>"This 3D game looked so real and impressive then, but now the graphics aged badly! It's so weird to look back at it after all these years, it just looks ridiculous and blocky now! 3D ages badly!"
Wh...why is this statement so common? Old games always, ALWAYS looked blocky and weird compared to pre-rendered 3DCG in films. There was always a huge, glaringly noticeable compromise to be made if you wanted to make a real-time, interactive experience in 3D. The models of the original Half-Life, which came out in 1998, looked pretty goofy compared to the 3D models of Jurassic Park, a movie that came out 5 years earlier. Cartoony games were victims of this too; Mario 64 and Banjo looked technically wonky as hell compared to Toy Story and they both came after it.
To add to this, the least awkward-looking 3D games were the ones that used heavily stylized art direction that made the blockiness part of the style. The cover artwork & manga tie-in for Sin & Punishment, for instance, made the characters look very unrealistic and... pointy. Thus the polygonal in-game graphics still look less "wrong" than the humans in Half-Life or Goldeneye. Games like Sheep Dog n' Wolf made the low polygon count part of the art style, with backgrounds having a stylish angular look reminiscent of old cartoons or something like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.
it's been a long time ago, so people misremember shit as looking better
Wh...why are you such a sperglord?
>>2835061
But why would it have looked "real" and amazing back then? I could always tell, even as a little kid, that "amazing" video game graphics were the result of a massive hardware compromise and that they always looked blocky as shit compared to even their 3DCG commercials. In fact, I judged the "best graphics" based on whatever got the closest to looking like the standard set by cinema. Were people that easily swayed by marketing hype?
>>2835070
I don't know ,I remember seeing gran turismo and thought it looked like real life or at least very close to it.
>>2835159
Yeah I highly doubt I would have thought that way. PS1 games in particular are particularly technically awkward with the wobbliness and shit.
>>2835070
>Were people that easily swayed by marketing hype?
Hell yes, and they still are.
Yeah, I don't know people keep using this argument. We had Reboot and always said "woah, 3D games some day will look like this", and after Toy Story showing up, the PSXand 64 versions were of course inferior graphically to the movie and everyone realized this.
>>2835221
Honestly I don't like Reboot's art direction, especially the amateurish use of shading & lighting, so I do prefer the look of a lot of old 3D games.
Buuuuuut it definitely looked technically better in terms of polygon counts and other graphical fidelity categories and also had better animation than most 3D games, so yeah.
>>2835231
I don't remember nothing better at the time, I took a quick look at wiki and realized it was from fucking '94, that's a long time ago. For me, the best idea I had about 3D at the time was the video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0
>>2835221
An article in a magazine I read (Either Play or Official Playstation Magazine) showed a pic of Shrek and said "In the near future, expect games to look like this" and a cap from Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within saying "Or better, like this."
We pretty much have that now.
>>2835051
>Wh...why is this statement so common?
Because it's an actual occurrence. That's how most communication works, information is processed by the senses and then we use language to relay it to others.
>>2835221
I remember Reboot looking like shit at the time it came out, dude. I also remember a lot of 3D games looking clearly flawed and lackluster. However, I also think Diablo 2 aged very poorly and looks/plays far worse now. Today I still see a number of problems with 3D but it's usually limited to either their faces, their bodies or their clothing/armor. That, and textures look blurry and stretched. At some point we mostly got modeling accurate and it became an artstyle issue.
I'll make sure to come back in 10-20 years and find out how wrong I am.
>>2835307
Diablo2 looks ok in my opinion, but the gameplay is really shitty, and I do like D1. The difficulty curve is crazy, it's extremely easy for very long patches of the game until you suddenly hit a massive difficulty spike and die a million times, and after that it's retardedly easy for long times again. D1 challenged you all the way through, and the atmosphere was much, much better.
>>2835051
What I wanna know is when is this going to be "in-vogue" again. We have a constant slew of pixel art games these days, of varying quality... When are we going to get 3D games modeled in this style but without the limitations, like "8-bit retro pixel art" in resolutions and colours that an 8-bit console couldn't handle? I saw someone making "N64" models of that recent not-retro RPG about hugging monsters, surely all the gaming hipsters are ready to be the first to be alternative and make games with these models before it becomes "cool".
>>2835441
Possibly never outside of select cases, especially now that the Minecraft wave has already passed.
The end of 2D was the end of an era. 3D is still ongoing as the mainstream standard.
I remember when I got FFVII for christmas, me and my brother (not a gamer, way older than me, swayed by the FF7 commercials) went to check it out. As soon the intro was over, he saw the blocky characters jumping from the train and said "that's how the game looks? pft, not interested" and left the room. So perhaps there's some truth to what the OP says
But FF7 actually doesn't(/didn't) look that good. The overworld kinda does. I think some games age, but that one always had its flaws.
>>2835448
>The end of 2D was the end of an era.
Dragon's Crown and BlazeBlu called.
it's silly how Evangelion 64 has better modeled Evas than on the PS2 game
>>2835468
They still make 2D games but it's not the mainstream norm. You know what I meant.
>>2835470
here is the PS2 game, which was actually a late ps2 game (Eva 64 was also a late N64 game, and arguably one of the best looking, or graphically most impressive 5th gen games, possibly)
>>2835454
So PERHAPS there's some truth?
Jesus christ you asshole. You honestly can't remember your own feelings for yourself?
You need someone else to confirm it for you?
>>2835267
No, it was definitely technically impressive. I just think the style is unappealing.
>>2835278
Both of those movies look bland as fuck. Like, they're pretty much as bland as mainstream 3DCG films get. Why use those and not Pixar I do not know.
>>2835307
>>2835327
I don't think any of Diablo's huge issues are technical. Yeah the pre-rendered 3D is a bit awkward but the use of color is by far the worst part.
>>2835470
I didn't like how this game controlled but the visuals were pretty cool.
>>2835474
Haha holy fuck that is sad.
>>2835454
See, that's another thing. So many games start with 3D FMVs that look better than the game, it's like they WANT the player to think "nah, this isn't that impressive" from the get-go.
FF7 did still have impressive stuff in it, the summon animations looked pretty cool. But switching form the intro to the lego men was bound to get a "lol" reaction from many.
>>2835461
I disagree, I think the ebbin battle animations were more interesting than the overworld. The "this is obviously pre-rendered" part made it a whole lot less impressive.
