Are games that focus on more advanced graphics and realism doomed to age poorly?

  • 96 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for jaydan
#51 Posted by jaydan (2386 posts) -

More or less that can turn out to be the case, because games a lot of the time that spent their entire budget on graphics and realism might have sacrificed the timeless appeal of compelling gameplay mechanics.

Avatar image for dzimm
#52 Posted by dzimm (5509 posts) -

Let's put it this way:

Good gameplay never goes obsolete.

Avatar image for Jag85
#53 Edited by Jag85 (13595 posts) -

@ezekiel43 said:
@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

But GoldenEye never looked realistic to you, unless you were a moron or had 240p vision in '97. It doesn't look any shittier now than it did twenty years ago. My benchmark of realistic is reality. If you can't enjoy the visuals of a good looking game aiming for realism ten years later, then I pity you.

@uninspiredcup: That's a lot of effort to say nothing. Mortal Kombat always looked like janky shit.

Nope. GoldenEye looks objectively worse today than it did 20 years ago. Back in '97, everyone played GoldenEye on native analog 240p CRT televisions. Today, most people can only play it on digital HD LCD displays. That makes a huge difference to the quality of the image. On an analog 240p CRT display, there were no scaling issues, the scanlines and phosphors masked the flaws, the phosphors created a type of bloom lighting effect, and the overall image was smoother but slightly blurry.

The end result was that GoldenEye looked much more "realistic" on a '90s CRT TV than it does today on a HD LCD display. The game was designed for analog CRT display technology. A lot of PS1/N64 games look horrible today because we're looking at them with digital LCD in a digital age, rather than with analog CRT as gamers saw them back in the '90s.

And like I said, I didn't think GoldenEye's graphics were all that great back then. I had been to the arcades and seen the Sega Model 3, which blew PC and console games out of the water. That was my benchmark back then. But for console gamers, GoldenEye was the benchmark.

I always found this argument completely baseless. I'd rather play Banjo Kazooie in 1920x1440 than in 240i. The flaws are always apparent, whether you're looking at it in HD or through another layer of blurriness. I'd rather have the clarity, so that I can see the flaws AND beauty perfectly. Even if it was true, you can still buy CRT TVs or try to mimick the look.

You're confusing "cartoony" graphics with "realistic" graphics. Banjo Kazooie was always supposed to look cartoony. Whether you play it on CRT or LCD makes no real difference to its cartoony look. That's why "cartoony" games from that era have aged better than "realistic" games, because they've still retained the same "cartoony" look they were always intended to have, regardless of the display technology.

But for a game that was aiming for realism, like GoldenEye, it makes all the difference in the world. On a CRT TV, it was easy to hide the technical limitations and flaws. Nor was there much pixelation, due to CRTs displaying pixels as glowing phosphors (rather than sharp squares likes LCD), which in turn gave off a natural hardware bloom lighting effect on CRTs. This created the illusion of realism. But on LCD displays where all the flaws are in-your-face, and you take away the natural CRT bloom lighting, it shatters the illusion of realism. The "realism" of games back then depended on the CRT display technology they were designed for. If you take away the CRT, then you take away the "realism".

In other words, your argument is based on the flawed assumption that '90s gamers were playing GoldenEye on LCDs. They weren't. They were playing it on CRTs. So no, all those gamers and critics back then calling it "realistic" weren't "blind". They were just looking at a different picture to what you're looking at today. You're not looking at the same picture they saw. What they saw was GoldenEye through a CRT TV, whereas what you're seeing is a raw pixelated image through a LCD display.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#54 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@jaydan: I feel this is a common issue.

Avatar image for BassMan
#55 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:
@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

But GoldenEye never looked realistic to you, unless you were a moron or had 240p vision in '97. It doesn't look any shittier now than it did twenty years ago. My benchmark of realistic is reality. If you can't enjoy the visuals of a good looking game aiming for realism ten years later, then I pity you.

@uninspiredcup: That's a lot of effort to say nothing. Mortal Kombat always looked like janky shit.

Nope. GoldenEye looks objectively worse today than it did 20 years ago. Back in '97, everyone played GoldenEye on native analog 240p CRT televisions. Today, most people can only play it on digital HD LCD displays. That makes a huge difference to the quality of the image. On an analog 240p CRT display, there were no scaling issues, the scanlines and phosphors masked the flaws, the phosphors created a type of bloom lighting effect, and the overall image was smoother but slightly blurry.

The end result was that GoldenEye looked much more "realistic" on a '90s CRT TV than it does today on a HD LCD display. The game was designed for analog CRT display technology. A lot of PS1/N64 games look horrible today because we're looking at them with digital LCD in a digital age, rather than with analog CRT as gamers saw them back in the '90s.

And like I said, I didn't think GoldenEye's graphics were all that great back then. I had been to the arcades and seen the Sega Model 3, which blew PC and console games out of the water. That was my benchmark back then. But for console gamers, GoldenEye was the benchmark.

I always found this argument completely baseless. I'd rather play Banjo Kazooie in 1920x1440 than in 240i. The flaws are always apparent, whether you're looking at it in HD or through another layer of blurriness. I'd rather have the clarity, so that I can see the flaws AND beauty perfectly. Even if it was true, you can still buy CRT TVs or try to mimick the look.

You're confusing "artistic" graphics with "realistic" graphics. Banjo Kazooie was always supposed to look cartoony. Whether you play it on CRT or LCD makes no real difference to its cartoony look. That's why "cartoony" games from that era have aged better than "realistic" games, because they've still retained the same "cartoony" look they were always intended to have.

But for a game that was aiming for realism, like GoldenEye, it makes all the difference in the world. On a CRT TV, it was easy to hide the technical limitations and flaws to give the illusion of realism. In addition, CRTs naturally gave off a glowing bloom lighting effect, an effect that's entirely lost when playing old games on a LCD. But on LCD displays where all the flaws are in-your-face, and you take away the natural CRT bloom lighting, it shatters the illusion of realism. The "realism" of games back then depended on the CRT display technology they were designed for. If you take away the CRT, then you take away the "realism".

In other words, your argument is based on the flawed assumption that '90s gamers were playing GoldenEye on LCDs. They weren't. They were playing it on CRTs. So no, all those gamers and critics back then calling it "realistic" weren't "blind". They were just looking at an entirely different image to what you're looking at. You're not looking at the same picture they saw. What they saw was GoldenEye through a CRT TV, not a raw emulated image through a LCD display.

Regardless of display type, Goldeneye did not look close to real back then. A flat face with a low-res texture is not very convincing. I always got excited when new 3D games came out back then because they were pioneering the tech and it was advancing rapidly with big leaps. There were benchmark games that were raising the bar for graphics. Now it has slowed down greatly. Almost all games look good now in terms of rendering capabilities. The difference is more about the artists now. How much detail is going into the world? How much money is being spent on those details? That is what determines the look of games.

When compared to reality, old games looked like shit both then and now. The excitement was more about the advancement in game engine and rendering technology. I would say since DX9, things started becoming more stale. Advancements started becoming less impactful. Like I said before, we are in an era now where it is more about refinement than big leaps.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#56 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: It was an attempt to look realistic. Even with games now you can point at things that dont match up with reality.

Avatar image for BassMan
#57 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: It was an attempt to look realistic. Even with games now you can point at things that dont match up with reality.

Yes, we are always getting closer to reality. We are close to reality now. Back then, we were not.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#58 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: And the closer we get to reality the less impressive the realistic games of today will look.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#59 Edited by Ezekiel43 (1692 posts) -

@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:
@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

But GoldenEye never looked realistic to you, unless you were a moron or had 240p vision in '97. It doesn't look any shittier now than it did twenty years ago. My benchmark of realistic is reality. If you can't enjoy the visuals of a good looking game aiming for realism ten years later, then I pity you.

@uninspiredcup: That's a lot of effort to say nothing. Mortal Kombat always looked like janky shit.

Nope. GoldenEye looks objectively worse today than it did 20 years ago. Back in '97, everyone played GoldenEye on native analog 240p CRT televisions. Today, most people can only play it on digital HD LCD displays. That makes a huge difference to the quality of the image. On an analog 240p CRT display, there were no scaling issues, the scanlines and phosphors masked the flaws, the phosphors created a type of bloom lighting effect, and the overall image was smoother but slightly blurry.

The end result was that GoldenEye looked much more "realistic" on a '90s CRT TV than it does today on a HD LCD display. The game was designed for analog CRT display technology. A lot of PS1/N64 games look horrible today because we're looking at them with digital LCD in a digital age, rather than with analog CRT as gamers saw them back in the '90s.

And like I said, I didn't think GoldenEye's graphics were all that great back then. I had been to the arcades and seen the Sega Model 3, which blew PC and console games out of the water. That was my benchmark back then. But for console gamers, GoldenEye was the benchmark.

I always found this argument completely baseless. I'd rather play Banjo Kazooie in 1920x1440 than in 240i. The flaws are always apparent, whether you're looking at it in HD or through another layer of blurriness. I'd rather have the clarity, so that I can see the flaws AND beauty perfectly. Even if it was true, you can still buy CRT TVs or try to mimick the look.

You're confusing "cartoony" graphics with "realistic" graphics. Banjo Kazooie was always supposed to look cartoony. Whether you play it on CRT or LCD makes no real difference to its cartoony look. That's why "cartoony" games from that era have aged better than "realistic" games, because they've still retained the same "cartoony" look they were always intended to have, regardless of the display technology.

But for a game that was aiming for realism, like GoldenEye, it makes all the difference in the world. On a CRT TV, it was easy to hide the technical limitations and flaws. Nor was there much pixelation, due to CRTs displaying pixels as glowing phosphors (rather than sharp squares likes LCD), which in turn gave off a natural hardware bloom lighting effect on CRTs. This created the illusion of realism. But on LCD displays where all the flaws are in-your-face, and you take away the natural CRT bloom lighting, it shatters the illusion of realism. The "realism" of games back then depended on the CRT display technology they were designed for. If you take away the CRT, then you take away the "realism".

I'm not confusing anything. It doesn't matter if it's something cartoony like Banjo Kazooie or something aiming for realism like GoldenEye. They all age just the same. I'd rather see them in high definition.

In other words, your argument is based on the flawed assumption that '90s gamers were playing GoldenEye on LCDs. They weren't. They were playing it on CRTs. So no, all those gamers and critics back then calling it "realistic" weren't "blind". They were just looking at a different picture to what you're looking at today. You're not looking at the same picture they saw. What they saw was GoldenEye through a CRT TV, whereas what you're seeing is a raw pixelated image through a LCD display.

I played GoldenEye on a CRT TV too.

@BassMan said:
Regardless of display type, Goldeneye did not look close to real back then. A flat face with a low-res texture is not very convincing. I always got excited when new 3D games came out back then because they were pioneering the tech and it was advancing rapidly with big leaps. There were benchmark games that were raising the bar for graphics. Now it has slowed down greatly. Almost all games look good now in terms of rendering capabilities. The difference is more about the artists now. How much detail is going into the world? How much money is being spent on those details? That is what determines the look of games. When compared to reality, old games looked like shit both then and now. The excitement was more about the advancement in game engine and rendering technology. I would say since DX9, things started becoming more stale. Advancements started becoming less impactful. Like I said before, we are in an era now where it is more about refinement than big leaps.

Exactly. GoldenEye always looked crude.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#60 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

I can garuntee you guys that people used to think goldeneye was a very good looking impressive game. This may be limited to console only plebs but its true.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#61 Posted by Ezekiel43 (1692 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

I can garuntee you guys that people used to think goldeneye was a very good looking impressive game. This may be limited to console only plebs but its true.

I remember my brothers and I finding the faces silly even when we were kids in the late nineties. Especially when they came up right against the camera.

Avatar image for BassMan
#62 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: And the closer we get to reality the less impressive the realistic games of today will look.

Yes, but they will still look good because we can compare them to reality now. Old games never looked good when compared to reality.

Loading Video...

Loading Video...

There is a 20 year gap between those games. We have a come a long way. :)

There will never be that big of a difference again. We are already pretty close to reality.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#63 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: I'm not talking just about games turning ugly over time. I'm saying a lot of them will likely look bland, and I think this will be a big issue for games who's appeal is largely based around how advanced and realistic they look. An example is Red dead Redemption 2 which was one of the biggest games of 2018 but most people seem to agree it's a very clunky game and most of the love it gets is for story and realism.

Avatar image for heirren
#64 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@BassMan:

Until the medium evolves.

For today the tool set for the artists has reached a point where art design is rarely limited.

*i still think the original GT looks good.*

Avatar image for mazuiface
#65 Posted by mazuiface (907 posts) -

Yes. Games that focus on realism, graphics or otherwise, rather than being a good game themselves usually don't live beyond initial hype. In fact, devs that focus on these gimmicks are trying to avoid designing a good game.

Avatar image for BassMan
#66 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -
@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: I'm not talking just about games turning ugly over time. I'm saying a lot of them will likely look bland, and I think this will be a big issue for games who's appeal is largely based around how advanced and realistic they look. An example is Red dead Redemption 2 which was one of the biggest games of 2018 but most people seem to agree it's a very clunky game and most of the love it gets is for story and realism.

People will always be attracted to the latest and greatest. However, the graphics of today's games will not be a deterrent for replaying them years from now. They will still look good. Games are about the total package. How good that total package is will determine its staying power and relevance. As long as the total package is still good years from now, they will age well.

Honestly, we should be hoping for big advancements in gameplay and interactivity to make current games seem outdated. The graphics are not going to improve drastically like they did in the past.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#67 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: Feels like Gameplay has largely taken a backseat to graphics and realism.

Avatar image for BassMan
#68 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@doomnukem3d: Honestly, graphics should not even be much of a talking point. It should be about the art that is created with the technology. Is the world immersive? Are the characters likeable, relatable, etc.? Is the gameplay, objectives, actions in the world engaging? Stuff like that is what matters. The graphics and other technical details should stay behind the scenes. The technology and tools are what enable the artists to create compelling experiences. So, while important for developers, they should not be a focus for the consumer. We will get to that point eventually.

Just hook me up to The Matrix already. hehe :)

Avatar image for TJDMHEM
#69 Posted by TJDMHEM (1973 posts) -

yes

Avatar image for heirren
#70 Edited by Heirren (2185 posts) -

Zelda Breath of The Wild is more next gen than any other game out and it was designed for the wiiu. No other game has better character to world interaction in the genre. Now, compare wiiu hardware to Xbox One X or PS4--games have the potential to evolve with more creative, refined gameplay, but the gaming consumer follows trends and developers for the most part cater to these trends because that where the money is at.

Avatar image for davillain-
#71 Posted by DaVillain- (37418 posts) -

@BassMan said:
@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:
@Jag85 said:
@ezekiel43 said:

But GoldenEye never looked realistic to you, unless you were a moron or had 240p vision in '97. It doesn't look any shittier now than it did twenty years ago. My benchmark of realistic is reality. If you can't enjoy the visuals of a good looking game aiming for realism ten years later, then I pity you.

@uninspiredcup: That's a lot of effort to say nothing. Mortal Kombat always looked like janky shit.

Nope. GoldenEye looks objectively worse today than it did 20 years ago. Back in '97, everyone played GoldenEye on native analog 240p CRT televisions. Today, most people can only play it on digital HD LCD displays. That makes a huge difference to the quality of the image. On an analog 240p CRT display, there were no scaling issues, the scanlines and phosphors masked the flaws, the phosphors created a type of bloom lighting effect, and the overall image was smoother but slightly blurry.

The end result was that GoldenEye looked much more "realistic" on a '90s CRT TV than it does today on a HD LCD display. The game was designed for analog CRT display technology. A lot of PS1/N64 games look horrible today because we're looking at them with digital LCD in a digital age, rather than with analog CRT as gamers saw them back in the '90s.

And like I said, I didn't think GoldenEye's graphics were all that great back then. I had been to the arcades and seen the Sega Model 3, which blew PC and console games out of the water. That was my benchmark back then. But for console gamers, GoldenEye was the benchmark.

I always found this argument completely baseless. I'd rather play Banjo Kazooie in 1920x1440 than in 240i. The flaws are always apparent, whether you're looking at it in HD or through another layer of blurriness. I'd rather have the clarity, so that I can see the flaws AND beauty perfectly. Even if it was true, you can still buy CRT TVs or try to mimick the look.

You're confusing "artistic" graphics with "realistic" graphics. Banjo Kazooie was always supposed to look cartoony. Whether you play it on CRT or LCD makes no real difference to its cartoony look. That's why "cartoony" games from that era have aged better than "realistic" games, because they've still retained the same "cartoony" look they were always intended to have.

But for a game that was aiming for realism, like GoldenEye, it makes all the difference in the world. On a CRT TV, it was easy to hide the technical limitations and flaws to give the illusion of realism. In addition, CRTs naturally gave off a glowing bloom lighting effect, an effect that's entirely lost when playing old games on a LCD. But on LCD displays where all the flaws are in-your-face, and you take away the natural CRT bloom lighting, it shatters the illusion of realism. The "realism" of games back then depended on the CRT display technology they were designed for. If you take away the CRT, then you take away the "realism".

In other words, your argument is based on the flawed assumption that '90s gamers were playing GoldenEye on LCDs. They weren't. They were playing it on CRTs. So no, all those gamers and critics back then calling it "realistic" weren't "blind". They were just looking at an entirely different image to what you're looking at. You're not looking at the same picture they saw. What they saw was GoldenEye through a CRT TV, not a raw emulated image through a LCD display.

Regardless of display type, Goldeneye did not look close to real back then. A flat face with a low-res texture is not very convincing. I always got excited when new 3D games came out back then because they were pioneering the tech and it was advancing rapidly with big leaps. There were benchmark games that were raising the bar for graphics. Now it has slowed down greatly. Almost all games look good now in terms of rendering capabilities. The difference is more about the artists now. How much detail is going into the world? How much money is being spent on those details? That is what determines the look of games.

When compared to reality, old games looked like shit both then and now. The excitement was more about the advancement in game engine and rendering technology. I would say since DX9, things started becoming more stale. Advancements started becoming less impactful. Like I said before, we are in an era now where it is more about refinement than big leaps.

As a person who love Goldeneye back in it's hey day, that game was consider the best movie license of it's time. The folks around me who played video games didn't care for graphics back then, we were all about the Co-ops gameplay. But there's the thing, when Perfect Dark release, boy that change our perspective about Goldeneye real quick, real fast. As much as Goldeneye was loved back then, it didn't aged well at all.

By the way, did you try to play Goldeneye on PC?

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
#73 Posted by 2Chalupas (7096 posts) -

@BassMan said:

@doomnukem3d: Honestly, graphics should not even be much of a talking point. It should be about the art that is created with the technology. Is the world immersive? Are the characters likeable, relatable, etc.? Is the gameplay, objectives, actions in the world engaging? Stuff like that is what matters. The graphics and other technical details should stay behind the scenes. The technology and tools are what enable the artists to create compelling experiences. So, while important for developers, they should not be a focus for the consumer. We will get to that point eventually.

Just hook me up to The Matrix already. hehe :)

"Graphics" are part of making a game though, a smooth game engine helps get that artistic vision across.

Not really even sure what this thread is about. There are very few games that are pretty to look at but technically bad to play. In my view, they sort of go hand in hand. A game that is rough graphically is quite often not really well designed in other areas. A smooth game engine gives developers more to work with, and technically sound games already have a leg up on being more fun vs. games that run like crap.

Sure there are some exceptions. There are also certain low budget games or games played on a 2D plane where you can almost take the technical graphics out the window, because their style is not taxing to a game engine at all (unless the developers truly screw it up). This thread sounds like trying to excuse Nintendo's being cheap on their development costs and their tendency to be stuck a gen behind (or 2 vs. PC) their max graphics.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#74 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@2Chalupas: Sounds like you're trying to find console bias where there is none. I'm not interested in your petty System Wars squabble.

Avatar image for BassMan
#75 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@davillain-:I played Goldeneye back in the day on N64 and it was fun at the time for split screen MP with friends. However, I don't really hold the title in high regard. Games like Half-Life are far superior and I preferred playing other games on PC via LAN.

They remade Goldeneye in the Source engine on PC not long ago. Never bothered trying it though. I think the emulator version has been modded as well.

@2Chalupas: Game graphics are just like CG in movies. The best CG is not even noticed and doesn't draw attention. It is there to enable the creator's vision. So, game graphics should not be a focus. The worlds created with them is what is important.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#76 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: Obviously the average PC fps is superior to Golden eye.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#77 Edited by mrbojangles25 (44091 posts) -

Games that push the limit such as Crysis, Metro 2033, and Arma 3 still look incredible despite being numerous years old (especially Crysis), so I would say no.

With that said, there is something to be said about games that favor art direction over technical prowess, because they simply don't age in some regards. Outside of some rough edges and UI choices, the original Worms game, for example, could have come out two years ago or ten years ago or 25 years ago.

It's why The Little Mermaid will age better than Toy Story 1.

Avatar image for heirren
#78 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: Obviously the average PC fps is superior to Golden eye.

Goldeneye is awesome to this day. The campaign is great and it rewards you with modes that are endless fun like Enemy Rockets.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
#79 Posted by 2Chalupas (7096 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@2Chalupas: Sounds like you're trying to find console bias where there is none. I'm not interested in your petty System Wars squabble.

Check which forum you are posting in here.

In either case, many Nintendo games fall into that exception I'm talking about. Where they are lo-fi and low budget but still good because they are polished and well designed. But if the OP is going to blanket generalize "games with advanced graphics are going to age badly" that sounds like an argument a Ninty fan would make, because they know they have no chance of "advanced graphics" appearing on their system.

I'd say driving games and sports games and such generally age badly, because 99% of the time you want the latest and greatest version. Whereas a platformer is going to hold up. I tend to think FPS reached a threshold where they will age better as well, that wasn't the case for the 1st few gens of FPS.

Avatar image for Jag85
#80 Posted by Jag85 (13595 posts) -

@BassMan said:

Regardless of display type, Goldeneye did not look close to real back then. A flat face with a low-res texture is not very convincing. I always got excited when new 3D games came out back then because they were pioneering the tech and it was advancing rapidly with big leaps. There were benchmark games that were raising the bar for graphics. Now it has slowed down greatly. Almost all games look good now in terms of rendering capabilities. The difference is more about the artists now. How much detail is going into the world? How much money is being spent on those details? That is what determines the look of games.

When compared to reality, old games looked like shit both then and now. The excitement was more about the advancement in game engine and rendering technology. I would say since DX9, things started becoming more stale. Advancements started becoming less impactful. Like I said before, we are in an era now where it is more about refinement than big leaps.

Here's a line from a review of GoldenEye from Jeff Gerstmann here on GameSpot back in '97:

GoldenEye 007 Review

When you run into Boris, he actually looks like Alan Cumming.

Was Jeff Gerstmann blind or drunk when he wrote this? No. Again, it was the CRT effect.

While the output was only 240p, to emulate a high-quality 240p CRT display on LCD requires a 4K LCD display. That's what it requires to accurately emulate a high-quality 240p CRT's glowing phosphors (along with the scanlines). Even a 1080p LCD can't accurately emulate a high-quality analogue 240p CRT display.

In other words, the game's 240p image was masked behind an analogue CRT display that would today require a 4K LCD to accurately emulate. The lo-res textures were essentially masked behind the CRT display's scanlines and glowing phosphors, allowing your mind to fill in the blanks between the phosphors and scanlines.

Now combine that with the psychological effect that GoldenEye arguably had the most technically advanced graphics seen on a console up until then, and that created the overall "illusion of realism" that was prevalent among fans and critics of the game back in '97.

Avatar image for Jag85
#81 Posted by Jag85 (13595 posts) -

@BassMan said:
@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: And the closer we get to reality the less impressive the realistic games of today will look.

Yes, but they will still look good because we can compare them to reality now. Old games never looked good when compared to reality.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

There is a 20 year gap between those games. We have a come a long way. :)

There will never be that big of a difference again. We are already pretty close to reality.

Gran Turismo wasn't even close to being the best-looking racer in '97. A year earlier, the Sega Model 3 arcade game SCUD Race blew it out of the water:

Loading Video...

Back in '97, the arcades essentially had graphics equivalent to Gen 6 consoles. So in reality, the gap is narrower, more like 2 generations, rather than 3 generations.

Avatar image for BassMan
#82 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@Jag85: I was a late adopter of LCD screens because they were shit at first. I held on to my CRT for a long time until LCDs improved and I finally got a widescreen display. However, you give too much credit to CRT/picture tube displays. Your pimping of the "CRT effect" is ridiculous. Of course Boris is going to look like Alan Cumming because it has a texture of his face. Just because you can see the actor's likeness, does not mean it is close to reality.

Arcades are a whole different beast. They were far superior to both consoles and PC at the time. Very few people had a SCUD Race/Super GT arcade cabinet in their home. So, it is not really relevant to the comparison. Besides, nobody was confusing the game with reality.

Avatar image for Jag85
#83 Posted by Jag85 (13595 posts) -

@BassMan said:

@Jag85: I was a late adopter of LCD screens because they were shit at first. I held on to my CRT for a long time until LCDs improved and I finally got a widescreen display. However, you give too much credit to CRT/picture tube displays. Your pimping of the "CRT effect" is ridiculous. Of course Boris is going to look like Alan Cumming because it has a texture of his face. Just because you can see the actor's likeness, does not mean it is close to reality.

Arcades are a whole different beast. They were far superior to both consoles and PC at the time. Very few people had a SCUD Race/Super GT arcade cabinet in their home. So, it is not really relevant to the comparison. Besides, nobody was confusing the game with reality.

The general consensus among retro enthusiasts is that CRT displays are superior and more authentic for lo-res games, while LCD displays are superior for hi-res games. Anything that was 240p, CRT is the way to go. For anything that's 480p upwards, LCD is the way to go. That's not "pimping". That's just acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of each display technology. A native 240p game, especially one that was designed to look "realistic", is obviously going to look shit upscaled on a 1080p or 4K LCD than it would on a native 240p CRT. But for "cartoony" games, it doesn't matter either way, as those tend to age much better.

Realistic =/= Reality

The actual definition of "realistic" (in the context of art) is "representing things in a way that is accurate and true to life." When people say a game looks "realistic", it does not mean "literally looks like reality". The term "realism" in gaming is a reference to a type of look the game has. In the N64 era, GoldenEye had a "realistic" look in contrast to the "cartoony" look of Mario 64 and Banjo Kazooie. That's what "realistic" means in gaming terminology. It's a way of contrasting "cartoony" or "artistic" games with "gritty" or "realistic" games.

As for SCUD Race, critics back in '96 did in fact use the term "realistic" to describe the graphics. In fact, I remember reviews saying that even about Gran Turismo on the PS1. And SCUD Race looked like an entire generation ahead of that. Hell, I even remember critics using the term "realistic" to describe some of those pseudo-3D "Super Scaler" Sega arcade games back in the '80s. But again, it's worth noting that "realistic" does not literally mean "looks like reality". In almost every era, whenever gamers and critics used the word "realistic", it was just another way of saying, "wow, we're getting closer and closer to reality, boys!" Essentially, "realistic" in every generation just means the most technically advanced graphics of that era.

Avatar image for mumunaro
#84 Edited by mumunaro (156 posts) -

The gaming world have enough audience for both "realistic" and artistic designs.

Its be a far more boring world if all designs are based on cartoony/artistic.

I enjoy being wowed by graphical improvements.

Besides, games pushing for realism also drives technology forward so with regards to human advancement overall, they actually contribute more than "cartoony" games.

We are also at a point where games aged far more slowly than say 10 years ago.

Avatar image for BassMan
#85 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@Jag85: Regardless if you call it realistic, realism, photo-realism, etc... It is still striving to mimic reality. It didn't matter if you were using a CRT or not.... None of the games back then were even close to an accurate depiction of what reality looks like. The rendering technology just wasn't there. These days we are getting close...

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for Jag85
#86 Edited by Jag85 (13595 posts) -

@BassMan: Again, "realism" is a "representation" of reality, not a literal "depiction" of reality. "Realism" is more of an art style, rather than a technology in itself. Whenever a product is aiming to look as realistic as possible within whatever limitations they're working with, that's realism. It's simply a way of distinguishing the likes of GoldenEye from the likes of Banjo Kazooie.

That last one is already giving me uncanny valley vibes. It's not going to age well. Kind of like FF Spirits Within, which moviegoers back then thought looked like reality, yet today no one would confuse it with reality. The less familiar you are with CGI or 3D graphics, the more easily you can be deceived by the realism.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#87 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: That last one... kill it with fire pls

Avatar image for BassMan
#88 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@Jag85: Like I said, we are getting close. There were no uncanny valley vibes with Goldeneye because it wasn't even close to reality.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#89 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: Maybe that was for the better :(

Avatar image for BassMan
#90 Posted by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: Maybe that was for the better :(

That realism though.... LMAO

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#91 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: that actually looks goofier than I remember.

Avatar image for BassMan
#92 Edited by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: that actually looks goofier than I remember.

It looks terrible. The only reason it resembles the actor is because photos of the actor were used for the texture.

I would much rather have the pretty asian lady. :)

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#93 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: I'd rather have the demons from Doom than either

Avatar image for BassMan
#94 Posted by BassMan (10521 posts) -

@doomnukem3d said:

@BassMan: I'd rather have the demons from Doom than either

Damn, you are into some kinky shit.

Avatar image for doomnukem3d
#95 Posted by DoomNukem3D (359 posts) -

@BassMan: Yeah baby!

Avatar image for Jag85
#96 Edited by Jag85 (13595 posts) -

@BassMan: Nah, the uncanny valley vibes of GoldenEye are worse. It looks way creepier than that Siren model. Cute but slightly creepy is better than ugly and creepy.

Like I said, GoldenEye looks shit without CRT, and its "realism" would've been exposed without the CRT to mask its flaws. There was never any "realism" for 240p games without CRT. You'd need a good CRT filter (like CRT Royale) to come somewhat close to what it actually looked like back in '97.

But again, "realism" just means an approximate representation of reality, not literal photorealism. GoldenEye was "realistic" compared to the "cartoony" games on consoles at the time. It's all relative.

Avatar image for heirren
#97 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Jag85:

Loading Video...