From state-of-the-art to run-of-the-mill: aging game systems

[ManekiNeko]

A few weeks ago I looked at the back of a Playstation 2 box and wasn't at all impressed with the pictures of the game. I thought that maybe it was because the game sucked, so I moved on, looking at another box... then another, and another. It soon dawned on me that Playstation 2 graphics just aren't state of the art anymore. Over the course of the past three years, all the visual luster I've come to expect from PS2 games just vanished.
It wasn't that the graphics had gotten worse... just that my expectations had risen after years of playing games with glossy, highly detailed 3D graphics. They've become the status quo, and such don't amaze me the way they once had.
Has anyone else noticed this with the PS2, or for that matter, other game consoles throughout history? You wake up one day, turn on your shiny new game system, and discover that it just doesn't shine as brightly as it once did. At what time do next generation consoles like the Playstation 2 become ordinary, average ones?

JR

[Atari7800]

The PS2 has an exceedingly complex hardware design, so it's highly possible we'l see see some more improvements in the field of graphics like we did with the Saturn. However, the PS2 is simply weaker than the X-Box and possibly the Gamecube, both of which are easy to program.

Sony promised the moon with the PS2, and we didn't get it. It's certainly an improvement over the PS1, but it's evolutionary, not revolutionary. The PS2 should be hitting it's stride this year, and the Genesis taught us that you don't have to be the most powerful to be the most popular.

This new "cell" chip that Sony's talking about for the PS3 may be the real deal... they are saying something on the order of 4 BILLION polygons. I'll bet that's more overstaement and not real-world figures, but stilll... we can dream.

[Tritoch]

I think all of this talk about "Cell" processors is a pipe dream. From what I understand their advantage is that they're able to share processing load with other processors located elsewhere (other devices, across a network, etc) outside of the box. Problem is that requires a broadband connection (and a hefty one at that) to work properly. Which leads to these questions:

What about the people that don't have broadband?
How do you program for a platform when you don't know how much available processing power it'll have available to it per each user?
What if the network lags?

[Kid Fenris]

It's strange, but I've never really experienced a moment where the once-gorgeous visuals of a game system suddenly seemed lackluster. Perhaps that's because I tend to view games as individual pieces instead of members of some console's collective.

In truth, I never really thought the PlayStation2 looked that much better than the Dreamcast. Perhaps the PS2 had more flash, but for me, the two systems are as close as the SNES and Genesis in terms of their visuals.

[YoshiM]

As I look back, I can't really remember having a "lack of luster" with my game systems until I hit the N64 and beyond (note: I didn't jump onto the 32 bit band wagon like the 3DO, CD-I, Saturn, or PSX until way later-like the late 90's). I liked my Genesis games over Super Nintendo as they were faster and was more what I was into at the time. The NES still held a spot next to my Genesis as it still had games I loved to play despite the graphical difference. Even though I sold my Genesis and such later on, it was because of lack of interest of the platform itself.

With 3D games, it's hard to play a game on say XBox and then jump onto a game on the N64. The visual difference is like being able to see and then abruptly becoming severely near-sighted. Does it hurt the gaming experience? In a way, it can. Good example is playing 007 Nightfire on the XBox and The World is Not Enough on N64. In Nightfire I could identify that something moving in say, a tree, was a soldier and could promptly avoid being shot. In TWiNE, the same situation would result in me being shot as the distance gets hazy and pixelated, making it hard to determine where I'm being shot at from and if the game would register a hit when I shoot back.

Yeah, it's hard not to get used to detailed polygon graphics. It sucks even more when you see a PC selling for not too much more than your modern console and having a ton of graphic power but no games you like.

[bargora]

I think that the 3D games just age badly compared to 2D games. Two years from now, todays h0t shizznit is going to be called low-poly crap by people who think that way. Sure, it'd be nice if Thunderforce 2 on the Genesis had more colors and a higher sprite count, but sprites in general just don't start looking like crap that quickly.

I think "the moment" happened for me with respect to the Playstation when I popped in Driver 2 after playing Gran Turismo 3, about a year ago.

Also, I got an N64 about a year ago, but I never saw what I thought was a huge improvement over PSX graphics.

[Anonymous]

The PS2 lost its luster the day I got my Xbox. No I can't stand the insanely low horizontal resolution on the PS2. I dream about the PS2 and the Xbox the same way I dreamt about the NES and the SMS.

If only the former's games were all released on the latter's hardware.

[IntvGene]

I think that the PS2 needs a bit of an upgrade. It is starting to look a little dated to me compared to some of the newer games on other systems. But, it isn't a big deal to me. Graphics are pretty low on the top-ten list when it comes to things that I look for in a game. Originality and playability are much higher concerns. But, I understand what the point that some people make. If that sort of thing is important to you.

However, I've got friends who come over and whine about the resolution of the gaming systems. A lot of them own PCs and complain that the res isn't high enough. Like I can tell the difference?!? 1280 x 1064 or whatever! To me, that's really nitpicking. In a way, I long for the days when it required a little more imagination to play something--when things were pixelated. I remember what seemed like yesterday...

"Ok.. what do I do?"
"You're the dot"
"Why are those ducks chasing me?"
"Those aren't ducks... they're dragons!"
"Ok... whatever. What's this arrow? Is it pointing somewhere?"
"That's your sword!"

Ah, the 2600 will never age.. even with the woodgrain. :)

[ventrra]

However, I've got friends who come over and whine about the resolution of the gaming systems. A lot of them own PCs and complain that the res isn't high enough. Like I can tell the difference?!? 1280 x 1064 or whatever! To me, that's really nitpicking. In a way, I long for the days when it required a little more imagination to play something--when things were pixelated. I remember what seemed like yesterday...

Funny about that, too. My PC monitor is rarely set above 800x600. For me, that's just fine.

I never noticed any time where it occured to me that the graphics look outdated on any game system. I don't compare them to my PC or each other, just to themselves.

[ManekiNeko]

"Ok.. what do I do?"
"You're the dot"
"Why are those ducks chasing me?"
"Those aren't ducks... they're dragons!"
"Ok... whatever. What's this arrow? Is it pointing somewhere?"
"That's your sword!"

I think I've got myself a new sig file for my E-mails. Hope you don't mind, IntvGene. By the way, should I credit this to IntvGene or list your real name instead?

JR

[slurpeepoop]

The "Whoa, what the hell happened?" syndrome has plagued me for years.

After playing the Atari, Colecovision, and my old appleII, the NES had mind-blowing graphics. Those of us that were accustomed to seeing a square, and knowing that was either a plane, a knight, or a ham sandwich, depending on its color. Anyone who was around at the time can recall the square blocks-to-Mario and Zelda transformation, and it was astonishing. Ducktales looked EXACTLY like the cartoon, and the close-ups of slam dunks on Double Dribble looked lifelike. The orange still pictures on the NES (the ones in Fester's Quest were inpossible to distinguish from real life) was absolutely phenomenal, and there was no way video games could get more lifelike.

Then, the TG-16 came along with its CD player, and FULL SCREEN ANIMATION, which not only moved, but looked like a real cartoon! The cutscenes in NES's Ninja Gaiden or Rescue Rangers paled in comparison to FULL SCREEN CARTOON ANIMATION WITH SPOKEN DIALOGUE! Dear god, how in the world could we as rational people look at the character pictures in Blaster Master or that god-awful D&D Pools of Radiance game and not be able to tell them from drawings? Truly, the TG-16 games (ys Book 1 and 2 in particular) were the pinnacle of reality, and there was no way you could get any more photorealistic.

The Genesis pretty much went along with the TG-16, and didn't really impress graphically. Then came the SNES.

Dear God, I implore you distinguish between putting on Hal's Hole-in-One Golf and doing it in real life. The SNES made everything before it look archaic. Somebody walking by the TV and glancing couldn't tell the difference from watching ESPN or watching Madden during halftime. The still images in Suzuka 8 Hours looked more lifelike than actually seeing the locations in real life, and games like Final Fantasy, the Tiny Toons games, and the countless fighting games blurred the lines between Saturday morning cartoons, and interactive cartoons. Truly, the SNES offered the most realistic graphics comprehensible by the human eye, and video games have truly hit the limit in terms of graphical realistics.

Then, Donkey Kong Country came out, and set a new standard. Sweet merciful crap, the reality went 3-D! Everything before it suddenly looked prehistoric by comparison. At least, that day.

The 3DO, PSX, Saturn, and the N64 brought real-life motion video, and not the grainy crap the Sega CD gave us, but REAL LIFE graphics. The Pebble Beach game on the 3DO was state of the art, and was impossible to distinguish from a golf tournament on ESPN. The N64 brought Mario into a true 3-D cartoon, as did the PSX's Battle Arena Toshinden. Truly, interaction in video games have reached the pinnacle of graphics, and your next-door neighbor looked less real than Krazy Ivan, and the Star Wars films looked like crap compared to the Hoth level on Shadows of the Empire. The real-life graphics immersed you into a world that was indistinguishable from viewing a comporable counterpart in real life.

Then, Gran Turismo came along, and the replays alone proved that video games had truly hit the wall that stood between real-life graphics and reality. It was impossible to create more perfect man-made graphics, and we revelled in perfect graphics.

The PS2 blew the doors off anything before it, and Madden 2001 took at least 5 minutes of hard-core staring before you could distinguish it between a real life game, and casual passers-by actually thought it was a televised game.

Of course, as time passes, what we percieve as astonishing, photorealistic graphics soon become old, and the newest technology continues to amaze us with the realistic graphics previously thought impossible. We don't really notice this passage of time until we hook up our old systems, put in that certain game that looked so real just a few years ago, and realize how blocky, pixelated, or downright ugly the graphics are. A prime example is Madden 99 on the PSX. My friends and I loved that game, and thought it was presented just like a game on ESPN, and it looked amazingly lifelike. Having played Madden 2003, and NCAA 2003, Madden 99 looks like a hack of a bad game that in comparison, looked downright horrid.

I personally, may be easily amazed, or maybe I'm just blind as a bat, but I have constantly been amazed by the progression of technology over the last 20 years. Just about everyone I know can recall times when graphics looked absolutely realistic, and amazed them, until they moved up the technological ladder and got an XBox, or a PS2. Once the newer systems come out, that Dead or Alive game you have on XBox or the Resident Evil game on GameCube that looks SOOOOOOO realistic will look shoddy and sad.

That's just the natural progression of what we concieve of as perfect at the time. When the SNES, or even the NES at the time, was the pinnacle of technology, we saw still screens, graphics, and effects that amazed us and blurred the lines of fantasy and reality. When something better comes out, it blows away that image we have of realistic, and improves on it.

That's why I named it the "Whoa, What the Hell Happened?" syndrome. Put in that ultra-realistic game of yesteryear, and compare it to the most graphically impressive game, running on the latest hardware, and you'll say "Whoa! What the hell happened? The game used to not look THAT bad!!"

[Charlie]

I agree that 3-D ages worse then 2-D. I noticed a lot of game magizines (EGM for example) named Mario 64 one of the greatest games of all time. To that, I say, go back and play it again and tell me if you still feel that way. My god, it's aged terribly. It's almost unplayable. Everything about it that felt so right before now feels sloppy and stiff and unresponsive. Diddo for Banjo-Kazooie. Ocarnia of Time was just recently released and even with slightly cleaned up Graphics, it still already feels like it's ten years outdated for some reason.

The racing games on the N64 and PSX are all nearly unplayable becaues they feel unresponsive and incredibly dated after playing nex-gen game systems. And while playing games like Metroid Prime or Super Mario Sunshine, I simply refuse to believe that this five-star instant classics will ever suffer the same wrath that NIGHTS or Super Mario 64 went through... who knows? Maybe the Saturn, Playstation 1, and Nintendo 64 will be the only systems to suffer such fate. I mean sure, PS2 games are showing their age already, but that's because the techology used within the PS2 is already five years outdated. And although the PS2 might end up seeming like it fell out of a time warp, I doubt the Gamecube and X-Box will suffer such fate because those systems feature games with incredible animation and polygons and ultimately better use of programing power. They won't look 'new' five years from now, but they will still feel right and won't become unplayable like PSX, Saturn (especially the Saturn, good lord how awful it's aged) and N64 have.

[slurpeepoop]

Heh I remember people saying the exact same thing for every system from the Atari 2600 on.

I guarantee you in 10 years, if you put Metroid Prime down in front of your child, who doesn't get the feelings of nostalgia, and that child will complain and bitch about how in god's name you could play such archaic garbage.

I will personally guarantee it.

[kainemaxwell]

You gotta remember also, what happened near the end of the SNES' life cycle? We got amazing games like the DKC trilogy and Killer Instinct. Same with the Genesis as well.

Give the system and the developers time to really delve into what makes the PS2 tick.

[Mr Mort]

I'm a bit on the fence about it all.

I look at Rallisport, I'm amazed.
I look at Virtual On: Oratorio tangram, and I still drool.
I look at Thunder Force V and I still think it looks great.
I look at F-Zero X and still think it's amazing to see it running at 60fps and sharp resolution
I look at VF2 or Panzer Dragoon Saga, and I'm still impressed.
Contra III still seems epic.
and I still think Ninja Gaiden 2 on the Snes looks impressive.

I definately think my standards for current graphics get higher, but nostalgia keeps me from looking down on older games as graphically inferior.

I agree that Xbox games like Panzer Dragoon Orta and Rallisport make some PS2 games look less impressive.

Additionally, I definately agree with the notion that 3d games age less gracefully than 2D games.

Also, IMO someone who's growing up with the current generation of consoles would probably think the graphics in the 8-bit, 16-bit and even 32-bit eras are barbaric. That's why I think nostalgia plays a key role when looking at this issue.