The PS1/Saturn still look good

[Anonymous No.1052350]

>Oh man, I can't even look at original Playstation games now
>Saturn games are unplayable
>I can't ever believe we thought this looked good
>The PS1 did NOT age well

I keep seeing and hearing this in letsplays, game articles and message boards around the net. I gotta say /vr/, wtf? Is there something wrong with me? Because I absolutely LOVE the way PS1 and Saturn games look! They might not have a trillion polygons on screen, bump mapping or any of that fancy stuff that makes everything look like it's made of clay, but PS1 and Saturn games look very "Arcadey". I think that's a very pleasant aesthetic, much more so then what they're using in 'Gears of War:whatevs'.

In fact I think it's a very KICK ASS aesthetic, something very unappreciated in this day and age. Anyone else agree?

[Anonymous No.1052354]

I love my Saturn. I'd rather play that than my PS3

[Anonymous No.1052357]

People who say "game has not aged well" are complete fucking idiots.

That is especially true for visuals.

[Anonymous No.1052361]

>can't solve this puzzle
>"this is just bad game design"

[Anonymous No.1052363]

>>1052357
People who say this probably don't have crts anymore
>>1052354
This. I haven't play ps3 like 2 months after ragequit Demon's Souls

[Anonymous No.1052367]

>>1052357

>I have no idea what I'm talking about

[NESfag No.1052374]

>the PS1/Saturn still looks good
>still

The very fact that people use this expression means that their reasoning is wrong to begin with.
"Still" looks good would mean that games keep looking better and better with time.
That is what companies want customer to believe so they keep buying new stuff, they make them believe there is "progress" and everything new is better than everything that was made before.

Sure, technologically speaking you have more polygon and pixels.
That doesn't mean the art direction will look good.
A game that looked good or bad in 1995 still looks good or bad in 2013. Nothing has changed about it.

Now, the problem is that customers and, even worse, pro reviewers, solely focus on the technical aspect when judging the looks of a game. Look at reviews, they're going to fucking tell you how many polygons there is and if there is a lot will give it a good, regardless of art direction; and will never judge the art itself.

It's as if they were judging how a movie looks according to the resolution its shown at.

[Anonymous No.1052384]

>>1052374
>The very fact that people use this expression means that their reasoning is wrong to begin with.

Nah. It means that "this cutting edge game no longer looks good compared to what came after it.

You never see anyone saying Super Metroid aged bad graphically. That's because it still looks impressive today. Mario 64, on the other hand, is pretty ugly, especially given that it doesn't hold up in the same way that Super Metroid did.

When I can go from something like Metroid Zero Mission to Super Metroid and still think SM looks good, the game aged well graphically. Meanwhile, you'd never see me saying that SM64 looks good today compared to, say, Super Mario Galaxy

[Anonymous No.1052391]

>>1052384
Its more like 2D games always will look good but that early 3D polygon games not so hot these days.
But oh well, It does not matter to me if game is good

[Anonymous No.1052393]

>>1052374

This.

I hate it when a game has a unique and interesting artstyle, but then gets criticized for not looking realistic or not using all the lighting effects and shit they shove in games these days.

[Anonymous No.1052398]

>>1052391
>Its more like 2D games always will look good

Not true. There are a butload of ugly NES games.

[Anonymous No.1052402]

>>1052384
>Mario 64 is pretty ugly
Whaaaaaaaat?

[Anonymous No.1052403]

>>1052391
On Windows you can often render 3D games at higher resolution without too many issues, something that often doesn't work with 2D games.

[Anonymous No.1052409]

Most 2d games on Saturn look awesome as long as you can get past the fact they run in 320x224 (or at best 352x240). In fact the only hi-res 2d games I can recall on the Saturn are the 10-player Bomberman arena, and a bunch of pinball games (Digital Pinball Necronomicon is the best pinball games to this very date).

For 3d games, though, most of them look crap now. Virtua Fighter 2, Kids, and Dead or Alive being the most notable exceptions. In motion, DoA looks almost like a Dreamcast game even.

[NESfag No.1052408]

>>1052384
>Nah. It means that "this cutting edge game no longer looks good compared to what came after it.

You did exactly what was I was talking about, having a wrong reasoning by looking at it solely through the "cutting edge" aspect (= technical aspect)

>>1052384
>Meanwhile, you'd never see me saying that SM64 looks good today compared to, say, Super Mario Galaxy

Again, looking at it only through the technical aspect. This is like saying any Wii game looks better than any N64 game.

Open you eyes and look behind the technical aspect. You must realize you've been blinded by this wrong view on video game graphics due to companies and pro reviewers making you believe that only the technical aspect matters so they keep selling new stuff constantly.

Once you realize that and open your eyes you'll be able to enjoy any game's graphics for what they really are. Some people are so blind by that reasoning they REFUSE to play anything not from the current generation.

It could be argued that Mario64 has a better art direction than Galaxy and I'd totally understand if someone thought that and explained me why.
But blind people would just shout "NOSTALGIA GOGGLES" at the guy who likes Mario64 graphics more.

[Anonymous No.1052429]

>>1052402

Mario 64 has very basic 3D models, and pretty crappy textures.

The game still plays really well though.

[Anonymous No.1052526]

>>1052429
>Mario 64 has very basic 3D models, and pretty crappy textures.

I don't know, the 'simple' look is very good on Mario. In some ways even better then newer Mario games. Mario looks very, um 'odd' to me in Galaxy, for some reason.

[Anonymous No.1052547]

OP, liking the 3D of these consoles is like liking the 3D graphics of the Atari 2600. Sure, some games are original and have great art direction, but the technology wasn't ready for actual polygonal games yet, i'd say until 6th gen, technology wasn't ready. But that's why humans and their intelligence can overcome any difficulty, and get away with it anyway. There's many 5th gen 3D games that look good,not because of the capability of the console, but because of how the crazy devs somehow managed to make something decently looking with such low polygon capability and low textures and resolutions.

I also have a sort of fetish for early 3D vidya. I still remember the first day I saw Virtua Fighter on the arcades back in 1995 or so, WOOOOW! I don't think I was ever as impressed with graphics again... maybe with SM64, then never again. Nowdays I'm too old and I kind know what to expect, so nothing really surprises me anymore, and instead I look for games with great art style and not gurafikkusuuu

[Anonymous No.1052548]

>>1052547
>3D graphics of the Atari 2600

I mean 2D

[Anonymous No.1052551]

>>1052409
Astra Superstars looked pretty high res.

[Anonymous No.1052570]

>>1052409
Why did nobody in Japan make a 2D console with higher resolutions for prettier pictures and nicer text? The PC-FX was 2D only but still stuck at 341x240. The FM Towns Marty had 640x480 but that's because it was a computer in a fancy dress.

[Anonymous No.1052585]

>>1052547
>There's many 5th gen 3D games that look good,not because of the capability of the console, but because of how the crazy devs somehow managed to make something decently looking with such low polygon capability and low textures and resolutions.

Naughty Dog in a fucking nutshell. I'm not sure anyone can look at the PS1 Crash Bandicoot games and tell me those look bad.

[Anonymous No.1052642]

>>1052374
>A game that looked good or bad in 1995 still looks good or bad in 2013. Nothing has changed about it.


I have no problem playing old games and appreciating their graphics but this statement is just not how our brains work. Rising standards is simply a thing that happens as your brain realizes what is actually possible. People weren't lying or wrong when they said old graphics looked "so realistic!", it was just inconceivable that many of the advances that have come since then were even possible.

[Anonymous No.1052643]

>>1052374
>Look at reviews, they're going to fucking tell you how many polygons there is and if there is a lot will give it a good, regardless of art direction; and will never judge the art itself.

this is not even close to being true

[Anonymous No.1053616]

>>1052642
Your brain wasn't built around analyzing video game graphics. This is a purely psychological issue.

[Anonymous No.1053635]

The wobbly, misaligned textures with no bilinear filtering (pixels) and AA (jaggies) just kill it for me.
In many games, everything looks like it's hollow origami.

I owned an N64 and a PS1 simultaneously and the difference between the two machines graphically was quite shocking.

[Anonymous No.1053636]

I thought PS1 games even looked like shit at the time. It's mostly the framerate of them though, not the visual fidelity. PS1 games are janky as fuck and the load times on a lot of them are brutally long.

4th gen and even a lot of the 3rd gen has aged so much better than the 5th to me. I can't hold it against the 5th gen though, it was the first 3D generation after all. It was such a big leap and they had to relearn everything.

[Anonymous No.1053667]

>I keep seeing and hearing this in letsplays

>watching letsplays at all

The "mooks sitting on a couch playing video games on youtube" thing is a fad that is only temporarily allowed to exist due to the way youtube monetization currently works. Lose the profit and they'll move on to look for an even easier way to make money somewhere else, like playing the stock market or something.

[Anonymous No.1053671]

>>1052350

Don't see the problem, looks nice IMO. Rather play that shit.

[Anonymous No.1053680]

>>1053667
That, and you get flagged if you DON'T talk constantly over gameplay or find some way to mute the BG music in the games you're playing.

[Anonymous No.1053693]

OP
I completely agree with you. Aside from the 2d games which honestly generally age a little better, there are still plenty of 3D games that look amazing to me. Mainly because of the art direction.
These following 3D games on PS1 still look great: Vagrant Story, Wipeout (all 3), Xenogears, Darklight Conflict, Einhander, Ghost in the Shell, Soul Reaver, Metal Gear Solid, Ridge Racer Type 4, Silent Hill, Spyro (all 3), Tekken 3... and there's probably some more I haven't mentioned.
But yeah, I don't get why people say games from that generation look bad.

[Anonymous No.1054098]

>>1053616
The games looked great when you first saw them because you had not seen anything better.

That said, I think Gran Turismo holds up incredibly well, partly because it has some of the bells and whistles (albeit in a low-res, simpler form) of today's games.
The Saturn's high-res mode was alas not used much, its fabulous in VF2 and DOA.

Space Harrier is nearly 30 years old and still looks new, perhaps because of its colourful, dream-like visuals which mean you don't judge it for how "real" it looks.

[Anonymous No.1054145]

The super conscience has decided that 2D is better than 3D. If you disagree, you're wrong because that's not what the most noisy people want you to think.

The press and the "leaders", developers, publishers, LPers and influential people feels that 5th gen is bad. So the masses agree it's bad.

Saying a game aged is, USUALLY, just conforming with the super conscience. The people who effectively dictate mass taste because the masses feel aligned with them.

It's a fallacy to say that, objectively, 2D "holds up better" than 3D. But there's truth, and then there is "truth". Truth doesn't matter. "Truth" does. If the "truth" is that your games look bad, then you either agree or you're "wrong".

[Anonymous No.1054927]

Why do I never see Battle Arena Toshinden mentioned more? I know it wasn't very good, but it was fun. And I KNOW I wasn't the only one who grew up with it.

[Anonymous No.1055119]

>>1052374
"still" looking good was never even implied to be about the product aging, it's about the standards changing. The same way prop and special effects or even acting work in film from the 40s and 50s is not "good" by a modern standard. The issue isn't about there being some kind of static level of quality in the product or even in the change of the standard, it's about when and where a standard can be applied. Applying modern standards to a retro game is stupid. That is the lapse in logic when people complain about things like retro game graphics.

[Anonymous No.1055134]

>>1052570

but what screens would it run on

if it needed to use a special display device would it still be a "console"

[Anonymous No.1055194]

People said almost the exact same things, word for word, about NES games in the 90s.

Get in on PlayStation and Saturn collecting now boys, because in ten years there's gonna be a hell of a boom.

[Anonymous No.1056431]

>>1054927
>Why do I never see Battle Arena Toshinden mentioned more? I know it wasn't very good, but it was fun. And I KNOW I wasn't the only one who grew up with it.

OP here. I wasn't a very big fan of #3 for several reasons, but I absolutely adored 1 and 2. Me and my friends always used to play it growing up. It was Soul Calibur before Soul Calibur.

[Anonymous No.1056446]

>>1055134
NTSC TVs were capable of 480i like they used in the sixth generation consoles.

[Anonymous No.1056482]

>>1052551
>Astra Superstars looked pretty high res.

Only the cutscenes and backgrounds. The sprites were low res. Very.

[Anonymous No.1056489]

>>1054927
>Why do I never see Battle Arena Toshinden mentioned more?

Because the series got progressively worse with each incarnation, while every other fighting game became better and better. And I'm saying this even though I love Toshinden.

[Anonymous No.1056501]

>>1052367
He's right, you're a dumbass.
>>1052374
>still looks good
>Means "improving"
You're also a dumbass.

>AGING
a person "ages", you have a physical prime, but eventually your ability to do various physical activity deteriorates and most of us start showing that "age", be it in our gait, our posture, our skin (wrinkles, spots etc) and for some unfortunate people, hair loss.
This phrase is mainly used to critique washed up actors or how your mom greats her BFF from high school.
Its an inherently poor concept to apply to video games, because games do not fucking "age". Cloud is not calculating his broken hip replacement after he lost a polygon from his sides, Ken from Street fighter isn't pondering how better his pecs look in SF4 to 3rd strike because
>2d vs 3d

What people "ACTUALLY" imply by a game's age as
>Due to the advancements of video game tech, early polygons/graphics look crude NOW compared to back THEN
If this is your argument, you are wasting a great deal of time on a hobby you don't appreciate.

[Anonymous No.1056518]

>>1056482
I was referring to how they were displayed. It's like running a blocky sprite in HD.

[Anonymous No.1056536]

Just posting to agree with you. I've played PS1 since the games were new and I still think a lot of the early 3D stuff looks great. It's not even about being impressive for the console like Vagrant Story and Omega Boost. There are really low poly count games that are nice to look at like Jumping Flash 2

>>1054145
Strange wording but I fully agree with the sentiment

[Anonymous No.1056567]

>>1052526

Because for some reason Nintendo is rendering Mario with semi-realistic textures and shaders lately (see the latest Mario Kart for Wii U). I think with the exception of Metroid and maybe F-Zero, most Nintendo games would look better cell-shaded/heavily stylized.

[Anonymous No.1056580]

>>1052408

It's difficult to compare 2D games in the 16-bit era to early polygon based games. The 16-bit era was the peak for sprite based 2D graphics whereas polygon graphics have progressed and art design has improved. So I do think it is valid to say that Super Mario 64 looks pretty ugly now compared to Super Mario Galaxy.

[NESfag No.1056589]

>>1056580
> polygon graphics have progressed and art design has improved. So I do think it is valid to say that Super Mario 64 looks pretty ugly now compared to Super Mario Galaxy.

Again, only looking at it through a technical perspective....

sigh.

[Anonymous No.1056606]

>>1056589

Fine, explain to me what you feel the difference is.

[Anonymous No.1056636]

>>1056501

I agree that games don't age and that a well made game is a well made game regardless of graphics. However, you have to understand that a kid born in say 2002 is most likely going to have a difficult time getting into Final Fantasy VII. So you can either grasp this concept or just be an elitist snob about it.

[NESfag No.1056646]

>>1056606
It's called art direction : use and choice of colour, shading, visual style in general.
Look at Batman on NES for example : it has a great dark art direction with the use of only a few vivid colours which are brought up by one anothers, and very strong shading.

Art direction that can be good or bad regardless or the technical aspect. People who only look at it through a technical aspect nowadays will consider Batman to have shit graphics
>LOL RESOLUTION
>LOL LIMITED COLOURS
>HAHA ITS LIKE YOU CAN SEE EVERY SINGLE PIXEL LOL
(because those people usually don't even know what the word pixel means)

my point is those people are not able to enjoy art direction because they're blinded by the technical aspects.
Look at how IGN rated Megaman9 for shit graphics because it's "technically dated".
Yet they gave a great mark to the music which is technically speaking just as dated....

[Anonymous No.1056673]

>>1053693

I think it depends a lot on whether or not you grew up with that era of gaming. I'm 27 now so yeah those games do hold up well from my perspective since I have a frame of reference for how far games have come since then. My 16 year old cousin on the other hand would probably say they look like shit no matter how I try to explain good art design.

[Anonymous No.1056683]

>>1056646

Unrelated question, but why did Scrooge Mcduck's sprite have a red and black jacket in the game instead of the blue and red one in the cartoon? I get that they made Batman purple so that he would stand out against the dark backgrounds but this didn't seem to be an issue for DuckTales.

[NESfag No.1056695]

>>1056673
>>1056636

The way that you tell that kids would have a hard time enjoying older games graphically speaking just proves my point on how, in most gamers' minds, the technical aspect prevails on the art direction.

Thank god not EVERYBODY is brainwashed like that... but if anybody thinks that on this board, I really don't know what that person is doing on a retro games board.

[Anonymous No.1056702]

>>1056683
might of been a color limitation or they made him more like how scrooge looked from the comic book series

[Anonymous No.1056724]

>>1052408
no.. you are seriously backwards on everything.

you have to account for technical improvements.

Video game graphics can do so much more today than 10 years ago. It is possible that games in the past had better art directions, but they were incapable of reaching the level of detail that many of us are trained to play through.

I can barely play a 90s FPS now because my eyes are no longer capable of registering the 3d polygons of that era.

GAmes today do look better but some games age well and are still playable

[Anonymous No.1056731]

>>1052585
>still remember the first day I saw Virtua Fighter on the arcades back in 1995 or so, WOOOOW! I don't think I was ever as impressed with graphics again... maybe with SM64, then never again. Nowdays I'm too old and I kind kn
old crash games aged well for sure

[Anonymous No.1056732]

>>1053616
you sound like an undergraduate halfway through college... sory

[Anonymous No.1056736]

>>1056646
you assume too much about others.. stop being an undergrad

[NESfag No.1056748]

>>1056724
>I can barely play a 90s FPS now because my eyes are no longer capable of registering the 3d polygons of that era.

Like I said, again, blinded by the technical aspects... you're unable to enjoy the art direction of late 90's FPS because of the damn number of polygons. Thank you for your great example of what I was mentionning earlier (putting the number of polygons about the art direction...)

>but they were incapable of reaching the level of detail that many of us are trained to play through.

More details doesn't mean better looking art.

[Anonymous No.1056749]

>>1056702

I also remember thinking it was weird that Bart Simpson always had a blue shirt in video games and other Simpsons merchandise.

[Anonymous No.1056756]

>>1056748

Obviously no one is ever going to convince you otherwise, but I think art direction and technical advances can go hand in hand. Also, was the art direction in Goldeneye really all that impressive to begin with?

[Anonymous No.1056769]

2D games never age. Its basically a know fact. Kids today will still be impressed by the old mario, Rayman, Sonic and Metriod games. 3D in terms of graphics does. technically speaking. I'm still wow'd by games like Mario 64, DK64, OoT, PD with High Res and K have a LCDHDTV. Crash and Spyro are few exceptions of aging in 3D games. Even Soul Reaver wows me. I think its a matter of personal opinion. Conker BFD looks more like an early GC title for an odd reason.

[NESfag No.1056770]

>>1056756
>but I think art direction and technical advances can go hand in hand

Of course they can, I have never said otherwise. I have also never said that games looked better before or that every modern game looks bad.

My point is that one can't generalize things. You just can't say that "games look better nowadays", but the majority of people believe that because they've been brainwashed to only look at the technical aspects.

>Also, was the art direction in Goldeneye really all that impressive to begin with?

I've always thought Goldneye looked bad, even back when it was released. The multiplayer maps especially are the most horribly dull looking.

[NESfag No.1056778]

>>1056769
>2D games never age. Its basically a know fact.
>3D in terms of graphics does. technically speaking.

But, technically speaking, developers CAN have higher resolution, handdrawn sprites and backgrounds, and smoother animation on modern consoles and computers... 2D has had technical improvements as well.

[Anonymous No.1056783]

>>1056778
True dat. But most cases its hard to tell the difference like the HD port of JoJo's the HD filter looks the exact same as the original.

[Anonymous No.1056805]

>>1056769
Cel shaded and otherwise "stylized" 3D games like Jet Set radio and Psychonauts tend to age pretty well.

[Anonymous No.1056806]

>>1053635

this. all those jagged edges are harsh on anyone's eyes that arent looking through nostalgia goggles

[NESfag No.1056821]

>>1056806
More like, jagged edges are harsh on anyone's eyes who's eben brainwashed to be blinded by technical advancements.

[Anonymous No.1056829]

>>1056821

Please stop using the term "brainwashed". You sound like a douche.

[Anonymous No.1056839]

I think that looks all boils down to artistic design in the end. People who have appreciation for anything else than video games probably know this as well.

[NESfag No.1056886]

>>1056829
How else would you put it then? Advertising of new games and especially new consoles is always about "HIGH END GRAPHICS".

[Anonymous No.1056949]

>>1056886

That's called corporate marketing. I honestly don't think most review sites really push graphics over gameplay.

[Anonymous No.1057098]

>>1056646
What about dated games that use the same art style as newer games? Will you say that they look about the same? Because that's just silly. Take Mario Sunshine and SM64 for example, they have pretty much the same art style, but I will say that Sunshine looks better for technical reasons.

[NESfag No.1057129]

>>1057098
Sunshine an SM64 have very different art direction.

It's hard to name even 2 games with the exact same art direction, even remakes have different art directions.

[Anonymous No.1057164]

The ps1 and Saturn had HORRIBLE resolutions. I replayed GT2 the other day and it felt like i was able to see about 10 feet in front of the car and that was just a technical limitation of the console. Saying a game "aged well" is much too vague a statement to have any meaning. Now some ELEMENTS of games have not aged well like interface, graphics, tediousness etc. but the art direction is and will always be reflected in its original light.

[Anonymous No.1057187]

>>1057164
I don't think you know what "resolution" means. Some Saturn games have higher resolution than most PS2 games.

[Anonymous No.1057193]

I can dig it OP. But I still remember playing games that loaded on tape and still think they can look good too, so that's probably why.

[Anonymous No.1057198]

at least it looks decent emulated

[Anonymous No.1057205]

>>1057198

Looks just as good as back in the day.

[Anonymous No.1057245]

>>1057164

>HORRIBLE resolutions
wait what

>replayed GT2 the other day and it felt like i was able to see about 10 feet in front of the car and that was just a technical limitation of the console

What are you on about? You can see way ahead down the straights

[Anonymous No.1057270]

>>1057187
VF2 on Saturn was impressive, but personally I've always felt that DOA managed to look better. The resolution is the same, but there are much more dynamic elements (clothes, hair, etc), and the motion looks more fluid.

[Anonymous No.1057291]

>mfw indie games finally use low poly the way they use 8-bit to evoke nostalgia
>mfw games made with classic graphic techniques such as true squash and stretch and other technical marvels of the time within the confines of modern day technology
Low poly is honestly my favorite art style and its baffling how it hasn't made a comeback

[Anonymous No.1057317]

>>1057291
I think it'll just take time for it to happen, may just have to wait for some indie game that does it and becoming very popular.

[Anonymous No.1057326]

>>1057187
>>1057245
My bad, I meant PS1 had shitty rez and ive only played a few saturn games.

[Anonymous No.1057367]

This Game did NOT age well.
Translates to:

>I'm a casual who can't face the challenges presented to me in this game.
>I just want to press X to win, why must I try to solve puzzle/patterns?
>This game has terrible graphics, but then again I'm comparing it to an Xbox/PS3 game.
>Why does this game only give me so many continues? What a design flaw!

Any time someone says "didn't age well" I immediately stop listening. If you can't look at game in retrospect for what it's worth, than you should stop playing games.
Period.

[Anonymous No.1057394]

>>1057291
The problem with this is that, when an "indie" creator turns out a game with shitty 2d sprites, it's easy to call it a "style" or an "aesthetic". When they make a game with shitty low-poly 3D, it can't be passed off as anything but shit.

[Anonymous No.1057408]

The Saturn was better hardware wise, but it still died and was outsold by the PS1, which I found was odd.

Play Megaman 8 on the Saturn.
Now play Megaman 8 on the PS1.

You'll see a dip in processing power.

[Anonymous No.1057421]

>>1057408
But they perform exactly the same. The only difference is the bonus material and way better sounding music on the Saturn version.

[Anonymous No.1057420]

>>1057367
This post translates to:

>Don't criticize my nostalgia!

[Anonymous No.1057424]

>>1057367

But someone saying it didn't age well has nothing to do with their appraisal of what it was "at the time", saying it didn't age well means that if you picked it up today it just wouldn't be worth it

Your post translates to:
>IM GOING TO NITPICK AND FIND STUPID REASONS TO IRRATIONALLY HATE YOUR GUTS. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, YOU NEED TO STOP BEING ALIVE FOREVER.

[Anonymous No.1057464]

>>1057420
I could give a fuck about nostalgia, it's just like someone saying that a decent looking ford mustang from 2003 can't compare to a 2013 model all because it's not "new." Well If the 03 model still runs and is kept up well, than its age shouldn't be an issue.

It's all about perspective.

[Anonymous No.1057470]

>>1057424
Every game has a flaw. If your going to say it hasn't aged well then give a legitimate reason why it hasn't.

[Anonymous No.1057510]

You get used to having higher standards.

After seeing shit like Metro 2033 it's very hard to go so deep into the uncanny valley. This is why 2D ages so much better than early 3d.

[Anonymous No.1057579]

>>1057424
>saying it didn't age well means that if you picked it up today it just wouldn't be worth it

You do realize your on /vr/ right? Where every game from 1999 back get a mention. Even I don't like text adventures but people still play them.
Don't ever say it's not worth playing today because many people would disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.1057627]

>>1052350
I think the main problem is the resolution. In the PC community, even retro titles have support for arbitrarily large internal resolutions; as a result, a lot of retro gamers today have no problem with the small textures or low-poly models, but can't imagine playing a game at anything less than 640x480. The PSX, meanwhile, is limited to 256x224 for most games unless you fuck with the emulator's video options (and I don't know about emulators today, but epsxe's plugin authors actively discouraged fucking with the resolution). Somebody who grew up on console/arcade games would have acclimated themselves to the low resolutions along with everything else, but PCfags never developed that ability and thus are unable to handle PSX/Saturn graphics.

[Anonymous No.1057871]

>>1052391
I honestly disagree with the notion that 2D 'oldschool' games are timeless, while 3D looks inherently disgusting. The pallet limitations and resolution of the NES/SNES generations really impact on how good a game can look, it was only once this was overcome in the Playstation/N64 era and and more or less smooth color gradients could be used that even 2D games could look decent in the first place.

[Anonymous No.1057875]

>>1057871
>guaranteed replies

[Anonymous No.1057890]

>>1056636
FFVII always looked weird though. The focus was always more on the pre-rendered stuff then, which holds up better then most stuff the console has.

[Anonymous No.1058174]

>>1056489
Man, I fucking loved Toshinden 3. It was a guilty pleasure, maybe, but whatever. That game was FUN.

[Anonymous No.1058384]

A game not aging well can be not only the visual elements of it, but also the gameplay of it. I played Lufia 1 and 2 fairly recently, so I'll give a comparison of the two. Lufia 1 is hardly ever mentioned here, and I think it's because of a few things that honestly make it terrible.

Lufia 1 and 2 are both turn-based games, with an overworld that consists of a grid. Both are on the snes.

Movement:
In 1, movement is 'walk, then pause'. You have to pause as your characters move into a new square. Contrast this with 2, where Maxim FLIES across the screen. 1 feels slow, though if it was your first game then you wouldn't notice it.

In 1, the dungeon has the same pace as the towns. But the dungeons have random encounters, so there's no reason for this speed. In 2, the walk speed is a bit reduced from flying, but that's because the encounters are on screen. You touch an enemy on the overworld, and you go into battle.

Battle:
1 is terrible at this for a couple reasons. First, you only get to pick one action per character. I don't know how the game calculates 'rounds', but even in the tutorial fight, I can't figure out who goes in what order. Wait, Guy, you went before him last round and you're after him this round. WTF.
In 2, you pick all character actions at once, then engage. Combat has a flow. Each person goes in the same order as the last turn. This is smooth.
1 also doesn't allow you to undo actions. So if you change your mind...you can't.
1 has this awful feature where if you have several people target the same person, they will continue attacking that spot after the person has died. Let that sink in for a minute. You cannot do 'attack, attack, attack, attack', like in EVERY RPG EVER for simple fights. Instead, you have to select, specifically, everything you want to fight, or your brain-damaged teammates will decide to FIGHT THE AIR. Even if you are level 99, you cannot fight simple battles by just mashing attack.
2 does not have this stupidity.

[Anonymous No.1058523]

>>1054927
Bought Battle Arena Toshinden in the original tall PSX game box, practically mint condition, $3. All the hype of mid-'90s Blockbuster demos, now in my home!

[Anonymous No.1058647]

Usually when people complain about games not aging well they are retards like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrcFKLwhfbI

That being said I am fine if you think a game has not aged well but for the love of fuck post legitimate reasons why you think so. One thing that really drives me nuts are people who just go "This game hasn't aged well" and then never list their reasons why they think so.

[Anonymous No.1058732]

A lot of early PS1 games do look bad. Later ones look great. It all boils down to art direction and how good the devs were at making their games look good on the console.

[Anonymous No.1058751]

I love the blocky look of most N64 games. It makes me feel like a kid again I guess?

[Anonymous No.1058772]

>>1056646

Can you adopt a tripcode so I can filter you better?
You're really annoying.

[Anonymous No.1058794]

>>1058772

If you're this much of a newfag, you don't deserve help.

[script writer kibe No.1058872]

>>1052350
I hear people say this so much that it's honestly kind of redundant

Yes, these games are old and jagged as shit because 3D graphics were in their infancy. That's like me taking a shit on a 2D game like DKC just because it's an inferior experience by trying to be pseudo 3D

[Anonymous No.1059073]

>>1058872
Thank you, my thoughts exactly.

[script writer kibe No.1059121]

>>1059073
I've said it before and I'll say it again: A true gamer can play or master any game regardless of visuals

Though I'm at a loss as to whether or not old CGA computer games apply due to how incredibly eye searing they are

[Anonymous No.1059352]

>>1056806
>this. all those jagged edges are harsh on anyone's eyes that arent looking through nostalgia goggles

Really? Because I've played quite a few PS1 games for the first time recently and thought they were very charming in their appearance and aesthetics. Very Arcadey like OP was saying. Maybe I think that because nothing looks like this now a days. Everything is either super retro or PS3/Xbox360 and above. There is no love for the middle ground, no one makes games like this anymore, so seeing games like this is rather refreshing.

[Anonymous No.1063907]

bumping

[Anonymous No.1064545]

>>1059121
As with all the others, it depends on the art direction. Also, CGA games can pick slightly less putrescent palettes.

[Anonymous No.1064556]

>>1064545
Cyan and Magenta were a bit tricky.

[Anonymous No.1064560]

>>1064556
You need to use a compatible monitor.
Bottom of the barrel is the ZX Spectrum.

[Anonymous No.1064579]

>>1064560
When I was a kid we had an Epson Apex (the 8080 version). For whatever faults it had, the CGA monitor was top-notch, and especially crisp even in B&W.

[Anonymous No.1067467]

>>1064579

Yeah.

[Anonymous No.1067474]

>>1064545
Oh god yes, Sopwith 2.