Poll: On Graphics, and Standing the Test of Time

[Trace2010]

If you haven't noticed...

All Nintendo has made it's money on in the past 20 years is either Pokemon or Nostalgia.

 

[Trace2010]

You are comparing 2D graphics in its middle/late years to 3D graphics at its beginning. Not really a fair comparison. Look at games on the Atari 2600 and tell me they have withstood the test of time.

I wouldn't say either has the advantage over the other. For me, whether a game withstands the test of time has little to do with its graphics and more to do with gameplay, story, and many other factors.

Yes I can definitely say that Pole Position, Moon Patrol, Centipede, Galaga, Mrs. Pac Man, Berserker, and Impossible Mission have stood the test of time, EVEN WITHOUT STORY or ending. Likewise, games like 1941 and Viper Force (top scrolling shooters) have stood the test of time as well because the whole purpose of those games (much like Pinball before them) was to simply get the highest score or survive the longest on one quarter. I have to say, the emergence of story lines in gaming have helped the at-home consoles, but COMPLETELY KILLED the arcade market.

 

[Trace2010]

I still play loads of old games, so I'm heavily biased.

The later stage 2D games (late 90s) were usually beautifully crafted, and some genres of games worked better in 2D (Adventure games in particular!). About half to two-thirds of my favourite games are in 2D.

Mine too!

 

[Fanboy]

You are comparing 2D graphics in its middle/late years to 3D graphics at its beginning. Not really a fair comparison. Look at games on the Atari 2600 and tell me they have withstood the test of time.

I wouldn't say either has the advantage over the other. For me, whether a game withstands the test of time has little to do with its graphics and more to do with gameplay, story, and many other factors.

Yes I can definitely say that Pole Position, Moon Patrol, Centipede, Galaga, Mrs. Pac Man, Berserker, and Impossible Mission have stood the test of time, EVEN WITHOUT STORY or ending. Likewise, games like 1941 and Viper Force (top scrolling shooters) have stood the test of time as well because the whole purpose of those games (much like Pinball before them) was to simply get the highest score or survive the longest on one quarter. I have to say, the emergence of story lines in gaming have helped the at-home consoles, but COMPLETELY KILLED the arcade market.

I have to disagree with you then. I doubt anyone would play the original atari 2600 games for any other reason than Nostalgia. Many of these games have been remade with updated graphics and smoother gameplay, and those are the versions that people play today. The concept might have withstood the test of time, but the graphics have not.

 

[Rhob Anybody]

Gone for depends on the game here due to the fact that as has been stated allready you need to at least work on a timeline. A lot of people are using BG2 as an example but you need to take into account that BG2 was one of the last examples of 2d games being made. As a better comparison I would say use Dungeon master compared to Morrowind. Both are great games and both can still be enjoyed by anyone who doesnt just look at the graphics as being the be all and end all of the game.

For a few other comparisons of how both graphical styles compare I would go with Lotus esprit turbo challenge 2 compared to Need for speed underground, Doom 2 compared to quake 2, Command and conquer compared to Earth 2150 and Street fighter 2 compared with Tekken 3.

I've tried to cover most of the main genres with the above and think that most people (at least those who have played both examples in each comparison and enjoyed them) would agree that the graphics have held up pretty well in all cases in a comparative sense.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Early 3d games used wireframes or crude solid filled polygons running at sub 10 frames per second. 2d games allowed for a lot more detail but there are still plenty of 16-bit 2d games with parallax scrolling and large sprites that look uglier now than the wireframe graphics used in Elite. I guess that you have to judge it game by game.

 

[philzibit]

2d games will stand the test of time longer than most early 3d games based on the fact that most early 3d games sucked. They ignored the gameplay and worked hard on 3d graphics that compared to today are laughable and can be reproduced on cell phones.

But really graphics don't matter.

 

[shatnershaman]

It really depends on the game, for example Mario 64 still impresses me every time I play it because it has open environments that still stand up today plus no load times. Though overall I would say 2D ages better if its done correctly.

 

[Jandau]

Baldur's Gate 2. The game's a freaking painting. It's a joy to look at no matter how you swing it. 3D is catching up slowly, but it's not quite there yet.

This game might be considered to be bridging the gap. The visuals are 3D-ish but it's played out in an isometric (and turn-based) style similar to many 2D RPGs, correct?

Not really. The backgrounds are full 2D (and gorgeous), the characters are 2D sprites and the only trace of 3D in the game are spell effects that can make use of 3D acceleration (there's also the non-2D mode). So it's not much of a bridge

 

[-Seraph-]

A lot of 2D games that stand the test of time have that same charm and style that old cartoons (like bugs bunny) have that still make them rather appealing. Unlike old 3d with their low polygon count that makes things somewhat awkward to look at, 2D is more akin to comics and cartoons I find.

One of my favorite examples is Chrono Trigger, it has an anime style to it and even today it's rather easy on the eyes and maintains this timeless style that can be enjoyed in any age. 2D game art style can be appreciated at any time frame while 3D (old 3d) does not age very well.

Although with today's visuals, I believe we now have 3d that can easily stand the test of time and still look good 10-20 years from now and be admired for it. Look at games like Shadow of the Colossus, MGS4, Okami, Wind Waker, they all have an art style that can be appreciated years from now and still look great.

 

[Flying-Emu]

You are comparing 2D graphics in its middle/late years to 3D graphics at its beginning. Not really a fair comparison. Look at games on the Atari 2600 and tell me they have withstood the test of time.

I wouldn't say either has the advantage over the other. For me, whether a game withstands the test of time has little to do with its graphics and more to do with gameplay, story, and many other factors.

Fanboy's got the right idea. Pong wasn't exactly visually appealing; why should OoT be?

Oh, and I found OoT more charming than A Link to the Past, even though Majora's Mask would eat them both for breakfast. Just sayin'.

 

[Spleenbag]

You are comparing 2D graphics in its middle/late years to 3D graphics at its beginning. Not really a fair comparison. Look at games on the Atari 2600 and tell me they have withstood the test of time.

I wouldn't say either has the advantage over the other. For me, whether a game withstands the test of time has little to do with its graphics and more to do with gameplay, story, and many other factors.

Fanboy's got the right idea. Pong wasn't exactly visually appealing; why should OoT be?

Oh, and I found OoT more charming than A Link to the Past, even though Majora's Mask would eat them both for breakfast. Just sayin'.

I didn't like Majora's Mask either, but that was for its time limit.


It seems my position is untenable: I'm comparing the golden age of 16-bit to the beginning of 3D. I apologize for not realizing this sooner.

 

[phar]

I wouldn't say the likes of Super Mario Brothers (I.e. the majority of the 8 bit games) have aged well at all, and games like Civilisation have 2d graphics so bad they really hamper gameplay.

I guess what you're really seeing is that since 16 bit consoles 2d graphics have been easily good enough, and improvements have been fairly minor. Whereas 3d graphics have only really been around a little over 10 years and so we've seen massive improvements ala 8 vs 16 bit.

I suspect that in another 10 years if you look back at the 3d games of today you'll have very much the opinion you're expressing about 2d games here. I mean sure, if you get up close to something it'll usually look terrible but generally modern 3d games are absolutely stunning. They will get better, but it'll be far less noticeable.

I couldnt of said it better myself.

I put depends on the game though since I do have many memorable 3D and 2D games. The N64, Gamecube and Wii are excellent examples of 3D games which will stand the test of time.

Plus people dont forget that not all 16 bit games were 2D..

 

[jamesworkshop]

http://www.igniq.com/images/zelda_online_ocarina_of_time_170805.jpg
http://campinfinity.cs.luc.edu/Members/session1/group6/kristen/1998_pic

Nah Oot still looks good sure its old but still delivers the required atmosphere

 

[Sewblon]

I hold that The Secret of Monkey Island is humanities greatest achievement, so graphics don't matter.

 

[Screens]

To me, if a game has ultra-hyper realistic graphics that shame Crysis with horrible gameplay, that game isn't worth playing. I play something like Team Fortress 2 because of the incredible gameplay behind the cartoony charm (I'm enjoying it a little less after the mess Valve created with some of the recent updates). However, I still enjoy games like Diablo 2 and Fallout 2 because the games are just that damn good.

To the OP:
I believe that in Ocarina of Time, the 3D graphics enhanced the ability of the designers to do what they do: design. The levels of Ocarina of Time are absolutely stunning. The Spirit Temple might be one of the most well crafted level I've ever played in a video game. I've never played Zelda for its story, because it's the same thing again and again. The great hook in those games are the depth and complexity of the dungeons that are required to proceed.

Bioshock is a different story, because it is currently the only installment in that series. It too is a great game, but for completely different reasons than the Zelda series. Bioshock indeed has a great story, which is its hook. Zelda's story is about as retrod almost as much as Mario's.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Baldur's Gate 2. The game's a freaking painting. It's a joy to look at no matter how you swing it. 3D is catching up slowly, but it's not quite there yet.

I remembering playing the Demo, it was quite something. I bang on about this so much, but as far as Gaming 'Art' is concerned, Okami pretty much took the top-spot.

 

[Grype]

The thing is you can't improve 2D graphics to the same extent to which you can improve 3D stuff, so the 2D graphics are timeless, they will always look similar.

And I totally agree with Screens, the levels of OOT are what you play for, not the slightly repetitive storyline.

 

[PureChaos]

some games are better than some of todays games but i don't really care much for graphics. I still would have loved LoZ:TP if it had the same graphics as OOT (and as for your opinion on OOT, that's fair enough you don't like it but i don't play it for nostalgia reasons, i actually like the game and it is one of my all time favorites. i prefer the Master Quest but thats just avoiding the issue). anyway, it all depends on each game, i would rather play something like Animal Crossing than some football game but i'd rather play Super Mario Bros 3 than Animal Crossing. nostalgia for me doesn't come into the equation for games, i hadn't played SMB3 for years then managed to download an emulator and it was great but even once the nostalgia trip ad gone i continues playing it because it is a great game.