Replaying Old Games: The Importance of Graphics

[kingthrall]

My favorite game myth 2 soulblighter is thirteen years old. It is holding in a few weeks the Myth world cup the longest ever running competitive tournament for a video game, on a community run server (bungie pulled the plug in 01).

My point is, that graphics mean bugger all if the game is as advanced and detailed as myth 2 is. With consistant graphics updates (nothing too spectacular) the game is clearly more refined to cater to even the most graphic loving snob. Just dont expect new games to have this kind of support though it should clearly exsist to keep replay value.

Below is my video, the best video game as far as I am concerned. Just check out the free flowing limbs, blood, scorched earth from lightning zaps and mortar blasts,flanking tactics and free fluttering arrows. Seriously have not seen a game like this... ever.

 

[VoidWanderer]

I'm with you on this... as long as the aesthetics still work well, then I am not over concerned with the greaphics for older games.

I mean there are some games I would love to get an HD remake.

*Wistfully looks at Final Fantasy 6 and whispers 'Some day...'*

 

[Requia]

Really old 3D graphics tends to make a game kinda suck, but I can play xbox/PS2 era games without any issue (though the lack of lip sync in KOTOR is jarring). 2D stuff ages a lot better.

 

[ultrabiome]

for 2D graphics - they were just as good or bad as they were back in the day. its all about art direction and use of colors (especially in the NES and earlier days when developers were severely restricted in the number of colors available onscreen at once). in fact, i prefer Super Mario Bros on the NES over the SNES All-Stars version because it looks weird to me with all of those unnecessary extra backgrounds and whatnot.

for 3D graphics - it really depends, mainly on whether the developer understood the limitations of the hardware and designed around it, or whether they went for photorealism on a system that couldn't handle what they envisioned. i can look past jagged edges and low polygon counts if they understood how to use the most of what they had to still make it look good - which generally means more colorful and/or exaggerated objects.

good examples:
Super Mario 64 - even though the landscape is sparse, the textures are muddy up close, and the polygon count on everything was pretty low, i still think the game looks awesome because Nintendo was very deliberate with every object to make the most of it. in fact, it seems like they often didn't use textures that often and cleverly used lighting and the shapes to make the impact instead.
Quake - it was always grainy, but fit the mood of the game perfectly. good use of lighting while everything had a hard edge to it only accentuates the gloomy aesthetics that varied enough to keep you from getting lost (unless they wanted you to...). shamblers are still very scary with their bloody claws and almost instantaneous use of lightning to fry your ass.
Final Fantasy VII - honestly i agree that the overworld sections don't hold up that well, with the exaggerated, low-polygon count models over beautiful, more realistic pre-rendered backgrounds, but i think the battle graphics make up for it. cloud and gang are more realistically proportioned and colored, and quite detailed when the camera zooms in.

bad examples:
Deus Ex - even with the cyberpunk theme, the low polygon count models with heavy use of textures just make the game look ugly to me as they were going for a little too photo-realistic for their time. repetitive hallways and identical walls make it hard to keep track of where you're going doesn't make it any better. if they remade DX with the DX:HR engine... i'd totally play that.

 

[shrekfan246]

Agreed. I tried playing Bladur's Gate Enhanced Edition on Steam and I just couldn't do it and it had nothing to do with graphics. The game plays like ass and had me wondering why the hell it was considered a classic.

I've read that the Enhanced Edition was somehow worse than just getting the original and tweaking/modding it to upscale to modern resolutions and whatnot, but I don't know how much weight to put behind that since I didn't try it myself. Couldn't get more than half an hour into OG Baldur's Gate myself, for much the same reasons as you.

OT: Most early 3D games are hard for me to go back and play. Something like Banjo-Kazooie still looks great (outside of texture resolution) because it was cartoony and highly stylized. Deus Ex or System Shock 2 on the other hand? Even with mods, the character models are just laughable.

2D sprite and pixel-based games hold up a fair amount better in my opinion. I'm just playing the first Starcraft and Diablo II recently and I think they both still look pretty darn good, all things considered. They've got their issues with UI, AI, etc., but nothing so bad that it outright kills the game.

With that said, I've got a much higher tolerance for ugly, blocky polygons and low-res textures than I do for terrible UIs and clunky, obtuse gameplay.

 

[Guffe]

I replayed Ocarina of Time on the N64 a few days ago and now playing Rayman 2 The Great Escape on the same console
Graphics aren't too bad I think, might have to do with the fact I am not expecting good graphics.
Then again I own a Wii so I am not expecting good graphics... The WiiU did improve on that by jumping to Xbox360 and PS3 standards (maybe a bit above?) and that's just fine with me, I don't see why we'd need better graphics after this generation really.

 

[Orks da best]

considering that me and my sister just played halo ce and not a single comment on it graphics from either us, and we still got our butts handed to us at times by the ais, and sometimes by friendly fire...

yet the original fallout bores me. It depends or if you played the game when it was out or your playing it now
.

 

[BM19]

Yeah... Graphics aren't a HUGE point of contention for me, though I'm a bit vain. I like the shiny.
Most of the time, if a game's story or gameplay hold up, I don't care much about the graphics side of things. But if one of those is lacking, I'm more likely to harp on the game's looks. Fortunately, graphics can be saved by a damn good art-style, which is why Wind Waker still holds up to me. Coincidentally, that's also why I have no clue as to why THAT'S the Zelda that they're giving the HD bump to. It's the only game that didn't really need it! Don't get me wrong, I'll buy it, but that's just because I can always use an excuse to play it again AND I need SOMETHING to do with this Wii U. It looks so sad, just sitting there with a layer of dust on it...

Certain older games really get to me with their dated graphics, though -- Ocarina of Time's fog-distancing technique kind of got to me in retrospect, and Majora's Mask was so obviously ahead of it's time so it feels a bit stilted to me. That's why I want a 3DS or Wii U remake: smooth out the graphics and gameplay, make masks hot-swappable through the touchscreen, and you can have all of my money.
All of it.

Now, to comment on an older post because it grabbed my attention:

Ehhhh whatever, if the game bothered to come up with a unique artstyle then age is practically a non-issue. Okami anyone?

[...]

I SWEAR Persona 4: The Golden looks worse than Persona 4 on the PS2 from the screenshots i've seen. Tell me they didn't do a Silent Hill 2 and remove all the fog? That's the twatting point you noob. Oh and I hear they replaced Pursuing My True Self with some new crap as the opening. From bad to worse I tell you...

[...]

You know I seriously think Persona 4 is pretty much perfect in every way right? Because it is. I thought it through and everything!

Fuck it, i'll get a Vita with my birthday money and see if this shit is any good or if i'm right in my assumption that adding more shit for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing. FUCKING BETRAYAL ENDING MAN! I'm annoyed that's even a thing. What is this? SMT Nocturne?

1) Props for Okami mention. I've owned every version of it -- always a blast. Lack of filters on the PSN version was a bit sad, but it still ended up looking damn good.

2) Golden LOOKS worse in screenshots because its meant to be played on a smaller screen. Once you actually have the game in your hand, it's great -- the gameplay is smoother, and everything looks a bit more lively. The new material also helps round out the package nicely, making a classic game even classic-er. (That, and I VASTLY prefer Chie's new voice actress to her old one; just fits her character more, IMHO) Dunno if I'd recommend getting a Vita for it, since its the only game I play with any consistency on it, but still.
Yeah, Marie was put in there a bit ham-fistedly, but so was the final boss -- and I STILL like her. Persona 4 in any form is going to be good if you ask me, and Golden doesn't disappoint. Plus, I can't understate how awesome it is to just be able to play P4 on the go, whenever; it's like an insulin shot of pure joy.
ALSO: The Betrayal Ending actually makes a lot of sense, even if my version of the MC/Yu/Souji/Broswagonist would never do it. Fool = 0, and zero can be anything -- even the bad stuff. Besides, if you don't like it, don't do it -- simple. That's why I never did the bad ending. That and because... Well, the obvious...

 

[Verzin]

graphics are meh. the real problem with a lot of the old games that have aged poorly is that their mechanics and controls are pretty clunky too. That's the real hurdle. Once you get accustomed to the graphics, you can easily get into horribly ugly games. Take Vampires the masquerade. Super hard to get into, hideous by todays standards, but awesome RPG.

 

[Auron]

Maybe so, but I enjoyed playing Neverwinter Nights for whatever that's worth. In Baldur's Gate my companion's can't be counted on to do anything. And WTF am I supposed to do if they happen to fall in battle? I guess I'm fucked if that happens then eh? And it will happen because they can't be counted on for shit. Also it seemed to me that you were greatly outclassed by your enemies very early in the game too. That just my experience.

You're supposed to directly control the entire party yourself, the AI scripts are pretty primitive but there's a pause button for that. You are a level 1 character at the start so just like in a real D&D game you need to take it slow otherwise you will die and if someone dies you need a cleric and a 100 gold. Being a level 1 Spell Caster and maybe even a Rogue in the days of AD&D was hell I'll admit that much, the balance early game was all in favour of Fighters and Clerics. But that's not exactly a problem with Baldur's Gate when it was the intent to be accurate with the ruleset. There was a difficulty slider and several extra options though so you could enjoy the story without the cutthroat gameplay.

It plays alot like AD&D except you're supposed to control all 6 characters tactically. NWN is much simpler and third edition is quite a bit more practical as well I do miss a party in nwn however it doesn't make much sense that the hero basically does everything alone, KOTOR and DA are more intermediate though still simpler especially since in many fights you can just let the other characters do whatever they want to and still win.

 

[Snotnarok]

I think most people, even if they don't know it subscribe to arty style and if the game moves nicely.
So while a game like FFVII may be a mass of polygons you can still make out what everything is and your brain can slap on different things.

Honestly one of my favorite RPGs Phantasy Star IV did some amazing things back in the day that sort of ruined other RPGs for me because of what it did graphically (I talk about this game a bit too much me thinks)

Battles use full sized sprites that are animated, enemies AND characters so it feels more alive.


Then to top it off, instead of showing sprites bouncing around you actually are shown the conversation or actions, so you walk around like this:

But then the game goes to show you this.

After playing this I thought all RPGs did something like this (it was near my first one as a kid) buuut not exactly...watching two sprites bounce off eachother as a 'cutscene' was hardly as impacting as what this game showed. Don't get me wrong Final Fantasy 6 is a great game but it's never had the same impact to me.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

If the game relied heavily on its visuals to sell itself at the time, then it's going to age a lot faster than other games, especially if it's had sequels that did essentially the same thing but better. A good example of this would be Star Wars Battlefront. I played that game uncounted hours as a kid, but after revisiting it after playing the second it didn't grab me at all. I had already gotten used to so many important features such as sprinting that I couldn't imagine the game without them. And then i realized that the first looked like arse compared to the second, despite there being only a year between release dates.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I can handle dated graphics. I frequently replay both Doom games, DN3D, System Shock 2, Deus Ex, and others. Now, when visuals get in the way is when they're bad. When they should rightfully be better, or it seems like there wasn't any work put into them, or if they're just ugly, then it can decrease my enjoyment of the game.
My one exception: Deadly Premonition. I feel that the terrible visuals add to the game's inexplicable charm.

Although, one thing that can really bother me about graphics is palette. Yes, Call of Duty may have the most state of the art visuals, but when everythings so ugly and dull, what's the use?
Now, look at something like Blood Dragon...

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

I prefer my games to be good, and tend not to care that much about graphics.

Granted I can't imagine some games being nearly as good with older graphics (Metro 2033, that relies heavily on its atmospheric graphics and contrast between dark and light but I have absolutely no problems with replaying old games. I still have have a ton of them installed on my computer.

What I'm more concerned about is what the fuck is going on with Lara Croft's hip?

That is not a normal growth. It's even on the other side too, but blocked by her hand. I suspect out of control hip cancer.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Graphics is never a big deal for me, or at least not as big a deal as shitty programming/ridiculous difficulties from earlier generations...

 

[Ishal]

Graphics are no big deal, unless they're truly eye searing or the game is one that leaned heavily on the quality of its visuals and has little to offer in the game play department.

Far, far, far more important than graphics when it comes to retro-gaming is the UI. Cumbersome, clunky or painful UI experiences will derail a happy memory far quicker than any aged graphics could ever hope to. It's part of the reason I won't hesitate to recommend, say, Planescape Torment to someone, but I won't recommend Ultima IV. Not because the latter isn't an excellent game and important RPG, but because Planescape won't provoke 1/10th of the UI agony.

I really need to play Planescape Torment don't I? :/

Especially if Chris Avellone wrote it, and I hear you can actually fail dialogue conversations... thats pretty damn cool if you ask me.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I really need to play Planescape Torment don't I? :/

Especially if Chris Avellone wrote it, and I hear you can actually fail dialogue conversations... thats pretty damn cool if you ask me.

You haven't played Planescape Torment yet?

You disgust me, sir!

Really though, I'd get on with it sooner rather than later if I were you. It's not getting any younger or easier to play.

Captcha: Donkey's years. Seems like it should be relevant somehow, but I can't quite puzzle out how...

 

[Aidan(Roland)]

The things that hold up the worst are the "tech demo" games, the ones that just exist to show off new technology.

Quake is important historically because of being a full 3D FPS, but there's not a lot to it. In that instance the graphics are important, and still good IF, IF you approach it with perspective!