Who enjoys previous consoles' graphics than the current?

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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...

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.