/vr/ - Retro Games

Nice use of color to create atmosphere, but aside from that, it was a pretty fugly game then and even more fugly now. Ocarina of Time came out 2 months later and blew it the fuck away, not to mention you already had games like Quake 2 that put it to utter shame.

>>4677721

For a console game? yeah it was pretty sweet. I aged through 8-bit and on, so I remember historically. 3D models were a bit odd back then, but it was impressive.

Compared to PC at the time? It was Meh... PC has always been supreme.

>>4677734

>Ocarina of Time
>blew it the fuck away

pffft. No way. That's like saying Spongebob was a masterpiece of animation.
Colorful and a great game? YES.
Impressive considering the hardware? Not really.

>>4677721
Its got incredible art direction and consistency.
It holds up well because of it.

Absolutely.

Nah, I remember it being pretty ugly.

>>4677775
PC was even uglier than console honestly. Never saw a PC game that really blew me away in the 90's. PC only really started coming ahead in like 2006 when technology become mainstream enough for everyone to patch Half-life 2. When it came out in 2004, you wouldn't say it was better than RE4.

>>4677721
I did not. I recognized it as a good looking PlayStation game but I had seen games like Daytona USA 2 in arcades and video footage of Half-life on television that told me that games could look a lot better than that. I was also looking at screenshots of Ocarina of Time and felt that game was going to look better than MGS.

Even on the PlayStation, Tekken 3 had far superior visuals.

Metal Gear Solid sort of came out of left field for me. I think it did for a lot of people. It was a staggeringly good game from a franchise most people were not too familiar with at the time.

Visual direction was fucking awesome. Visuals themselves... kinda made me gag.

>>4677791
I remember thinking it was really atmospheric, but also quite ugly.

>>4677775
>Impressive considering the hardware? Not really.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and it sounds like you weren't even alive when it was as released. No console game at that time was able to create the kind of huge, seamless, living world that OoT had. It had believable day and night cycles, rain, running rivers, butterflies floating around, fishing swimming, lense flare effect from the sun, huge draw distance, moving sky, moving clouds over death mountain, extremely fluid animations and facial expressions, on and on. The sheer amount of effort put into making its environments seem alive and believable is staggering. Many games made today don't even put in the same amount of effort. On top of all that, it had some fantastic looking characters and environments. Polygon count was high, textures on characters were bright, vivid and crisp, structures were architecturally varied and impressive, etc. To say that OoT wasn't a stunner in its day is sheer ignorance.

>>4677798

Well it's not our fault you had a Dell or a Gateway or something like that...

Unreal came out in 1998, so did Battlezone, and the original Half-Life. If those didn't "blow you away" on release, I don't know what would. When you compare that to MGS and other console titles released the same year, it's simply hilarious.

And that's just "late season" retro.

>PC only really started coming ahead in like 2006
>2006

jezz-us anon....

Also, I'd take HL2 over RE4 anyday, but that's just me.

>>4677818
Although your post is salient, it would be better for you to post images which are taken from the original release resolution of the game, rather than a 1920x1080 emulator screenshot.

>>4677775
>PC has always been supreme
This is not true. Arcades were the top tier of gaming graphics for years.

Daytona 2 from 1998, the same year as Half-life
https://youtu.be/JGwdTAIGdeU?t=802

Around the 13:00 mark you see the most graphically impressive stage in the game.

>>4677838
However, do keep in mind this is a 1080p rendering of the game via emulator.

>>4677841
this should be more representative
https://youtu.be/hJkaVbY8fUs

>>4677829
N64 has a built-in upscaler so it doesn't matter. Let's shrink PC screenies too since those old games were not meant to be played on post-CRT monitors, the first of which were 320 x 200 if you're really a purist. You ARE a purist aren't you PCbro?

>>4677818

Good game, fun to play.

Sponge-bob as fuck. Bright flashy colors, bland textures, structures looked like piles of cardboard boxes. I agree many games today don't put in the effort, but this was Nintendo in the hay-day, obviously had quality. In terms of graphics though... very nice looking, not impressive.

Was trading free-ware on real floppies in middle school. Not the oldest on board, but old enough to have played nearly every console while they were "current Gen".

>>4677847
Windows/Dos era gaming had already reached 1280×960 for plenty of displays. By Windows 97 we had 2048×1536 capable displays and consumer computers that could drive them.

What autistc point are you trying to make? No Dos or Windows game EVER went as low as you are implying. Stop spouting nonsense.

>>4677847
>Let's shrink PC screenies too since those old games were not meant to be played on post-CRT monitors, the first of which were 320 x 200 if you're really a purist

High resolution CRT monitors have been around since the 80s. By the 1998 they were extremely common. Most people played Half-life in 640x480 or 800x600, but people with the top of the line stuff would easily hit 1024x768.

Other resolutions like 1280x960 and 1600x1200 were possible with the right setup.

>>4677851
>By Windows 97 we had 2048×1536 capable displays and consumer computers that could drive them.

I think even with the very best GPU/CPU combo of 1998 you probably couldn't run Half-life in 2048x1536. There just wouldn't be enough VRAM. But I would love to be proven wrong.

>>4677721
No, PC was alway way more interesting. I always thought PS1 was really weird looking and blocky. Back in the day. It wasn't appealing to me.

>>4677798
>PC only really started coming ahead in like 2006
the fuck are you talking about

>>4677798
>When it came out in 2004, you wouldn't say it was better than RE4.
Yes you would. Holy fucking shit you are blind nigga,

>>4677818
Most of that stuff is just good art and attention to detail. What's the difference between that and MGS?

>>4677860
I think that was out of the question back then. In 1998 Silicon Graphics was still the king of GPU performance with their Onyx workstations and 3dfx just came in and whatnot. 800x600 and 1024x768 were common.
SGI workstations had huge rendering power but even they couldn't do that kind of resolutions for gaming.

>>4677853
and yeah, looking back at GPU specs of the time it would be hard to get to 1280x960 or 1600x1200. Voodoo 2's in SLI would get you 1024x768.

http://www.geekometry.com/2013/12/3dfx-voodoo2-the-original-sli/

Still a massive leap over the N64's 320x240.

>>4677847

>1998
>320 x 200
>implying only CRT

What are you on about?

>>4677851
16:9 was not in use back then.

>all these "good atmosphere but it was ugly" posts

I dunno about you guys but when MGS1 came out, when I was 11 years old, there was no such separation in my mind. "Good atmosphere" and "good graphics" were the same thing. A game either looked good or it didn't.

>>4677818
>fluid
>20 fps

>>4677851
Many DOS games were 320x200

>>4677885
Compared to Super Mario 64, which was a 2 year old game at the time, MGS looked really pixelated and empty to me at the age of 14.

>>4677879
a screenshot from that review, running on 1998 hardware.

Console games didn't really reach this level until Metroid Prime.

yes. but i was very disappointed by the real time cutscenes after the beautiful cgi cutscenes of FF7. the worst is that it was considered an innovation, because the 3d was so good CGI wasn't needed

>>4677874
>Most of that stuff is just good art and attention to detail.
No, it's not. Getting a game with a huge overworld, moving sky, weather, day/night, enemies, animals, and huge draw distance to run on a 1996 console in 1998 was not mostly "good art", all of that put additional burden on the machine and it took feats of engineering to accomplish.
>What's the difference between that and MGS?
>what's the difference between a game with a gigantic overworld, high-poly models, emotive characters and all of these independently-moving environmental features versus a game that takes place in a facility of narrow metal corridors and the characters don't even have faces

>>4677850
>Sponge-bob as fuck.
What the fuck are you even trying to say you braindead potato?
>In terms of graphics though... very nice looking, not impressive.
Yep, year 2000 baby confirmed. Go larp as a 30 year old somewhere else my dude.

>>4677818
Holy fucking shit fucking Nintendo fags have to be the most delusional motherfuckers on the fucking planet fuck

>>4677894
>Console games didn't really reach this level until Metroid Prime.
Halo predates Prime and had better graphics.

>>4678203
>Holy fucking shit fucking Nintendo fags have to be the most delusional motherfuckers on the fucking planet fuck
Nice argument you drooling retard. And I'm not a "Nintendo fag", I owned every console that gen and even got a Saturn and PS1 first. I'm just a realist and understand that the game was incredibly impressive when it released.

Back then I didn't even notice he didn't have a face. You kind of just imagine it being there.
Like you see his face in codec calls so it just kind exists for you.

The aesthetics, mood/atmosphere really were amazing back then. I sold my used copy for 70 dollars back then because a kid was so desperate to play it but his parents wouldnt buy it for him (mature rating)

the first time i saw ocarina of i thought it just looked ugly but soon after i appreciated the long view distance etc, metal gear solid looked excellent for the time it even compared well to pc since it had nice little touches where as pc games where usually made of big squares like n64 a bit

>>4677721
In the same way I consider Vagrant Story a graphically impressive game. It doesn't have the highest polycount but it uses what it has extremely smartly, focusing more on excellent art direction that holds up to this day. The use of well directed in-engine cutscenes helps greatly too in establishing a consistent look throughout.

In comparison something like Quake 3 or Half-Life, while more technically impressive, just looks kind of ugly to me today. Not necessarily because they have bad art direction or anything like that, but I think it's because they were shooting for the top instead of making smart use of limited resources.

Not even the best looking game that year

>>4678228
>implying you played it at all

only babbies played crash bandicoot

>>4678231
I had Crash 1, 3, CTR and Bash back in the day. I got 2 later on, but 1 & 3 were the bees kness for me

>>4678210
Funny you call me a retard for not having an argument but it wasn’t even an argument. Sounds like you like sucking Nintendo dicks. Another “my opinion is fact” faggot. Also nice job showing that you didn’t have one no one would call that shit a PS1

>>4678261
I unironically played CTR and Crash Bash and enjoyed them alot while simultaneous not liking the regular series

>>4678263
>Funny you call me a retard for not having an argument but it wasn’t even an argument.
You're right, it wasn't.
> Another “my opinion is fact” faggot.
I presented perfectly logical and verifiable reasons for why the game was impressive and looked good. Very little of what I said could be construed as opinion.
> Also nice job showing that you didn’t have one no one would call that shit a PS1
Tell you what, I'll take a picture of my PS1, Saturn and N64 together with a timestamp, and upload it here, if you agree that when I do, you admit you're a faggot. Deal?

>>4677721
What was impressive was the attention to detail. It wasn't so much the graphics as it was the first time you heard "whose footprints are these?"

>>4677891
>Super Mario 64
>Barely any 3D objects and the ones that are are about 5 polygons
>Vast majority are crusty sprites that look terrible

>>4678276
>threatening to showing some shitty old systems to someone because your pride was hurt by some derisive comments

>>4678228
This is like comparing Jurassic Park to The Nightmare Before Christmas

>>4678293
>making yourself look like an ignorant retard hurts someone else's pride

>>4678292
>Barely any 3D objects and the ones that are are about 5 polygons
What the fuck are you talking about?
>Vast majority are crusty sprites that look terrible
Yeah, like coins, and trees, and uh... uhh...

>>4678195
>mgs has moving sky, snow, rats, snake's breath, enemies, exclamation marks, high res textures, tastefully abstracted faces, astonishing feats of engineering
>OoT has one grassy sand texture repeated across the whole world lmao

They both look good. Quit cherrypicking.

>>4677721
I still played NES games in '98 so yes I probably would have had I knew of it's existence.

>>4678320
>mgs has moving sky
That you almost never see
>snow
That you almost never see
>rats
That you almost never see
>snake's breath
Okay
>enemies
Whoa, the game has enemies? Such attention to detail.
>exclamation marks
And this is impressive why, exactly?
>high res textures
Lmao, no.
>tastefully abstracted faces
LOL. Oh man, now that's funny. "Tastefully abstracted faces", that's a new one. What a great way to say "the faces are barely legible and look like shit".
>astonishing feats of engineering
Like what?
>OoT has one grassy sand texture repeated across the whole world lmao
Nice reductio you massive faggot. Yeah, that one "grassy sand texture", and moving sky, and weather, and day/night, and huge draw distance, and running water...

>>4678320
>tastefully abstracted faces
>one grassy sand texture
>Quit cherrypicking

>>4678340
>>4678345
Read between the lines, lads. The idea was to demonstrate that you can sugarcoat and cherrypick your way to making anything sound awesome or terrible.

as a 10 year old, yes. going from SNES to playing this was like games became real life.your imagination filled in the details.

the best thing about oot’s graphics was the subtle lighting effects

the game doesn’t beat you over the head with it, it’s subtle, but magnificent and broken on most emulators

>>4677851
You '''''forgot''''' to add that the amount of memory on your video card had to be big enough to contain at least one complete frame, if only at 256 colors. And that did not include second buffer for off-screen drawing or data for accelerator to work on, so you wouldn't expect anything fast to perform well enough. 1280×960×8b is impossible if you only have 1 MB of VRAM, for example.

People didn't play at their desktop resolution, each game switched it. LCDs started the fad of playing on native resolutions only — even if it's 4K×4K×4K nonsense. Most old games weren't made for high resolutions anyway, as their assets' complexity and bugs/crashes on would-be-common screen sizes show.

>>4678372
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>4678372
the difference is that anon is actually right in his assessment of OOT's features and how its impressive that they managed to fit them all in, whereas you're embellishing minor aspects of MGS to make it sound better.

>>4678305
Yeah stop pretending that your not upset about everyone not sucking the soy out of the Nintendong. Seriously how mad do you have to be to over a video game that you spend all day cherry picking everyone arguments in order to justify your own delusions.

at the time, I remember liking Megaman Legend's graphics more and even now, I'd probably say the same also.
I remember liking that Legend's had very clear, very expressive faces, during cutscenes they can emote and move their mouths while talking instead of doing the bobblehead thing though looking back, the Codec had that beat
but I have to respect legends for knowing the system limitations and using it to make such a functional looking, aesthetically pleasing small town
Then two years later Vagrant Story would blow MGS out of the fucking water when it came to amazing looking serious models and environments

>>4677721
Unreal came out in 1997 and SoulCalibur in 1998, so no, it wasn't impressive.

>>4677798
Go back to /v/

>>4678519
>Unreal came out in 1997 and SoulCalibur in 1998, so no, it wasn't impressive.
You're off by a year on both counts, bub. Unreal was 1998, and the good looking version of SoulCalibur was released in 1999.

>>4678527
Whatever. Both were released before Metal Gear Solid.

>>4678464
>Yeah stop pretending that your not upset about everyone not sucking the soy out of the Nintendong
Imagine being such a vacuous, braindead potato that you have to wave the autistic flag of some company. Dude, I don't even like Nintendo all that much, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend OoT wasn't an impressive game. I enjoyed all consoles of that gen, and I repeat, I will happily upload a photo of my Saturn and PS1 when you're ready to admit that you're a big gay baby with no argument. The only reason you won't agree to that is because you know I have a PS1 and it would invalidate your retarded argument.
>Seriously how mad do you have to be to over a video game that you spend all day cherry picking everyone arguments in order to justify your own delusions.
I don't know, why don't you tell us? I'm the one stating facts, not using examples like, "the game has enemies", as an argument for technological prowess.

>>4678419
https://archive.org/stream/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_157#page/n117/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_157#page/n129/mode/2up

For the reference, there are whopping 4MB video cards on these systems, among other junk, and that still wouldn't get you double buffering in high resolutions and high/truecolor modes. 1152×864, which nicely fits in under 1M pixels, was the last practical resolution for that reason.

Take your time and read the magazine from the start, though.

>>4677721
Considering the time, theme and the mood, yes sure.

I remember the first time In
fire it up, thinking that I never seen anything like this tactical espionage game.

>>4677721
I was like 10 and didn't really get into it back then. I still think it looks really good relevant to the time period though. I've played through it twice I think in past 10 years or so.

I was 13 and it blew my damn socks off. Yeah there were better graphics in some games, but this was the closest thing to being in a movie or graphic novel I had ever seen. The janky way the psx renders 3d just added to the surreal atmosphere, I love it to this day.

>>4677818
I feel like an utter retard now. For the past 18-19 years I never realized the Hyrule Castle Stage from Super Smash Bros. is based on the castle roof from ocarina, I thought it was its own unique design. Guess I never looked at the top of the castle in Ocarina for long enough to commit to memory what it looked like.

>>4678641
Original Smash Bros was literally made on a $2 budget....any art asset they could recycle they did recycle.

>>4677721
>a graphically impressive game in 1998?
No, but it was a graphically impressive game on that platform.

>>4678650
Except they didn't actually recycle anything you literal fucking retard. Not even the character models.

>>4678704
Well they didn't copy and paste them straight in obviously, but they I'd say they took the original mesh for Hyrule Castle (and Mario, etc) and then changed it as required to suit the game.

>>4678340
>high res textures
>Lmao, no.

MGS2 had roughly textures of the same size, so yes.

>>4678707
I somehow doubt that and at the same time it wouldn't surprise me because early PS2 games had trash-tier texturing.

>>4678712
>early PS2 games had trash-tier texturing

I don't know what you're on about, but MGS1 and MGS2 were very smart with their texturing (as with any other KCEJ game). The average texture size in MGS1 is 128x128/64 at 4/8bit, so not really low. The game could allow this because of its self-enclosed stages. They really abused the VRAM space they were given.

>>4678605
Go on then autist, let's see a timestamped photo of you and your video game collection.

>>4678720
Oh I'll be happy to send you a pic of my Saturn and PS1 as promised, but first you admit that, once I upload it, you are, and I repeat: a big gay baby with no argument. Once you agree to that, you get a picture.

>>4678728
Are you going to show us a picture or not?

>>4678730
Nope. Not until you agree that once I do, you admit to being a big gay baby with no argument. Once you do that, I will upload a picture.

>>4678731
Ok, so that's a no. Not the guy you were arguing with by the way, just wanted to see your little micropenis quiver when you got called out on your bluff. Don't ever play poker, autismo.

>>4677721
It was very impressive for a PS1 game. But, Sonic Adventure blew it out of the water.

>>4678735
>too much of a pussy to even make a text-based bet on an anonymous forum
The edict is on you my friend. You want to see a picture? All you have to do is agree that once I upload it, you are a big gay baby with no argument. That's literally it. Hell, I'll tell you what, if you agree, I'll even upload a picture of myself too. But you won't agree, because you're a pussy and you have no argument.

>>4678719
I guess the really, really low color depth textures explains it. Which is why both games (though particularly MGS1) look so mono-colored in places.

>>4678735
>Don't ever play poker, autismo.
ironically hed prolly be pretty good at poker because he just got you to fold lmao

>>4678745
Still waiting on the picture you'll never provide us, samefag.

>>4678749
>accuses somebody else of samefagging
>NOT THE GUY YOU WERE ARGUING WITH BY THE WAY, JUST WANTED TO SEE YOUR LITTLE MICROPENIS QUIVER
Lmao when you're ready to agree to my terms, you'll get a picture of my beautiful face wedged between both my PS1 and Saturn. Until then, you remain so much of a pussy that you won't even agree to a bet on an anonymous imageboard where you have nothing to lose. Get fucked retard.

>>4678757
I can't agree to your terms because as i've already said i'm not the guy you were arguing with lol. That's pretty obvious since my grammar is perfect, whereas his was not. I'd still love to see your photo though, as would many other guys here i'm sure.

i owned a nintendo 64 at the time so no.

i did not think "holy shit, this blurry pixelly mess is state of the art 3D graphics."

but i was very impressed by the game's visuals, music, characters, everything. the game's aesthetic was on point. in that regard it was the most awesome thing i had ever experienced.

>>4678762
When you're ready to stop LARPing and agree to my terms, you get your photo. Until then, you get nothing and you remain a massive pussy. Good day now.

>>4678762
>can you not perceive my perfect grammar? surely i cannot be this other anon you mention! why would any individual alter their writing method in an attempt to dissuade the reader from associating them with another person? sheer madness!

>>4678763
Yoji Shinkawa was as important to MGS as Kojima imo.

>>4678763
>blurry
that's your n64. i thought mgs looked far better than any n64 game

>>4678859
truly the apex of 5th gen graphical domination

>>4678859
PS was weaker than the N64. This is not a surprise since it came out nearly 2 years prior.
MGS has great art direction, but it still suffers from the typical PS issues like incorrect perspective and fluttering textures.
MG Rex's 3D model is pretty impressive though, but not as impressive as the models in, say, Evangelion 64. There's certain limits the PS had.
What anon probably meant by blurry is how deformed textures got up close. They're more messy than blurry.

>>4677721
Good for a PS1 game for sure the first part of this sums up my thoughts on that pretty well >>4677734.
I was more impressed with the massive amount of voice acting. Especially for Japanese games it was one of the first with a competent translation and great voice work, Jap games at the time generally had bad translations with awful voice acting.

I'm aware PC had adventure game and such already fully voiced with large scripts but I hadn't played much on PC besides Doom/Quake at my uncles till I got my own PC in 2003.

>>4678419
>>4678621
Nice. Thanks for backing me up with data bruh.

>>4678874
>using d-pad for the sniper

I've seen too many people do that. MGS1 has native analog support.

Man imagine being so hurt by someone disagreeing with you on the internet that you start getting delusional by accusing other people of being other people just because someone insulted Nintendo.

>>4678950
You're not my brother, pussycunt.

Nah, we just played 4 game-play. I was playing Atari 2600 back in '87-'95 and it was was it was. We played nintendo NES up until 1999. PS1 was amazing at the time as a whole system. By 2001 Omikron and games like Half Life paved the way for PC gaming. SNES4LIFE!

>>4677851
I remember playing a PacMan booter that was 160 x 200, but 320 x 200 in 8-bit color (MCGA) and 640 x 480 in 4-bit were most typical in 1995; All VGA cards supported them. Anything higher often required fiddling with VESA modes.

>>4678312
>Yeah, like coins, and trees, and uh... uhh...
Really? Some enemies are sprites, some objects are sprites, even the fucking fish in the water are goddamn fuck ugly crusty pixelated sprites.

>>4678878
yeah, ok, "messy" is more like it. "fluttering" too.

indeed it was the n64 that was blurry.

3d games on the n64 did look distinctly better than on the psx back then. they looked like a step up.

>>4679268
>Some enemies are sprites
Just because an enemy might have one part of its body that uses a sprite doesn't mean the enemy IS a sprite you dumb shit.
>some objects are sprites
Like trees and coins
>even the fucking fish in the water are goddamn fuck ugly crusty pixelated sprites.
You realize this is a 5th gen game right? Even games made today use sprites for things.

I'm not sure why you're even making this autistic argument because sprites look cool and add charm to the game. Those gouraud-shaded trees in SM64 look a hell of a lot better and more aesthetically pleasing than shitty polygonal trees in most games of the era.

>>4677894
> Console games didn't really reach this level until Metroid Prime.

Soul Calibur stopping by to laugh at 1998 PC hardware capabilities vs a fucking $200 Dreamcast (also 1998 tech).

>>4679745
Soul Calibur is a nice looking game but I don't think it's as great as Unreal or MP.

Also: you could have just used the DC version of Unreal as an example

>>4677721
no, not even on the PS1. Ridge Racer R4 came out in 1998

>>4677775
>PC has always been extreme
Shenmue 1 looked better than the top tier PC games of the time

>>4681450
>Shenmu looked better than System Shock 2, Half-life, and Unreal: Tournament

Well... you are probably right. There were a few magic years from about 1996 to 1999 where you could be playing games with cutting edge graphics at home for just a couple of hundred bucks. It's probably why people who played in those years became the most die-hard generation of video gamers. There was just an avalanche of good stuff to play.

>>4679745
That's a terrible fucking comparasion. Fighting games will always have a higher graphical potential than other genres because all they need is 2 characters on screen.

>>4681450
no, Shenmue 1 came out in 1999. Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 both came out in 1999 and are superior to Shenmue

>>4677721
The lighting is pretty impressive in it.

>>4678763

You owned the fog machine?

>>4681627
Are you talking about the PS1? >>4678874

>>4682530
>only stage in the game with less than infinite draw distance
>there's canonically supposed to be a blizzard going on

Chocoplebs can't stop embarrassing themselves.

>>4682562
>only stage in the game that has *any* draw distance
Fixed that for you creme-brain.

>>4682568
Your pitiful semantic tears are a delicacy, choco-boy.

>>4677721

Metal Gear Solid was the pinnacle of the Konami-Reality-Distortion Field that surrounded all their games during the nineties. Before release magazine would hype MGS to death. Gullible as i was i used to buy into all that. When i finally got the game running on my screen, i was deeply shocked how ugly the games graphics were.

>>4677838
The Sega Model # series used chips from fucking Lockheed.

>>4678878
>PS was weaker than the N64.

BULLSHIT. Both Saturn and PSX drew way more polygons on screen than your pitiful n64.

>>4682803
lmao

>>4682803
>Both Saturn and PSX drew way more polygons on screen than your pitiful n64.
N64 could push up to 1m, PS1 could push about 180k. What are you smoking?

>tastefully abstracted faces
At least you kids had faces!

>>4682838
>mmmfffmffffmmmmmmmffffffmfff

>>4677721
It was for the ps1

>>4682838
Yes, we did.

>>4677721
There were elements that were good like the breath, the footsteps, etc, but honestly by 1998, PC have well overtaken it.

oot probably looked better

>>4678874
>not just hiding in a corner and using the Nikita to utterly wreck Wolf
kek

>>4679007
But muh gamer cred.

It's rugged yet has an atmosphere and charm that works in its favour.

I do agree that OOT is probably superior graphically but MGS' art direction is way better.

>>4677721
Not really. I was never wow'd by MGS. My moronic best friend at the time was obsessed with it though lol. It was fun seeing him get so happy about it but I never cared.

Now MGS2... seeing that for the first time made my mouth drop open. Amazing that it ran at 60fps a lot of the time, too. I still think it still looks great and don't feel its aged graphically, certainly not in sound design.

>>4677721
Sure, it had some TECHNOLOGY but PCs were clearly graphically superior even then.

>>4684850
Same here. MGS2 was one of the first times I was blown away by 3d graphics. Soul Calibur was actually the first, a bit over a year earlier, but Soul Calibur is just a fighting arena, MGS2 had huge levels with actual interaction.

>>4684859
To add to this thought, it is a very rare 90s 3d game that seemed great even at the time, much less 20 years later. I remember thinking how silly the people in Star Wars Jedi Knight looked. MGS just isn't one of those. I mean, it isn't so ugly that I wouldn't play it again.

The impressiveness of 3d games was how they used that extra dimension for gameplay purposes (which was often not well at all, but when it worked it was great).

>>4680663
You can't really compare racing game with basically static meshes and no skeletal rigs to game which features animated humanoid models. Same with Homeworld and Gran Turismo. Those look way better than most of the games from their period. Hell Homeworld doesn't have a terrain to render only ships and mineral rocks. That's why it look awesome.

>>4677829
That's a GameCube screenshot, dipshit.

>>4682803
Have another (You)

It's graphically impressive even today.