Which older current-gen games surprisingly still look good today?

Avatar image for Zuon
#1 Posted by Zuon (357 posts) -

So, this generation has been going since around 2012-ish, but in my opinion, Batman: Arkham Knight still looks incredible today, even after everything that's come after.There's just so much detail in everything, and the character models actually resemble people. A lot of games seem to stylize it too much, or just get something off about the characters.

Yeah, it looks good on Normal Settings on PC, but if you max it out, there's surprisingly a lot more subtle detail that you may not have been expecting.

What are your picks? I'd prefer to stick to realistic graphic styles, as we all know artistic styles hold up more frequently, and for far longer, like with the Wind Waker and Okami.

Avatar image for Yams1980
#2 Posted by Yams1980 (3602 posts) -

Sunset Overdrive still looks great and it was one of the first xbox one games to come out. PC version looks great also, got some odd microstutter problems though that happen every so often.

Avatar image for Zuon
#3 Edited by Zuon (357 posts) -

@Yams1980: Sunset Overdrive has the best motion blur implantation I've seen in a game. I'm in the minority that agrees with Digital Foundry's opinion that disabling motion blur in modern games is just plain silly. Yeah, it sucked in the Just Cause 2/Crysis days, but it's much better now.

Avatar image for Willy105
#4 Posted by Willy105 (24873 posts) -

Mario Kart 8 still looks phenomenal.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#5 Edited by RSM-HQ (8603 posts) -

Anything from the HD generation is hard pressed to visually look bad, unless intentionally retro or had no creative talent (Fallout 3). And when going retro easy answer is anything sprite based. CastleVania: Symphony of the Night looks artistically beautiful and even uses its limited 3D polygons nicely.

Majority from the 32-bit (Satarn/PSX/N64) generation with polygon models are an eyesore! It actually hurts me just to look at them. Some could see that as me being 'an immature kid not appreciating retro gaming' And my statement to that is, I really like a lot of retro games. And usually care little for high-end graphics. . . But that has its limits when games look like this_

Personally find a lot of 128-bit games (DC/PS2/XB/GC)to still look pretty appealing a lot of the early stuff is pretty horrid on the eyes. Yet especially of the later gen games are visual delights.

Last winter I was playing the Switch version of Katamari Damashi and now grabbing the platinum on MWC. Both I would argue are nice looking games, but more importantly have aged exceedingly well. Great games.

Those who get caught up in graphical fidelity (counting pixels/ poly count/ lighting) are supporting the games that actually age poorly. Because they're all flash and no substance. I could name many these games but not trying to stir an argument for the sake of it ツ

Avatar image for Zuon
#6 Edited by Zuon (357 posts) -

@RSM-HQ: Sir, my home consists of an Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, Master System, PS Classic, Original XBOX, Xbox 360, PS3, PSP, PS Vita, 3DS, 3 Raspberry Pis, and several PCs (1x MS Dos, 2x Win 98, 1x Win 2k, 2x Windows 10.) I am by no means a modern graphics snob.

But there is still a huge fidelity difference between MGSV, for example, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider. That's why I made this thread.

Thank you.

P.S. Also because of my background, I still enjoyed your post, despite it being off topic. I also feel the 6th gen era had the best bang for buck fidelity.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#7 Posted by RSM-HQ (8603 posts) -

@Zuon: I would argue both Metal Gear Solid V and Shadow of Tomb are exceedingly good looking games. However they are both going for drastically different aesthetics. Metal Gear Solid always went for a very clean and technological look to it. Whether as the Tomb Raider reboot goes for dark and gritty. This is done to give a different sense of the world and its characters.

With that stated, and maybe explaining my point better. Despite how nice MGSV looks it is also arguably the worst entry in the Metal Gear Solid franchise, and weakest AAA stealth game next to Thief Reboot. Pointless base management, insanely reused assets, dumbed down A.I., and pointless sandbox level design.

Cannot speak for Tomb Raider, haven't played one since Anniversary. But Tomb Raider has had two reboots at this point so I'm pretty bored of the whole thing; basing on sales I think majority are bored also.

Legacy of Kain deserves a touch-up. Let Lara sleep for a decade or so (at least).

Avatar image for Zuon
#8 Posted by Zuon (357 posts) -

@RSM-HQ: I agree with both points. MGSV is not a Metal Gear Solid game in my opinion, and is honestly very boring and padded, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider is the only entry in the Reboot series that actually held my attention and makes Lara actually have a sense of humor. It was developed by the guys behind the newer Deus Ex games, this time, believe it or not.

But the bottom line is this thread is not about how fun a game is or how the gameplay holds up over time. It's purely about graphics.

If you want new games worth the gameplay, check out A Hat In Time.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#9 Edited by RSM-HQ (8603 posts) -
@Zuon said:

It was developed by the guys behind the newer Deus Ex games, this time, believe it or not.

They also made the Thief reboot.

Not trying to slap them down. I loved Human Revolution, second best Deus Ex game. But wouldn't say they have the best, or most consistent reputation.

But the bottom line is this thread is not about how fun a game is or how the gameplay holds up over time. It's purely about graphics.

Not sure what you mean, I answered your thread from the beginning "which older current gen games still look good" and my answer

Anything from the HD generation is hard pressed to visually look bad

But if that's just not meeting expectations. I am a Backer to Scorn. Does that have any relevance to this graphics debate, I played it in 2018?

Loading Video...

It's probably the best looking game mentioned here, and will continue to be so considering it needs a high-end P.C. beast just to run properly. But more to the point after the Backer build last year of Part 1; and negative feedback (which I also gave) Ebb are going back to fix the volume of concerns. considering it was very mediocre. The promise to us backers wasn't just a pretty first person horror game. It was one with interesting and intense gameplay.

I know you mentioned gameplay shouldn't matter. But clearly it does. Crytek is bankrupt for a reason. .

Avatar image for warmblur
#10 Posted by warmblur (2983 posts) -
Loading Video...

Avatar image for l3igl3oss
#11 Posted by l3igl3oss (72 posts) -

Some late Playstation titles looked worse when cleaned up for the Dreamcast without an increase in polygon count, but I love the three dimensional rendering of its graphics with scanlines, or just the downsampling of 480i into 240p, which games in two dimensions did on the Dreamcast, but specially Ico on the Playstation 2.

Progressive scan had only started to look good with the Xbox and Gamecube, in my opinion, even if the Dreamcast gave us that option quite early, but the assets themselves were pointy, the textures got filtered and the gradients had bands, although it's not worse than what the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 went through with bloom lighting and blurring. You had better play on PC than with these two consoles for the clearest appearance.

Avatar image for sakaixx
#12 Posted by sakaiXx (6056 posts) -

Until Dawn is still absolutely terrific.

Other than that MGSV, Bayonetta 2 and Arkham Knight also a very good choice. Would like to add Infamous Second Son as well. The car models does look sh!t (PS2 level sh!t) but overall the world and lighting technique used is fantastic.