Poll: Was i the only one who was satisfied with PS2/Xbox graphics?

[Kingsnake661]

I like top notch graphics but, they aren't a nessissity for me to enjoy a game. I mean, still fire up X-Com, fairly often. I LOVE, er, LOVED the psn store, nintendo store, and to some extent, xboxlive store with it's access to ventige games. (xbox tends to pretty them up, and i don't really mind that either.)

So... i guess i'll be wishy washy on the topic and say, sure, keep improving graphics were you CAN (lets not work the graphics at the expensice of story/gameplay/FUN) but it's hardly a nessissity for a good game.

 

[BeerTent]

To me, it primarily depends on the game. Minecraft's graphics works because it's part of the theme. The Mechs in Phantom crash were so high poly because there were so few of them and the maps were tiny and low quality. That didn't bother me, because the maps looked alright, and I was far more content with staring at my creations between rumbles.

There are two cases when graphics don't work.

When it hinders performance, for example. Civ5 on my laptop, I'll stick with the Strategic View, and when the game doesn't recognize the theme set out by the graphics. (For example, imagine TF2 if they tried to make it serious, and kept with the graphics we have now.)

We shouldn't go all-out with graphics, because we don't have to. We can spend a month trying to get the waterfall in Sanctum looking amazing(It does, BTW.), or we can get it looking great in a week and spend the next 3 weeks balancing the rest of the map. Speaking of Sanctum, look it up. It doesn't have current gen graphics, but it still finds a way to put you in one of those "It's so amazing I want to be there" moments.

Someone mentioned the Wii as well... I never thought about it as I don't have one anymore,. but that's a good example of where I think graphics should be headed. We don't want to tax 6 PS3's strung together.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

While I selected 'no' it really does depend on the game. Playing Halo 2 not too long ago, it looks as thought the thing was unfinished whereas a game like Guilty Gear XX-2: Midnight Carnival (or whatever) looked then almost exactly as the current incarnations do now.

 

[Ytinasni]

PS2 had really good graphics for its time, and towards the end of its cycle they were downright gorgeous SotC GT4 GTA SA just to name a few.

The gamecube may not have had the processing power, but the developers managed some astounding art design on it to the point where you didn't care about poly count or draw distance because you didn't notice. Games like Metroid Prime, The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker (and TP) and RE4 had some of the best artwork I've seen to date.

Edit: It also could be said that the more time you have to work with a platform the better you will be at utilizing it to its fullest potential. Some of the early ps2 and GC games were nor of the highest caliber visually speaking, hell, there is a definite visual quality difference between ICO and SotC.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oops, I click 'No' by accident because I was responding to your title, not the actual poll question. What I mean was, Yes, the PS2/Xbox/GameCube era graphics were fine. Actually I hardly notice much of an improvement in this generation, so I find myself wondering what the bloody point was. Maybe I'm just not playing the right games. Then again, I was satisfied with 16-bit era graphics, so what do I know?

 

[Atmos Duality]

Style has always mattered more to me than the technical details.
Technical glitter is great when you have your core game hammered out, but until then it's best to stick to the gameplay and the style.

The most recent example: I actually appreciated the cel-shaded "western-Mad Max" style of Borderlands a lot more than I did Farcry 2 or CoD4.x. Or any of the previous bleak-o Gears of War "lets all fight in rusty buildings because the Unreal 3 dev kit has these textures in stock" shooters that came before.

While Borderlands does eventually hit that point where it's hard to look at (and being a wasteland, it's going to be repetitive) I could at least appreciate it for looking distinct.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

Yes, the previous generations graphics were serviceable (as in it they actually look like what they it should look like, instead of a pile of polygons like the psone, and saturn days), but nowadays i think companies are increasing the graphics for merely cosmetic reasons rather than practical reasons.

Also, don't rule out the Gamecube, and Dreamcast, they also had good graphics.

Especially Metroid Prime on the Cube, that looks even better than some of the newer games that are out today.

I feel graphics this generation are a commodity. We are used to increasing graphics power both for immersion and for eye catching earns, so we keep upping the stakes. Some of my favorite titles are from the NES and even before that, so they aren't mandatory, but a great game with good graphics is always nice as well.



Jazoni- I quote you because I have a genuine question. Why do you feel the graphics on the NGC, and specifically Metroid Prime, were good? I felt that whole system was poor in the graphics department (and most all others as well), and Prime specifically was an abysmal game with standard graphics. I don't say this to start a flame war on Prime, people love it so it did something right, I am just curious what you are using as a frame of reference or what it is that makes you enjoy the title.

Also, anyone else can reply to this question as well, not just Jazoni

 

[TheRocketeer]

It doesn't bother me; I own a PS3 and a 360, but I own only very few games for each, preferring to indulge in my large (and growing) collection of PS2 titles.

It isn't a money thing; not entirely anyway. I could afford to buy the new and interesting current-gen titles as they come out, thankfully. But I could spend the same amount of money picking out three times as many of the previous generation's greatest and time-tested titles for the same scratch.

Meanwhile, I can wait for all those current-gen titles to drop both in price and in hype, getting them much more reasonably and getting a much clearer picture of what was actually crap, or what unexpectedly turned a lot of heads.

In a way, the lack of graphical sophistication on the last generation gives it an advantage: no titles for PS2 are going to have their opinion skewed on account of how cutting-edge they are. Titles of previous generations have to stand on their own gameplay and narrative superiority. And games that pursued interesting and stylized art directions hold up a lot better today than games that blew their development just trying to keep up with the tech, something that will become more and more true as leaps in graphics power begin to shrink further and further.

Right now is the best time to own a console of the previous generation. It'll make me sad when titles of the old generation disappear from stores as 360/PS3/Wii titles move into their places, just like it made me sad last time it happened.

 

[Reaper195]

I grew up with games just before the PLayStation. I was playing DooM and Wolfenstien before I was playing FF7, Crash Bandicoot and MGS. Story and gameplay beat graphics any day of the year.

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

I play my PS2 all the time, but I think it would be more beneficial to scale graphics back to the early 360 days. Developers would still have the computing power of a next-gen console, but could devote more time and energy to gameplay and design since graphics would be more simplistic. HD textures are nice, but I'd rather have a great game than shiny graphics. By using graphics that are better than a PS2 but still well below most modern games, you could cut development costs significantly.

 

[Tupolev]

It really depends on what the game was doing. For some aesthetic styles, the older hardware was enough to realize the goal. Some 2d sprite styles that ran on machines decades ago still look good. On the other hand, there are definitely some aesthetic approaches that simply don't work in low-poly 480i graphics, and so, while I don't think that modern console games are inherintly aesthetically better than the older games (and in some cases the obligatory forced detail can be an aesthetic hindrance), I do think they offer a more versatile toolbox.

So yeah, basically, new offers a larger range of options than old, but old games that were built within the natural limitations of their equipment rather than trying to use aesthetic designs that exceed them tend to age well and can look every bit as "good" in some general sense as the newer stuff.

I care a lot about aesthetics in my games, but I don't think they necessarily depend on newer platforms; some of my aesthetically favorite games are quite old, and quite often I prefer much older games in a given series in that regard to newer ones.

 

[veloper]

For $50 you should demand a great game with good gameplay AND good graphics AND good everything.

I don't mind primitive visuals in old games and indie games, but I also expect to pay less for such games.
So no.

 

[nukethetuna]

i was playing Shadow of Colossus today and realized that the graphics didn't bother me, at all. after playing the game a little longer i realized that i really liked all my PS3/Xbox games. the only thing i asked for was the ability to do more within those worlds. now im not complaining about the current gen graphics. this is just how i feel. how about you guys, do you feel the same as i do? if not can you explain why? im not trying to start an argument or anything like that. just looking for opinions, cause it's always nice to know what other people think.

I gotta agree. Looking at the difference between PS1 games and PS2 games is noticeable. The characters go from blocky, poorly textured, oddly animated things (in most cases) on the PS1 to... whatever they're actually SUPPOSED to be on the PS2.

On the PS3 they're just shinier and more polished. So I guess that's nice, but if any PS3 game could be played on the PS2, but only downgrading the graphics to that level, I would never have purchased a PS3.

 

[The Breadcrab]

It does depend on the game. Some of them like Burnout Revenge look spectacular while some of them like a few of the Medal of Honor games look like, as Yahtzee would put it, "shite on a crusted roll."

With that said, I think this generation we have truly reached a comfortable foothold for graphics. Now we need to move on and improve things like story and even gameplay to an extent. Then again, maybe we'll first have to waddle through motion controls and pointless 3D before setting our sights on those. Sigh.

 

[Arluza]

I judge graphics based on the time. I think that TLoZ:OoT looks as good as Portal 2 looks for the era. Now, the art STYLE can be judged differently. Take FFXIII (and good grace why are there so many?) and Portal 2. Almost no difference in when release, but one looks nice, and the other looks HORRIBLY stupid.

 

[Wayneguard]

I was satisfied with gamecube graphics... specifically resident evil 0 and resident evil remake. Their environments are fucking photorealistic. This has less to do with hardware generations than it does the lack of developers who want to utilize pre-rendered backgrounds.

 

[redisforever]

Hell, my newest console is an original Xbox. I still play the Splinter Cell games on it. I still think Halo 2 has excellent visuals, not just in terms of graphics quality, but the art direction was very good. Hell, I am still surprised what that brick can do.

 

[Canid117]

I don't trust my memory of that generations graphics because nostalgia is a *****.

 

[Royta]

No, but I prefered the Gamecube's graphics.
^see me trying to start an oldsk00l consolewar?

To me, artdirection > technical graphics. So higher end consoles don't make games more pretty in my opinion.

 

[Jakub324]

I can suffer early gen graphics, provided I can make facial expressions and things like that out. Halo CE for instance, I had trouble with faces on that, but maybe that was just my personal retardation.