You play old games because you prioritise good gameplay over graphics.
I play old games because my laptop can't run anything from the past 15 years
We are not the same
TBH who wants to own a laptop where 30 minute battery during windows 11 being open and doing nothing is the average user experience, but technically you can play games on high settings if you want?
Running old games in 4k to get the smoothest low poly models :chefs-kiss:
It's hit a point of diminishing returns a couple generations ago as well.
Remember when the polygon look was marketed as "hyper-realistic" in the 2000's
oh just got back into Morrowind with the Tamriel Rebuilt mod, been running around the mainland doing mages guild shit and stealing everything that's not nailed down from the dumbmers, while also freeing their slaves because uphold :JB-shining-aggro:-thought
Average MorrowChad
btw have you tried the voice addon mods yet? They add a lot of spice to the main quest and feel authentic to Morrowind.
I did start to follow one of the mods, waiting for them to finish adding the VA to try it :meow-floppy:
I've only played Skyrim before, and actually kinda disliked it, but recently a mixture of comrades constantly talking about Elder Scrolls lore and the Dagoth Ur memes made me pick up Morrowind... and it actually is really good?
Game's got a fantastic atmosphere that I have rarely seen outside of period piece games (Vice City, Mafia 2, etc.) and while the gameplay seems super-clunky at first, it's actually really fun and has a great sense of skill progression.
The details like your character covering their face during storms (weather... in a 2002 game!) make it even better.
Welcome to being a Morrowboomer. :chomsky-yes-honey:
Really though, in my opinion the only thing the gameplay would need is a combat log of some type. So you could see that you have like a 3/100 chance to open a door before using 6 journeyman lockpicks on it :meow-tableflip:
I really wanted the grasses and foliage overlay but couldn't get it to line up properly with TR.
My install is also kinda fucky, one of the northern smaller islands added has the town just clipping into the terrain. 😅
The grasses and foliage do work properly atleast.
"Bad graphics" as a term should only refer to graphics that are difficult to visually interpret within the game design, or graphics that are simply too bland/uninspired to look visually interesting. Metal Gear Solid 1 doesn't have "bad graphics" because I can still visually distinguish what I'm looking at and they don't interfere with gameplay. Silent Hill doesn't have bad graphics because it has interesting design.
The recent Gotham Knights game has bad graphics because despite the game's attempt at realistic, compelling visuals, they come up very flat and weak in comparison to previous Batman Arkham games. Fortnite has bad graphics because it looks like a bland corporate cartoon mess.
Maybe some younger folk have a hard time interpreting what things in early 3D graphics are supposed to be? Or they have a harder time understanding the visual clues? I'd think the main difference would be gameplay design quirks in older games, not just the graphics, but things like figuring out where you're supposed to go without things like quest trackers or compass markers. Quality of life stuff like that seems like a bigger distinction between older and modern games than just visuals.
The Bloodborne PS1 "de-make" is a prime example of what good art direction and quality textures can do for that low-poly style.
Gotham Knights feels so much like a cheap attempt at a batman/batverse game. Its crazy they even tried it knowing that Arkham exists.
G*mers :wojak-nooo: who like realistic graphic military game when I :gigachad: hand them their military Draft papers for World war 3
I know the PS1 retro aesthetic is kind of overplayed in indie games right now, but some of them are actually really nice looking. They're still low poly, but typically slightly higher poly and with higher quality textures than old consoles could actually handle, so they look like what I remember games from the time looking like, rather than how shitty they actually looked.
There are plenty that do a sloppy job of it, but with the right art-style and good texturing, that stuff can actually look really nice, and nostalgically soothing to old knobs like me who remember it from our younger days.
I wish they'd tone down the PS1 floating point polygon jittering effects "for authenticity" though. Game developers back in the day were aware of the jitter and tried to build environments and scenes to mitigate it the best they could. Adding in graphical effects for the fun of it that contribute to eyestrain is literally the opposite of authenticity in this case.
Even though I started playing games on the PS1, I'm not huge on the retro low poly look. I just don't think late 90s early 3D graphics have aged well at all, and that includes PC games as well. I have no trouble playing games from the era, but to deliberately emulate the look when it's so clearly a compromise doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Emulate the look and feel of PS2 games instead. Give me a game that looks like MGS3 :pingu-horny:
I love that the PS1 aesthetic exists purely because of cost-cutting and thermal budgeting. Like the technology existed to do the rendering it did properly, the just wanted to save pennies per unit sold lol.
Not sure if Ultrakill would count as "PS1" styled graphics but I'm definitely a fan of neo-retro in that vein.
I love that the PS1 aesthetic exists purely because of cost-cutting and thermal budgeting. Like the technology existed to do the rendering it did properly, the just wanted to save pennies per unit sold lol.
Old games do not have "bad graphics," they're frequently the best that technology was capable of at the time and should be regarded in that context
People today literally find old games unplayable. Their eyes cannot make out what the colors on the screen are supposed to be. Donkey Kong is as illegible as Thai script.
You can't read because the game's text is illegible.
I can't read because I press A and don't care what the text says.
We are not the same.
Weak-minded buffoons are unable to discern greatness yes
Pearls cast before swine are wasted
IDK about that, but if there's an old game I find unplayable, it's going to be for a less cosmetic UI/UX problem, some specific examples are:
- Starcraft - holy shit destroying your mouse just to be """good""" at micromanaging when your dragoons can have nap time and use the bathroom is boring af, take a hint from modern RTS inventions like squads from Dawn of War (2004).
- Diablo - no I don't to micromanage random inventory things that are fully automated in Guild Wars.
- (IDK some random FPS) you need to press a specific key on your keyboard to pick up ammo and there's literally no hint anywhere that this FPS requires you to do something literally no other FPS does
- install instructions for windows 10+/OSX/ubuntu/wine look indistinguishable from hacking into the pentagon and also don't work, or haven't been updated since windows XP/7/8 but isn't old enough for DOSBox.
- Gauntlet (2014) - is there some reason 2 players can't both be the archer? That's a first for Gauntlet games AFAIK. Also the wizard's controls is bizarre af so if you try a 4 player game somebody gets stuck the wizard and has no way of knowing wtf they're doing.
- Mario Kart Double Dash - only one player can select each character. Also, each player has to select 2 characters. So if you're player 4, you're kind of fucked because the best 6 characters are probably already taken.
- Civ4 - stacks of doom are really dumb after experiencing Civ5 and hex tiles
- Civ5 - every else was better in Civ4
- Civ6 - districts are stupid and everything else is still better in Civ4
- Civilization Revolution - if you don't already have it installed, you have to play the microtransaction DLC shitware called Civilization Revolution 2 because CR1 was delisted.
- Continuum - the good maps are empty and trenchwars is ran by a MAGA chud
At the time, but it's not that time anymore. I know Toy Story was extremely impressive for its time, but it looks much worse than what's being produced today. That doesn't mean it's worse as a work of art, but if someone wants a stunning animated experience in the modern day I'm probably not going to recommend it
I would say I love the super Nintendo, but those graphics have aged incredibly well in general.
N64 games look pretty rough if I'm being honest.
I’d agree with that although I’d say the N64’s worst “graphical” issues are FOV (do ya like fog?) and usually awful camera controls lol
At least for consuls, I genuinely don’t see what’s improved since the PS3 - XBoX 360 era of games. Almost all the big releases even seem to be remasters of games from that era.
Same problem with film and tv, consolidation and companies having to show increasingly larger profits makes anything other than established properties a risk for returns on the investment.
Mostly lighting and framerate/resolution. Games from that era were almost universally sub-900p, 30fps. Also loading times now that SSDs are standard.
Because the damn game is good, that's why.
It's been out forever so no bugs. It's passed the test of time so it's entertaining and has interesting decisions to make. There are mods and user-created scenarios. Who the hell cares what it looks like? Jesus, people.
And yes, I realize that there is a substantial cohort of those who play games primarily to (1) gaze at graphics (2) get a consumer's sense of satisfaction knowing that the graphics card is pushing billions of operations per second.
has a Ryzen 7 2700x and a ROG Strix 1070
still prefers to play games that came out when Mandela was still president
