Who enjoys previous consoles' graphics than the current?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by skp_16 (3854 posts) -

I like previous consoles' graphics than the current. Maybe because the current consoles graphics are too smooth and realistic, w/c is not good IMO. And to be honest, the console with the best graphics for me is PS2, then PSP. :)

I think realistic and smooth graphics only suits in sports games.

PS2 graphics > PSP > PS1 > PS3.

Games should look like games, not real.

#2 Posted by Josh1488 (249 posts) -
I don't agree entirely. Sure games should look like games. Some games should look realistic (war, sports etc) and others and these are my favorite should have an artistic thing going on (like okami and many older 2d games) I love 2D games and would agree they have a certain special appeal to them and they really hit their stride with psone, saturn, ps2 dreamcast etc imo. It definetly shouldn't be all about the graphics but instead about art and design imo.
#3 Posted by bawathegamer (1498 posts) -

I like previous consoles' graphics than the current. Maybe because the current consoles graphics are too smooth and realistic, w/c is not good IMO. And to be honest, the console with the best graphics for me is PS2, then PSP. :)

I think realistic and smooth graphics only suits in sports games.

PS2 graphics > PSP > PS1 > PS3.

Games should look like games, not real.

skp_16

are you being serious? if you mean artstyle id still buy what your saying.your trying to say the ps2 had the best graphics last gen. "looks at tc's profile.playstation afficianado.hmmm"

i get that alot of this gens game that typical smooth look on all characters and stuff. but to say that you liked the ps2 graghics the most last gen?? did you play nothing on the gc,xbox or pc?

#4 Posted by 3KindgomsRandy (15488 posts) -

I like to go back and enjoy the simple colorful nature of some of the Genesis and SNES era games to remind myself that monster graphics are not necessary for a great game.

That being said, I can't really say I prefer them, but I can still appreciate and enjoy them. Except for PS1/N64 era. Most of that stuff aged SO poorly that I find a lot of it unplayable anymore. Just my opinion though.

#5 Posted by CheeChee_Macko (2236 posts) -
You're just a silly, silly person.
#6 Posted by whoozwah (5280 posts) -

I like to go back and enjoy the simple colorful nature of some of the Genesis and SNES era games to remind myself that monster graphics are not necessary for a great game.

That being said, I can't really say I prefer them, but I can still appreciate and enjoy them. Except for PS1/N64 era. Most of that stuff aged SO poorly that I find a lot of it unplayable anymore. Just my opinion though.

3KindgomsRandy

Pretty much agreed on all counts, esp. with the part about the first 3D games aging poorly due to low res textures, low poly models and a general contrast in the advances of technology for games. 2D games just seem to age better because they're not made much if at all anymore so there's not a basis for comparison.

#7 Posted by PAJ89 (2020 posts) -
Have to disagree on the whole. If you can make a game look good without sacrificing quality, then why not? The only exception is with some 2D RPGs; I love the styles of games like Wild Arms, Chrono Trigger, and some of the early Final Fantasy games. If we're talking art style then it's another story. Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, and ICO are all last-gen games with fantastic art direction.
#8 Posted by Chilled_AB (568 posts) -
Well as long as the gameplay is awesome I don't care what the graphics are like be it realistic or stylish or what-ever.
#9 Posted by loopy_101 (28044 posts) -
[QUOTE="3KindgomsRandy"]

I like to go back and enjoy the simple colorful nature of some of the Genesis and SNES era games to remind myself that monster graphics are not necessary for a great game.

That being said, I can't really say I prefer them, but I can still appreciate and enjoy them. Except for PS1/N64 era. Most of that stuff aged SO poorly that I find a lot of it unplayable anymore. Just my opinion though.

whoozwah

Pretty much agreed on all counts, esp. with the part about the first 3D games aging poorly due to low res textures, low poly models and a general contrast in the advances of technology for games. 2D games just seem to age better because they're not made much if at all anymore so there's not a basis for comparison.

Same here, I don't know why though. I guess its the HD thing, its really annoying if you run a 360 on an SD tv...

#10 Posted by Uzunoff (43 posts) -
I agree with you, but in a different sense. Back when graphics weren't at the level that they are now, developers cared more about game play. I do think that PS2 graphics were about the level that I feel good about. But for me the games, starting with the PS1, became too real and too involved. By that I mean that games like they had for SNES that you could play for 15-20 minutes and feel satisfied were a thing of the past. Now if I play most games, cut scenes are longer than that. I work 2 jobs and have a family of 4 and don't have time for all of that. On top of that graphics are all that you hear about with the new games. All I've heard about Crysis is that it has great graphics and takes a heck of a computer to run it. How does it play? I enjoy playing old NES&SNES games as well as PS1&PS2 games for all of those reasons. I also think this is why Nintendo made a comeback with the Wii and the DS, because they offer more of the older styole of gaming. As a recreation, more than a way of life. However I can empathize with people who want realistic graphics in games because they use them more as an escape than a hobby. For me though I do enjoy older games and consoles more so than the newer ones.
#11 Posted by project-exile (904 posts) -
For me graphics don't mean much to me. I still love playing snes games because to me that was the greatest console. Some of the games that came out during that era are better in game play that a lot of the games coming out now. I really love the sprite rpgs and the 2d style and I just cannot get over that. I am horrible and first person shooter games. For me 3d is good and all but if the game sucks I don't care if you have the most realistic 3d enviroments and visual effects nothing will hide that fact. Of course I do like it when new jrpgs come out like lost odyssey just the snes era was where I was the most happiest with the game play. I think some companies have gotten side tracked with the 3d and forgotten about game play.
#12 Posted by WSGRandomPerson (13693 posts) -
The only thing i like SNES sprites better then some graphics now.
#13 Posted by Pvt_Murphy (1637 posts) -

I can't say I prefer them, but I don't mind bad graphics if the game behind them is good enough.

Graphics need to be just as good to draw you in together with the gameplay. If the gameplay does a better job of drawing you in the graphics can be worse. If the gameplay is dull, the graphics need to make up for it.

A 3d shooter example:

Doom 3 pretty much needs its good graphics because the gameplay alone is dull and the only thing that makes the game worth playing are the good graphics.

Operation Flashpoint on the other hand has totally crappy graphics but the gameplay is so thrilling that you still feel involved.

Comic games ala Mario Kart are a different matter though and there, as long as the graphics don't hurt (e.g. flashing colors or extreme blurring etc.) and you can make out what is going on that is perfectly fine. I still play Mario Kart 64 and I never think: Damn that looks bad. In fact I never think about the graphics at all.

2d games are different again and I agree with what was pointed out earlier: There isn't much competition with newer games since a 2d game always looks more or less like old 2d games. HD sprites VS. old, pixelated sprites. That's the pretty much the only thing that seperates them and to be honest, HD sprites have to look very, very good to compete with the charm of pixelated one. Just my opinion though.

#14 Posted by GabuEx (36552 posts) -

I have to admit that there's a very distinct charm to the 2D SNES-esque graphics. As the GBA nicely illustrated (and as the DS is carrying on in some games), 2D certainly isn't dead, and it absolutely is possible to make quality games that don't require photorealistic graphics. But I don't agree that I find this preferable to 3D photorealistic graphics.

Personally, I'm extremely wary of saying anything at all as a universality about what graphics should be. There's no real way to compare, say, Okami with Resident Evil 4 and say that one's graphics are better than the other. They're two totally different styles of graphics, one artistic and another realistic. Me, I just look at the game and ask whether or not the graphics are appropriate. If so, no need to go beyond what you've got. I'm certainly not in the camp of those whose frame of mind is one of "photorealism or bust" within video games; I'd say that that extreme is no better than the other.

#15 Posted by Buffalo_Soulja (13151 posts) -
I'll say this; I enjoy games which use visual design to complement gameplay rather than dominate it.
#16 Posted by skp_16 (3854 posts) -

Well as long as the gameplay is awesome I don't care what the graphics are like be it realistic or stylish or what-ever.Chilled_AB

100% true. I really hope that the current gen is not just good graphics. And I also do hope that there will be a Rogue Galaxy or Okami type of graphics in this gen.

#17 Posted by 3KindgomsRandy (15488 posts) -

[QUOTE="Chilled_AB"]Well as long as the gameplay is awesome I don't care what the graphics are like be it realistic or stylish or what-ever.skp_16

100% true. I really hope that the current gen is not just good graphics. And I also do hope that there will be a Rogue Galaxy or Okami type of graphics in this gen.

Well, Eternal Sonata has the same type of art style already. And it looks fantastic.

#18 Posted by jalexbrown (11432 posts) -

I care more about art direction that visual quality. Some of the old sprite-based games had excellent art direction. Perhaps there were no polygons back then, but there were art directors who knew how to take those sprites and create a game that had atmosphere and nice visuals. Very few games today capture that sense of increadible artistic direction. They manage to have amazing visuals, but the artistic direction is usually pretty crappy. The only two exceptions immediately coming to mind this gen are Bioshock and Oblivion. Both of those games had excellent graphics and an excellent artistic direction at the same time.

#19 Posted by PickGlove243 (3144 posts) -

I sort of do.

I like the graphics on games like Baldur's Gate II and Fallout more than on modern games I've seen.

#20 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -
I like old graphics more. I'd much rather look at most ps1 games than 360 and ps3 games
#21 Posted by trick6952 (1488 posts) -
I would have to agree with you on this it dosent matter how good the graphics are but as long as you can pick it up and play and the gameplay mechanics are good is what matters to me honestly I can care less about graphics like the xbox 360, ps3 or wii
#22 Posted by mariokart64fan (19535 posts) -
i disagree entirely . i prefer good gameplay value and sound over graphics as i still play my snes from time to time, 360 has not many good games compared to snes , n64 nes ps1 etc. last gen was also not to bad, but come on ,you cant tell me your not tired of first person shooters that look good but lack the content for example halo 3 . or that realistic graphics are better then graphics on ps2 xbox etc only bc they look better, sure it helps whats that when the game doesnt play as good, or have nothing compared to its prodecessor (perfect dark zero im looking at you) then charge you 59,99 for what, just so they put the rest of the game on psn xbox live or wii ware, so to expierence the full game you shell out another 20 $ on some card, or online, sorry that isnt what a game should be, the developers should finish a game 100 percent like nascar and not make us pay to have it all
#23 Posted by Thiago26792 (11059 posts) -
I prefer newer graphics, but I also enjoy old games' graphics. In old games, what made the graphics good was the creativity of the designers more than the graphical capabilities of the console, I think.
#24 Posted by warjilis (210 posts) -
I do enjoy the graphics of the previous generations, especially the early to mid 90s when 3D was still new. but my favorite graphics are from the game "Out of this World" and "Heart of the Alien".
#25 Posted by SuperAgentZero (476 posts) -
I could care less about the graphics! As long as the game has good storyline(big RPG fan), im good to go.
#26 Posted by SuperAgentZero (476 posts) -
I could care less about the graphics! As long as the game has good storyline(big RPG fan), im good to go.
#27 Posted by The_Scorpion (39 posts) -
I like the graphics of the Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Gamecube, Gameboy Advance, Nintendo DS, and The Playsation the best. But I play games for how fun they are and how much enjoyment I am getting from them.
#28 Posted by Whiteblade999 (5537 posts) -
I think for rpgs the 16 and 32 bit graphics look better than the uber realistic ignore rpg element that is the norm for today. For shooters I like gameplay over graphics as I still play quake, half life and doom to this day (doom is in 32 bit i think).
#29 Posted by jasopan (2360 posts) -
yea i kinda agree, i mean just got they have extra textures and all dosent mean it looks better
#30 Posted by Hseptic (1566 posts) -
I too like graphics from older games. I find the graphics from some of the nextgen systems to look way to plasticy.
#31 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -
i cant say i dislike playing games in 1080p. that said, one thing i did notice is that fewer dev's are focusing on art direction anymore. with the new technology, everyone wants to try to make photorealistic graphics (impossible btw). i think that focusing on making a unique art style could still be effective (and in some cases, even more so) in HD. but i think devs will focus more on style later in the consoles' lives once the "wow" factor of next gen graphics has worn off.
#32 Posted by JohnDW (83 posts) -
I like SNES graphics most of all. :)
#33 Posted by Solori (462 posts) -

OK I sort of see half of what you are saying. You think that photo realism/smooth graphics is the defining characteristic of the current gen consoles' graphical style. You don't like smoothness/photo realism in graphics because you think it makes the current gen games all flash and no substance.

Here's where you lose me. You seem to be saying that you think the PS2's graphical style is better because it is not about smoothness and photo realism, it is about making a game look like a game. You seem to think this leads to better games, so you prefer the PS2's graphical style. But this doesn't explain why you prefer PS2 graphics over PS1 graphics.

I'd be interested in knowing what exactly it is about the PS2 graphical style that you think makes it the best of the best.

Right now I'm thinking about the fact that I just played Ocarina of Time for the first time and it was cool looking at the way Link and the Zelda creatures looked in that game compared with how basically the same characters looked in Wind Waker compared to how basically the same characters looked in Twilight Princess.

There's a definite difference in the graphics of all three. OOT is very, very pointy. And I would say pointy and blocky probably describes the graphical style of the OOT generation of games. But then you have WW and TP, which are both from the same generation and same system, but look vastly different. I'm not sure what I would say is the defining characteristic of Gamecube graphics. And IMO the graphics of the PS2 and the Gamecube are really similar so I'm not sure I would even say there is a Gamecube graphic style that is terribly different from the PS2 style.

I think we still need a few more years of perspective until we can see what will really distinguish the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox generation of graphics from the current generation of graphics. It's sort of like how there isn't really a big difference between the 1st games released for the PS2 and the last games released for the PS1. I don't think the current gen has distinguished itself enough from the last gen yet to start talking about super big differences between the two.

#34 Posted by krunkfu2 (4218 posts) -

some 16 bit looks real good; Link to the Past for instance

seeing games get better looking is a good thing though, and why Ps2 graphics? I think the only game that looks good on PS2 is Shadow of the Colossus

#35 Posted by ForsbergFan21 (2908 posts) -
I don't know to be honest but I still love the 2D prerendered backgrounds in such games as Final Fantasy 7,8,9, Resident Evil 1,2,3, Chrono Cross and the The Legend of Dragoon. I mean, they are so immersive when done well in such games like the ones I mentioned above IMO and they are so detailed with things and items etc. All in all, I can still pop those games in and say those are great graphics hence the reason we don't need remakes of any of those games IMO.
#36 Posted by sleepanimal (76 posts) -

I see your point but i don't agree 100%.

Some games need good graphics to be experienced as they should.

ex. Far Cry wouldn't be Far Cry with PS graphics!

#37 Posted by TheLegendKnight (1853 posts) -

this is just about gameplay > graphics. graphics doesnt let you play the game, so I agree. for example, I didnt like Burnout 3 because it was graphical junk after B2's gameplay.

also SWOS 96/97 is better than any 3D fifa game anytime.

#38 Posted by skp_16 (3854 posts) -

some 16 bit looks real good; Link to the Past for instance

seeing games get better looking is a good thing though, and why Ps2 graphics? I think the only game that looks good on PS2 is Shadow of the Colossus

krunkfu2

SotC has one of the best graphics ever. I like it more than GoW, FF12, PS3, 360.

#39 Posted by skp_16 (3854 posts) -

OK I sort of see half of what you are saying. You think that photo realism/smooth graphics is the defining characteristic of the current gen consoles' graphical style. You don't like smoothness/photo realism in graphics because you think it makes the current gen games all flash and no substance.

Here's where you lose me. You seem to be saying that you think the PS2's graphical style is better because it is not about smoothness and photo realism, it is about making a game look like a game. You seem to think this leads to better games, so you prefer the PS2's graphical style. But this doesn't explain why you prefer PS2 graphics over PS1 graphics.

I'd be interested in knowing what exactly it is about the PS2 graphical style that you think makes it the best of the best.

Right now I'm thinking about the fact that I just played Ocarina of Time for the first time and it was cool looking at the way Link and the Zelda creatures looked in that game compared with how basically the same characters looked in Wind Waker compared to how basically the same characters looked in Twilight Princess.

There's a definite difference in the graphics of all three. OOT is very, very pointy. And I would say pointy and blocky probably describes the graphical style of the OOT generation of games. But then you have WW and TP, which are both from the same generation and same system, but look vastly different. I'm not sure what I would say is the defining characteristic of Gamecube graphics. And IMO the graphics of the PS2 and the Gamecube are really similar so I'm not sure I would even say there is a Gamecube graphic style that is terribly different from the PS2 style.

I think we still need a few more years of perspective until we can see what will really distinguish the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox generation of graphics from the current generation of graphics. It's sort of like how there isn't really a big difference between the 1st games released for the PS2 and the last games released for the PS1. I don't think the current gen has distinguished itself enough from the last gen yet to start talking about super big differences between the two.

Solori

Because PS2's graphics is not too realistic, not too game-ish.

Ex. GTA Series, Bully, Rogue Galaxy, and Hitman series.

#40 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18616 posts) -
As long as it's clear and it has a decent resolution and color palette, I feel fine with any graphical detail level. I can't honestly say that the PS1 looks better than the PS3 or the xbox looks better than th 360, but I can say this: I'm playing Mario Kart Double Dash on the Gamecube right now and it looks better than half of the games available on the 360.
#41 Posted by spanky333 (885 posts) -

I am pretty excited about FFXIII and Tomb Raider Underworld for the next gens. Those are the two games that MIGHT pull my wallet out of my pocket for a PS3. Other than that I haven't seen anything that even turns my head.

Just finished FFIX, and am now deep into FFX. After playing FFIX, X is just breath taking. The lighting effects alone are amazing, and it looks surprisingly sharp on my HDTV.