Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Support us on Patreon!

/vr/ - Retro Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 282 KB, 1200x468, 1460251784286.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3586487 No.3586487 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Is this the ugliest video game generation?

Looking back on it, early 3D gaming was kind of a mistake. There were some good looking releases, certainly, but there were so many others that had muddy, vomit-inducing textures, an FoV that stretched to five inches in front of you, and frame drops that regularly turned things into a slideshow.

Aesthetically, I can appreciate stuff ranging into the 70s, but there's a 5-6 year period in the 90s that just does not hold up.

>> No.3586509

Honestly that's an opinion that belongs on /v/ more than it does /vr/

If you can't find something to appreciate about it that's more on you being superficial than a statement on fifth gen gaming in general

Sorry m8, maybe you could start a successful YouTube account for children or something

>> No.3586517

Nope, you're just retarded. Sorry pal.

>> No.3586518

>>3586509
I do appreciate things about the generation, there are some fantastic looking 2D games, and many that also tastefully add 3D when appropriate, and there are even some pure 3D ones that I think look good- Super Mario 64 is still a solidly good looking game in my eyes.

But as a whole, if you strip out the initial "wow" factor of seeing things in true 3D, I remember this generation as a muddy, foggy, stuttering mess.

>> No.3586520

>>3586487
While I don't think the consoles themselves look bad (better than Xbox for example) early 3d games have not aged nearly as well as sprite based games, thats for sure.

However, I got a Playstation for Christmas in 95 and I had never actually seen the games in person, so I was absolutely stunned by how amazing the 3d was at the time, like Battle Arena Toshinden.

>> No.3586529
File: 32 KB, 380x242, 431-Virtua_Fighter_(U)-6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3586529

>>3586520
>I was absolutely stunned by how amazing the 3d was at the time, like Battle Arena Toshinden.

Everyone was. Even the saturn demo at K-mart had virtua fighter and people were in awe of it.

>It's like the computer people in "Money for nothjing Video!"

>> No.3586531
File: 65 KB, 635x384, msdos_Mega_Man_1990_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3586531

CGA PC gaming, not sure which generation it fits into... 3rd I guess?

>> No.3586541

>>3586531
CGA graphics, particularly the use of color, definitely took some getting used to, but I think the underlying spritework can make up for it if the people doing it are talented enough.

There were just some sheer technical limitations, mixed in with being a whole new frontier, that I think caused the 5th generation to be a really rocky start in a lot of ways.

>> No.3586542
File: 687 KB, 850x1095, virtuafighter1u.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3586542

>>3586487
>early 3D gaming
>5th gen consoles
Here we go again with underage millennials and their love of parroting eceleb opinions as facts.

>> No.3586546

The only thing that bothers me is if the game is very slow and choppy (i.e. literally unplayable). Honestly, very few of them. The 2D games from the 70s might have ran smoothly, but early 3D has its own charms.

>> No.3586548

>>3586542
Well yeah, if you want to get technical, there were some exceptions, but we all know what's being talked about here.

Daytona USA came out in 1993, and that shit had Jurassic Park magic or something. A beautiful game, but there were console releases even half a decade later that looking back are just ugly.

>> No.3586556

>>3586548
Low polygon graphics aren't bad looking.

>> No.3586558

>>3586487

It's probably just nostalgia, but I don't mind it so much. Yeah, there is an abundance of low-poly character models and low-res textures, but I look at it like modern gaming's baby steps.

Also, since the technology was so new, it was kind of like the Wild West. Offbeat games were being made like Hybrid Heaven and Trap Gunner that would probably never get made today.

>> No.3586563

>>3586556
Well that's what's being talked about, isn't it?

There are talented artists, especially, who can make really appealing models and designs that work within low poly limitations, but there were so many games in this era that just were done way off the mark.

>> No.3586567

>>3586563
And as this guy mentions >>3586558 they were kind of off the mark because it was a wild west.

>> No.3586575

>>3586563
>>3586567
The vast majority of NES games look like shit too. Tiny sprites, horrible flicker, etc. But I don't see you making threads about them being shit?

OoT looks great on N64.
Games like Resident Evil on PS1 are amazing.
SEGA Saturn even had some nice look games. Burning Rangers being an example.

>> No.3586578

>>3586487
The Saturn looks the most polished. The Jaguar looks like unfinished shiny plastic, the N64 looks the same, the PS1 looks like a prototype, and the 3DO looks like shit.

>> No.3586594

>>3586575
See, I disagree with the NES part. Definitely yeah, there were tons of shovelware games on the NES, but I think spritework as a whole holds up in retrospect more than early 3D, since it's a leap in complexity, and you can more easily notice faults or uncanniness.

Like I said, there were definitely some good looking games from the era, though even in those you can notice unfortunate things. I mean I love OoT, but its framerate can drop into the teens,

>> No.3586604

>>3586594
Like, Sonic the Hedgehog had different, and increasingly more complex sprites from the 1-3, but I likely would never have noticed that until I directly compared them, but I sure could tell that Solid Snake kinda didn't have any eyes.

>> No.3586606

>>3586594
Slowdown was a pretty big thing in NES games and arcade games.

>> No.3586607

Untextured 3D games help up a lot better aesthetically than textured ones, IMO.

>> No.3586609

>>3586606
Yeah, true. Maybe I just take more issue with it in 3D cause there's an extra plane involved.

>> No.3586621

>>3586609
Too me I love the 5th gen graphics. Most games were terrible but that's no different to other gens.

6th gen is really the worse to me. Only XBox and GC actually had nice looking games. PS2 was just a sea of interlaced/blur filter poor looking games.

>> No.3586626

>>3586621
See, that's the generation where I think things managed to really get a strong footing. PS2 games, especially the early ones, were definitely a little rough, but the OG Xbox had some really beautiful releases. The original Fable still looks good to me today.

>> No.3586645

>>3586542
>underage millennials
There is no such thing as an underage millennial. Everyone in that generation is over 18 now. Most of them are in their late 20s and early 30s.

>> No.3586649

>>3586626
PC blew anything on the console in that generation out of the water from the start to finish.
>>3586645
>magazine definition
No

>> No.3586651

>>3586649
Yes.

Your problem is with Gen Z. Not millennials.

>> No.3586652

>>3586649
>PC blew anything on the console in that generation out of the water from the start to finish.

Well yeah, that's pretty much always true, but we'd be getting into an entirely different conversation if we went down that route.

Point being is, I think by the time the early 00s hit, and developers started moving away from the PSX and N64, we started seeing way less rough games.

Even the Dreamcast. I mean Soul Calibur 1 is gorgeous.

>> No.3586654

>>3586649
He's right though. If you aren't old enough to remember the turn of the century you're not a millenial.

>> No.3586662

>>3586651
No I'm not sticking to that defintion of millennials be 1980-2005 or w/e.
You're talkign NES as first console vs a XBox 360 as first console difference there,

As a matter of fact I use it as a meter to judge someone's logic. Because you have to be one hell of a dumb motherfucker to group that time range.
>>3586652
Not really. 5th gen had some really graphically impressive titles come out. N64 especially couldn't be matched by PC till a year or two after release.

>Point being is, I think by the time the early 00s hit, and developers started moving away from the PSX and N64, we started seeing way less rough games.
I disagree. Nearly everything on the PS2 is muddy interlaced/blur filter graphics. The textures were nice which made it easy for all these remakes now a days though.

Also the shovelware in the 6th gen is legendary. So many horrible looking games.

>> No.3586671

>>3586662
>N64 especially couldn't be matched by PC till a year or two after release.

I don't exactly agree with that, considering Quake came out a day before Super Mario 64.

>I disagree. Nearly everything on the PS2 is muddy interlaced/blur filter graphics

Overt muddiness is something I almost solely attribute to the 5th gen, particularly the N64. I don't know how you can take issue with the PS2, when stuff from just a few years before was so much worse.

>Also the shovelware in the 6th gen is legendary. So many horrible looking games.

Well just about every gen has its shovelware box. PS1 covered that base with the 5th.

>> No.3586676

>>3586671
>I don't exactly agree with that, considering Quake came out a day before Super Mario 64.
Quake isn't that nice looking of a game stock. And even the best comps back then couldn't push high frame rate without disabling some textures.

>Overt muddiness is something I almost solely attribute to the 5th gen, particularly the N64. I don't know how you can take issue with the PS2, when stuff from just a few years before was so much worse.
Maybe it's because the N64 was 240p and the PS2 was 480i. The interlaced really ruins everything.
Really the big thing is the textures weren't all that detailed to begin with on the N64. The blur helped. Not so with the PS2. The PS2 was also competing wit the XBox and GC which I think you can agree were the better consoles graphically.

>> No.3586828

>>3586487
> I dont appreciate things that could achieve a level of graphics only possible at a time I wasn't even born.

>> No.3586874

>>3586828
I'm 24, pal. My first console was a hand-me-down ColecoVision.

I was impressed by the visuals at the time like everyone else, but all the same, I can't exactly go back to something on the N64 and be impressed with the visuals like how I can with just about anything well done on a generation before it.

Spritework, in my book, holds up infinitely more than low poly 3D.

>> No.3586880

>>3586487
Picture is missing PC-FX and Pippin.

>> No.3586882

>>3586874
>I'm 24
So your first console was probably a PS2 in actuality.

>> No.3586884

>>3586882
I'm impressed that you couldn't even read a sentence after that.

>> No.3586931

>>3586884
I did but ignored your statement because it's ridiculous.

>> No.3586939

>>3586931
I don't know how. First game I ever played was The Smurfs on the ColecoVision, and The Goonies 2 on the NES.

>> No.3586952

>>3586671
Quake looks like trash in low resolution software mode, and setting the game higher resolution than that brought even the best 1996 PCs to their knees.

But besides, the argument is about capability not graphics. And comparing software quality pixels to high quality 3D accelerated pixels is stupid considering the large processing power difference.

>> No.3586973

>>3586529
>Everyone was.
I'll raise my hand as one of the exceptions I guess. I thought it was pretty ugly even at the time.
My reaction to Virtua Fighter (in the arcade): "Oh they made a fighting game out of those polygons that are trendy now"
My reaction to the N64 and Mario 64: "Oh they have texture smoothing on consoles now; that's neat I guess."
My reaction to Final Fantasy 7: "Jesus this is ugly compared to 6"
I spent that era playing 2D Saturn games.

>> No.3586978

>>3586575
The thing is, these 3D graphics weren't competing against the NES. They were competing against the 2D games on SNES, PS, and Saturn at the time. So they looked bad by comparison.

>> No.3586980

Not at all, that'd be the 1st or 2nd, whichever is the atari 2600. Early 3D looks great by comparison, especially the good shit like Bulk Slash and Dino Crisis and stuff. Comparatively early 2D is legitimately kind of hard to figure out if you don't have a manual or something.

>> No.3586982

>>3586980
that said the n64 is trash though, early antialiasing makes all the games look smeared and blurry

>> No.3586991

>>3586939
I could be 5 years old right now and get a NES for my first console. That doesn't make it not ridiculous.

>> No.3586996

>>3586991
Why is it ridiculous? My uncle had a ColecoVision and an NES. He gave them to me. I played them.

Then I got some PC stuff, and eventually a Gameboy, if you wanna call that my first "new" console.

>> No.3586998

>>3586996
Because you're autistic. Most kids are going to get the current console as their first console. You getting 80s shit in the late 90s doesn't make you an 80s baby.

>> No.3587001

>>3586998
I'm not saying I'm an "80s baby", I'm telling you what my first console was.

Do you want me to go back in time and pop a Playstation into my hands?

>> No.3587005

>>3587001
You had an old outdated console. Not sure what your point is.

>> No.3587006

>>3587001
Also I got that stuff in like, 1995.

And yeah, considering the material, it was perfectly playable by a three year old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcoxH4QLcLo

>> No.3587009

>>3586982
AA has nothing to do with N64 'smeared' look. It's dither filtering designed to prevent ugly Mach banding in 16 bit color. Voodoo 1-3 did the same thing.

>> No.3587013

>>3587005
You said I couldn't appreciate the graphics because you implied I was underage. I told you I started with something that came out decades before the 3D was even thinkable.

I thought they were great at the time, but a well crafted 2D sprite-based game holds up infinitely more in my book than just about anything that could be crafted mid-90s 3D tech.

>> No.3587021

>>3587013
You really fail at context. You having outdated shit years later doesn't give you a position to say you can appreciate graphics continually evolving.

>> No.3587030

>>3587021
Considering my main exposure was stuff from the early to mid 80s, and then suddenly seeing 3D tech from the 90s, I don't see how I'm not in that position. From my perspective, it was an even more massive leap, since I went from 10 year old tech at the time, to scrounging around on the family PC and seeing my first 3D models and environments.

>> No.3587035

>>3586487

16 and 32 bit 2D games on CD Rom represents a golden age of gaming. All the best of painstakingly crafted pixel art, especially animated sequences (like the ones on PC Engine CD, I don't mean shitty FMV) but without the shitty sound of cartridge based machines or the asset storage limits of cartridges.

>> No.3587036

>>3587030
- you ignore arcades
- you had pretty much no time with the 5th gen apparently

What fucking leap? The leap that happened 10 years ago by the time you got the shit?

>> No.3587045

>>3587036
>- you ignore arcades

No, I'll admit, I personally did not have a particularly large exposure to arcades at around the age of 3-4.

>- you had pretty much no time with the 5th gen apparently

What? No. That's what this whole thread is about. I owned an N64, I owned a PSX, but looking back, I think I prefer, aesthetically, a lot of the 2D games that came just before or around that time.

>>3587035
This is kind of what I'm getting at. I look at something like Symphony of the Night, or, if you want to get arcades involved, Metal Slug, and you have this short period that shed a lot of the limitations of the generation before it, but unfortunately, was pushed into a niche, due to the growing market for 3D games, which, frankly, I don't think looked that great.

>> No.3587049

>>3587045
>I owned an N64, I owned a PSX
When? In the 2000s?

>> No.3587052

>>3587049
Got the N64 around 98. PSX maybe a year later.

Spent the time between then mostly playing on PC, with a Gameboy while on the go.

>> No.3587053

>>3587045

We're stupid idiots who crave novelty, is the problem. Just when the state of the art gets really good, we want something different that is much harder to do with existing tech.

Some of those Saturn 2D platformers and RPGs still look gorgeous today. Magic Knight Rayearth and Astal for example.

>> No.3587056

>>3587052
So you got them pretty much a year before the PS2 hit.

>> No.3587057

>>3587056
I got my N64 three years before the Gamecube hit. So like, with 2/3rds of its life left. I admittedly got the PSX late. What does it matter?

I don't even know why you're grilling me right. I've pretty much given you my gaming life story up until the end of grade school.

>> No.3587062

>>3586952
Quake's lowest default resolution is 320x200 and the n64's is 320x240. If you had something better than a toaster, you already had a higher resolution and better looking game than anything on the n64

>> No.3587064

>>3587057
You're talking to someone that got all the 5th gen consoles at launch or in the case of the Saturn a bit later. I played the big arcade 3d games like Cruis'n USA when they came out. Now I can't say that for the earlier examples of 3d since none of the arcades around me ever got them.

Since the thread is about this time period I don't get how you think your opinion holds as much weight as is does when you barely played the consoles when they were relevant. You're pretty much the stereotype of the person that hates these retro games. Either didn't play them or was born in the later 90s 2000s.

>> No.3587068

>>3587064
Barely played them? I told you, I was on PC before getting an N64. I remember trying, and kinda failing, at wrapping my head around Mech Warrior 2.

If owning a PC and two consoles in the generation doesn't qualify me, I don't know what does. The fact that I didn't buy at lauch I don't think is at all relevant to the conversation. I'm still sitting on a PS3. Am I pleb because I'm wary of the fact that Sony's been talking about a mid-generation update for a year plus now, and I don't want to shell out twice for another console?

1998 was a good year to jump into the N64, too. Banjo-Kazooie and Zelda both dropped.

Mind you, even back then, I kinda preferred Link's Awakening to OoT. I guess that's a hipster opinion to have now though.

>> No.3587072

>>3587068
>PS1
>in 1999
Are you retarded? I'm serious. You had like no time with the big console of its generation.

>> No.3587076

>>3587072
You are aware that Sony keeps its systems alive for at least a good few years after their next one drops, right? I had a good three years with my PSX.

I'm currently having a good six years with my PS3. Am I retarded for not having dropped money on a Bloodborne box that's gonna be outdated once the Pro drops?

>> No.3587078

>>3587076
Yes you're retarded.

>> No.3587081

>>3587078
Well I'm glad you're enjoying Uncharted that much, anon. I'm the type though who's willing to wait a bit so as not to waste my money.

>> No.3587082

>>3587081
I don't play modern consoles. No good games.

>> No.3587083

>>3587082
Hence why the only console I have hooked up is my PS Triple, and even then I waited four years for that to get good.

>> No.3587085

>>3587083
"Modernish" console hooked up, I mean.

>> No.3587087
File: 209 KB, 256x429, Ridge_Racer_Coverart.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3587087

>>3587083
>>3587085
You're saying 5th gen had no good games at launch?

>> No.3587095

>>3587087
That and Rayman, but there usually aren't enough quality releases to buy any console at launch.

Rayman is an example though of another really great looking 2D game on 5th gen hardware, but it's Rayman 2, the 3D one, that's been ported to hell and back.

>> No.3587101

>>3587095
Retro consoles are different to modern consoles in that way.

>> No.3587250

>>3586487
3rd gen was ugly as fuck.

>> No.3587259

>>3586487
saturn had beautiful looking 2d games

>> No.3587279

>>3586487
>There were some good looking releases, certainly, but there were so many others that had muddy, vomit-inducing textures, an FoV that stretched to five inches in front of you, and frame drops that regularly turned things into a slideshow.

Yes and no. 3D was new for many companies, they needed to adapt to it, hire new staff etc. Moreover, it had a lot of limitations. This was different from the 4th gen with its sprite-based graphics which were straightforward in comparison.

You say "a lot of games looked bad", but let's just take a look at some of the best-selling games on PS, ones everyone had seen or played.

Tekken 3—fucking amazing animations. Pre-rendered BGs looked good on CRTs. Anyway, I had little to no complaints about graphics.

Final Fantasy VII and VIII—again, I have very few complaints about. Stunning 3D, memorable pre-rendered environments.

Metal Gear Solid—now, here in the cutscenes the models actually did look kinda flawed. But from top-down view, it looked great. And it had perfectly consistent art direction, great color palette and atmosphere.

Now, all 3 games did a smart thing: they didn't show the models up close all the time. This is what Goldeneye and other FPS of 5th gen suffered from, IMO; this and low frame rate.

So this is my opinion… In games with fixed perspective and pre-rendered BGs it was mostly fine. In fully 3D games, 5th gen often had issues OP talks about.

>> No.3587284

>>3586607
Some of them. definitely. Just look at MechWarrior 2.

>> No.3587347

>>3587062
As said above, Quake low-res software mode looks like shit, worse than even a launch title like Mario 64. It is brown and hugely grainy. High-res is the only saving grace.

A Pentium 75 PC was not a toaster in 1996 and it can barely run Quake at even 20fps 320x200, lower than console res.

>> No.3587351

>>3586487
In terms of graphics, it's the one that's aged the most poorly.

Although that only applies to 3D release. The 2D of the 5th gen was GORGEOUS.

>> No.3587414

>>3587347
p75 was an budget processor in 1996, p166 would have been mid segment

>> No.3587423 [DELETED] 

>>3587414
>p75 was an budget processor in 1996
Oh so you're moving the goal posts? Budget isn't the same as toaster. A toaster in 1996 would have been a 486, and even so, barely.

>p166 would have been mid segment
Good to see you weren't alive back then. P166 were incredibly expensive in 1996 (albeit not as ludicrously expensive as P200 or millionaire-tier as the Pentium Pro). Pentium 120 was the true mid-range processor of that year and it can't even achieve an average of 30 FPS in Quake at the lowest resolution.

>> No.3587445

>>3587414
>p75 was an budget processor in 1996,
You could still buy 486s in 1996, those were the true budget-tier processors. P75 and to a lesser extent P90 were just low-end.

>p166 would have been mid segment
Good to see you weren't alive back then. P166 were incredibly expensive in 1996 (albeit not as ludicrously expensive as P200 or millionaire-tier as the Pentium Pro). Pentium 120 was the true mid-range processor of that year and it can't even achieve an average of 30 FPS in Quake at the lowest resolution.

>> No.3587546

>>3587445
>buying a 486 in 1996
Ok you are a third worlder, now it makes sense why you think the p75 was hot shit in 1996.

>> No.3587556

>>3587351
>aged poorly
there's that meme again

>> No.3587584
File: 80 KB, 320x224, Rayman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3587584

>>3586487
early 3D was a mistake, the 5th gen should have been 2D and the 2D~3D transition (in home consoles at least) should have occurred around late 1998

>> No.3587595

>>3586487
I would say yes. A lot of those early 3D games (especially the ones on the N64 from my experience) were painful to look at.

>> No.3587598

>>3586531
Only correct answer.

>> No.3587653

>>3587584
>>3587595
Heya kiddos

>> No.3587669

>>3586487
The only console that looks like shit here is the jaguar and the n64

>> No.3587716
File: 2.98 MB, 720x405, 1476762407618.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3587716

>>3586487
It wasn't a mistake. That's like saying 3rd Gen was a mistake because its 2D didn't look as fancy as 4th gen. Without 5th gen's push for 3D, there would be no 6th gen like we got. It's all about progress, anon.

>> No.3587727

>>3587716
There's still a considerable fan appreciation for 8-bit styled visuals. I mean at the end of the day, there were some genuinely talented artists who could just make something drawn in 2D look good.

I feel with 3D it's different. You can have equally talented people involved, but it's an evolving medium. No one will doubt Pixar doesn't finely craft their movies, but have you seen some of the CG in Toy Story 1 lately?

It's just harder to look back at some of the stuff from this generation, compared to say the sprites done in Mega Man 2.

>> No.3587745
File: 7 KB, 640x400, Pac-Man_Atari_2600_Gameplay.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3587745

>>3586487
>I can appreciate stuff ranging into the 70s

No. There are no redeeming qualities to Atari 2600 graphics, especially considering at the time arcades had already reached NES level.

Someone could justifiably enjoy the PSX versions of Tekken than later versions on PS2 and later. No one goes back to play the Atari 2600 version of an arcade game.

>> No.3587748

>>3587745
I remember a decade or so back, seeing those cheap "X in One" game consoles, and Atari was definitely among them.

The system's graphics were primitive, along with its use of color, but when done right, I don't think there's anything inherently ugly about simplistic lines.

>> No.3587797

>>3587546
You just weren't of sufficient age at the time, so you look at an Intel processor release date list and wonder "how could this processor released a few years ago still be contemporary". You think this because you juxtaposition your experience with Intel in the modern day with an imagined ideal in the past.

Protip: Until the early-mid 00s Intel had very serious yield problems and 99% of CPU releases were mere "paper launches" (i.e. they were """"released"""" on a particular date, but only like 10 CPUs of that model were actually made available in the whole country - and almost all went to press insiders).

So if you see a particular year for an old Intel processor, don't think it was possible for normal people to even BUY it until the following year. On top of that, the yield issue meant that prices started extremely high (think: Intel Extreme Edition high) before gradually coming down, even for processors that were only slightly faster than older models.

Also even as late as 1995 experienced USA tech journalists were still recommending people buy a 486 over a Pentium.

http://winsupersite.com/article/commentary/blast-buying-computer-1995-141723

So in summary, educate yourself.

>> No.3587815

>>3587797
You sound pretty 3rd world to me. I'm agreeing with the guy you replied too. You are 3rd world.

>> No.3587837

>>3587815
Attempts at historical revisionism of PC hardware fall flat in the face of evidence, I'm afraid.

Much like claims that Quake ran at 60 FPS in 1996 fall flat in the face of benchmarks showing even the fastest processor released that year only ran the game at ~45 FPS at the lowest settable resolution, with sound disabled.

>> No.3587856

5th gen was so good tho
I dont think there will ever be as much hype for games again

>> No.3587860

>>3587815
He's right about everything.
I played Quake in 96 on 120mhz.

>> No.3587862

>>3587837
>>3587860
>I'm poor so everyone is poor
Doesn't work that way.

>> No.3587872

>>3587797
>http://winsupersite.com/article/commentary/blast-buying-computer-1995-141723
>The Pentium is Intel’s current champion CPU. It is a 64-bit chip,
>The main difference between Pentium models is dye-size and speed.
>Personally, I do not think the Pentium is worth it yet, and I have never seen a program (game or otherwise) tax a 486DX2-66.

>> No.3587873

>>3586487
And it was fucking amazing at the time. We all loved it.

damn kids

>> No.3587887

>>3587872
He's right. You just don't understand what he means. Pentium had a 64-bit external bus, while 486 had a 32-bit external bus.

Early Pentium models had a larger die size than later models.

Late 486s were pretty damn fast for regular computer needs. You DO know that Quake was called back then "Pentium's killer app" because it was finally a program that really took advantage of what a Pentium offered over a 486, right?

>> No.3590368

> archive.org has computer magazines of the era with price lists
> Carmack and Abrash wrote and spoke about Quake engine countless times, clearly stating the system they optimized for
> two niggers here argue about which of their opinions is better

>> No.3590436

>>3586487
the first time we turned on crash bandicoot, i distinctly remember my grandmother saying "oh my god how do they do that? it looks like i'm watching a movie"

>> No.3590445

>>3587064
why the fuck does this matter, isn't his whole point that the graphics don't hold up? because they don't . 90% of 3d from that gen looks like garbage today. it doesn't matter how it looked at the time you old ass hipster faggot

>> No.3590464

>>3586606
I don't remember any slowdown in Ninja Gaiden, or in SMB1. Even SMB3 didn't have much slowdown. It was mostly a problem in poorly programmed games like the Megaman series, which is shit anyway so it doesn't matter.

>> No.3590494

>>3586531
CGA was intended for composite monitors, it blended the colors together

>> No.3590514
File: 14 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3590514

The first 3d gen was definitely and ugly, blurry, glitchy mess, visually (though it also had some incredible and industry-changing games), but I'm not convinced it was any uglier than the generations before the NES.

>> No.3590563

>>3590494
If CGA was intended for anything specific, it was for RGBI monitors. But RGBI monitors weren't available when it was first released so people used RGB instead and ignored the intensity bit. There was no color blending in either case.

>> No.3590574

No doubt, these people didn't play this shit on release. It was so mindblowing at release.

Even still today, most games still look good. I've never understood why people think appearances age so bad or how they affect their playability. You have to be some shallow superficial BITCH to think like that.

>> No.3591013

>>3590445
And all consoles from the 6th gen onward are vastly inferior to PC. So they're all trash by your logic.

>90% of 3d from that gen looks like garbage today.it doesn't matter how it looked at the time you old ass hipster faggot
It was the best at the time, autist. Called context. I like low polygon graphics of the time.

>> No.3591230

>>3586487

that's because mid-late 90s pc gaming was taking off and they were blowing home consoles out of the water.

I had a shit pc gig at home and played the fuck out of doom, sims, anything that I could run halfway decent on my pc.

never touched ps1, n64 or the other overpriced systems

>> No.3591243

>>3591230
>never touched ps1, n64 or the other overpriced systems

Until the late 90s, you needed to pay several thousand dollars on a PC to match a $200 5th generation console at 3D. That's not a overpriced, that's a great deal.

Just because you played outdated psuedo-3D games like Doom or plain old 2D games like Sims don't change that.

>> No.3591251

>>3591243
Comments like are obvious eceleb parrotors and probably underageb&. I'd ignore them if they try to make an argument.

There were some retards claiming smartphones were widespread in the mid 90s on /g/ the other day. The revision of history in the 80s/90s by underage millennials is real.

>> No.3591271
File: 137 KB, 466x492, 1449611400183.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3591271

>>3591251

>underage millenials

>> No.3591284

>>3591271
just don't respond to him, he's clinically retarded.

>> No.3591309

>>3591013
>And all consoles from the 6th gen onward are vastly inferior to PC.

It would be interesting if someone made a chart or article where they compared console gaming to PC generation by generation.

From the glorious dawn of the Fairchild Channel F when there was NO PC games (Apple II hadn't been invented yet) to the modern day when there's no reason to buy a cucksole with all the faults and none of the advantages of PC.

If the writer is ambitious they could also add arcades and handhelds to mix, comparing their technological innovations and cost/benefit ratio as well. Once consoles became a footnote, the ongoing handhelds would be compared to mobile from early software platforms (PalmOS, Symbian, Galapagos, Blackberry, Java, etc.) to modern IOS and Android games.

>> No.3591346

>>3591309
5th and 6th gen are easy.

PC became faster than consoles in 5th generation after the release of 3dfx Voodoo in 1997. On a truly mainstream level, they became faster after the release of Intel i810 intergrated graphics in 1999, those chips were theoretically just as fast if not faster than the original Voodoo.

6th gen isn't so clear cut, because there are whole bunches of criteria. I'd say PC became *clearly* faster from the release of GeForce 4 Ti or Radeon 9700 Pro in 2002. On a mainstream level? The 6600GT in 2004. Quite a cheap card and no less powerful than the 9700 Pro.

>> No.3591351

>>3591346
>claiming PCs only beat consoles in 1997

It took four years for consoles to get a decent Doom port, two for Quake.

>> No.3591367

>>3591346
>>3591351
Counter strike is more impressive graphically than pretty much anything on console in 6th gen.
>>3591271
>>3591284
>magazine defintion
And you retards are the ones saying someone born in 1980 whose first console was a NES is the same generation as someone born in 2005 whose first consoles was a XBox 360.

>> No.3591379

>>3591351
That's because those are lousy ports. I'm looking at the big picture. Before 1997, there weren't any 3D accelerators on PC worth half a damn (Rendition Verite was alright for users with slow CPUs though).

As good as one of those Pentiums were at the time, they simply didn't have more horsepower than the troika combination of a console CPU, console vector unit and console 3D accelerator.

Want a good example? PS1 runs Quake 2 better than any 1996 PC without a 3D accelerator would.

>> No.3591386

>>3586607
No way. Games like DooM, UU, and Descent (if 3D games with sprites don't count) look much better than untextured early 3D.

>> No.3591387

>>3591367
Butthurt millenial baby detected.

>> No.3591402

>>3591379
Quake 2 with a Pentium 200 in 320x200 runs completely smootly, and in 640x480 runs ok (no lag at all, just not as smooth).

Actually, I can confirm this happened with a Pentium 150 overclocked to 180Mhz with Trident 9440, so I assume that a Pentium 200 would be even better.

I don't know what resolution it used on PlayStation, but take note that the minimum VRAM required officially is 4MB and that Trident had 2MB.

Probably getting a P200 in 96 was far more expensive than a PS1 though, for similar results.

>> No.3591407

>>3591402
BUT

On the other hand, Quake 2 came in 97, so 96 hardware wasn't as expensive when it came out, I mean, you have the Pentium MMX and Pentium II that year, with this you can run it in 800x600 easily (using software render).

>> No.3591415

>>3591367

No, we're saying that someone born in 1980 and someone born in 2005 are DIFFERENT generations, fuckin retard.

>it's the "magazine definition" guy

This would be pretty good bait if I knew you weren't being serious.

>> No.3591440

>>3591415
>No, we're saying that someone born in 1980 and someone born in 2005 are DIFFERENT generations, fuckin retard.
That's not what the wiki and magazines say, kiddo.

>> No.3591457
File: 52 KB, 500x500, 1449434704719.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3591457

@3591440

>kiddo

>> No.3591461

>>3591457
>@3591440
You got me, millennial

>> No.3591486
File: 65 KB, 709x205, Quake 2 software mode.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3591486

>>3591402
>Quake 2 with a Pentium 200 in 320x200 runs completely smootly

I don't have benchmarks for this. I do however, have benchmarks for a Pentium 200 running Quake 2 in software mode at a higher resolution - 512x384 - 12 FPS.

>in 640x480 runs ok (no lag at all, just not as smooth).

Considering this is a higher resolution than 512x384, this is an extremely amusing suggestion. I'll be sure to remember that next time somebody says a game like Perfect Dark has low framerates though. It doesn't lag at all, it's just not as smooth!

>I don't know what resolution it used on PlayStation

512x240, which is a tad smaller than the example above. It does, however, run a lot better than 12 FPS and the image quality is improved over software mode for PC. The lighting and transparency effects are far better.

>> No.3591501
File: 28 KB, 297x293, Quake 2 software mode 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3591501

>>3591407
>you have the Pentium MMX and Pentium II that year, with this you can run it in 800x600 easily (using software render).

Haha, once again, more false speculation about the past.

FYI the fastest Pentium III released that year was 300 Mhz. A beautifully silky smooth 800x600 performance, wouldn't you say?

>> No.3591512

>>3586487

That's why the Saturn was the best console of that generation. It had a wealth of 2D games that actually still hold up.

Playstation relied almost entirely on awful looking 3D games. The only games in that library that were worth playing were the few 2D games it got like Castlevania and Klonoa. All of the popular games that fags jerked off over back in the day like Twisted Metal, Tomb Raider, Tekken, Toshinden, Destruction Derby, Crash Bandicoot, Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, etc are all shit. N64 is even worse as it didn't even have but a handful of 2D games.

>> No.3591524

>>3591501
Oops, these benchmarks are actually for the Celeron 300A (released in 1998) which actually ran FASTER per clock than older Pentium IIs due to their on-die double-clocked cache.

It's not looking good for the Pentium II in software mode, is it? I think it has become quite obvious to all why people wanted to buy 3D accelerators.

>> No.3591531

>>3591013
we're not discussing context we're discussing how the graphics held up. i can't figure out why you keep going back to "at the time". at the time they looked good. so did 2d games. but looking back the 2d games look better on average.

>> No.3591540

>>3591379
What is a console vector unit?

>> No.3591572

>>3591531
>games age argument
Wrong board.

>> No.3591591

Personally i think they all have their own little charm in the looks and they all look good in their own way

>> No.3591624
File: 10 KB, 259x194, C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_images5DIWG9KG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3591624

>>3586542
>parroting eceleb opinions
You're the only one making any reference to these ecelebs which means more than likely you're the only one here watching them.

Also >>3586487, I'm with this guy:

>>3586558

I'm currently playing through Kings Field 94, guilty of all these sins and brings a flat nothing to the dungeon crawler genre, in fact, it takes things away, strips and oversimplifies rpg and story elements from pc forerunners.

That's what the psx at least was though. Towing the line to make games easier and more accessible, while keeping a wow factor despite technological limitations. Not necessarily my cup of tea but look where its got the game industry, its no longer low culture and its breaking free of pop culture. Comic books have been going for almost a century and never managed that.

As anon said, baby steps.

Back to Kings Field though, fucking lovin it despite slagging it off just then.

>> No.3591640

>>3591624
>Towing the line to make games easier and more accessible
And what on the PS1 did that?

>> No.3591659

>>3586487
I have massive nostalgia for N64/PSX aesthetics because while Genesis was my first console I got more into gaming during that era.

>> No.3591751

>>3591486
I played through Quake 2 on a Pentium 100 mhz back in the day, no 3d accelerator of course. It was the last 3d game I bought for that system.

>> No.3591772

>>3587021
Special snowflake alert over here.

Of course, to appreciate the history of video games and a games importance in context, you had to be there. Just like real life history.

Fuck man, if lifelong gamers turn out like you then maybe it does rot the brain, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in some time

>> No.3591773

>>3591772
I'm special snowflake for being one of the millions of kids in America that grew up with video games?

>> No.3591801

>>3591402
>>3591407
>>3591486
>>3591501
>>3591524

Excuse me, who the hell played 3D games at 800×600 back then? It was like running latest Crysis at 4K: good for screenshots and extreme overclocking dick measuring contests, but a waste of performance in general.

Even a desktop resolution of 1024×768 made interface elements a bit too small and blurry on many 14-15" monitors, and you didn't expect games to run at desktop resolution.

I played through HL on a Pentium 200 MMX at 400×300, and had a pretty high quality picture.

>> No.3591802

>>3587064
You're pretty much the stereotype of a person desperately clinging to a time when his mainstream hobby was less so, because he's ran out of ways to define himself.

Nobody in this world gives a fuck if you were there, it only matters to you. It happened and it was chronicled on this thing called the internet for the uninitiated to study learn and reflect with new perspectives.

>> No.3591809

>>3590574

Well, I agree with you about the games' visuals. I've got no problem with the low-poly, crappy texture look, five minutes in and I don't notice it anymore.

What does bug me is the framerate, bad controls, and overall clunkyness of many 5th gen games.

Those games seem to be more prevalent on saturn (very underpowered, hard to program for, died before people "got" 3d) and playstation (underpowered, huge shovelware problem), but these consoles also came out two years before the N64 so it's kinda understandable.

It's irritating that the marketplace demanded they "had" to go 3d with shitty hardware, which is how pretty fun games like Dragon Warrior VII and FFVII ended up with awful garish blends of 2d-and-3d.

Panzer Dragoon, Crash, Spyro, Mario 64, F-Zero X all still look great (to varying degrees) today if you play them on the right TV.

>> No.3591814

>>3591773
And also an autist for not being able display even a trace amount of comprehension

>>3591640
As i said in that massive example, kings field 1994 in comparison to pc dungeon crawlers that came before

>> No.3591825

>>3591802
>>3591814
That's a whole load of hot opinions and assumption.

>> No.3591832

>>3591825
Yea, that's how stereotypes work

>> No.3591843

>>3586517

Gonna have to agree with this guy.

>> No.3591853

>>3591809
Blending 2D and 3D (2D sprites 3D background or 2D background 3D sprites) was the best way to make use of 5th generation hardware and games made this way have aged better than the fully 3D games of the time while selling more than the beautiful but normie-scorned fully 2D games of the time.

>> No.3591990

>>3586487

The CD era was much worse I can assure you.

>> No.3592028

>>3587072
>played snes and genesis games when they were all cheap, then moved on to playstation games when they were cheap
i see no problem here anon.

>> No.3592029

>>3591853
it gets a lot of hate but i think xenogears looks really nice.

>> No.3592062
File: 13 KB, 640x400, AUTISMWARNING.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3592062

>>3591853

>games made this way have aged better than the fully 3D games of the time

I disagree with you and I'm pretty sure this is the point in the argument where I insult your sexuality.

Rotating the camera in DQVII (2d sprites on 3d world) instantly kills any "immersion" that built up, it looks really silly to me. Might have worked better with a fixed camera, I guess, combined with environments that didn't require rotation to see clearly.

FFVII (3d characters, 2d backgrounds) fared a little better. The semi-photorealism is pretty jarring when compared against the cartoonish, 12-poly characters. The first time I played it (2015), I actually bust out laughing when cloud exits the train after all the smooth, pretty CGI cutscenes and backgrounds. You can kind of get to the juxtaposition though, and I guess it probably blended better on a cheap RF slotmask. What really grinds my gears is that this style means you can't do any camera movement, there are a few playscreens where your character is literally a four pixel blob running around.

If you were referring to the tasteful use of sprites in SM64, OOT, or Mario Kart 64 then I agree with you. Making small items sprites is a great way to save poly budget (SM64, OOT), and MK64 had dense enough character spritesheets that it mostly preserved the 3d illusion.

>> No.3592074
File: 959 KB, 1024x1024, ps1 bs n64.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
3592074

the entire generation can literally be summed up with this pic

>> No.3592426

>>3591540
PS1 had a vector unit called GTE to accelerate matrix transform/lighting operations. It's several times more efficient than a PC CPU at doing those.

N64's vector unit is called RSP.

>> No.3592526

I think the Atari 2600 generation, or 1st generation, is easily the ugliest. It pretty much had no artists, just hardcore programmers, and it's not like they had any hardware to work with either.

As far as the 5th gen or early 3D goes, PlayStation games can be pretty good when you get used to the wobbliness. It's the REALLY early 3D consoles like the Jaguar that had seriously vomit inducing graphics. N64 games are alright, but they started using filtering too early, when textures were too low res and they just turned into a blurry mess. PlayStation textures retain detail by having no filtering.

>> No.3592542

>>3592426
>It's several times more efficient than a PC CPU at doing those.

Well yeah, compared to a 1994 CPU, sure.

>> No.3592561

>>3586487
dude who give's a fuck? Function over form. My ps1 could have looked like a baboons ass and i would have loved the games it displayed on my screen just as much. This is way late but:
SAGE

>> No.3592592

>>3592542
>Well yeah, compared to a 1994 CPU, sure.

Compared to any 90s CPU, really. Particularly those prior to MMX and SSE instruction support.

I remember there was some estimation that the N64's RSP vector unit running at 62.5mhz would have equivalent SIMD performance to a 300 or 400 non-MMX Pentium.

>> No.3592664

>>3586487

I think the PS1 (and later) had pretty sensible, minimalistic design,
externally. The PS1 controller was ingenious and continues to inspire modern
designs.

Early 3D gaming was a necessary period in the history and development of 3D
gaming. It's easy to look back and say everything was horrible compared to
what we have NOW, but you take a lot for granted in doing so. It's important to
consider the original experience, when 3D was still a novelty (for most).

>> No.3593047

>>3586487
I absolutely despised the move to 3D that happened in the 90s. The technology for the first time allowed for some really amazing sprite-based 2D games, and every game developer and their cousin instead decided to jump on horrible 3D bandwagon, with its abysmal polycount, disgusting textures, pop-in, aliasing, vertex jitter, etc. I was bitter about it for years, and even now I still get pissed at games for having visibly polygonal surfaces, especially on things that are supposed to be round, like tires and barrels and shit.

>> No.3593085

>>3593047
You may just be autistic.

>> No.3593207

>>3593047
Theres no way you were that much of a tryhard faggot in 96

>> No.3593251

The vertex jitter of the PS was better than the alternative.

The stillness of the N64s rendering led to HORRIBLE aliasing.

You know that hack to remove the blur filter on N64 games?
I wish there was one to add PSX trembling in order to mask the diagonal stairsteps ruining most N64 games.


Which consoles of the following have vertex jitter?
32X
SuperFX chip for SNES
SS
3DO
Jaguar
Pippin
GBA
DS
PSP

>> No.3593280

> I was bitter about it for years, and even now I still get pissed at games for having visibly polygonal surfaces, especially on things that are supposed to be round, like tires and barrels and shit.

Then go play a PC-FX--- wait.

Ok, that exact mindset invaded NEC/Hudson-Soft and so they didn't bother to improve a bit on the design; hell, they didn't even add some geometry engine or vector processor because: "2D is still better and 3D is still ugly."

C'moon, early attempts will always suck. And better make early attempts EARLY than to make awful 3D in 2016.

>> No.3593295

>>3586578
>Saturn
>Polished

LMAO nice 1 my dude

>> No.3593296

>>3593280
>C'moon, early attempts will always suck. And better make early attempts EARLY than to make awful 3D in 2016.
Have you've seen modern AAA games? Look worse than a game from 2007.

Nothing wrong with early 3d.

>> No.3593362

>>3593047
I was certainly underwhelmed. Well, I already made this post: >>3586973
It's strange how so many people find it incomprehensible that people weren't as excited for polygons as they were.

>> No.3593383

>>3593280
>Then go play a PC-FX--- wait.
Recently got both PC-FX and N64, and I prefer PC-FX library.
Mischief Makers and Wonder Project J2 are the only good things about N64, unless you were growing up with first party Nintendo titles.

>> No.3593395

>>3593251
>The stillness of the N64s rendering led to HORRIBLE aliasing.

This is one of the most bizarre thing that I've read about technology on here. Vertex jittering does NOT reducing aliasing, in fact it makes the staircase effect more pronounced due to shimmering.

Besides, N64 actually had anti-aliasing. The games usually weren't very jaggy.

>> No.3593406

>>3593296
Triple a doesn't mean anything except "WE FUCKED UP THE BUDGET TEN TIMES OVER" and you know it.

>> No.3593464

>>3593406
It used to me a good game, generally.

>> No.3594075

>>3593085
>>3593207
>>3593280
Okay so I exaggerated a little when I said I was "bitter for years." But I was definitely annoyed that all the big franchises moved from what could have been the pinnacle of 2D graphics, to ugly 3D, just because it was the hot new thing.

That's not to say I didn't still enjoy some of those early 3D console games - hell I owned and loved Star Fox on the SNES before the 5th gen systems were around. The thing with Star Fox though (and the early 3D Nintendo games in general) is they didn't try to do too much with the technology. Textures looked terrible at the time, but Star Fox and a lot of the first-party N64 games used them judiciously to good effect. I think for this reason, N64 games have generally aged better than many games on other systems at the time.

>> No.3594080

>>3594075
>aged
Ya you're autistic.

>> No.3594327

> blah blah blah low poly
> blah blah blah stupid decisions

It's really funny when you understand the root cause: you can't screw math and physics over. Fast calculation algorithms for rendering of semi-realistic 3D scenes have been available since the 80s, the problem is how many cycles you are allowed to spend on them. Tesselation and multi-sampling aren't the most fresh ideas, and you could totally have your nice round wheel, but the hardware that spent X ticks for one division, and worked on rate of Y ticks per second would only be able to show that single wheel.

Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9jP4RVGBM
(The final version fixes most polygon errors.)

>> No.3594428

>>3593383
>Recently got both PC-FX and N64, and I prefer PC-FX library.
>Mischief Makers and Wonder Project J2 are the only good things about N64
Sure thing animufag.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action