3-D games from long ago show their age...BIG TIME!

[Anthony1]

I've been "Retro Gaming" or psedo retro gaming for a little less than 3 months. One thing that i've learned really quickly, is that 3-D games from systems past, don't hold up very well over time.


While on one hand, a game like Super Mario World looks like a timeless classic, a game like Sega Rally on the Sega Saturn looks like a joke.

No offense to anybody who absolutely loves Sega Rally. It was an awesome game when it was first released, but now, some 7 years or so later, it looks very poor. Part of the reason, is that any 3-D game depends on having the latest technology to make it what it is.

A game like Project Gotham Racing 2 for the XBOX, is going to live or die based on how much absolute state of the art technology is packed into it. (don't get it wrong, if it plays like crap even state of the art technology won't save it) When Sega Rally for the Saturn was first released, it was considered to be an amazing achievement. But as time goes by, the once nifty 3-D visuals look like they were crafted in the stone ages.

Now, I might be overdoing this whole take, but the thing is that I've recently acquired Daytona, VF2, Sega Rally and Virtua Cop for the Sega Saturn. While all four of these games are great games, they just don't hold up as well over time, as a games like Gunstar Herores, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, Super Mario World and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 do. (These are also 4 games that I have acquired recently)

The main difference is that 4 of them are 2-D and four are 3-D. Because the two-dimensional games don't live and die by their "at the time state of the art technology", they seem to stand the test of time much better.

Now, I'm not saying that old 3-D games are unplayable, or that you couldn't enjoy them tremendously, but for the most part they just don't seem to hold up over time as well as the 2-D classics do. I will still play Daytona for the Saturn, and have tons of fun, but the tremendous amount of pop up and stuff can be very disstracting.

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

3-D games from systems past, don't hold up very well over time.

I've got to beg to differ. I recently rediscovered TUNNEL HUNT via MAME not so long ago, and its graphics do what is required of it. And its gameplay will kick your butt all over the place - I know this because it's currently kicking mine. And it's still fun, despite not being much higher resolution than you could get out of an Apple II in low-res graphics mode.

[zmeston]

Well, you're comparing some of the earliest 3D games, on a console known for its crappy 3D, with some of the best 2D games ever made, on the last generation of 2D hardware. A fairer comparison would be VCS games to Saturn games, or Genesis/SNES games to PS2 games, since those consoles are at roughly the same points on the 2D and 3D timelines.

That being said, I totally agree that well-done 2D artwork has a timeless quality to it.

-- Z.

[petewhitley]

I'm beggin to differ as well. You see, you've compared two driving games and a fighting game amongst the four. I'm of the opinion that the genre of a game has a whole hell of alot to do with it. Fighting games, driving games, and sports games from years past seem to hold up more poorly to their modern counterparts. Can you name any must have fighters from the SNES? (Well, maybe a couple...). Innovative games hold up well, and often, NOT ALWAYS, but often, fighting/driving/sports games lack innovation. This is true of 2D as well as 3D games. As an example, Tomb Raider on the PS1 or the Saturn looks horribly dated today, and yet a recent play-through confirmed it's greatness in my eyes. While I love 2D games as much as anyone, I truly believe its near-sighted to assume the 2D medium has some intrinsic magic the 3D medium does not.

[Raccoon Lad]

WHo needs polygons?

SPACE HARRIER FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[congobongo]

I once tried to make a similar point using SNES Starfox as an example. There's way too many fanboys of that game here though so the point was lost.

*Ducks and runs from Starfox fanboys* :P

[grayejectbutton]

I disagree as well. Even though my fondest memories are associated with 2D games, some of my favorite games of all time are 3D ones, namely Doom, Halo, Quake 3, Metroid Prime and Ocarina of Time. I've recently been playing OOT for the GameCube and it still holds up well by today's standards. The graphics aren't so great anymore, but the gameplay is still amazing.

Even though Doom now looks pretty terrible, the game is still a marvel of level design and playability. Quake 3 is looking a little dated but is still terrific with friends or playing online.

There are many 2D games that don't hold up well today, just as there are 3D games that don't hold up. But, in general, it's the gameplay that makes a game. After all these years, there's still nothing quite like a game of Pong to show that three white bars and a square "ball" can still be entertaining.

[digitalpress]

My favorite 3D game of all time is Doom.

Doom came out before the even WAS a Sega Saturn.

Therefore, this argument bears no relevance to me personally, since the "outdated 3D games" in question actually came after the best 3D game ever.

Ultimately I think: who cares? 3D, 2D, 4D... it's all about the game itself, not the "D". And if I liked it then, I'm SURE I like it now.

[Dire 51]

I'm with Raccoon Lad on this one - VIVA SPACE HARRIER!

[congobongo]

I think one thing you have to admit is that artwork took a hit with the early 3D polygon games (not talkin doom or wolf3D, those weren't polygon-based). You could only get so creative with those blocky polygons (32x virtua fighter). Doesn't mean you couldn't have great gameplay, just that visuals were limited and I'm sure fewer illustrators were involved in development.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think one thing you have to admit is that artwork took a hit with the early 3D polygon games (not talkin doom or wolf3D, those weren't polygon-based).

What were the walls composed of, then? Yeah, I know. Once upon a time I argued at length that they weren't true polygons since they can't be rotated and a few other things. Still, the wall surfaces in DOOM or even an old Wolf-3D style engine (like Rise of the Triad) are composed of polygons; it's just that the engine can't move them about like true polygons.

Back on topic, it goes without saying that some stuff is going to be dated. I found myself sadly unimpressed with Goldeneye's graphics lately, and there's a good deal of stuff around that used to play better for me.

What does it matter? Good games aren't built on graphics, though graphics are a nice part of any game. Take Halo...even right now I think people are starting to realize that Halo, for example, was really rather underdeveloped since we're no longer blinded by the graphics. Great game, yes, but not among the greatest games ever; it was just at the right console during the right time period, with the right backers.

[DarkSoul]

Personally, I think that the timelessness of a 3d game in some degree relies on how it was received in it's time- Even in the days of the Saturn, it's 3d wasn't exactly the most respected. Even in the times of the PS1 as a new and wonderful thing, everyone could see that Tomb Raider did kinda look like crap. When, however, you look at Doom, TIE Fighter (X-Wing would work too..but, uh, TIE Fighter kicks too much ass not to mention), or Descent- These games pretty well kicked ass, no questions about it- They looked great, they played great (Even if some people might argue that about Descent, hehe), and they continue to rock.

I suppose it's worth noting that graphics without gameplay in the 3d world (Terminal Velocity, anyone?) do start to show signs of being not the most fun game in the world- However, I'd argue that that's because the novelty of their graphics may have worn off, and there's little left to support the game, as it was lacking in replayability in the first place. (Though, don't get me wrong- TV is pretty fun, but... it's not incredible, and have you tried multiplayer? BORING)

[Ed Oscuro]

Terminal Velocity...hehe. The spinning sphere thing (accessible from the main screen with some cheat code or other) told me the whole story: Apogee was basically interested in making a 3D game, not a fun game.

Damn them and their Duke Nukem-licensing tendencies.

[YoshiM]

VISUALLY, the 3D games may not hold up well. We get spoiled by the modern flash of millions of polys, lightsourcing, and fluid animation to the point where if a game DOESN'T have all that and more (and not talking about gameplay yet), many modern gamers will turn their nose up at it. However for those who know to look past the flash in the pan, they rediscover a great game underneath and forgive the sins of age.

I don't worry about the crappiness of the 3D-if its a good game I'll play it.

[Daltone]

Personally, I like crappy 3D. It gives certain games a wierd stylised look. Like Attack Of The Saucermen or Hardwar, Realms of the Haunting and ROTT too. Ok, there could be problems where crappy 3D hinders gameplay, but i tend steer clear of those types of games anyway. *looks at his collection* well...mostly...

[Anthony1]

but for the most part they just don't seem to hold up over time as well as the 2-D classics do.

I did say "for the most part". That doesn't mean that every single 3-D game from years past is total junk today. Not even close. Doom is a very good example. I think Doom is a timeless 3D classic. Same thing with the original Tomb Raider game on the PS1. Sure they might look extremely blocky and pixelated, but you can't deny the fact that they basically created whole new genre's unto themselves. I've been playing Cybermorph for the Jaguar lately, and I just love that game. (I know alot of people think it's crap, but sue me!) Cybermorph is extremely simple in terms of graphics, and very outdated, with it's limited 3D engine, but I still find it very enjoyable.


I think what I meant to say is that a somewhat large percentage of 3D games from back in the day just don't hold up very well overtime.

But there are still certain games that do hold up quite well.


I would even say that Starfox on the Super Nintendo is one of them. Sure it's 3D world looks extremely weak in comparison to today's 3D shooters, but Starfox has that classic feeling to it. It was one of the very first games on a console system to move us into the world of polygons.

[ManekiNeko]

Usually, older 3D DOES look pretty awful. However, I can think of some instances where it actually works to the game's advantage, giving it a cool, retro look. Street Fighter EX + Alpha on the Playstation is a pretty good example, and so is Moto Racer on PCs. It's fun to turn the detail level down to its lowest and play with flat shaded polygons... it's like you're in the movie Tron.
I tend to think of it this way... older 3D games look all right if the programmers don't try to push the host system past its limits. If they try to make the graphics look extremely realistic by adding in gouraud shading, texture mapping, and fogging, chances are high that they're going to look terrible in five years. Games that are bright, colorful, and simple like Spyro the Dragon will generally age a lot more gracefully.
My problem with today's 3D games is that they lack life and character. Even when the polygonal characters are extremely detailed, they have that computer rendered look that make them seem lifeless, like something you'd find hanging from a peg in a toy store. Nintendo's characters don't suffer from this, but a lot of other ones do.

JR

[Daniel Thomas]

I'm going to have to disagree with Anthony's claim of outdated 3D graphics. It certainly is easy to point to 2D games like Gunstar Heroes or Sonic 3 $ Knuckles or Yoshi's Island as timeless, since those were the final days of 2D dominance. There just hasn't been much innovation since then -- everyone's moved on to polygons.

Of course, it's all relative. I think it depends largely on how effectively the graphics work, and how they fit in with the game. I think Adventure is timeless in itself; who would honestly want the yellow square replaced with some generic polygon Barbie doll?

I think if the artists worked with the limitations of the hardware, and maybe pushed it a little without going overboard, the graphics wouldn't age. Some fine examples: the Mega Man games on NES, Devil's Crush on the Turbo, Herzog Zwei on the Genesis, Tetris on Gameboy, Blue Lightning on Lynx, Super Metroid on SNES.

3d, of course, is a little trickier, but I think the best games of the 32-bit era still look great. Gran Tourismo, or Tony Hawk, or the Wipeout games -- is it just me, or do their latest sequels lack the visual punch of the originals? Games today are too slick and bland, too safe. Character models just look like plastic dolls, and the game worlds are just too empty.

Of course, Daytona on Saturn was never an attractive game, which is why it was so criticized in 1995 (thankfully, the gameplay more than made up for it). But I think VF2 and Virtua Cop 1 & 2 and Nights and Sega Rally look terrific. Those titles pushed our expectations of what the Saturn could achieve, and in some ways, set standards for the era. But, hey, maybe that's just me.