GameCube was ahead of its time. It is still an impressive console after all these years.
GameCube was ahead of its time. It is still an impressive console after all these years.
GameCube was ahead of its time. It is still an impressive console after all these years.
It's squarely of its time, what are you tendies going on about.
people saying iterations of anything from their era were "ahead of their time" has slowly become a moderate irritation for me.
the reasoning is usually "because it was good" and never anything specifically anachronistic about the technology. if Gamecube devs invented SSD storage it would have been "ahead of its time". If the NES had an online store it wouldve been "ahead of its time"
the gamecube was literally just a console with good games on it. if anything it was backwards for using a proprietary disc format in an age where standard CDs were cheaper than rice and the DVD was coming into its own
You really nailed it. The assumption that a game is old so it must be bad and have bad graphics is behind such a phrase. Which is ridiculous because suddenly people are applying this phrase to dozens and dozens of games, because, shockingly, dozens and dozens of games look and play great on these systems.
>people saying iterations of anything from their era were "ahead of their time" has slowly become a moderate irritation for me.
ESL here, so correct me if I'm wrong.
I feel the same way about "art direction". Art direction has a specific meaning. If they're talking about game's style they're just saying they like it and don't even elaborate on game's style. They don't even get into details about what would constitute as art direction. Saying graphics look nice would be much better, but these idiots have to sound smart. Another thing is art direction isn't even that important. Torchlight 2 has better art style compared to Diablo 3, but Diablo 3 looks better in everyway possible. You can't just defend it saying you prefer art style on cases like these when one game has far superior graphics.
Don't even get me started on overusing "revolutionary".
Another issue is who did something first. There are certain ideas that were notable enough that need recognition. Not everything is like this. There are many games that "invented" shit that would've got invented anyways.
Another thing people are founding out older blockbuster games and calling them underrated. Or defending them as underrated when they were just dumb basic games that only got popular because of advertisement.
"Art direction" is cope for not reaching the true admittance that the number of polygons and resolution have no impact on how "good" something looks. It is trying to reconcile the fact that something looks great with the industry brainwashing that use of buzzword technologies constitute "good graphics". Same thing with "technically impressive", as if some absolute garbage 5 frames a second disaster that is displaying polygons on a SNES is at all "impressive".
I especially agree on "technically impressive". It looks bad so what? Ultimately what truly matters is whether it looks good or not. People having to cut past corners for releasing a new product to make money isn't a reason to romanticize it.
Many things were considered outdated in like a year or two after they were released because they looked bad. 2D sprites in FPS games always bothered me. 2D sprites in 5th gen as well.
I always hated digitized sprites and found them cheap looking. Mortal Kombat sprites always looked off to me and MK has the best digitized sprites.
Thing is stuff similar to this has always been studied at drawings and animation. Entry books on animation explains the issues regarding using static backgrounds and trying to develop techniques to overcome this. I'm talking books that were written in like 1950s. People act like stuff was okay when they never were.
I always use a CRT shader for retro games, but CRT also has became a meme of sorts. It didn't magically hide every issue. If you looked closely enough you could always see issues in images. Especially in bad games or games that overshoot what console was capable.
Nowadays people started defending bad graphics for no reason. Some indie games are looking worse than first 3D games.
Western retro PC games were technically much more impressive than console games yet no one talks about them anymore. Why do we pretend to care when it comes to console games. Funnily enough it's the same people who snuff at Amiga when Amiga is one of the most interesting computers there is, if you're into technically impressive stuff.
I guess for really discussing graphics we need to look past that people were trying to sell off new stuff and just focus on how graphics have looked.
It is pretty wild how terrible many digitized 2d PSX games look when you're playing them using crystal clear component cables on a CRT. You can often see outline and even compression artifacts.
Did you even think about what you just posted? Absolute nonsense.
i have exited multiple videos the moment the speaker decides to say "they couldnt do realism back then and art direction is more important anyway because its timeless"
these c**ts have absolutely no idea what theyre talking about at any point. im not even going to go off on the "I miss when games were simple" shit talkers- when theyre talking about the PEE ESS FRICKING TWO and Kingdom Hearts as "back then"
Vagrant Story shows that it was possible to do realism back in PS1.
This is also not a West vs Japan issue like they make it. Doom 3 looks more cartoony than other Western games, because that was simply what you had to do during that generation to create realistic games.
Putting badly scanned face textures on an oval is sign of bad developer.
Then it is not retro.
This could have been done on both PS2 and xbox its just prerendered backgrounds.
Yeah, but then you'd have to deal with a shitty controller.
not true. PS2 can’t touch the lighting effects of gamecube. it’s most obvious comparing re4 torches on gamecube to ps2.
What about games like Silent Hill 2 and MGS2? They have impressive lighting and realtime shadows, which I don't recall seeing often on the 'cube.
The lighting is literally up to the developer
It was not ahead of its time. The Xbox was. Compare REddit Evil and its dogshit jpg backgrounds to a game like Splinter Cell on the Xbox. Gamecube was out classed from the start.
>the xbox was ahead of its time because it finally brought PC games to console
Yes
REddit Evil is actually RE4
>Gamecube was ahead of its time because.....
>REmake!
>pre-rendered backgrounds btw
This much brown and bloom? It's like a 7th gen game.
It's weird that RE4 was never ported to Xbox
360 got released around the PS2 version's release date. Real question is I wonder why they didn't port it to 360 early on. An enhanced port would've sold better than the Wii version. It would have been an iconic 360 game. They only released it towards the end of 7th generation.
Not really. RE4 wasn't important at all back then. It started gaining popularity among zoomers when it released on the Wii.
Dreamcast was ahead of that gen, PS2 had the best library, xbox had the best hardware, gamecube meanwhile had nothing going for it, and resident evil sold less than shit like kirby because tendies only buy tendie garbage, tendies are delusional