I feel like many gamers these days are more interested in hearing about the framerate and resolution of an upcoming game rather than the gameplay features. Oh well, I am going back to my PS2 game.Something Amyss said:
The Fading Awe of Aging Graphics
- Thread starter aozgolo
- Start date
No, I don't really ever feel like that. Graphics are so unimportant a factor in determining whether or not a game is good even noticing how bad or good graphics is kind of an afterthought for me. I can name NES games with great graphics that are much better than even the most modern games. Same with any console really.
"Nostalgia" isn't a bad thing, regardless of how many times younglings try and dismiss things before their time by poo pooing "teh nostalgia goggles." Nostalgia ENHANCES enjoyment of something. It makes it better. I feel sorry for those kiddies too young to get it. They'll understand in time.
"Nostalgia" isn't a bad thing, regardless of how many times younglings try and dismiss things before their time by poo pooing "teh nostalgia goggles." Nostalgia ENHANCES enjoyment of something. It makes it better. I feel sorry for those kiddies too young to get it. They'll understand in time.
Nah, I don't really get that. I remember playing Morrowind for the first time and thinking it looked amazing, and I still think it looks good today because I can cast my mind back to when it was new. Same with Deus Ex, Quake, Master of Orion, X-Wing etc. Growing up playing games that looked like
makes you appreciate graphics of any level, I guess. It also kinda teaches you that as long as the gameplay is fun, it doesn't really matter what the game looks like. Goldeneye might look like it hasn't aged well by today's standards, but the game still plays the same, so where's the problem?
Something that I've been considering for a while is how graphics look worse by comparison.
In my minds eye Oblivion looks like Skyrim, it doesn't in reality I know that, but when Skyrim came along to me it didn't seem like a huge improvement over Oblivion graphics wise but if I look at Oblivion now after the Skyrim release it suddenly looks way worse than I remember it looking.
I had a similar experience with the first medal of Honour on the playstation and then going onto frontline on the gamecube.
If I look back at MoH1 today I can hardly make out wth is going on on the screen...
In my minds eye Oblivion looks like Skyrim, it doesn't in reality I know that, but when Skyrim came along to me it didn't seem like a huge improvement over Oblivion graphics wise but if I look at Oblivion now after the Skyrim release it suddenly looks way worse than I remember it looking.
I had a similar experience with the first medal of Honour on the playstation and then going onto frontline on the gamecube.
If I look back at MoH1 today I can hardly make out wth is going on on the screen...
I think only certain people, and mostly PC gamers. It's like games aren't about fun, but about proving your hardware is better. I mean, you will notice that games sell even if they're in 900p, that lowly 700p, or worse...Standard Definition.WeepingAngels said:
Honestly, I think that's why they're so vocal. They know just how irrelevant they are overall.
But even still, there's a good number of people who ooh and ahh at the latest shinies, and so that's what gets pushed. I wonder how well that's actually working, though.
There were quite a few games I remember looking almost near photo realistic in my childhood that look either passable or garbage today.
The original Need for Speed Most Wanted I remember looking damn near realistic, but replaying it certainly shows it's age. It's not a bad looking game though, considering how old it is.
For some reason, I really remember thinking Perfect Dark: Zero on the 360 was the best damn looking game I've ever seen. I even remember thinking the gameplay was beyond whatever I've experience prior. Replaying on the Rare Replay collection though has shown me that maybe I was a bit misguided, mostly by myself only being to play it for maybe about 20 minutes.
When I was really young though, I remember the first Quake looking "real". To be fair, maybe it's just because the game was so fast and my child mind paid attention to things differently than I do now with a more critical eye.
I have many more examples though. Graphics are weird. Every time you swear they can't look any better, about 4 years later you see a new game with visual detail beyond anything else you could imagine.
The original Need for Speed Most Wanted I remember looking damn near realistic, but replaying it certainly shows it's age. It's not a bad looking game though, considering how old it is.
For some reason, I really remember thinking Perfect Dark: Zero on the 360 was the best damn looking game I've ever seen. I even remember thinking the gameplay was beyond whatever I've experience prior. Replaying on the Rare Replay collection though has shown me that maybe I was a bit misguided, mostly by myself only being to play it for maybe about 20 minutes.
When I was really young though, I remember the first Quake looking "real". To be fair, maybe it's just because the game was so fast and my child mind paid attention to things differently than I do now with a more critical eye.
I have many more examples though. Graphics are weird. Every time you swear they can't look any better, about 4 years later you see a new game with visual detail beyond anything else you could imagine.
FPS and resolutions can greatly impact player enjoyment and the quality of the experience, correct (Blighttown in Dark Souls is an infamous example)? So why shouldn't this be a thing people are concerned with?WeepingAngels said:
If anything, people - reviewers in particular - don't by habit address the technical side as well or as often as they should. Perhaps if there was a greater mass market understanding of the technical side [of a technical medium], MS couldn't have felt okay about releasing a machine which is still often locked at 30fps (PS4's rarely ever better, either, going by Digital Foundry's side-by-sides). I'm almost exclusively a console gamer, btw, so I'm not rocking a monster rig and mocking console peasants.
As for my own feelings? It depends on the game, I suppose, and what the engine's trying to do versus what it can do well. The Telltale games mostly look absolutely bloody awful, but graphical fidelity and 'gameplay' clearly aren't a focus, so those elements act as a good enough delivery point for what matters, i.e. the writing and character narratives.
Generally I've barely any interest in playing older games (last gen titles like Deus Ex:HR and SRIV hold up well on XB1, for different reasons), but not by any means just because of the visuals; KotOR was a beloved game back in the day, but its pacing, inventory design, controls, and even implementation of camera long since made it a frustrating game to endure in order to get to the characters and nifty plot.
Mods make Morrowind look better than you'd ever remember it, though.Grouchy Imp said:
I dislike keyboard'n'mouse for gaming, so that was an element to it as well, but I just couldn't finish Deus Ex when I got it for the first time a few years back. It was ugly as sin, which I mostly expected (Invisible War wasn't exactly a well designed looker) but what hurt its impact even more were the rather risible voice acting and iffy writing. I sentimentally still want to go through it just because I enjoyed IW and HR, but compared to new games it doesn't have a lot to offer in terms of an overall experience.
I have been gaming for over 25 years and I can honestly say that I have never cared more about framerate and resolution than gameplay. Can you imagine Nintendo Power talking about the fuckin' framerate and resolution of the upcoming Super Mario 3 in the late 80's?Darth Rosenberg said:
I still think a lot of SNES games look good. I think some PS1 games look good. But for people who didn't grow up with those limitations, who got into gaming later on, it can be hard to go back in time and appreciate that stuff. Which is a shame. I can say 'graphics don't matter' all day, but in the end, games are an audiovisual medium. The visuals kind of matter.
You didn't actually address my point or question, though; why shouldn't this be a relevant discussion point, especially in reviews? Would you deny framerate or resolution can ever be important to a game?WeepingAngels said:
I never suggested fps and res are more important than anything, btw, my point - and challenge to you - is that the technical side can affect the experience in huge ways, on a fundamental level. Do you find DS's fps acceptable? Should a game ever be released in such condition? The PC playerbase largely got those issues solved, but it's forever a mess of a game on console. That said, it's not enough for me to not still call it an absolute classic.
But it remains a classic which the developers marred due to poor optimisation; the game is an objectively worse product when it turns into a flip-book when you're trying to deal with such fine tuned high-damage output combat.
And I've been gaming since the mid/late '80's, and I can honestly say I've never cared more about the technical side of a technical medium[footnote]Obvious disclaimer is obvious: clearly I still buy new games on a rather shite console as far as specs go - the XB1 - so just because I see games which can't hit 60fps, and sometimes can't even maintain a pitiful 30, I'm still hugely enjoying the games I play.[/footnote].
Since I really don't care about framerate and resolution I can't really answer your question. I'll try though.Darth Rosenberg said:
Should reviewers mention framerate if it's causing problems (extreme drops)? Yes, they should mention it, not dwell on it as too many gamers do.
Should reviewers mention resolution? I don't care one way or the other and again, not dwell on that shit.
If by DS you mean Dark 'people will never stop talking about it' Souls then I can't answer that, didn't play far into it.
Let me just say this, the more gamers concern themselves with the technical side of gaming, the less fun they have. Atleast, that's been my experience.
Pretty much every game that was 'current' at the time I played it impressed me, graphic-wise.
And I always remember them looking better than they actually did, when I revisit them.
Oblivion is a perfect example, as I was completely blown away by how 'real' everything looked at the time.
It is nice to look back and laugh at the stuff we used to be impressed by.
And I always remember them looking better than they actually did, when I revisit them.
Oblivion is a perfect example, as I was completely blown away by how 'real' everything looked at the time.
It is nice to look back and laugh at the stuff we used to be impressed by.
Whether it's nostalgia or taste, very few games I've grown up with have aged poorly on the visual side of things. But, I've always been extremely forgiving when it comes to graphical fidelity. While I hate to state obvious opinions, as long as I still enjoy the game, it's visuals can never ruin the experience. With the exception of extremely awful visuals, but I can't think of any game I've played where they were truly awful.
Playing nothing but NES, SNES and Genesis RPGs for a good while, then load up FFVII.Shaun Kennedy said:
It's impact is hard to feel looking back, but after a youth's lifetime of older graphics it knocks your socks off, especially if it's your first Playstation game, as many bought it when they got theirs.
What would an extreme drop be? It's relative to what you're used to and whether performance is consistent or not.WeepingAngels said:
If someone's used to 60 and they're forced to play a game at 30 which then drops a few frames, then that can be a significant change.
C'mon, "that shit"? Isn't this a bit of an ignorant or myopic approach to a medium that's always been defined by technology (evolving technology, at that)? Simply addressing that it can be important to discuss isn't 'dwelling'.
If anything, this is logically a point you of all people might care about; if a game prioritises resolution and texture quality, then it's often the case that the framerate will suffer accordingly. The pure - finite - grunt can only be allocated so much, and if your game looks great in screenshots - in adverts and promos to shift units - then isn't it reasonable to accuse that developer of sacrificing quality of gameplay (the thing you seem to reasonably care most about) for superficial regard for fancy graphics (the thing you don't care about)?
Does TotalBiscuit have less fun playing games at his relatively rarefied benchmarks than you? I find that hard to believe.
I'm not demanding you start a petition to ensure fps and res are addressed in depth in all reviews, and that MS and Sony release consoles that can reliably output 4K at 120fps... But I am trying to outline why being dismissive of such things is rather short sighted.
I seem to remember there was a fan-built remake in the works a few years ago. Deus Ex: Revision, I think it was called. Now, I haven't played the mod and so can't speak as to it's quality, but it may be a good place to start if you really want to shift Deus Ex from your 'to do' list.Darth Rosenberg said:
Related: how about when you did see new graphics and could not imagine anything ever getting better? I recall Gamespot reviewer marveling at Ninja Gaiden Black for the original Xbox and saying he honestly has no idea where graphics can go from there. See at minute 3.00
I honestly had the same issue: Black Ops 2 on the PS3? Where to go from there. Now?
Blops 2 on PS3
vs
Blops 3 on PS4
I honestly had the same issue: Black Ops 2 on the PS3? Where to go from there. Now?
Blops 2 on PS3
vs
Blops 3 on PS4
There's a few retro-focused YouTube channels out there, most of which do periodic reviews on titles or systems that left a mark in a particular decade, console generation or genre. That's great, but what really gets my goat is when a reviewer's rose-tinted glasses become apparent.
Consider the first Quake. It's a great game and it has a striking art style - but don't go and tell me the texture detail "still holds up today", as I'm liable to just start laughing hysterically while running away from you.
At the same time, the more tech has progressed, the less its inexorable march seems to matter. Oblivion and The Witcher III both manage to convey a sense of basic credibility and coherence, even if the second game is arguably much more powerful on the visual spectrum.
That fading awe that's been mentioned doesn't really kick in for me unless you're considering the products of the late nineties. Anything beyond Y2K seems to exist in a weird bubble where it's increasingly obvious that its tech is aging - and sometimes aging poorly - while still remaining legible. Deus Ex 1's level design is still competent, you still get an adequate sense of place out of the locales JC Denton goes through; and that seems to be enough to suspend that sense of the effectiveness of it all fading away with time.
That's without mentioning how new engines and hardware revisions typically get demo'ed in the least-relevant means imaginable. Being able to push more individual grass blades or trees onscreen doesn't guarantee that the games built on your Kickass and Supposedly Futureproof Engine will even get to foster that initial sense of awe.
I mean, look at id Tech 5.
John Carmack: "MEGATEXTURES!"
The General Public: "I can't get invested in RAGE on the narrative level."
John Carmack: "Uh... MEGATEXTURES!"
Consider the first Quake. It's a great game and it has a striking art style - but don't go and tell me the texture detail "still holds up today", as I'm liable to just start laughing hysterically while running away from you.
At the same time, the more tech has progressed, the less its inexorable march seems to matter. Oblivion and The Witcher III both manage to convey a sense of basic credibility and coherence, even if the second game is arguably much more powerful on the visual spectrum.
That fading awe that's been mentioned doesn't really kick in for me unless you're considering the products of the late nineties. Anything beyond Y2K seems to exist in a weird bubble where it's increasingly obvious that its tech is aging - and sometimes aging poorly - while still remaining legible. Deus Ex 1's level design is still competent, you still get an adequate sense of place out of the locales JC Denton goes through; and that seems to be enough to suspend that sense of the effectiveness of it all fading away with time.
That's without mentioning how new engines and hardware revisions typically get demo'ed in the least-relevant means imaginable. Being able to push more individual grass blades or trees onscreen doesn't guarantee that the games built on your Kickass and Supposedly Futureproof Engine will even get to foster that initial sense of awe.
I mean, look at id Tech 5.
John Carmack: "MEGATEXTURES!"
The General Public: "I can't get invested in RAGE on the narrative level."
John Carmack: "Uh... MEGATEXTURES!"
In my perspective, that of gaming since the original GameBoy, graphics hit a plateau with Source engine circa 2005., beyond which I can't justify the cost for benefit. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for technological progress, but I guess that era of gaming sort of hit the sweet spot for me and anything beyond that I don't see the bang for buck.