Hogge Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I think everyone's noticed how popular it is to make games that look more or less 8-bit and 16-bit. From Flappy Bird to Retro City Rampage, the pixelated graphics are popular and loved by just about everyone. But how about 32/64 bit graphics? The early 3D games, with their low-poly, low-rez texture looks. The 32 bit games with super-sharp textures and no perspective correction, making the 3D shapes seem to flap in the wind, as if the cars were made from textile. Or how about the N64-games, which despite the superior power, soft texture and added perspective correction, still suffered from low-rez textures and low-poly graphics. And of course the well-known fog. If someone would release a game in this visual style, perhaps minus poor framerate, would you buy it? Why, or why not? Please discuss!
Grazza Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I probably wouldn't buy a polygon game of that type, but I do agree that the 32-bit era is overlooked in one era - sprites, particularly on the Saturn. Guardian Heroes, Story of Thor 2... In a way, the whole Saturn vs. PlayStation battle was Sprites vs. Polygons, but that's another matter. Sprite games could just go on getting better and better, so I somewhat regret that many games deliberately limit themselves to NES (or even SNES) quality.
Retro_Link Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 Providing it was fundamentally a good game I would absolutely buy it, for the same reason I think we all like to replay these games; they hold a certain charm and nostalgia. Although I'd be far more inclined to buy a new game based on 64 bit, than the 32 bit games. There are certain games out there where the gameplay is so good that the visuals are only there to serve a purpose and actually hold up perfectly well today... take F-Zero X for example... The simple artstyle for the genre makes the game look perfectly acceptable today. If Nintendo was to hire a developer to put out an F-Zero X 2 on the Virtual Console tomorrow, I think everyone would buy it. No one would care it looks like an N64 game, and if anything that might only add to the charm! That Banjo Kazooie pic above for example, the vibrancy and personality of the games environments and characters means the game still looks lovely today. So it can absolutely be done.
Cube Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 While I love playing 64-bit games I've already played, they don't really have the same kind of nostalgia as 8-bit and 16-bit games. A modern game released like that would just come off as looking terrible rather than "retro". However, I do think it's possible for a game to capture the feeling of a 64-bit game while still being modern, one example being A Hat in Time Simply looking at the images just makes you think "that's an N64-style platformer", even though theres a lot more detail. It's clearly inspired by 64-bit graphics, but it's a modern take on it.
Hogge Posted February 16, 2014 Author Posted February 16, 2014 I probably wouldn't buy a polygon game of that type, but I do agree that the 32-bit era is overlooked in one era - sprites, particularly on the Saturn. Guardian Heroes, Story of Thor 2... In a way, the whole Saturn vs. PlayStation battle was Sprites vs. Polygons, but that's another matter. Sprite games could just go on getting better and better, so I somewhat regret that many games deliberately limit themselves to NES (or even SNES) quality. Well, the reason that 8-bit graphics are popular is because the graphics don't really need much time to make. That's the same reason I'm interrested in making N64-level graphics. Making a character model with Goldeneye levels of detail takes me no longer than a day, minus rigging. If I'd do it up to modern, Gears of War standards, it'd take me god knows how long. I've actually been looking into stuff like purposefully removing perspective correction, making blocky textures and adding CRT-style scanlines:
Ville Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 I'd say a part of why 8-/16-bit graphics are still so popular is that when properly done, they actually look great. Just look at games like Terraria, or older titles like Yoshi's Island. Pure, ageless 2D art. 3D games are more problematic, since the comparison to modern games makes the earlier variants look quite ugly / too basic. Depends on the game idea though, just look at Minecraft...
Goafer Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) The main problem with the 32/64 bit era is that they're just shit versions (graphically) of what we have today. 8/16 bit graphics are completely different and not a style we're used to anymore, so it's more interesting. One thing I do miss about the 32 bit era is the responsiveness, especially in racing games. I remember pressing a button in Sega Rally and the car starting to turn immediately. In modern games it seems like there's always a bit of a delay, almost as if you're telling the game to carry out an action/animation, rather than being in direct control of the car/object. Damnit, I really want to play Sega Rally now. I cant still remember every corner of the Desert track. Edited February 16, 2014 by Goafer
nekunando Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 I loved the N64/PS1 era I know a lot of people find it difficult to appreciate the graphics from that time but I got so much joy from seeing just how far they could push the systems at the time, way more than I have done in recent generations! I sometimes wish they were still releasing games on the AWESOME Nintendo 64 just to see what more they could have done I want to see how stuff like Metroid Prime, Punch-Out!! and FIFA 14 would look and play on N64
Grazza Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 I loved the N64/PS1 era I know a lot of people find it difficult to appreciate the graphics from that time but I got so much joy from seeing just how far they could push the systems at the time, way more than I have done in recent generations! I sometimes wish they were still releasing games on the AWESOME Nintendo 64 just to see what more they could have done I want to see how stuff like Metroid Prime, Punch-Out!! and FIFA 14 would look and play on N64 I loved it too, particularly the Saturn and N64. Such exciting times. I don't think there's anything wrong with a low polygon count or no textures (I prefer no textures at all - Virtua Racing, Virtua Fighter - to low-res textures), but @Hogge, if there's one thing I think you should avoid at all costs, it's low resolutions and low frame rates. I'm quite nostalgic about that era, yes, but even nostalgia is best kept hi-res and smooth.
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) 8/16 bit looks good. 32/64 does not. We went 3D a gen too early, if you ask me. We could've been enjoying gorgeous 2D games and instead everyone focused on gnarly and awkward 3D. The 64 was the only one out of that gen that could pull off decent 3D, the saturn and psx 3D games all look like utter crap, unanimously. Good art directions can hide it and even make it enjoyable, but it's a limitation you should only live with if you absolutely must, willingly returning to it would be a disaster... Edit: as for the question: I'd buy it if it was good, I don't care enough about graphics to not buy a game just 'coz it looks ugly. Edited February 17, 2014 by Oxigen_Waste
Shorty Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 I wouldn't say we went there too early, I can definitely remember thinking these graphics looked amazing back in the day. However I don't think 32bit/64bit is a style as much as it is a limitation.
The Bard Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 The main problem with the 32/64 bit era is that they're just shit versions (graphically) of what we have today. 8/16 bit graphics are completely different and not a style we're used to anymore, so it's more interesting. That's pretty much exactly it. First generation 3D games are just blockier, muddier versions of what we have today, the real difference between PS1 and PS4 has been design. 16 bit just tends to be more believable in a storybook way than first gen 3D just because there's an additional layer of abstraction there in the fact that there's an entire dimension missing. Suspension of disbelief only works when we know the thing being presented to us is fictional; the more fictional it seems in presentation (rather than in themes or content), the more easy it is to get absorbed in a world. We're always going to think there's something off with the acting in something even as well made as Resi 4, just because it vies for realism, but misses it by a long way. Whereas Chrono Trigger is just pixellated representations that only work because your brain is expected to do most of the heavy lifting, never attempting to go for realism. That's where the charm of 16 bit comes from. It's more storybook and because of that, it's not afraid to leverage ridiculously wide ranging colour palettes or saturation, or to use music that does more than sets a tone, but expressedly goes for catchyness. The wall of artifice is broken the moment you look at a fucking SNES game, so there's a lot more you can get away with.
Mandalore Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 One genre I miss from the N64 is FPS games. They were limited by the hardware, but were much more original than most of the stuff nowadays. There isn't really anything that plays like GoldenEye, Perfect Dark or Turok anymore. Maybe not 32/64 bit graphical style, but I'd like to see the design style redone. Just a multiplayer only game with GoldenEye style arenas would be nice, Nintendo could do with their own exclusive FPS and something like this could be done pretty low budget.
The Bard Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I think that's mostly because Goldeneye and Perfect Dark play like utter shit.
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I think that's mostly because Goldeneye and Perfect Dark play like utter shit. Couldn't agree more. Fuck Rare!
Retro_Link Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 They were obviously shit at them that's all
The Bard Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 The idea that those games accommodate any sort of skill gradation is about as ridiculous as their overbearing auto aim, awful weapon balancing, stupid control schemes and the rest of it. Nostalgia does not a good game make. They were fun because they allowed for a unique social experience, but they're still terrible, terrible games.
Retro_Link Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 An incredibly fun game does not a terrible game make. If the the games employed no skill, everyone would have beat all the levels on the hardest difficulty, when in fact that was quite an achievement.
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I think that's mostly because Goldeneye and Perfect Dark play like utter shit. Shit hot, right? Riiiight?
The Bard Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 An incredibly fun game does not a terrible game make. If the the games employed no skill, everyone would have beat all the levels on the hardest difficulty, when in fact that was quite an achievement. Beating all the levels on ET is also something of a feat. It's also a bit of an inferential leap to go from a games difficulty to a meaningful representation of the skill it requires, rather than just the blunt force of throwing yourself at those levels again and again until you learn the precise way to do them. That's not skill, it's rote learning. Skill is what occurs when you apply learned rule sets to novel situations. If you enjoy them then that's cool. For me, they're unplayable for any sort of gratification other than going back to see how unrecognizably far the genre has come. Compare that to Mario 64 or OOT; still the best games in their respective series/ genres.
Sheikah Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 A game that is immensely fun cannot be deemed a terrible game. It excelled in achieving its goal. It's like saying a cake was terrible because it was the most delicious thing you ever ate.
The Bard Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Yes because comparing entertainment media to confections is very much comparing like for like There are certain childhood joys, such as beating off to lingerie catalogs, which the wisdom of age disabuses you of. Fuck man, I used to spend hours upon hours playing the games that came build into my Sky satellite box. Just because an experience tweaks a compulsive mind, or that you have an engaging experience with something as a child, doesn't mean that you can't re-evaluate the thing's worth when you have recourse to a larger pool of experiences. Those games were enjoyable in a certain era, because of a dearth of similar experiences, just like smashing rocks with other rocks must have been enjoyable to Pleistocene cave dwellers. What I'm saying is Perfect Dark and beating off to a lingerie catalog are pretty much the same shit; thirty furiously frustrating minutes followed by chafing in your extremities and overbearing shame. Oh the shame.
Sheikah Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 But is re-evaluating right? By today's standards, any FPS on the N64 would probably look and play like stuttery shite. I remember Goldeneye being great fun to play back in the day, and that's all that matters, right?
nekunando Posted February 26, 2014 Posted February 26, 2014 Goldeneye is the best FPS I have ever played and I still love it.. so..
Recommended Posts