There are two camps of people. Those who find 5th gen 3D graphics charming, and those who hate it completely and are glad they don't want to touch those games anymore. Which camp do you find yourself in?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
3D peaked during 5th gen
>3D peaked during 5th gen
No it didn't, the technology got better over time and what ruined the hobby (for you) was the industry's obsession with attracting normies by pushing for realistic graphics. Stop being a homosexual and start enjoying games again.
No he's right and you're wrong
Oh is that how it works? Well I'm right and you're wrong and no further objections can be given.
You didn't even make an argument all you did was make assumptions about the other guy
Neither. I don't either love nor hate any generation's "graphics" since the look of a game wasn't solely dependent on the specs of the platform. There were pretty games and ugly games on every platform. The world isn't a binary choice, stop trying to make it one, you simpleton.
way to kill the vibe
Agreed however I do find that out of all the the gens, the 5th is the one that I revisit the least.
Agree except every game before 4th gen, they all look like shit no exception
Ops meant 3th*, Castlevania 1 and 3 for example look fantastic
I think River Raid has pleasantly minimalistic graphics. That's about it.
The Crash Bandicoot games on PS1 still look great this is a fact
PS1/PS2/XBOX/PC/8 Bit computer/16 Bit computer. Everything else is a waste of time and irrelevant
Lots fo PS1 games look fine
360 had a great fricking library and you are wrong but it is not retro. so not up for discussion.
>360 had a great fricking library and you are wrong
You clearly can't read because that's not what I was talking about.
>Those who find 5th gen 3D graphics charming, and those who hate it completely
Aka ps1 owners amd N64 owners.
I like I like all graphics, equally
as long as the game's good
I can't fricking stand 3D during the PS3, 360 era. All those games focusing on realistic graphics were overly shiny, like as if the models were constantly wet.
They did make plenty more games than eealis grey shooters
I specifically said the more "realistic" looking games had this problem.
All games that weren't overly stylized during that generation had this issue. Various textures in almost every game looked like wet asphalt because of the shitty lighting engines.
Have you considered not playing cowadoody clones? Most people stopped playing FPS games in 2009 when the hobby-wide FPS burnout set in.
it was the brown and bloom that killed that gen for me.
I liked GTA IV and Fallout 3 though and those games had very limited color palettes.
as I started to play more games outside of the classics I think I've started to lean towards the latter, a lot of stuff just looks like shit. 6th gen is a much better balance where things looked crisp and clean but hadn't yet fallen into the pit of bruteforce high fidelity malaise we find ourselves in now.
I love older 3D graphics. 3D from around 1992-2001 has a simplistic, dreamlike quality to it that was mostly lost at some point in the 6th gen.
>There are two camps of people.
No, there are not. Shitload of 5th gen games had awful graphics, while others used the newly avaliable tech wisely and built their aesthetics around its limitations.
there's still no game that looks as colorful and vivid as Diddy Kong Racing.
Dr Slump
5th gen was held by lack of 3D experience of devs
games peaked in 6th gen
7th gen where it all went wrong
>peaked in 6th gen
Oh yeah.
I haven't been able to get into GX because I find it looks so bad compared to X. X is one of the most visually striking games I've ever played. Bold colors, amazing comic book art, visually clear, not to mention the music. GX just kind of looks generic by comparison, with washed out colors, ugly 3d renders, and generic techno music.
Not bringing the quality of the gameplay into discussion at all. Just visually and aurally, X is better.
Yeah, X has superior aesthetics in terms of style but was held back by hardware and media.
X is also a better game.
3D perfection in 1999
The later. Hard-core. 5th fen had a few great games but is overall the worst generation there's been since 1-2.
Both. I think Saturn and PSX games have soul, as in the graphics have a pretty unique look, but I don't particularly care for them.
That's 6th gen
>That's 6th gen
Grow up you fricking autist. I can think for myself and have my own opinions.
Sorry I hurt your feelings anon, I thought the point of going to an imageboard was to discuss things. Hope you can recover from this traumatic experience of having your views challenged. Sincerely, anon.
You didn't hurt any feelings, moron. But a greentext and then "that's 6th gen" with zero other effort is utterly pointless and not discussion. Grow up and learn how to discuss things uf that's what you want but if you act like a literal moron, I am going to point it out.
Least raging 6th gen enjoyer
The main problem is devs trying to make their games look "realistic". If you think "realistic" 6th and 7th gen games have aged bad, 5th are unbelievable. I honestly even hated that shit at the time. There are a ton of good looking 3d games though that are just doing their own thing visually.
Gonna have to say I'm in the former camp, I dunno if charming is how I describe it though, I just personally like the very abstract designs that came out of the 5th gen. Like they sometimes kind of look fine when you're running through a world and then you realise "what the hell is this place supposed to be anyway?" and the layout and design just makes less and less sense the more you look at it, but it's all because the level design is purely based around fun with little attempt at trying to make something realistic.
5th gen graphics depend on the art direction for me. i like half-life, OOT, MGS1, sonic R and fear effect graphically but something the classic residient evils just looks "cheap" to me.
Who gives a frick? They're video games. If you like video games, play them. If you don't like video games, don't play them. You don't need to be pretentious and psychoanalize the game's graphics.
Yeah who the hell comes to a video game discussion board to discuss video games
Some games look really good and some got too ambitious and look like shit. I'm more partial to the N64 look than the PS1 look but that's probably because I grew up with an N64
2D>3D
3D cannot hope to outdo 2D. 2D will always be superior to 3D. You have to bring the best 3D against the most medicores of 2D to have the illusion of a fair contest.
3D brought slowness to video games. An rpg will have unnecessarily long animations. A puzzle game will involve hours moving a sluggish characters to get to the next part of a puzzle. If the rpg was 2d, the animation would be done instantly and you'd then move to the tactics. If the action puzzle was 2d, you'd instantly move the blocks, find 5 chests, turn around 7 rubics and slayed 10 monsters in the time needed for the water dungeon elevator to land on a different floor. It's tempting to say 3D is for the lower-minded pleb.
And they are so not even for preferring "graphics over gameplay" or some such nonsense, as the graphics of a 2D are well-crafted and stylish. They fall lower into the realm of falling for popular marketing over both, much like one who picks a Cinematic Marvel slop over the Mona Lisa. The most of non-patricians, so to speak.
>numeric generation nonsense
kys
A bit of both. The average third-party 5th gen 3D game was quite ugly. Good-looking 5th gen 3D games had a charm like nothing since though.
I love 5th gen graphics! They've got a cool and unique look to them.
I'm in neither camp. I'm fine with them and still enjoy the look for what it's worth, but I don't think a lot of uses of it hold up particularly well. Arcade hardware of the time, though, some of that holds up incredibly well.
For instance, look at Saturn The House of the Dead vs arcade/Sega Model 2 The House of the Dead.
says who? even zoomies like that look now and put it in their indie games