When do graphics literally take away from your enjoyment of a game?

[Roufuss]

So I was playing Blood 2 for PC for the hell of it... it aged like shit, however, the graphics were pretty damn shitty, and it seemed like after awhile, I was actually getting a headache from it and it literally hurting my eyes.

The question is this: When are graphics so bad that it takes away from your fun? Sure, some people will say "Never, I'm not a graphics whore" and neither am I. But games like Brave Fencer Musashi, Rival Schools, hell, any early era Playstation game where they were just starting to use 3-D has some of the most abysmal shit stain graphics in the world.

I'm sorry, but imo games like Mario 3 and Final Fantasy 4 will always age gracefully, but the graphics of Silent Hill can go fuck themselves. It just hurts my eyes staring at that early polygonal crap fest, and I find myself really not even wanting to play alot of the early 3-D games.

I'm sure most PS2 / GC / Xbox stuff will still look good down the road, but early 3-D needs to be remade, all of it.

[b0bx13]

The trainwreck that was Sonic 3D Blast always gave me a crushing headache after playing for an hour or so. I even tried it again a year or so ago to see if it still did, and it did.

[mtxbass1]

Roufuss. did you get Blood II to work in windows XP? If so. HOW? I've been trying to get this to work for days here.

[Kaijufan]

I started gaming with the SNES, so it's hard for me to play games with pre-SNES graphics, but if the gameplay is good enough I can look past them.
I have to agree with the 3D Playstation games. Most look horrible and are very hard to look at.

[Roufuss]

Roufuss. did you get Blood II to work in windows XP? If so. HOW? I've been trying to get this to work for days here.

I downloaded it off Underdogs, installed it, and ran it, it ran no problem except for some kind of stuttering on the guns.

Didn't need any special tweaks or anything.

[Aleryn]

I'm not too far off from you in opinion. The beginnings of a new generation of graphics technology usually do NOT age well.

Look at Atari games... rather ugly, no? Now look at NES/Master System games... yes, they are dated... but they don't quite have that PAINFUL quality that the Atari games do, now do they?

As you mentioned, PS1/Saturn 3D games of the first generation. UGGGGGHHH. Now compare those to Dreamcast or EARLY PS2 graphics. Hell, even latter gen PS1 graphics. Much better, eh?

Oh, and compare N64 graphics to Dreamcast ones, hehehehe, now THERE is a nice difference.

Gaming has 3D down pretty good now... whats next? What's the next innovation that'll look great at first, and uglier than hell five years after it's debut? =)

[botticus]

For me it all depends on the aim of the graphics. A large majority of the old 2D sidescrollers, RPGs and the like have aged well for me. It's the games that aim for realism that always suffer the most with age. Because the realism aspect is/was a big part of the draw of the graphics, and over time, the realism factor becomes "that looks like shit."

Then there are the games that just weren't put together well, but at the time seemed fine because it was new.

[MadChedar0]

One of the few games which did this for me was Perfect Dark (N64). Goldeneye was fine, but the blurriness/choppiness killed the game for me.

[mtxbass1]

I downloaded it off Underdogs, installed it, and ran it, it ran no problem except for some kind of stuttering on the guns.

Didn't need any special tweaks or anything.

Really? I have my original CD and I figured I would reinstall it this weekend. It installed fine but the video threw up on me several times. I figure my card may be too powerful or something. I dunno.

[friedram]

For me it all depends on the aim of the graphics. A large majority of the old 2D sidescrollers, RPGs and the like have aged well for me. It's the games that aim for realism that always suffer the most with age. Because the realism aspect is/was a big part of the draw of the graphics, and over time, the realism factor becomes "that looks like shit."

Then there are the games that just weren't put together well, but at the time seemed fine because it was new.

I'd tend to agree.

One example- Thunder Force V for the Saturn looks blocky as hell- but that's the "feel" of the game, and I love it.

Virtual Fighter for me, has not aged well- because well... the poly count sucks.

It seems to me at some point in time, the tech for a given way of doing games matures to an acceptable point where if the game is awesome, it doesn't really matter- I know for one I'm never going to go back and play "Wings of Glory" on the Apple II e, however I could play an action game like Crusader, No Remorse, StarCraft or Master of Orion as they had something beyond the "holy crap the graphics are sweet"

WingCommander III & IV while very primative in today's standards, had a pretty amazing story

Heroe's of Might and Magic I is still my favorite because of it's total toonish innocence- hell the dragons looked like Puff the Magic Beer drinking dragon with shrunk wings

I suppose it is a combination of things, however I think it really boils down to the following:
1. How much impact did the game have on you personally.
2. Was the game the pinnical of what it did at it's time and after that did the genre change so significantly (I.E. go 3d) that it has yet to be surpased? (SOTN anyone?)

Personally, the game that had the most lasting impact on me is Cyberstorm Missionforce- as it was deep, options were huge, and the missions were not scripted- I.E. you have to do X in a certain order or you die, multiplayer was intense and since it was a turned based game, I don't think we'll see another game that builds upon it and makes it better. Hell, the sequel sucked.

[soonersfan60]

What's interesting is that I found Banjo-Tooie for N64 not nearly as enjoyable as the original Banjo-Kazooie because of the graphics. I still played it through, but something wasn't right with the second one. I felt claustrophic or something--it didn't feel as smooth and wide open as the first.

I also agree with the early PS games--many were hard to look at even when they were new. I don't mind some of the early Atari games, possibly because I grew up with it but I think it has to do more with what the game was trying to accomplish. Blocks to represent things never looked good even then, but games like Superman (I think that one was from 1979 !) and Ms. Pac Man still amaze me with what the 2600 could do.

[Roufuss]

Really? I have my original CD and I figured I would reinstall it this weekend. It installed fine but the video threw up on me several times. I figure my card may be too powerful or something. I dunno.

I got graphics errors too... the gun kept stuttering really badly, and it was really distracting and gave me a damn headache. It stopped if I went out of Direct 3-D mode, but the software rendering is ugly as fuck, so I just gave up on it.

The game seemed really fucking boring anyway.

[RegalSin2020]

I find myself really not even wanting to play alot of the early 3-D games. 3-D needs to be remade, all of it.


Give me a break. Most of the early stuff was better taken care of then todays stuff. If you don't like them then show them my way.

By taken care of due to restrictions to deal with they had to find ways of creating advance 3d in a not so advance enviorment. Take for example StarFox. There is no way you could tell me the game looks auwful or even Stunt Race FX.

To be honest I wish they would make some N64 graphics on the GBA already. All we need is a cart with a 3d chip and enough space. Think about it

MOTHER 3 Special only for -200

It's not a dream but a reality

[Roufuss]

Nobody understands what you're saying.

[Rozz]

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I literally almost threw up after playing both a few months ago. I'll never play those games again.

[Chris in Cali]

by taken care of dew to restrictions they had to find various ways of creating


Dew. That's worse than kat.

[Photomotoz]

I agree with many points made here. Early 3D graphics are the worst. Early PSX games and early 3D PC games are the worst offenders. As are many N64 games. Half the time the graphics are literally painful as noted by other CAGs, I get headaches in Golden Eye and others. I think that if the game was trying to showcase the graphics then game becomes one of the ones I can't stand, most FPS games try to do this. Games that do not focus on graphics much like SSB work really great.

[Z-Saber]

I'm sorry, but imo games like Mario 3 and Final Fantasy 4 will always age gracefully, but the graphics of Silent Hill can go fuck themselves. It just hurts my eyes staring at that early polygonal crap fest, and I find myself really not even wanting to play alot of the early 3-D games.While I agree that this:
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/5628/ff4zy.th.png (http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ff4zy.png)
and this:
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/4053/m31rf.th.png (http://img56.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m31rf.png)
look great, I don't understand how you can't like this:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/613/sh29gi.th.png (http://img205.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sh29gi.png)
this:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3654/sh38cz.th.png (http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sh38cz.png)
and this:
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4674/sh4ix.th.png (http://img73.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sh4ix.png)

I think Silent Hill looks terrific.

Anyway, the only times graphics get in the way are when they are low resolution/blurry or low framerate. Essentially, I'm talking about the N64, though PS1 games do have these problems pretty often. Perfect Dark and Goldeneye are almost impossible for me to play because they're so darn blurry and choppy. I still love the games, but man they're hard to play now that we're all used to smooth and clear games like Halo.

[RegalSin2020]

Let me tell you what I hate about graphics getting in the way of my Gameplay. When I first played PSO on the GCN the very first time I tour the main lobby everything hurt my eyes or changed them some how.

Again PSO imagine casting Fire 3 all at once. After that one of my eyes feels diffrent and might even be focusing diffrent after seeing bright red flashes across the screen.

Before PSO my eyes never had any problems and Rockman Dash on the PSX had great graphics that could have been on N64 but was so bright with the blasts. When it did came out for the N64 I was like dang this looks beautiful and soft.

I hate or Hated "hard to rock games" like Secret Of Evermore, Kirby Alll Stars, ShadowRun on the SNES, and most Sega Games. I found myself screaming or bored to sleep playing these games and there choppy controls.

Right now the only thing I hate is how everything recent looks too fake or to real. I believe 3d games have reached the peak where they have abandon there representive ideals into 3d realism which is just so fake.

Like Rumble Roses and DOA with the Hangaras. I mean god almighty I want to see stick on women with nice nips not hideous hangaras hitting the chest area. I mean I have nightmares where I can barely remember what curved breasts looks like after seeing games with Hangaras.

[Purple Flames]

The original Doom. The pixelation, even back then. was murder on my already-poor vision.

[Quackzilla]

N64 looks acceptable, any earlier is unplayable (PS1, blech).

Unless you count 2d graphics...

[willardhaven]

Those Silent Hill shots look like PC shots.

[Chacrana]

When the graphics haven't aged well. Case in point: nearly every PS1/Saturn/N64 game. Most of these games have aged like shit and that really takes away from the game. I also can't stand shitty draw distances where you can't see 5 feet in front of you.... I also hate poorly implemented cel-shaded graphics... when a game tries to be art-sy and it's clear that there's really nothing good behind those graphics, then they serve as a detriment.

[HumanSnatcher]

Roufuss. did you get Blood II to work in windows XP? If so. HOW? I've been trying to get this to work for days here.

I was able to get my copy to run on XP. Took a bit of googling. If I could remember I'd tell you. You'll need to google for the last patches. Though I mostly go into the other room in my place and play it along with others on my Win98 box that I keep around for that purpose

One game that is a horrible offender to me is Sonic Spinball. Dear god, what were they thinking

[Spades22]

final fantasy 7. I try to play it...but I just can't it's so awful graphically.

[jer7583]

I must be one of the only people that gets a kick out of simplistic 32 bit era geometry. Not all of it, there are some pretty awful games out there.

Blurry, low framerate messes like the original ridge racer, Syphon Filter, Driver, Banjo-Kazooie, Jet Force Gemini, or the original Tenchu are pretty horrible.

Some of the better examples I think of are games like Einhander, Rival Schools, Soul Blade, Jumping Flash, Toshinden, Conker's BFD,Any Mega Man Legends, MGS, Time Crisis, Destruction Derby, Super Mario 64, FF8, Tobal no.1, the original Virtua Fighter, even.

These are games that i think look sharp even with those simple graphics. I guess i'm just a fan of early texture mapping and artists who used such basic abilities creatively to allow you to imagine detail that they couldn't actually put there. Katamari Damacy is a good example of a recent title that seems to use this "minimalist" design. I'd really like to see a current or next gen game use really simplistic geometry with today's technology to create some really large, densely populated environments.

And one of the things that always pissed me off in the 32 bit era was when games "cheated" by using 2D forced perspective sprites in 3D environments for objects. I know it was necessary somtimes, but most of the time was just an easy cop out for having a shitty engine or bad design.

I still hate the 2D trees in Super Mario 64 that appear to lay flat when you look down from the sky, not to mention Mario Kart 64's lazy ass way of rendering the drivers (environments in MK64 were great, though) This was what I really loved about MGS's graphics, is they never cheated, and if an object was there, it had some basic geometry, down to sinks, desks, and PSOne Development kits hidden in an office..

I guess my love for this "style" or "era" of 3D graphics is why i've got nearly 200 PSOne games, and why i love the graphics on DS games, because it's very much a similar style.

[jimbodan]

I'm not a graphics whore by any means, but I find a lot of early PS1 3-d incredibly hard to look at it.

[Z-Saber]

The original Doom. The pixelation, even back then. was murder on my already-poor vision.Said it another thread and I'll say it again; Blasphemy! Especially when you can EASILY find source ports that will make it look much better.

Those Silent Hill shots look like PC shots.ePSXe, so yes. If you know how to work it, anything can look awesome.

[stnkygrngo]

Man, remember Fifa-64? Those graphics fucking sucked! The game was tight in its control, it moved soccer into a popular party type or group game, and it had TWO british comentators. This is a good example of how graphics sucked, then the next year, Fifa 98, RTWC kicked ass, I still play it!

[MaskedPlague]

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I cannot drive on that game because I cannot see anything. The draw distances are horrible.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I think draw distances is a slightly different issue than graphics. Things like that, load times, camera angles, and frame rate drops are going to affect things long before raw graphics do.

If I'm having a problem with ancient games, its because of poor implementation of their idea which may or may not be due to lack of power, but not what I see on the screen.

If they replaced Mario in Mario 1 with one single, mooninite perfect square, it would still be fun.

If they downgraded Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess to Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time grade graphics, and sold it at a drastically lower price, I'd buy that one instead.

If Red Steel looked like Shadow Warrior, it would still be fun.

[Puffa469]

PS1 3D games are utter shit and completely unplayable to me. N64 3D games are a little better but not much. Blur-o-vision ages a little better than block-o-vision for me. The Saturn is even worse, nearly every game I own for the Saturn is 2D and 99% of the games that I still play and collect for those systems are 2D. To me 2D games still look good even if they are 10+ years old.

I look at it this way. Just as Atari was the genesis of 2D, and looks pretty awful today, thats how I see 3D Saturn and PS1 games. They are the genesis of 3D and look horrible when compared to second and third gen 3D games.

[Mookyjooky]

I think it all comes down to clarity.

I hated playing games like syphon filter on the PSX cause I felt that the graphics were unclear... you couldnt tell what was what.

It wasnt just the 3D polys that was blocky, it was the walls and the clothes and the glass and the EVERYTHING. Everything was covered in little blocks, it was like playing a game painted by monet.

Now Metal Gear Solid, was just good enough, probably due to the drawn back camera. Pull the camera far back enough and everything looks clear.... unless its that shitty "Loaded" game on the PSX.

The PSX games dont need more polys (Though it would be nice), they just need to put better bipmaps on the polys.

If the PSX, and Saturn games were in high res, just still blocky... I would say that aged fine. Because now its clear that the guy in the background isnt part of the wall.

Thats why 2D games age well, its because ANYONE can look at them and see whats going on, even in a high paced Sonic game.

But most people would have to ask what the hell is going on in the PSX game Blast Chamber... Or take a look at this shot of Starfox 64. What sucked about the 64, was not only was blocky, (yet a bit better) - but it still had low res bitmaps and the 64's colors bled all over the damn screen.

http://www.geocities.com/mrbadguy_v2/n64rev/starfox64-8.jpg

Tell me you wouldnt play this 3D saturn Game.... take a look at these and you'll see its not 3D at fault... it clarity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG7KrJVrVhA&search=grandia%20saturn

You cant say Atari looks like shit, and then have a Space Invader or Pacman act as an Iconic figure. It's not the game that looks like shit, its the clarity. Atari was really blurry and bled colors all over the screen. So did the NES.

But if you emulate them on a PC, alot of the aging process reverses.

It's Clarity. Thats my theory. Who agrees?

[graf1k]

when a game tries to be art-sy and it's clear that there's really nothing good behind those graphics, then they serve as a detriment.
Agreed. But on the flip side, when done properly, a cel-shaded game can look almost timeless. I mean, cel-shaded 360 and PS3 games aren't going to look a whole lot better than cel-shaded games now. That's just the nature of the style. Last time I went back and played Jet Set Radio on Dreamcast I'm still a little taken back by how good it looks.

As for the OP's question, it really depends on the games. I do think that for whatever reason most people, myself included, are able to go back and play 2D games and not notice the graphics as much as older 3D games. It could be the nostalgia or the lowered expectations for 2D, but for whatever reason I can play Genesis games for hours and not care that the graphics are dated but can't bring myself to fire up a PSX game.

Even early PS2 games like Twisted Metal Black that I thought looked great at the time look like crap to me now. I think other than Klonoa 2 which again doesn't have a traditional art style, I don't think I have any pre-2003 PS2 games.

[Rags]

I picked up the NES the other day and played some Battletoads and Punch Out. Still awesome, no matter the graphics. And right now I am playing through Final Fantasy 3(VI). Gameplay makes a huge difference to me on whether or not graphics matter. I

I could still play Pokemon Blue or Red on Game Boy, but would rather play Pokemon Fire or Leaf on Game Boy Advance. All determined by choices and how good the game is itself.

For example, Resident Evil 1 for PS has blocky graphics now but I would still play it. Silent Hill is the same graphics pretty much, maybe better, but I don't care for the Silent Hill games so I would not play Silent Hill 1 for PS.

[Rozz]

Man, remember Fifa-64? Those graphics fucking sucked! The game was tight in its control, it moved soccer into a popular party type or group game, and it had TWO british comentators. This is a good example of how graphics sucked, then the next year, Fifa 98, RTWC kicked ass, I still play it!

I remember renting Fifa 64 back in the day and marveling at how great the visuals looked...

[Z-Saber]

I remember renting Fifa 64 back in the day and marveling at how great the visuals looked...I remember not renting Fifa 64 because it was a soccer game.

[Chacrana]

It's Clarity. Thats my theory. Who agrees?

I do think that clarity is a huge issue. Not being able to tell what the hell's happening is a major and suprisingly common issue. I think the problem that a lot of 3D games had was that developers tried to push shitty hardware too far and they attempted to make something too flashy. While at the time the game looked kinda cool because there was so much shit going on, now it's clear that they're just... shit. Metal Gear Solid didn't try to be too flashy as it went with an overhead (sorta) view and that really has helped make the game playable today. And that lack of "flash" on primitive hardware is what helped make everything clear. So I think that the problem with clarity in 3D games is a direct effect of developers trying to do too much shit on insufficient hardware.

I think that games from this gen will age far better than games from the PS1 era simply because the hardware is capable of rendering 3D objects... people look like people. How we accepted shitty attempts at 3D last gen is beyond me.

[Chacrana]

Agreed. But on the flip side, when done properly, a cel-shaded game can look almost timeless. I mean, cel-shaded 360 and PS3 games aren't going to look a whole lot better than cel-shaded games now. That's just the nature of the style. Last time I went back and played Jet Set Radio on Dreamcast I'm still a little taken back by how good it looks.

Yeah, some cel-shaded games didn't go overboard or used cel-shading where it was appropriate and it paid off. I think Jet Set Radio started the cel-shading craze and that does look amazing still. Hell, the Shin Megami Tensei games are supposed to be cel-shaded and that's what gives them a distinct visual appeal.

Unfortunately, very few developers use the effect well or have anything behind the visuals to make the game worthwhile... unless somebody wants to make a case for Cel Damage and XIII.

[epobirs]

Personal aesthetics is a really big part of it. I can look back at old platforms and still appreciate that a game had very good graphics. For that platform. But it can still fall below the standards I require to hold my attention today. It's one thing to play a very old game in the original but if you're doing a clone of that game today it better have some of the fine touches that take work but were completely beyond the old machines. If somebody does a Missile Command clone in Flash on a web site, it has to be more visually engaging than the original. I need something more than nostlgia when I've already played the original so thoroughly.

Many of the games that didn't hold up well suffered from being overambitious. This happened a lot on the PS1 and Saturn. A game striving for 3D realism instead ended up with something very ugly when the same team could have done far better using an approach looking like a much improved SNES game. Once the novelty of 3D itself wore off things were ugly. Figures that could have been highly detailed sprites were instead low polygon count 3D models. The 3D enabled a new freedom of movement but at a great cost.

The N64 library has held up better, I believe, because it tended more toward the cartoonish and was less limited by the polygon counts. Plus its more advanced rendering options got more mileage from the volume it could produce.

Worse were the games that could devolve into an abstract image at a moment's notice. I really liked the King's Field series but playing was often difficult due to the limitations of the PS1. All too often if you moved to close to an object or chose a bad camera angle, the display would become an abstract colelction of triangles with no sense of direction or form.. The later PS2 entry in the series was a hugel improvement just by providing a mor efully featured world. IT wasn't a wonderland of graphic detail but you could tell which way you were facing and what you were looking at. The PSP remakes of the PS1 games looks immensely more playable thanks to the graphic clairty.
http://www.the-magicbox.com/0607/game060711c.shtml

Other old games have held up very well because they used a style that worked well within the limits of the platform used. So many games look fine and make the transistion to handheld with almost identical appearances.

[Collaborator]

Graphics take away the enjoyment from most games. Mostly because developers believe gamers are Eyecandy consumer whores, and focus on the graphics much more than the gameplay.

Good graphics can never escape good gameplay. Good gameplay can always escape good graphics. They'll figure this out one day, we can hope.

[Jewelz23]

As I played Batman Begins, The latest Spider-Man video game, Marvel Nemesis, and an Old Super Man game...one question came up from one of my buddies. How come none of these games are in 2D anymore? He was playing Spider-Man: The Movie on the XBOX recently and said it did not capture the soul and feel of Spider-Man...while it was similar to the movie, thats not how spidey should be played. So I sat there, thought about it for a bit and wondered hmm, this is true. Why aren't these comic book games in 2D instead of 3D? Most of these comic book game franchises lately have a shakey track record when it comes to critic reviews since making the ever so "important" jump to 3D or so. I think this is an example of how sometimes better technology, more detail can actually hurt a video game than help. Picture a 2D Superman game...pushing the envelope like Capcom did with their Viewtiful Joe franchise can actually help the man of steel...which has an awful track record when it comes to video games.

so yes, I agree with this thread.

[radjago]

I put a lot more stock in art style than the graphics themselves. It's amazing what some people can do with so litttle. I went back and played some Atari 2600 games this past weekend and they actually looked better than I had remembered. If you guys thought the first-gen 3D on consoles was bad, you should have seen it on PCs. At least the consoles had hardware acceleration.

[Quackzilla]

I put a lot more stock in art style than the graphics themselves. It's amazing what some people can do with so litttle. I went back and played some Atari 2600 games this past weekend and they actually looked better than I had remembered. If you guys thought the first-gen 3D on consoles was bad, you should have seen it on PCs. At least the consoles had hardware acceleration.
yeah, you hit the nail on the head!

Art style is the key!

Actually, that still applies to games today! I mean, bone animations (half life) look better than static meshes (sin) and Golden Sun looked better than Pokemon Ruby...

[Chacrana]

I put a lot more stock in art style than the graphics themselves. It's amazing what some people can do with so litttle. I went back and played some Atari 2600 games this past weekend and they actually looked better than I had remembered. If you guys thought the first-gen 3D on consoles was bad, you should have seen it on PCs. At least the consoles had hardware acceleration.


Exactly. That's what I really hate about a lot of your typical GTA games or FPSes... it's that they have no real style that seperates them from every other game out there.