The Early 3D era...

[Juskin]

I was just trying to play a few ps1 games from warhawk to crash bandicoot, and I was just disgusted by the graphics. To an exent even back then I remember not being too fond of ps/n64/sat gen graphics, but now it's nearing intolerable.

I will admit though, some have aged wonderfully. Spyro, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, and FF, I'm looking at you.

Anyone else finding it hard to play your old 3D games?

[Richter Belmount]

Not really

[venturousviking]

I was just trying to play a few ps1 games from warhawk to crash bandicoot, and I was just disgusted by the graphics. To an exent even back then I remember not being too fond of ps/n64/sat gen graphics, but now it's nearing intolerable.

I will admit though, some have aged wonderfully. Spyro, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, and FF, I'm looking at you.

Anyone else finding it hard to play their old 3D games?

I felt the same way when I went back to GranTurismo 1 and 2 after getting used to 3 and 4. But I have to admit. It was still fun to play even though I was used to "newer" looking graphics. I guess that's why I enjoy classic gaming so much...no matter how much they look like crap sometimes, there are still some gems that are fun to play.

[Smashed Brother]

Actually, I was just playing Twisted Metal 2 the other day and thinking the exact same thing.... looking at it's warpy, bitmap textures sprinkled with slideshow-like animation made me wonder how I could've ever spent $60 on that back in the day. But, the staying power of these early 3D-rendered atrocities, such as Warhawk and Ridge Racer, are a testament to the fact that good gameplay can and will overcome subpar graphics and/or other elements, IMO

[j_factor]

I hear this complaint a lot, but I don't agree with it myself. Although it really depends on the game. Usually when people talk about how 'ugly' older 3D is now, they tend to bring up games that I always thought were never pretty to begin with.

[Haoie]

You know what they say: Good 2D is better than crappy 3D.

[emceelokey]

Yeah. 3d games don't age too well. Mainly the games that were aimed at photo realism opposed to art style.

[otaku]

I agree 3D doesn't age as well as 2D. However I still find many older 3D games perfectly playable.Even some saturn games with their crappy 3D visuals and FMV are still fun.

[tom]

I was just trying to play a few ps1 games from warhawk to crash bandicoot, and I was just disgusted by the graphics. To an exent even back then I remember not being too fond of ps/n64/sat gen graphics, but now it's nearing intolerable.

I will admit though, some have aged wonderfully. Spyro, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, and FF, I'm looking at you.

Anyone else finding it hard to play your old 3D games?


Those you mentioned are not early 3D.

Early 3D is Star Raiders (Atari) on Atari 800 (1979), Way Out (Sirius) on Apple ][ (1982) , Mercenary (Novagen) on Atari 800 (1984), The Eidolon (Lucasfilm) on Atari 800 (1985), Hunter (Activision) on Amiga (1991), Ultima Underworld (Origin) on PC (1992), Alone in the Dark (Infogrames on PC (1993). All good classics btw, and still playable today.

[James8BitStar]

I honestly like "crappy" older 3D graphics. The gaming industry has too big a deal about realism and immersion. Realism is overrated--there's nothing realistic about fat plumbers beating up fire-breathing turtles or guys with goofy hairdos saving the world from a genetically-engineered white-haired Leonardo DiCaprio. As for immersion, that happens from a game that is internally consistent within itself, not by a shallow attempt to imitate the real world.

In all honesty, I find that the more abstract graphics are, the more I can get caught up in the game's world. If its too realistic I notice all the flaws--not being able to break down a wooden door never bothered me in 2D, because hey I'm able to accept a flat world of tile-based movement so I can accept unbreakable wooden doors too. But when a game gets too realistic, you start to notice things like that. "Crappy" 3D didn't have this problem and those were some of the best 3D worlds like ever.

God now I want to play King's Field.

[thetoxicone]

The graphics on most older 3d games don't bother me as long as the game is fun.

[LiquidPolicenaut]

Yeah, I pretty much agree that a lot of those early titles look like ass now but still might be fun to play. The one 3D game that still stands out as looking good is Metal Gear Solid. I think it also looks even nicer when I play it on my PS2 with the "Smoothing Textures" technique on. I would also add Xenogears (along with the "smoothing" too), but it was a mix of 3D/2D....

The one game I always wanted to play, and I wonder how it holds up today, is Tobal No. 2. It has some beautiful looking characters models and I wonder if they hold up as well today...

EDIT: Oh wait, I just saw we were talking about EARLY 3D games so I'm not sure MGS is considered early in the PSX lifecycle....

[MrSparkle]

most 3d playstation games rate in my book as unplayably bad, not because I'm too picky to try to put up with them because i cant even tell what the hell I'm looking at. but then again i thought the same thing when the psx launched. i always favored the n64, in terms of graphics i think it was worlds better than the psx.

[cityside75]

I've found that the relative quality of these early 3d games just gets worse if you upgrade your TV. On a standard def tv of 27" or less, a lot of PS1 games look passable with a lot of the odd distortions and warping not being too obvious.

Hooking these up to a larger HDTV (I use an S-video connection to connect mine to my 47" HDTV), and these flaws become much more obvious, and the low resolution becomes painfully obvious. I find that with some games it's harder to tell what's going on on the big screen because my eyes just can't always make sense of the big, blocky, warpy polygons.

That said, I still love PS1-era games. They'll always be an interesting marker in the progress we've made with this technology. I still remember my brother in law asking me why I wanted to upgrade from the PS1, because he couldn't imagine how graphics could get any better :)

[Juskin]

Those you mentioned are not early 3D.

Early 3D is Star Raiders (Atari) on Atari 800 (1979), Way Out (Sirius) on Apple ][ (1982) , Mercenary (Novagen) on Atari 800 (1984), The Eidolon (Lucasfilm) on Atari 800 (1985), Hunter (Activision) on Amiga (1991), Ultima Underworld (Origin) on PC (1992), Alone in the Dark (Infogrames on PC (1993). All good classics btw, and still playable today.

They're still early 3D, just not the earliest 3D. I mainly say early 3D because this was really the first time I believe 3D really took off.

Sure, you got some 3D games here and there in the early 90's and earlier. For the most part though, 3D didn't take off until the mid 90's when we got to see an abundant amount of genres being translated into 3D.

[Pantechnicon]

As for immersion, that happens from a game that is internally consistent within itself, not by a shallow attempt to imitate the real world...In all honesty, I find that the more abstract graphics are, the more I can get caught up in the game's world. If its too realistic I notice all the flaws

+1 to all of this, particularly on the issue of abstraction. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the improved realism in newer graphics comes at the expense of stripping away the ability of younger people to work with abstractions in general, and thus they are becoming increasingly less imaginative. Why, says your brain's cognitive center, should I bother envisioning standing in an open field a la Zork when I can see millions of individually rendered blades of grass?

[exit]

I usually don't let graphics get in the way of gameplay, so despite me being able to notice the "flaws", I'm still able to enjoy the game as if it just came out. I really do enjoy the older 3D games tho, if not just for nostalgic sakes. As stated before, if the graphics were crap back when the game was new, then they'll probably look worse with age.

Take the original Alone in the Dark games, back then the graphics were great, but now it looks like Picasso's paintings came to life and started to fight each other. The graphics still work after all these years and despite them not being the level of lets say Resident Evil, the game generally still has a tendency to creep you the hell out.

[kedawa]

To this day, I still love flat-shaded polys.
I can't stomach PSX games, but there are a few 32X games that I can enjoy to this day, namely Shadow Squadron and Virtua Fighter. VF even has a 16:9 mode.

[carlcarlson]

I'll agree, and disagree. I tried playing Metal Gear Solid again not too long ago and could only take it for about a half hour before I put it away for good. And that's one of the GOOD games. However, my buddy and I played a ton of Goldeneye around the same time and the graphics/animation never bothered me in that. I think the difference is that MGS tried to be more realistic, while N64 graphics were always kind of shiny and distorted. I think Mario 64 and the like hold up very well, too. 1080, though, looks like ass for some reason...

[LiquidPolicenaut]

I'll agree, and disagree. I tried playing Metal Gear Solid again not too long ago and could only take it for about a half hour before I put it away for good. And that's one of the GOOD games. However, my buddy and I played a ton of Goldeneye around the same time and the graphics/animation never bothered me in that. I think the difference is that MGS tried to be more realistic, while N64 graphics were always kind of shiny and distorted. I think Mario 64 and the like hold up very well, too. 1080, though, looks like ass for some reason...

Wow, I think I'm the exact opposite. I can easily play MGS and still think it looks awesome yet I still cant stand any N64 games (except Paper Mario) graphics.....

[Aussie2B]

Nope. If anything, I'm only growing more fond of those primitive graphics as time goes on. As much as I lamented the oncoming death of 2D, those were really exciting times. 3D wasn't brand new, but it was the first time that EVERYBODY was trying it. It was truly a time of fresh ideas and experimentation, and while there were plenty of dismal failures, there was also so much new ground tread and huge advancements. You generally don't get that these days.

The only thing that bugs me is that I notice bad frame rates more so now than I did back when I was playing these games when they were new. There are also some games where the details are a bit sparse which results in a weird surrealism that kind of freaks me out.

[swlovinist]

I honestly like "crappy" older 3D graphics. The gaming industry has too big a deal about realism and immersion. Realism is overrated--there's nothing realistic about fat plumbers beating up fire-breathing turtles or guys with goofy hairdos saving the world from a genetically-engineered white-haired Leonardo DiCaprio. As for immersion, that happens from a game that is internally consistent within itself, not by a shallow attempt to imitate the real world.

In all honesty, I find that the more abstract graphics are, the more I can get caught up in the game's world. If its too realistic I notice all the flaws--not being able to break down a wooden door never bothered me in 2D, because hey I'm able to accept a flat world of tile-based movement so I can accept unbreakable wooden doors too. But when a game gets too realistic, you start to notice things like that. "Crappy" 3D didn't have this problem and those were some of the best 3D worlds like ever.

God now I want to play King's Field.


COMPLETELY AGREE. I like history. I like playing video game time periods. I like playing games of all generes and ages. If everything looked realistic, then it would be boring gaming history.

now tis time to boot up some good ol Virtua Fighter!

[outofkeyslightly]

To this day, I still love flat-shaded polys.
I can't stomach PSX games, but there are a few 32X games that I can enjoy to this day, namely Shadow Squadron and Virtua Fighter. VF even has a 16:9 mode.

Haha, now that you mention it, yeah, it does. FINALLY the genesis wasn't lying about high definition graphics!... Speaking of the genny, I own Hard Drivin' and its slightly speedier sequel Race Drivin' for the little black box, and the only reason I bought them (especially HD) is because of how atrociously unplayable they are. Laughably bad. Race Drivin' does a bit to remedy the in-game speed, but both would fail regardless due to three second delay turns. The flat and gouraud shaded polys look a little better than you'd imagine a stock genesis pushing out, but not by a lot. Stunts/Stunt Racer for the pc are both superior bootlegs of basically the same game. The first time I put a quarter in the original Hard Drivin' machine it was probably 1997 or '98, and I was moved just the same to do so by how fucking terrible it looked. Needless to say I giggled my way through that quarter's worth pretty quickly, and a new crush was born...

But hold on a second, that was during the psx/n64 era. My yardstick at the time was based on games like Gran Turismo, maybe, and the Ridge Racer games. Maybe Hard Drivin' sucks no matter when you played it, but to look at RR and HD side by side now, the only difference would be speed and "textures." Underneath though lies a world of difference, and even though I enjoy Hard Drivin' as a guilty pleasure, Ridge Racer is clearly the superior game on so many levels that it exists as basically a watershed in 3d racing games. I magically received a playstation during launch christmas, and the three games I ended up buying immediately were Twisted Metal, Tekken and obviously Ridge Racer. Tekken one is fun, but basically forgettable in lieu of every sequel to follow. I still own and play Twisted Metal now and again, and 2's not half bad either. I even used to live with Dylan Jobe's brother Spencer, no joke. Ridge Racer I still own too, and the N64 version. Oh yeah, and it lives on my DS too. In some ways I never stopped playing Ridge Racer, although I can't powerslide as well as I used to...

So while it's so obvious to me, and seemingly the video game press and public opinion, the difference in quality between Hard Drivin' and Ridge Racer, I often wonder if it won't matter in the future because they both look like crap. Will kids ten years from now feel as mystified and bored by Genesis games as I am by 2600 games? Probably, but hopefully emulation will remind all those lousy kids what being a great game used to mean. Even if video games were to legitimize themselves as art, Hard Drivin' would still be ugly. I guess Ridge Racer is less ugly.

[Graham Mitchell]

I've always felt that the 1st generation 3-D titles didn't age well. At the time of their release I thought they looked impressive though. But, as many others have stated, if the gameplay is good, who cares?

I did have a bit of a shocker recently, though. I finished Twilight Princess over the summer. A couple weeks ago I got an urge to play some more Zelda so I downloaded Ocarina of Time on the Wii Virtual Console. When I started playing it I was amazed. I swore up and down that this was NOT the game I remembered. It looked like shit. The framerate was so bad by comparison to what I had grown accustomed to that I actually had trouble playing it--falling in the water repeatedly and what not. And when I saw Link's pathitc 2-poly face with those wide-spaced, poorly-drawn eyes I thought to myself "Man, how was this even acceptable?" It seriously feels like a downgrade when you compare it side-by-side with A Link to the Past, or even Zelda II. I think everybody just had such a big boner over the new style of gameplay that we all just sort of turned a blind eye to it. Very strange.

[MrSparkle]

i agree on the 32x versus psx argument i can stomach the 32x graphics no problem especially in great looking games like shadow squadron. I think that the psx just tried to push more polys than it could display comfortably. looking back i was never able to play ff7 for that reason i had psx just for its awesome 2d games like Symphony of the night.

[Krook]

Even tho im a big fan of the Final Fantasy series I cant play FF7 nowdays because it looks so horrible. Sorry :o

Well, one solution is to play it using a PSX emulator and pump up the resolution a bit but... nah.

[MrSparkle]

you see i always wanted to enjoy final fantasy 7 but even when it came out i couldnt make heads or tails of what the hell was going on lol. i literally never made it out of the city because i couldnt tell where the ramps and stuff were to go to the next areas. im really hoping for a complete remake of 7 with minimal changes other than a new graphics engine.

[Volcanon]

Yeah FF7 with the popeye arms of doom. I wish they had just used sprites for the character models.

Then again I got bored of FF7 before the end of disc 1.

[hbkprm]

i was fastinated with that era

[Greg2600]

This is more of a debate about Textures and Polygons than simply 3D. I would agree on the replay value of the PS1, kind of spotty. Much of the games I liked had a better N64 version. Arcade ports were often just as good if not better on the Saturn. That said, I've never owned a Playstation but have several games. When a robust PS1 emulator finally came out (bleem! and ePSXe) I started playing some of the games on it that I played at friends. The added processing, memory, CD speed, and graphics memory on the PC made many of the games playable, and watchable. However, back then, the Playstation was as good as anything else you could play, aside from having a $2000 computer.

[Aussie2B]

And when I saw Link's pathitc 2-poly face with those wide-spaced, poorly-drawn eyes I thought to myself "Man, how was this even acceptable?" It seriously feels like a downgrade when you compare it side-by-side with A Link to the Past, or even Zelda II. I think everybody just had such a big boner over the new style of gameplay that we all just sort of turned a blind eye to it. Very strange.

I wasn't hyped up for Ocarina of Time at all considering I'm not much of a fan of the series and I didn't bother getting it until several months after it had been out, but even I was absolutely floored by the graphics. At the time, I couldn't even imagine graphics getting more realistic than that. Obviously that thought seems silly now, but I can't imagine anybody back then thinking Zelda looked bad. It was basically the most impressive looking 3D game on the home console market at the time. To this day, I'd still say it looks excellent. It's unfair to compare it to something like Twilight Princess, which is actually had a less impressive impact because, as pretty as it looks, it was already a bit primitive for its time. Even though it appeared on Wii first, it's designed under GameCube hardware, and the other next-gen consoles were already pushing much more detailed graphics.

I wouldn't compare Ocarina of Time to A Link to the Past because it's basically apples and oranges, but I wouldn't say one is better or worse than the other. They're different but equal. But like Twilight Princess, A Link to the Past was also inferior in its impact compared to Ocarina of Time. There was nothing that remarkable about A Link to the Past's graphics. It's definitely an attractive game, but it's decidedly a first-generation SNES game (and even among those games, I can think of examples that did far more with the hardware, like Castlevania IV). I can't say A Link to the Past is one of the best looking games for the SNES nor that Twilight Princess is one of the best for the Wii, but Ocarina of Time for the N64? Definitely.

[Rob2600]

I can easily play MGS and still think it looks awesome yet I still cant stand any N64 games (except Paper Mario) graphics.....

I think some Nintendo 64 games like Conker's Bad Fur Day, Donkey Kong 64, Top Gear Overdrive, All-Star Baseball, and Wave Race 64 still look very good today. The smooth texture filtering, perspective correction, and advanced lighting helped make them look far better than the competition at the time (Saturn and PlayStation).

Jet Moto vs. Wave Race 64. Triple Play 2000 vs. All-Star Baseball 2000. No comparison.

Also, I noticed that a lot of PlayStation games featured shadows that are just black circles under each character, but many Nintendo 64 games featured real-time shadows (1080 Snowboarding, Turok 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, NFL Quarterback Club '99, etc.). The All-Star Baseball and NFL Quarterback Club games even featured cool triple-shadows during night games and the players' breath during cold games. Goldeneye 007 featured bullet holes that appeared on walls and objects. Ridge Racer 64 featured light trails and motion blur. Ocarina of Time featured heat distortion. Those things were a big deal in the late 1990s.

Some people might think those effects were introduced with the Dreamcast or the PlayStation 2, but the Nintendo 64 was doing them a few years prior.


I downloaded Ocarina of Time on the Wii Virtual Console. When I started playing it I was amazed. ... It looked like shit. ... when I saw Link's pathitc 2-poly face with those wide-spaced, poorly-drawn eyes I thought to myself "Man, how was this even acceptable?"

I think Ocarina of Time still holds up pretty well today. The lighting effects are great and there are a bunch of nice touches, like the water rippling when swimming, fireflies floating around the forest, Epona kicking up dust when galloping, day changing to night, night changing to day, feathers falling from chickens being carried, metallic reflective effects on the mirror shield, heat distortion from volcanoes, etc.

Don't forget the fantastic draw distances, the huge detailed bosses, and the absence of loading times.

[Juskin]

Yeah. 3d games don't age too well. Mainly the games that were aimed at photo realism opposed to art style.

I really agree with this statement. I think developers should focus more on the long term effect their games will have. Hell, as great as Crisis looks it'll be topped graphically, and on top of that it won't have a unique art style to back it up.

It seems like the games that focus heavily on artstyle are really the ones that stand out in our minds.

[blue lander]

I think early 3D games look as crappy today as they did when they came out.

[Kevincal]

Well, I was in my early to mid teens when games started going 3d, so I have a soft spot for them. Who cares if they don't look perfect, for their time, a lot of them were great games. Ridge Racer, Tekken, Air Combat, Virtua Fighter 2, Sega Rally, Doom, Super Mario 64 and so many others are very memorable to me. I could care less that they don't hold up to today's 3d games. Infact, I have little to no interest in todays 3d games. Why? They all seem like the same rehashed crap that's been coming out the past 5 years. How many war games need to be produced? How many FPS's!? It's ridiculous. Sure there are exceptions, but it just seems there is little to no innovation with today's games. Give me 90's gaming ANY DAY over today's gaming. Same goes with movies!!! 90's movies rule! Today's movies just plain BLOW and it cost a fortune to go see a movie now... System's cost too much these days too. And the one that isn't too expensive, the Wii, was impossible to find when I was excited for it. Now I don't even care about getting one... Not that I can afford it anyway. :P

[tom]

I think some Nintendo 64 games like Conker's Bad Fur Day, Donkey Kong 64, Top Gear Overdrive, All-Star Baseball, and Wave Race 64 still look very good today. The smooth texture filtering, perspective correction, and advanced lighting helped make them look far better than the competition at the time (Saturn and PlayStation).

Jet Moto vs. Wave Race 64. Triple Play 2000 vs. All-Star Baseball 2000. No comparison.

Also, I noticed that a lot of PlayStation games featured shadows that are just black circles under each character, but many Nintendo 64 games featured real-time shadows (1080 Snowboarding, Turok 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, NFL Quarterback Club '99, etc.). The All-Star Baseball and NFL Quarterback Club games even featured cool triple-shadows during night games and the players' breath during cold games. Goldeneye 007 featured bullet holes that appeared on walls and objects. Ridge Racer 64 featured light trails and motion blur. Ocarina of Time featured heat distortion. Those things were a big deal in the late 1990s.

Some people might think those effects were introduced with the Dreamcast or the PlayStation 2, but the Nintendo 64 was doing them a few years prior.



And these effects appeared on PC even earlier than N64.

.

[Aussie2B]

That's a silly argument to make. That's like saying there are no impressive graphics in the history of home console video games because the several times more expensive PCs had far more powerful hardware. You have to have perspective for these things. I mean, the port of Killer Instinct on SNES looks like crap in comparison to the arcade original, but you can't deny that for that era of home console games and for the SNES hardware, it was extremely impressive.

[Rob2600]

And these effects appeared on PC even earlier than N64.

Yes, but at what price? In 1996, a Nintendo 64 cost $200 and the graphics were very close to a $2,000 Windows computer with a 3dfx Voodoo accelerator card.

[chrisbid]

flat shaded polygons FTW!

in the end, when it comes to 3D games, cleanliness is the name of the game. the PSX used too much bit-mapping that made everything look dirty, and it added lousy frame rates which made everything look worse. but if you have ugly graphics with a smooth frame rate (some psx and saturn games have this), then you get pretty looking games.

[j_factor]

A lot of early Playstation games used full-screen dithering, for some reason I have never been able to ascertain. It makes them look worse than they otherwise would IMO.

[Chuplayer]

I simply can't stand the bad framerates of old 3D games.

[scooterb23]

Man, I was playing some early PS1 games just the other day, and was having fun with them...I mean, Jumping Flash, Crash Bandicoot, Battle Arena Toshinden...and then I looked at the graphics! OH MY GOD!!!!! How dated!

Fortunately I stopped, realized the games were still FUN TO PLAY, and resumed enjoying them.

[Sudo]

Man, I was playing some early PS1 games just the other day, and was having fun with them...I mean, Jumping Flash, Crash Bandicoot, Battle Arena Toshinden...and then I looked at the graphics! OH MY GOD!!!!! How dated!

Fortunately I stopped, realized the games were still FUN TO PLAY, and resumed enjoying them.

I agree with this post. Sure, the graphics are crap compared to those of the current-gen consoles and don't hold up as well as 2D does, but I can easily go back to PSX, N64 and Saturn games and enjoy them as much as I did so many years ago.

[j_factor]

I would agree with that post, but Battle Arena Toshinden really sucks. :p

[kedawa]

I just find all the clipping, warping, and pixelation really unappealing. It's like the slowdown and flashing that plaqued 8bit games. It is just too distracting, and it demonstrates the sad fact that developers make games to look pretty in screen shots at the cost of smooth and consistent performance.

[crazyjackcsa]

Too me, it was a matter of the resolution and the frame rate. A lot of games either took a huge hit in one or the other. Look at VF2 and Fighters Megamix. VF2 has aged far better due to the high res graphics. Sega Rally has aged pretty well too due to the solid frame rate. However a developer that decided to go lower res or lower frame rate to add more effects in a game will age a game much quicker. A good example of this would be Shining Force 3 on the Saturn. It has two basic engines, the combat is all polys the roaming is a mix of poly towns with sprite characters. The sprites hold up far better today.

I also love flat shaded polys and would love to see a game use them as an art style.

[Roufuss]

As much as I don't want to sound like a graphics whore, I have to agree with some of the people here in that I can barely play any early 3D game... they are all just so ugly.

Silent Hill, FF7, hell, I even had to go buy Twin Snakes to enjoy MGS just because MGS 1 was so painful in the eyes, imo.

One of the only times I am excited when a remake comes out is when companies remake these early 3D games in today's graphics - loved Twin Snakes, loved RE 1 remake, now if Konami remade Silent Hill and Square remade FF7, well, I'd be insanely happy.

It's not like those games are fun to play, they are, but I just can't get over how shit the 3D looks, and it ruins the gaming experience for me. Games like Silent Hill loses a lot, imo, because the atmosphere is no longer believable since it just looks so bad.

I think however things from the PS2 / GC / Xbox on up era will continue to still look good 5 - 10 years from now, however. I really don't see myself looking back at Ninja Gaiden Black and going "Wow, this is so ugly!!

Reading back through the thread and seeing someone claim it was the 3D that went for realism, and looking at my examples... yea, I'd have to agree. I don't think the games like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro aged as bad as things like Silent Hill and FF7, which were going for more realistic tones.

[j_factor]

I also love flat shaded polys and would love to see a game use them as an art style.

Cel shading was/is basically an update of that style. I remember when the preview screens of Killer 7 first came out, a friend of mine commented that the graphics looked like the cutscenes in Flashback and Out of This World. I thought that was funny, but then I went and compared, and he was right.

I'm surprised there aren't more cel shaded games, particularly on the Wii.

[Rob2600]

Cel shading was/is basically an update of that style. ... I'm surprised there aren't more cel shaded games, particularly on the Wii.

Two recently released Wii games, Opoona and Okami, feature cel shading.

Anyway, I think cel shading was a fad. There was a time when many games being released were cel shaded (Jet Grind Radio, Fur Fighters, Simpsons Wrestling, Wacky Races, etc.). It was like when games in the late 1990s had tons of lens flares all over the place.

Cel shading is slowly make a comeback though, as developers learn to use it tastefully.

[Juskin]

Two recently released Wii games, Opoona and Okami, feature cel shading.

Anyway, I think cel shading was a fad. There was a time when many games being released were cel shaded (Jet Grind Radio, Fur Fighters, Simpsons Wrestling, Wacky Races, etc.). It was like when games in the late 1990s had tons of lens flares all over the place.

Cel shading is slowly make a comeback though, as developers learn to use it tastefully.

I want to see what a current gen Jet Set Radio would look like....

*drools on keyboard*

Ok...back to early 3D discussions.

[Trevelyan]

I do not find it hard to play games from this era, especially those that I use to play in said era. Gameplay/Story/Content are so important when I play games, and these factors would always influence why I'd purchase games & ultimately why I would enjoy them. Graphics helps, & back when the Playstation/N64 consoles were top of the class in the 3d stakes the graphics were not really there, & kindof on the PC too, but I look back at that era with nostalgia & think there were groundbreaking games made that are well worth playing.

[calthaer]

This is more proof of what most of us already knew:

Gameplay is king; graphics are often just the poor stepchild fathered with the scullery maid.

[murdoc rose]

it was new back in the day thats all I can say

[Juskin]

My main complaint against the 3D era isn't exactly bad graphics, but the fact that many developers tried so hard to do something that wasn't possible on a 64 bit system. I believe if they tried to not outdo the system, and simply make a game that works for the system, they would have aged so much more beautifully.

But oh well, it's all been said and done.

[Gentlegamer]

I've been playing the original PlayStation Tomb Raider for the first time. I had played through most of Tomb Raider 2 back in the day, but returning to the series has been a bit jarring, graphics-wise. The game is still great, but the weakness of early 3D's visual presentation is easy to see.

[Rob2600]

many developers tried so hard to do something that wasn't possible ... if they tried to not outdo the system, and simply make a game that works for the system, they would have aged so much more beautifully.

Regarding the Nintendo 64, Silicon Graphics made the hardware Z-buffer unnecessarily accurate, which bogged down the CPU and resulted in lower frame rates in many games. That was mistake number one. Nintendo restricted access to the N64's microcode, which included the Z-buffer, and only let a few developers customize it. That was mistake number two.

Those developers that were allowed to customize the microcode (Rare, Factor 5, Boss Game Studios, etc.) produced some spectacular results.


I've been playing the original PlayStation Tomb Raider for the first time. ... the weakness of early 3D's visual presentation is easy to see.

When some of you say "early 3D," I think you really mean Saturn and PlayStation 3D specifically. Tomb Raider might look like a pixellated, twitchy, low-res mess now, but Wave Race 64, All-Star Baseball '99, and Banjo-Kazooie still look pretty good 10+ years later.

[tom]

Yes, but at what price? In 1996, a Nintendo 64 cost $200 and the graphics were very close to a $2,000 Windows computer with a 3dfx Voodoo accelerator card.

Exactly, and the Jaguar managed that already in 1993, with an even lesser price tag.

[outofkeyslightly]

Club Drive does look a little better than Hard Drivin', but... It's hard for me to say, but I think the 32X is more impressive in terms of 3D than the Jaguar...

[tom]

From, my answer to the Jaguar Questions thread here on DP:
Cybermorph: 50 planets (levels) to chose from, totally 3D free roaming enviroment, real time light sourced polygons, 50 frames per sec, excellent stereo/superb voice effects/audio at 27 kHz DSP, not bad at all for a 1993 cartridge (Nintendo only managed this 3 years later for the ill-fated N64 (And they only managed to squeeze 15 levels into the cartridge...and it was a restricted enviroment too)).

[Rob2600]

From, my answer to the Jaguar Questions thread here on DP:
Cybermorph: 50 planets (levels) to chose from, totally 3D free roaming enviroment, real time light sourced polygons, 50 frames per sec, excellent stereo/superb voice effects/audio at 27 kHz DSP, not bad at all for a 1993 cartridge (Nintendo only managed this 3 years later for the ill-fated N64 (And they only managed to squeeze 15 levels into the cartridge...and it was a restricted enviroment too)).

Huh?

I think it's safe to say Wave Race 64, an N64 launch title, is far more impressive than anything on the Jaguar.

[sabre2922]

Huh?

I think it's safe to say Wave Race 64, an N64 launch title, is far more impressive than anything on the Jaguar.

What exactly is this fascination with the N64?

Just curious is all.

Ive always thought the N64 had fuzzy fog filled graphics if anything I mean the damn trees in Mario64 were one large flat over antialiazed polygon.

Now a few "early" 3-D games on the PSone like Wipeout XL and even Metal Gear Solid I would personally much rather look at than 90% of the games on the N64.

yea I know thats not the "popular opinion" with some gamers that put the N64 up on a pedestal for some crazy nostalgic reasons and the ol N64 is holy territory for a certain group of gamers but there it is anyway.

[Rob2600]

What exactly is this fascination with the N64?

Just curious is all.

Ive always thought the N64 had fuzzy fog filled graphics if anything I mean the damn trees in Mario64 were one large flat over antialiazed polygon.

Now a few "early" 3-D games on the PSone like Wipeout XL and even Metal Gear Solid I would personally much rather look at than 90% of the games on the N64.

To repeat a previous post I made in this thread:

I think some Nintendo 64 games like Conker's Bad Fur Day, Donkey Kong 64, Top Gear Overdrive, All-Star Baseball, and Wave Race 64 still look very good today. The smooth texture filtering, perspective correction, and advanced lighting helped make them look far better than the competition at the time (Saturn and PlayStation).

Jet Moto vs. Wave Race 64. Triple Play 2000 vs. All-Star Baseball 2000. No comparison.

Also, I noticed that a lot of PlayStation games featured shadows that are just black circles under each character, but many Nintendo 64 games featured real-time shadows (1080 Snowboarding, Turok 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, NFL Quarterback Club '99, etc.). The All-Star Baseball and NFL Quarterback Club games even featured cool triple-shadows during night games and the players' breath during cold games. Goldeneye 007 featured bullet holes that appeared on walls and objects. Ridge Racer 64 featured light trails and motion blur. Ocarina of Time featured heat distortion. Those things were a big deal in the late 1990s.

Some people might think those effects were introduced with the Dreamcast or the PlayStation 2, but the Nintendo 64 was doing them a few years prior (the PlayStation wasn't).

[Ed Oscuro]

The "aging" effect doesn't really bother me. Mainly I tend to notice things now about games that I didn't use to - for example, Extreme G 2 doesn't look at amazing as it used to, and I notice the slowdown more, but I also notice some textures and stuff that I never used to. On the other hand, I still think the missile trails and many of the tracks still look pretty sweet. The only track that seems really to have dated poorly is the jungle (Meza Virs?) track with its too-sparse vegetation and simple jumps + tunnel. Bleh.

My N64 gave me a headache back in the day, and it'll STILL give me a headache. It didn't get better or worse in that regard.

PlayStation games don't seem too bad - I remember being mesmerized by the terrible flat hand-drawn textures in Syphon Filter, heh. D.C. was supposed to look realistic in the game, but it's like an alternate universe imagined by a kid. In a way, that's not such a bad thing. Remember the map outside at night moving through the rain (through a park with lots of concrete sections and hedges)? Pretty effective ambiance.

I forgot about the heat distortion in the Zelda games. Nifty stuff.

I still appreciate the work that went into old games.

[tom]

Huh?

I think it's safe to say Wave Race 64, an N64 launch title, is far more impressive than anything on the Jaguar.

Of course, technology was more ahead three years later. The Jaguar as a hardware console was way ahead of its time. Trouble with Jaguar was that they (Atari) had no money and didn't get any decent programmers. Imagine a Jaguar game with the funds from the Nintendo stable and a decent programming team, it would have blown Wave Race right out of the water, three years earlier.

[tom]

To repeat a previous post I made in this thread:


Also, I noticed that a lot of PlayStation games featured shadows that are just black circles under each character, but many Nintendo 64 games featured real-time shadows (1080 Snowboarding, Turok 2, Conker's Bad Fur Day, NFL Quarterback Club '99, etc.). The All-Star Baseball and NFL Quarterback Club games even featured cool triple-shadows during night games and the players' breath during cold games. Goldeneye 007 featured bullet holes that appeared on walls and objects. Ridge Racer 64 featured light trails and motion blur. Ocarina of Time featured heat distortion. Those things were a big deal in the late 1990s.


It would be sad if N64 would not have managed those effects, as it is supposed to be a 64-bit system when compared to the PSX 32-bit system. With a Silicon Graphics chip under its belt this was to be expected. Some of those features were good, but after all that, most games were still fuzzy. PSX CD based system gave you bigger games, but even so, the N64 was still later than PSX, naturally the N64 games look better. Every year technology advances, programmers get new ideas, learn new tricks. But as I said before, all those effects you mentioned had been implemented on earlier consoles or computers than N64.

What I hated most with PSX games was the annoying pop-up, worse than on Amiga computer.

[Gentlegamer]

When some of you say "early 3D," I think you really mean Saturn and PlayStation 3D specifically. Tomb Raider might look like a pixellated, twitchy, low-res mess now, but Wave Race 64, All-Star Baseball '99, and Banjo-Kazooie still look pretty good 10+ years later.I agree. I think most N64 3D looks fairly decent today, even the early stuff like Shadows of the Empire and Super Mario 64.

[bangtango]

Of course, technology was more ahead three years later. The Jaguar as a hardware console was way ahead of its time. Trouble with Jaguar was that they (Atari) had no money and didn't get any decent programmers. Imagine a Jaguar game with the funds from the Nintendo stable and a decent programming team, it would have blown Wave Race right out of the water, three years earlier.

I agree with tom here.

This game I am linking below was unfinished and looks pretty damn good, for the time period. No worse than stuff you were seeing on the Playstation.


http://www.myatari.com/arena.html

http://www.myatari.com/arenanr.html


I am sure there are better links to Jaguar's unfinished Arena Football online but those are the first ones I found.

Even the unfinished Spacewar 2000 on the Jaguar made similar stuff on the 32X look like a joke in comparison.

[Ed Oscuro]

Imagine a Jaguar game with the funds from the Nintendo stable and a decent programming team, it would have blown Wave Race right out of the water, three years earlier.
You mean 1996's Wave Race, beaten by a Jaguar game?

More insane hyperbole, please.

Personally, the Jaguar is positioned exactly where I would expect it - about equal with the 3DO.

[tom]

You mean 1996's Wave Race, beaten by a Jaguar game?

insane


I know, wouldn't it be just? Imagine the possibilities, Nintendo funds, decent Jaguar programming software library, competent programming teams from Japan, USA, and UK. We would have seen the best Jaguar games ever. Like Activision all over again.

[Krook]

Even tho im a big fan of the Final Fantasy series I cant play FF7 nowdays because it looks so horrible. Sorry :o

Well, one solution is to play it using a PSX emulator and pump up the resolution a bit but... nah.

Here is the solution for the horrible graphics in FF7, enjoy!

http://savvygeek.com/2007/10/05/final-fantasy-vii-in-restored-glory/

[Kevincal]

Ok, I'm a big fan of the Jag and the N64... The Jag just plain couldn't do Waverace 64, period. The Jag's hardware didn't have the ability to produce nifty effects like mip-mapped interpolation or anti-aliasing etc. The N64 used these effects to make it's 3d games have that nice, smooth look... ;) And first of all, the Jag would have a hell of a time pushing as many poly's as Waverace 64 AND getting it to run at decent rate (frames per second)... It would be totally awesome to see what Miyamoto and company could do on a Jag though!:D

[jb143]

I know, wouldn't it be just? Imagine the possibilities, Nintendo funds, decent Jaguar programming software library, competent programming teams from Japan, USA, and UK. We would have seen the best Jaguar games ever. Like Activision all over again.

That was one of the big issues for the Jaguar. It was a powerfull system for it's time but not many programmers had the skills to fully utilize it's dual processors. Also, it didn't help the situation that it had longer development times since it was more complicated to program for.

[Aussie2B]

PSX CD based system gave you bigger games

Bigger in what way? If you mean purely in the storage size, yes, but you're kidding yourself if you honestly think PlayStation games provided larger environments or lengthy games than N64 with its cartridge medium. Most of the space on PlayStation discs was squandered on redbook audio and/or FMV sequences, or, in lieu of that, developers could simply more easily put out a game quickly without taking the time to optimize and condense the code.

If you take just about any platformer on N64 and compare it to a platformer on PlayStation, you'll generally find that the N64 games tend to have MORE expansive levels than those on PlayStation (granted, sometimes sacrificing frame rate to some degree), and they often took longer to complete as well. Ogre Battle 64 is longer than most PlayStation RPGs.

I'll never understand the myth perpetuating about larger medium = larger/longer games. Generally, this has not held true. It can even be extended to older systems. There are plenty of games on SNES and Genesis that offer more content and longer adventures than even brand new games. It comes down to the strive of the developers FAR more than how many bits of data can be squeezed onto a medium.

[Ed Oscuro]

I know, wouldn't it be just? Imagine the possibilities, Nintendo funds, decent Jaguar programming software library, competent programming teams from Japan, USA, and UK. We would have seen the best Jaguar games ever. Like Activision all over again.
I'd rather keep my eyes intact, but thanks for the irrational enthusiasm! ;)

Although I'd rather play DOOM at a high frame rate than something with stuttering polygons - and I think the Jaguar would've been sorely pressed to put out a Zelda: Ocarina of Time game. It could have, but it would've been very boxy (Kakariko Village, for example, would've been a bunch of boxes inside a bigger box, and the overworld? Oh dear.)


It was a powerfull system for it's time but not many programmers had the skills to fully utilize it's dual processors.
That's what you call a lousy design. It's not completely about skills, either - even the world's most skilled programmers need time to come to grips with a challenging hardware set. If you want good games, make the hardware design simple or put a lot of money into easily-usable libraries (like Microsoft and Sony are well known for putting money into their system).


I'll never understand the myth perpetuating about larger medium = larger/longer games.
I think you do ;) I agree it's not true, but with that wide-eyed view of the world, more = more. Joe S. (Schmo, not Santulli) probably understands that just because he can fit tons of 256K NES games onto his USB thumbdrive that the newer games won't be as long as all those NES games end-to-end; you need to fit in assets.

There's a flip side which should be mentioned too - it takes developers longer to fill up the space for large disc games now, at least at the top end. Programming still doesn't come out of a bottle, and almost all the art content must be generated anew for every new title.

Games also used to be made on far smaller budgets (even after inflation, there's no comparison), which as a rule means there's less overall work put into them (I'm not saying this makes newer games better, though).

In one sense, then, newer games ARE longer; in the sense that it would take longer to examine every detail of the art assets in new games compared to old games.

[tom]

Bigger in what way? If you mean purely in the storage size, yes, but you're kidding yourself if you honestly think PlayStation games provided larger environments or lengthy games than N64 with its cartridge medium. Most of the space on PlayStation discs was squandered on redbook audio and/or FMV sequences, or, in lieu of that, developers could simply more easily put out a game quickly without taking the time to optimize and condense the code.

If you take just about any platformer on N64 and compare it to a platformer on PlayStation, you'll generally find that the N64 games tend to have MORE expansive levels than those on PlayStation (granted, sometimes sacrificing frame rate to some degree), and they often took longer to complete as well. Ogre Battle 64 is longer than most PlayStation RPGs.

I'll never understand the myth perpetuating about larger medium = larger/longer games. Generally, this has not held true. It can even be extended to older systems. There are plenty of games on SNES and Genesis that offer more content and longer adventures than even brand new games. It comes down to the strive of the developers FAR more than how many bits of data can be squeezed onto a medium.


No no it wasn't me who was kidding myself, it was Square who said we gotta do FF VII on PS CD as we cannot fit it onto Nintendo cartridges (for N64), also meaning a larger playing enviroment. I knew they wouldn't understand, but I'm glad you do.

Anyway, it's true that games tend to last longer on PSX, it's not a myth at all as you can use 2, or 3 or even more CDs for one game. You cannot do that with cartridges on N64.