Sequels that had worse graphics?

#1 Posted by Mesomorphin (833 posts) -

After watching gameplay footage for the new Spiderman game from Beenox, I gotta say, the original looks a hell of alot better in the visual department. I also felt that way with Battelfield 4 on xbox 360/ps3, because it was dumbed down so much, it actualy ended up looking alot worse than BF3. What are some others? and why do you believe it happens?

#2 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

Silent Hill: Homecoming. When I imagined Silent Hill 3 running on a system several orders of magnitude more powerful than PS2, I expected something far better than Homecoming. The character models actually looked worse than those on PS2.

#3 Posted by torbonator (214 posts) -

Lightning Returns, Lightning looks about the same as she always did everything else looks like it should be on the ps2

#4 Edited by MarkAndExecute (411 posts) -

Valkyria Chronicles 2...don't get me wrong...the game is still great and it looks descent, just wish they had continued it on the PS3 instead of the PSP.

#5 Posted by Netret0120 (2255 posts) -

Lightning returns looked worse IMO

#6 Edited by riou7 (10837 posts) -

I don't know why but I think Fallout New Vegas has worse graphics than Fallout 3

#7 Posted by GreySeal9 (24910 posts) -

@Netret0120 said:

Lightning returns looked worse IMO

^This.

#8 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16964 posts) -

@riou7 said:

I don't know why but I think Fallout New Vegas has worse graphics than Fallout 3

It does, a lot of that game looks flat in comparison to Fallout 3.

Another sequel that looks worse is STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Probably because Clear Sky was far too demanding and Call of Pripyat became a lot more open world.

#9 Edited by riou7 (10837 posts) -

@JangoWuzHere said:

@riou7 said:

I don't know why but I think Fallout New Vegas has worse graphics than Fallout 3

It does, a lot of that game looks flat in comparison to Fallout 3.

Another sequel that looks worse is STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Probably because Clear Sky was far too demanding and Call of Pripyat became a lot more open world.

So it's not just me lol. NV just looks bland in comparison to Fallout 3, like an unfinished game. The bugs were also worse than those in Fallout 3, it froze on me every now and then.

#10 Posted by Mesomorphin (833 posts) -

@riou7 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@riou7 said:

I don't know why but I think Fallout New Vegas has worse graphics than Fallout 3

It does, a lot of that game looks flat in comparison to Fallout 3.

Another sequel that looks worse is STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Probably because Clear Sky was far too demanding and Call of Pripyat became a lot more open world.

So it's not just me lol. NV just looks bland in comparison to Fallout 3, like an unfinished game. The bugs were also worse than those in Fallout 3, it froze on me every now and then.

I dont think it was the graphics, I'd say more of the textures themselves, F3 had a very greenish/blue look about it, NV was just flat out orange. In saying that though I found NV to be the superior game IMO, more to do and not so restrictive on venturing the map.

#11 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16964 posts) -

@mesomorphin said:

@riou7 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@riou7 said:

I don't know why but I think Fallout New Vegas has worse graphics than Fallout 3

It does, a lot of that game looks flat in comparison to Fallout 3.

Another sequel that looks worse is STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Probably because Clear Sky was far too demanding and Call of Pripyat became a lot more open world.

So it's not just me lol. NV just looks bland in comparison to Fallout 3, like an unfinished game. The bugs were also worse than those in Fallout 3, it froze on me every now and then.

I dont think it was the graphics, I'd say more of the textures themselves, F3 had a very greenish/blue look about it, NV was just flat out orange. In saying that though I found NV to be the superior game IMO, more to do and not so restrictive on venturing the map.

Well, the graphics are basically the same, but the building placement and design of the areas are poor. The ground textures do look out of place in this shot.

#12 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

Dark Souls II. I replayed the original prior to the second's release just for the whole hype thing and I was surprised with how muddy the second game looks in comparison. Though DSII has clothe physics, which is a nice bonus.

I'm not sure I'd say they're technically worse, but the PS360 era Silent Hill games were much less ambitious than the PS2 titles. SH2 and 3 dished out some of the most impressive visuals at the time but holy crap were the newer ones as low budget as they get.

Uncharted 2's MP looks way better than 3's. Playing them back to back is interesting because literally everything looked better in 2. It was weird that lighting and textures took a hit in 3, but more so that they removed little animations. In 2, you climbed the stairs, in 3 you glide up them.

#13 Posted by firefox59 (4432 posts) -

@riou7 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@riou7 said:

I don't know why but I think Fallout New Vegas has worse graphics than Fallout 3

It does, a lot of that game looks flat in comparison to Fallout 3.

Another sequel that looks worse is STALKER: Call of Pripyat. Probably because Clear Sky was far too demanding and Call of Pripyat became a lot more open world.

So it's not just me lol. NV just looks bland in comparison to Fallout 3, like an unfinished game. The bugs were also worse than those in Fallout 3, it froze on me every now and then.

It was made by a different company though. Same engine but that could be the difference.

#14 Edited by Jag85 (4943 posts) -

This was quite common back in the 80's and 90's, when arcade games often got sequels with inferior graphics on weaker home computers & consoles. For example:

  • Target: Renegade (ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, NES)
  • Battle OutRun (Master System)
  • OutRun Europa (Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Game Gear, Master System, ZX Spectrum)
  • OutRun 2019 (Mega Drive)
  • Space Harrier II (Mega Drive, Amiga, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, ZX Spectrum)
  • Final Fight 2 & 3 (SNES)
  • Ridge Racer Revolution, Rage Racer, Ridge Racer Type 4 (PS1)
  • Fighters Megamix (Saturn)

This was mainly because, back in those days, home computers & consoles were usually a generation behind arcade machines when it came to graphical power.

#15 Posted by Mesomorphin (833 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

This was quite common back in the 80's and 90's, when arcade games often got sequels with inferior graphics on weaker home computers & consoles. For example:

  • Target: Renegade (ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, NES)
  • Battle OutRun (Master System)
  • OutRun Europa (Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Game Gear, Master System, ZX Spectrum)
  • OutRun 2019 (Mega Drive)
  • Space Harrier II (Mega Drive, Amiga, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, ZX Spectrum)
  • Final Fight 2 & 3 (SNES)
  • Ridge Racer Revolution, Rage Racer, Ridge Racer Type 4 (PS1)
  • Fighters Megamix (Saturn)

This was mainly because, back in those days, home computers & consoles were usually a generation behind arcade machines when it came to graphical power.

It makes sense though, I mean look at the size of those arcade machines, you'd think they'd be pumping a power house in each one of them. But I guess it would get rather expensive, if they had a 1500 doller computer running in each one of them.

#16 Edited by Jag85 (4943 posts) -

@mesomorphin said:

@Jag85 said:

This was quite common back in the 80's and 90's, when arcade games often got sequels with inferior graphics on weaker home computers & consoles. For example:

  • Target: Renegade (ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, NES)
  • Battle OutRun (Master System)
  • OutRun Europa (Amiga, Amstrad CPC, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Game Gear, Master System, ZX Spectrum)
  • OutRun 2019 (Mega Drive)
  • Space Harrier II (Mega Drive, Amiga, Atari ST, Commodore 64, Amstrad CPC, ZX Spectrum)
  • Final Fight 2 & 3 (SNES)
  • Ridge Racer Revolution, Rage Racer, Ridge Racer Type 4 (PS1)
  • Fighters Megamix (Saturn)

This was mainly because, back in those days, home computers & consoles were usually a generation behind arcade machines when it came to graphical power.

It makes sense though, I mean look at the size of those arcade machines, you'd think they'd be pumping a power house in each one of them. But I guess it would get rather expensive, if they had a 1500 doller computer running in each one of them.

A lot of arcade machines were even more expensive than that. It would have cost $1,500 just for a lower-end arcade machine. For a higher-end arcade machine, you would have been looking at anywhere from $5,000 to over $100,000! It probably wasn't until the Naomi/Dreamcast era that arcade machine prices started coming down to PC-level prices, since arcades started declining and it wasn't profitable anymore to spend so much cash on military-grade graphics technology.