else.
You can look at this map and understand any particular area in an instant - terrain, units, defensive positions
Unless you're playing a sim of some sort better graphics makes for bad gameplay.
I generally take myself to be impervious to offence at this point, but son I take exception to that. It was the best game ever made until CivIII came out.
In my view Civ peaked with IV. And one major reason for this is that it was the last time graphics improved in a way that benefitted the game. The difference between 2002 and 2006 graphics is a major leap. 2006 versus 2010 or 2016 graphics however didn't benefit strategy game playability at all.
What are you talking about?
IV is ugly as frick compared to II, and it did not introduce anything that needed those jagged 3D models over soulful sprites.
3 and 5 are the best ones aesthetically.
It's true, clarity[...] else.
You can look at this map and understand any particular area in an instant - terrain, units, defensive positions
Unless you're playing a sim of some sort better graphics makes for bad gameplay.
they do not
your nostalgia has nothing to do with how the game actually looks, believe it or not, nigh time to get those two separated before /vst/ shits up your senses further
Strange, I've picked up plenty of old games I never heard of that are older than I am and consider them to be some of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.
>guess the game
Just put it in the fricking filename, wienersucker.
/vst/ was better than Ganker for a long time but now this place is infested with fricking morons and the mods don't do anything about it. We have a board for general moronation, frick off back there.
>More than half the posts on here are about TW, Paradox, or Civ games >Guys claiming that to be an oldgay can't recognise a TW game screencap and says the board has gone to shit
Just sad really
>every game needs to be cartoonish and kid friendly for consolegays and mobile morons
unironically this, also designed primarily to look good on a mobile screen
Most people are spiritual pajeets and will take superficial "realistic" fidelity over any kind of coherent visual direction or eye for optical theory. I don't know this stuff super-well but a visual artist friend of mine has explained a lot of individual examples to me, things like "remasters" completely fricking up colour balance. The trend seems to be that bad developers think that better tools are an excuse to try less rather than an opportunity to do more. Basically >"Okay we can do dust particles and high fidelity dirt, so we don't have to bother making anything look good now. The peasants will look at the dirt and mentally register 'graphics are good'."
Well designed old games look good because they have visual clarity and a clear theme that is stuck with, vs the visual vomit with a billion post processing effects you see now. There are a lot of old games that have bad clarity and severely aged models and textures.
I can't agree that the screenshot provided looks any good, it does have a certain level of charm of early 3D but that's about it. I will however definitely agree older games do often look better than modern games. I have yet to see any game released nowadays replicate the sort of charm present in the art styles of many classics.
Lack of post-processing like shaders and other useless eye-candy.
you're right, i do remember the growth of post processing effects in the 2000s watering things down
It's true, clarity
else.
You can look at this map and understand any particular area in an instant - terrain, units, defensive positions
Unless you're playing a sim of some sort better graphics makes for bad gameplay.
the new one any good?
What games?
2nd is Startopia
3rd might be Echelon
m8 civ 2 is a muddled mess
I generally take myself to be impervious to offence at this point, but son I take exception to that. It was the best game ever made until CivIII came out.
One of the worst examples of clarity that I can think of
The civ series peaked in terms of clarity in the very first game.
To be honest, it was the peak in many other ways.
In my view Civ peaked with IV. And one major reason for this is that it was the last time graphics improved in a way that benefitted the game. The difference between 2002 and 2006 graphics is a major leap. 2006 versus 2010 or 2016 graphics however didn't benefit strategy game playability at all.
What are you talking about?
IV is ugly as frick compared to II, and it did not introduce anything that needed those jagged 3D models over soulful sprites.
3 and 5 are the best ones aesthetically.
God that UI is dogshit
whats wrong with it
exactly color and clarity
they do not
your nostalgia has nothing to do with how the game actually looks, believe it or not, nigh time to get those two separated before /vst/ shits up your senses further
this looks bland, not really colourful
Nostalgia lens.
bullshit
This. anyone whos tried old games with no nostalgia for them knows how bad it can be
i like the way old games look even though i never played them,thats just me tho
Strange, I've picked up plenty of old games I never heard of that are older than I am and consider them to be some of the best gaming experiences I've ever had.
>best gaming experiences I've ever had
That's not what we're talking about though, moron.
more lively colors but also much less visual noise and bloat
great game
>guess the game
Just put it in the fricking filename, wienersucker.
/vst/ was better than Ganker for a long time but now this place is infested with fricking morons and the mods don't do anything about it. We have a board for general moronation, frick off back there.
why are you sperging?
that's Shogun Total War bro
Nope, it's the Shogun mod for Medieval 1.
Weak gotcha since they look almost 1:1
>More than half the posts on here are about TW, Paradox, or Civ games
>Guys claiming that to be an oldgay can't recognise a TW game screencap and says the board has gone to shit
Just sad really
every game needs to be cartoonish and kid friendly for consolegays and mobile morons
>every game needs to be cartoonish and kid friendly for consolegays and mobile morons
unironically this, also designed primarily to look good on a mobile screen
Most people are spiritual pajeets and will take superficial "realistic" fidelity over any kind of coherent visual direction or eye for optical theory. I don't know this stuff super-well but a visual artist friend of mine has explained a lot of individual examples to me, things like "remasters" completely fricking up colour balance. The trend seems to be that bad developers think that better tools are an excuse to try less rather than an opportunity to do more. Basically
>"Okay we can do dust particles and high fidelity dirt, so we don't have to bother making anything look good now. The peasants will look at the dirt and mentally register 'graphics are good'."
Well designed old games look good because they have visual clarity and a clear theme that is stuck with, vs the visual vomit with a billion post processing effects you see now. There are a lot of old games that have bad clarity and severely aged models and textures.
I can't agree that the screenshot provided looks any good, it does have a certain level of charm of early 3D but that's about it. I will however definitely agree older games do often look better than modern games. I have yet to see any game released nowadays replicate the sort of charm present in the art styles of many classics.
>Early 3D
>Better
Nostalgia gays really have brain rot.