Do you remember a game's graphics as they ACTUALLY were?
- Thread starter FireAza
- Start date
I tend to confuse the graphics of the NES with the ones for the SNES. Probably because the only real difference was the SNES had "depth". N64 and PS1, I still remember them as the crap they were. But there are times when I can confuse this generation's graphics for the last if I'm not actually looking at the last generation.
I would have to say Goldeneye on the N64, (Okay so this is not on topic but the opposite of it) I played the hell out of Goldeneye when I was a kid and when I finally played it again years and years later (just about last year I played it) and I don't ever remember the graphics being so bad but what I definitely don't remember is the controls for the game being so hard to use. Man I just couldn't play it
It happens to me with the CG in movies more than it does video games. I just finished playing through Majora's Mask last week and for the most part the graphics were exactly as I remembered them; the game was still quite beautiful I found. That's not to say I wouldn't jump all over a graphical update to it like they did with OOT. That was so great it was like playing the game again for the first time; except I knew every aspect of the game like the back of my hand.
Nope. I find that the more into a game I am, the less I'm visually seeing what's there and the more my mind is skipping what it actually sees and rather, focusing on the mental concept of what that thing is.
So, after some time as passed and my mind has dropped all high levels of familiarity, when confronted with shitty graphics they definitely seem worse than I remembered.
So, after some time as passed and my mind has dropped all high levels of familiarity, when confronted with shitty graphics they definitely seem worse than I remembered.
Graphics never have been that important to me. I love 8 and 16 bit games. I love games on the PS1 and N64. So they don't live up to the standards of today's graphics. Not really going to bother me. To me, nice graphics are just a nice compliment to a game. If the game is good, graphics mean very little. Heck, because of all the crap today with developers thinking graphics are the most important thing ever, I have been playing more older games lately than newer ones. Because there is little effort in most games today.
Strangely enough, the opposite happened to me, recently! I started playing SMT: Lucifer's Call again and I was shocked at how good it looked. I remember it being uglier than it is, but it actually looks pretty fantastic!
Over time, games can look marginally better in my brain than they actually were. The difference is never jarring, though.
It's a bit of each for me:
When I first played Halo Anniversary I wasn't blown away by the graphics because playing it felt just like when I first played Halo: Combat Evolved like 10 years ago. BUT when I switched the graphics back to the original I had to recoil in shock! I don't remember it looking that bad before.
I can play Mass Effect 1 through to 3 without being bothered by the obvious dip/rise in quality. I usually opt to play Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 rather than the Twin Snakes remake on the Gamecube because only those blocky, pixelated models feel right for that game. Starfox 64 looks exactly as I remember it.
I think it all comes down to whether or not the game was "ground breaking" at the time with regards to its graphics. I remember thinking that Max Payne was one of the best looking games ever when I first played it but now it just looks average for the time. I also remember thinking Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness had some rather awesome water effects but now they're pretty standard.
When I first played Halo Anniversary I wasn't blown away by the graphics because playing it felt just like when I first played Halo: Combat Evolved like 10 years ago. BUT when I switched the graphics back to the original I had to recoil in shock! I don't remember it looking that bad before.
I can play Mass Effect 1 through to 3 without being bothered by the obvious dip/rise in quality. I usually opt to play Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 rather than the Twin Snakes remake on the Gamecube because only those blocky, pixelated models feel right for that game. Starfox 64 looks exactly as I remember it.
I think it all comes down to whether or not the game was "ground breaking" at the time with regards to its graphics. I remember thinking that Max Payne was one of the best looking games ever when I first played it but now it just looks average for the time. I also remember thinking Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness had some rather awesome water effects but now they're pretty standard.
I find the PS1/N64 era is the only one that has this effect on me. The first generation of fully-textured true 3D graphics has definitely aged worse than any other generation, especially in games which were trying to look realistic.
SNES games, by comparison, still look great today. Although the large pixels in the 2D era do tend to look kind of blocky on a modern LCD monitor, whereas CRTs in the past made them seem like a higher resolution artificially.
SNES games, by comparison, still look great today. Although the large pixels in the 2D era do tend to look kind of blocky on a modern LCD monitor, whereas CRTs in the past made them seem like a higher resolution artificially.
To me, graphics on retro games/retro systems are on a sliding scale.
Let me explain, When I look at a Retro game or a older system I don't judge the graphics of said game by modern standards or "realism" that would be ludicrous. To me art in regardless of its media is not judge by the tools used but how well you used said tools. How well that game utilize its resources to look as visually stunning and aesthetically pleasing as possible.
Now on my sliding scale the SNES game Super Mario World is superior visually to any Call of Duty or Battlefield game.
This isn't nostalgia speaking here, its visual aesthetics. Most modern shooters have plenty of dull grays, browns and some greens. Color wise modern FPS are boring, composition wise I find the design to be lazy. Twenty years from now the Call of Duty series would be as remembered as the now forgotten sport titles that were on the Sega Genesis and SNES.
Yes older polygon games do look dated compared to modern games, its texturing pixelated and its polygon shapes too obvious.
But aesthetically the designers work with what they got to compose the images to their fullest.
Now with 2D games this is how they really shine. Even with pixelization, the environment, the the characters, the sprites, everything POPs before you. Screen sized bosses just look visually more impressive on these retro games than they do on modern games. It gives you the sense that your character/hero/avatar should be in over his head more than what modern games deliver.
Who here remembers the background music from a NES Megaman game (or better yet the moon theme from Duck Tales), for a song thats nothing but beats its catchy.
With the technological limitations the music and sound designers have to better compose their songs. Now try to hum a song from a newer game for the PS3 or Xbox 360, I wait. See what I mean its not as catchy, you might not even remember the tune why is that? The song was composed better.
Let me explain, When I look at a Retro game or a older system I don't judge the graphics of said game by modern standards or "realism" that would be ludicrous. To me art in regardless of its media is not judge by the tools used but how well you used said tools. How well that game utilize its resources to look as visually stunning and aesthetically pleasing as possible.
Now on my sliding scale the SNES game Super Mario World is superior visually to any Call of Duty or Battlefield game.
This isn't nostalgia speaking here, its visual aesthetics. Most modern shooters have plenty of dull grays, browns and some greens. Color wise modern FPS are boring, composition wise I find the design to be lazy. Twenty years from now the Call of Duty series would be as remembered as the now forgotten sport titles that were on the Sega Genesis and SNES.
Yes older polygon games do look dated compared to modern games, its texturing pixelated and its polygon shapes too obvious.
But aesthetically the designers work with what they got to compose the images to their fullest.
Now with 2D games this is how they really shine. Even with pixelization, the environment, the the characters, the sprites, everything POPs before you. Screen sized bosses just look visually more impressive on these retro games than they do on modern games. It gives you the sense that your character/hero/avatar should be in over his head more than what modern games deliver.
Who here remembers the background music from a NES Megaman game (or better yet the moon theme from Duck Tales), for a song thats nothing but beats its catchy.
With the technological limitations the music and sound designers have to better compose their songs. Now try to hum a song from a newer game for the PS3 or Xbox 360, I wait. See what I mean its not as catchy, you might not even remember the tune why is that? The song was composed better.
Honestly, the only games that look uglier to me now than when I first played them are N64 titles. For some reason that system aged really badly to me. The early 3D and terrible frame rates that didn't bother me so much as a kid frequently make me nauseous now.
Certain games like OoT I will remember having craptastic graphics but I liked the art style.
The one game that I played recently was COD 3 and holy crap I remember that coming out for the 360 and blowing my mind. Now it makes me want to vomit
The one game that I played recently was COD 3 and holy crap I remember that coming out for the 360 and blowing my mind. Now it makes me want to vomit
really? i started playing Oblivion again the other day and i thought that apart from the character models that it still looked fairly good, not great but pretty good..... if you dont include the character modelsmechalynx said:
I am constantly playing old games or games with ASCII graphics. I have no illusions about old games and how they look. The majority of them look like shit and have all aged badly. On the other hand, the ones that don't offend the eyes so much generally had a consistent aesthetic and fluid animations.
I've only encountered this once when replaying an old PC game from my childhood for the sake of nostalgia. I ended up being surprised at the low resolution of the sprites, as I far more clearly remembered the more detailed images from the later games in the series.
Minor example then, I guess.
In general though, I find that bright, colorful, and stylized visuals age far better than "realistic" ones. Just looking at the Zelda series for one example, Wind Waker has aged really well, where Twilight Princess hasn't.
Minor example then, I guess.
In general though, I find that bright, colorful, and stylized visuals age far better than "realistic" ones. Just looking at the Zelda series for one example, Wind Waker has aged really well, where Twilight Princess hasn't.
The only time anything even close to that ever happened to me was when I went back and played a few rounds of Soul Calibur II on my GameCube after getting disillusioned with Soul Calibur IV. The difference is graphical depth and fidelity was much greater than I was expecting, but not enough to actually bother me.