/vr/ - Retro Games

>>4782854
Is this the best bait you can do? Sloppy.

Repugnant. Something always stands out as low res or low poly and breaks the immersion.

I'm fine with the original at 240p on a CRT.

>>4782854
They tend to be shit because lots of them don't match the original art direction of the game. Also low poly models with high resolution textures on them usually don't look good in my opinion.

>>4782865

what's the point of making a 20 years old game look like its only 18 years old

pointless

>>4782854
They are interesting diversions for a 2nd or 3rd playthrough of a good game.

most of the n64 texture packs were made by 12 year old spics back in 2008

>>4782872

>>4782973

>soulless

>>4782973
I like this image.

But those texture packs actually suck.
They can be good, but I have yet to see a good one.

this one seems cute, though never felt the need to download any

http://forums.zelda64.net/topic/30283388/1/?x=100
This one is shaping out fine, can't wait for it to be finished.

>>4782854
Besides the low-poly geometry, another factor that makes them look weird is how repetitive textures are in older games. High-res textures make it really stick out in my opinion.

What do you guys think of this one?

>>4783038
Or what about this beauty hmm.

>>4782854
>>4782973
>>4782976
>>4783045
looking good

>>4783001
What about official texture packs?
>Resident Evil 3 GC
>Twilight Princess Wii U
>Patapon PS4

>>4783001
The texture stretching on the edges ruins it.

>>4783038
Looks like mgs2

>>4783064

>>4783020
Has potential but still worse. Mario 64 is timeless. Bright solid colors.

>>4783038
Djipi's flat shaded Zelda packs are probably the only textures worth a damn. There's some actual effort put in with most textures being redrawn from scratch. And the style works great with low poly geometry. And once you add a proper widescreen hack that's when the magic really happens. See pic.

The rest of the N64 texture packs however are just the original textures upscaled and violated by some Photoshop filter. But then again that was all probably done by some bored children in mid-2000's. That sub-forum is mostly dead nowadays.

>>4783207
Pause menu.

>>4782854
Don't care, Ocarina of Time was vastly inferior to what I was enjoying on IBM PC clone.

>>4783213
Hi Brasil

>>4783038
>>4783207
>>4783210
It's fantastic, try hooking it up to a nice TV and it'll look even better

There's one for Majora's Mask as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bt2IOoQnC4

>>4783038
>>4783207
>>4783210
Looks like someone's a fan of Wind Waker.

>>4783213
So stop shitposting if you "don't care"

I saw this on /v/ and I unironically think it looks really nice. Just something about the colors is very pleasing. Sure it doesn't mesh with the typical Mario style, but that's all right.

>>4783207
>>4783246

These are good, not 'essential' good but at least worthwhile, Djipi was probably the only person in that whole scene with any artistic talent.

>>4782872
>>4782973
>>4782976
>>4783312
...does anyone have a link or name of this pack? i want to try it

>>4783313
Yeah, it's a nice "alternative" take on the game's visuals

>>4782976
>>4782973
>>4783312
Looks pretty novel but Mario's face looks plain wrong to me. Also the aesthetic here looks less "whole" in a sense

>>4783193
>Mario 64 is timeless
No it fucking isn't. It CLEARLY looks like a mid 90s early 3D game that looks like shit by any standards. Back then it was acceptable because everything looked like that, but those 3D graphics from that era are fucking terrible on any system, not just N64. Stop pretending any game's graphics are timeless, very few actually are.

>>4783363
Absolutely seething

>>4783363

they ARE timeless you retarded boomer

>>4783363
Its such a pleb opinion to think that 3D graphics cant age well because they dont look "refined". There is something still interesting about low-res 3D.

>>4783367
>Absolutely seething
>>4783381
>they ARE timeless you retarded boomer
Wrong.
>>4783386
>There is something still interesting about low-res 3D.
Interesting does not equate timeless.

>>4783363
>what's the best PS1 game?
>one that could have been on SNES with minimal changes

>>4783412
Ever wonder why arrows, maps, glowing actors/items, etc are so essential for modern games? Well, one of the reasons is that if everything is impeccably detailed the whole thing is less gamey and you can't discern any of the window dressing from the 'pieces' in the game. I find that some older 3D games are a lot more intuitive for this reason. The simply geometry and lack of clutter can keep me engaged a lot more. Visual language doesn't always strike me this way in older/newer games, but it is something I've noticed.

>>4783446
I wish games didn't have that stuff so just navigating would be a challenge. I like to spend weekends in the wilderness with my otter, topo maps, and compass :-)

>>4783460
The first Metroids and Metal Gears were fun in that way.

There's a recent game called Miasmata that makes you triangulate with a compass, (actual triangulation, not the much more common trilateriation your phone and GPS do.

>>4783460
Most games with objectives would be such a goddamn pain without that shit. Most people, probably yourself included, would eventually get bored and do something else instead of seeing the game's content or completing the objectives. There are games where you can turn it off, or are designed to be played without these assists, though.

>>4782854
It looks like an original Xbox game with shitty low poly models. At most thy should replace the textures with something that be possible on PS1.

>>4783446
You're talking about level design and leading the player around in them, not graphics. The two are not the same thing.

>>4784257
No, he’s right. Modern shit like Skyrim where all the textures are overloaded with noise and details make the world a mess to find minute details in. You need the giant UI arrows or else you’d miss most of the hidden switches, or if you shoot an arrow off into the distance you’re pretty much fucked because it blends too much with the terrain textures and grass. It’s much harder to judge depth in simulated 3D spaces, so you need objects to pop more visually in order to make things out clearer.

>>4783446
>I find that some older 3D games are a lot more intuitive for this reason.
big emphasis on "some". the modern collective consciousness of how to guide a player through a space is a lot more developed than it was back then.

>>4783460
more and more modern games are including options to freely disable features like this. off the top of my head dishonored 1,2, and horizon zero dawn let you turn off loads of individual HUD elements.

>>4784267
>if you shoot an arrow off into the distance you’re pretty much fucked because it blends too much with the terrain textures and grass.
just like real life. could've picked a better example.

HD Texture Packs on old games look like shit usually
Which is why you instead add normal maps and other factors to improve visual fidelity without raping the original art

>>4784267
>Modern shit like Skyrim where all the textures are overloaded with noise and details make the world a mess to find minute details in. You need the giant UI arrows or else you’d miss most of the hidden switches
Again. That's level design you're talking about. Not graphics. Learn the difference. It's drawing a map versus traversing it. If you can't find your way through the game without a map, that's bad level design.

>or if you shoot an arrow off into the distance you’re pretty much fucked because it blends too much with the terrain textures and grass.
You can't find it it's because it's a fucking arrow you just shot into the distance. How this has anything to do with graphics or level design is beyond me. How would making the graphics more colorful or otherwise make it easier to find? It wouldn't. It's a fucking small object you just propelled into the wilderness. Of course you can't fucking find the arrow again. I don't think that example illustrated the point you thought it would. Maybe you do need those giant UI arrows you seemed to dislike so much if you're so concerned with trying to find rogue arrows. .

>It’s much harder to judge depth in simulated 3D spaces, so you need objects to pop more visually in order to make things out clearer.
Or you could just move the camera. And last I checked, the camera in Super Mario 64 is fucking abysmal. Which is expected from a 3D game of its era, so I don't think that example illustrates the point you thought it would. But according to your dumb ass points, the colorful graphics make it easy to judge depth in simulated 3D spaces, am I right?

>>4782854
A lot of good HD will do when there's still blocky and sharp fucking geometry in the game.
You might as well play Minecraft with a 256x256 HD texture pack!

>>4783207
Is it supposed to look like a flash game from 2005?

>>4782854
That isn't HD. Those are ugly, low res textures.

>>4783463
>drawing a map by copying pictures from the screen
bullshit
Draw the map from the description nigga
like try to map the Zork maze nigga
>you are in a maze full of twisty little passages, all alike
draw the map for the maze when every room is described like that nigga
the circles on the map are directions that take you back to the same room instantly so you successfully walk in a direction without moving to a new room nigga
try to draw the map without knowing such a thing exists in the game logic nigga
like nigga just draw the fucking map

>>4785414

Pretty much.

>>4783207
I threw up in my mouth a little bit, that is hideous

>>4785734
Retarded phoneposter.

>>4782854
I don't bother with them anymore. I only use individual texture replacers for games like Morrowind or New Vegas, when there's a texture that is REALLY offending and the replacement is faithful to the original.

And even then, it's usually for specific cases like "sky" or "water" and stuff like that.

>>4787115
>not posting from a phone so you can have /vr/ in your pocket everywhere
now see here friend phoneposting is the 4chan equivalent of a gameboy with a link cable so long you could plug into

>applying high-resolution graphics to low-poly architecture & models that were made to be displayed on a small CRT

Looks like shit. Low poly and high res do not mix at all. I'm dreading the inevitable low poly games made by indie devs that use high res textures.

>>4783207
This looks nice though, but I wouldn't want to play OOT like this. I'd rather someone make a romhack of it... of course I wouldn't play that either unless it ran on real hardware.

>>4784292
dude. case in point.
displays are not a high enough fidelity yet.
so what that means is that all those pixels start blending together with ultra high def textures.
You literally cannot differentiate objects well enough because everything is lost in the digital noise of the "details"
Like how it's so much easier to see a divider, and avoid it, in NFSIII than it is in NFS2015. That has nothing to do with level design and everything to do with the fact that modern games tend to be over-detailed because they "can", instead of just having good art direction.

>>4787521
No need to worry about that, friend, they've already decided that facet shading no textures at all is the way to go.

>>4787547
>displays are not a high enough fidelity yet.
LOL
>Like how it's so much easier to see a divider, and avoid it, in NFSIII than it is in NFS2015. That has nothing to do with level design and everything to do with the fact that modern games tend to be over-detailed because they "can", instead of just having good art direction
It's got everything to do with level design. Where you place the divider and how easy it is to read (read as in seeing & understanding it as quickly as possible during normal gameplay) it is level design. How detailed and, for lack of a better word, "good" it looks, is graphic design. How detailed it is is graphic design. Art direction (stylized or realistic, etc.) is graphic design. But readability, as in, how it helps the player find their way, where to go and conversely where not to go, is level design.

Example: There's the divider. It doesn't read very well. What do we do? We put a light there. Now it's easier to read.

Here's my question: was the addition of a light part of the level design or graphic design?

>>4782854
Only good when well executed, otherwise they break the immersion in no time

>>4783363
I thought it looked like shit when it came out tbqh

>>4783207
would it be possible to use this on a wad with a wii?

>>4782976
This one look like a Dead Space level.

>>4787869
>Only good when well executed
No shit, Sherlock.

>>4783038
Now that looks sweet!
90s low-poly games pretty much always look terrible with out of place looking HD textures slapped on top without any thought of cohesion or sense of aesthetics.
But this one gets it and improves things in exactly the right way.

>>4782854
those stairs look like ass

>>4787818
readability has as much to do with graphical fidelity as it does with art direction.

>>4782854
95% are garbage 4% are mediocre and 1% are passable or good. Almost none are worth it.

>>4791379
They're not the same thing, so, no, it doesn't.

>>4787498
i came to this thread to post something like this, but that sm64 level with the rocky mountain background looks bretty good