks great, too. When higher resolutions became commonplace, it still held up despite the low polygon count. Not Alice tier-good looking, but still good.

_________________
http://www.frankengraphics.com - personal NES blog


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:29 am
Posts: 444
Location: Denmark (PAL)
I think Quake holds up, even if I don't think it looks good. It manages to convey a lot of atmosphere though, in spite of the graphics. It did so back then, and it still does that very well today. It kind of depends on the stages though.
It feels like a game that doesn't -need- to look any better. Like Space Invaders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:21 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Central Illinois, USA
Sumez wrote:
No graphics automatically turned into crap over time. Sure, some people were amazed simply because they saw 3D graphics, but I know for a fact that myself and a lot of other people didn't understand the affection to it, and were really disappointed in everyone suddenly making butt ugly games when we finally got the technology to start making really gorgeous 2D games.


I've got to agree here. Coming from beautiful games like Donkey Kong Country to the ugly mess that was the N64 was discouraging. That combined with the fact that 3d was new enough that game designers hadn't figured out what worked well meant that we had a whole generation of ugly and terrible 3d games.

_________________
My games: http://www.bitethechili.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:43 pm
Posts: 10164
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
I agree 100% that graphics don't magically turn bad, so my use of the expression "aged poorly" might not have been adequate here. My point was, most 3D graphics looked like crap back then, but we were still amazed by them, for the most part. I know I was, even though I didn't immediately make the jump to 3D (the Genesis was my newest console until 2001, when I bought a 2nd hand Dreamcast).

What bothers me the most about early 3D graphics nowadays is not the low polygon count, but the movement of the camera and game characters. Movement often feels stiff, linearly interpolated, completely lifeless. And there's also the occasional jerkiness. Low polygon models can have a lot of charm when done right, but a lot of old games had terrible models, unfortunately.

I also agree that the N64, unlike the PlayStation, can still pull off decent 3D graphics for today's standards, as long as they are stylized instead of realistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:35 pm
Posts: 3152
Location: Nacogdoches, Texas
I've always wanted to know what kind of visuals you could get for these systems if you just made the game far less ambitious. It's like how I think Super Monkey Ball is easily one of the best looking GameCube games, not that it has the highest overall poly count, but because it has the highest polycount per object because there's barely anything onscreen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19322
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
On the other end of the scale, Katamari Damacy for PlayStation 2 uses stylized low-poly meshes that would be at home on the PS1 but puts a crapload of them on the screen at once.

But then you can find a reviewer who calls Katamari overrated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:21 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Central Illinois, USA
tepples wrote:
But then you can find a reviewer who calls Katamari overrated.


I've got to agree. Making a game creative and weird doesn't automatically make it fun, which this game illustrates quite well.

_________________
My games: http://www.bitethechili.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:35 pm
Posts: 3152
Location: Nacogdoches, Texas
gauauu wrote:
I've got to agree.

I've never played it, but watching gameplay, I wasn't impressed.

gauauu wrote:
Making a game creative and weird doesn't automatically make it fun, which this game illustrates quite well.

I haven't even played the demo for this, but I'm just going to drop this here:

Image

:lol:

Yeah though, take off Super Smash Bros Melee from that list, and I agree wholeheartedly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:49 am
Posts: 219
Location: NYC
Katamari's great. I need to stop reading this thread :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:58 pm
Posts: 368
Location: ...
Espozo, you've admitted to almost never trying to play an RPG, and yet RPGs in general are high on your overrated list. Don't knock it 'till you try it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19322
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Is the rocket launcher likewise overrated?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:35 pm
Posts: 3152
Location: Nacogdoches, Texas
nicklausw wrote:
Espozo, you've admitted to almost never trying to play an RPG, and yet RPGs in general are high on your overrated list. Don't knock it 'till you try it.

I played Secret of Mana for 20 minutes in an emulator, and it was the most boring experience of my life. The only RPG game I ever completed was Pokemon Red which is obviously just a grindfest, but at least it's not trying to be a "cinematic experience".

I forgot that people make this distinction now, but when I say "RPG", I mean JRPG.

And tepples, we all saw that joke coming from a mile away...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:31 pm
Posts: 818
tokumaru wrote:
Movement often feels stiff, linearly interpolated, completely lifeless.

I feel like that's one thing Super Mario 64 did right, at least with Mario himself. Some of the NPCs have fairly primitive animations, but Mario is another matter.

It's weird that barring glitches, Mario's animation and environmental interaction in that game is so much more solid and realistic than in a lot of modern games, where, for example, if you run into a wall you either just stop or (even worse) stay in the running animation while moving slowly along the wall with the lateral component of your "running" velocity vector. You try that in Super Mario 64 and you bash your face on the wall and fall backwards. Or, if you walk into the wall, you flatten yourself against it and shuffle along it. It also helps that the collision mesh seems to be identical to the visible geometry mesh, at least for level geometry (enemies and some objects are probably simplified).

Sure, the movement feels a bit stiff and heavy, but so did the original Super Mario Bros. Looking at Sunshine and Galaxy, it seems like the progression from SMB to Doki Doki Panic and SMB3 was kinda repeated in 3D...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:21 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Central Illinois, USA
93143 wrote:
I feel like that's one thing Super Mario 64 did right, at least with Mario himself. Some of the NPCs have fairly primitive animations, but Mario is another matter.


That game did a lot of things right. The stylized cartoony look worked really well with the N64's limitations, and the level design was great. As much as I enjoy bashing the early 3d graphics of the N64, I really can't include Mario 64 in that bashing.

_________________
My games: http://www.bitethechili.com


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 93143, Erockbrox and 6 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