m1so wrote:

I corrected you because there actually are adventures without any graphics, text adventures, but those aren't point and click 😉.

It depends. I don't mind early 1990s 3D graphics as long as the gameplay is solid, PSX games look a lot better if you're using a CRT TV like me, of course it will be unwatchable on a LCD. I'm not jumping on the "old 2D graphics is better than 3D" bandwagon, I played 1985-1991 DOS games as a kid with mostly EGA graphics and compared to that the PSX seemed like virtual reality to me. Everyone always compares jerky PS1 games to "60 fps SNES sprite goodness", but they're forgetting that old DOS 2D games from before the SVGA era were even choppier while having very ugly 2D graphics (and I still love them despite that, they're my childhood). But then, I have a weakness for "bad 3D/CGI". What is sad however is that modern games mostly look worse than prerendered 1997 graphics and if you don't believe me, look at Riven (which looks better than many modern games in my opinion and is freaking beautiful), yet I see people thinking we have "lifelike graphics".

But then, I read scans from 1990s gaming magazines which call Voodoo 1 graphics "almost confusable with video", and realize that the newest games for a given time are always considered "photorealistic" by gamers until something newer comes along when it becomes "horribly ugly, my eyes are bleeding". Total lack of perspective.

Yeah your right actually now that I think about it, I own many games of the MMX era that are 3D and I still love them so I'm not sure what I meant. 🤣 Games like POD, Vangers, Omikron, Total Annihilation, MDK, Mechwarriors etc will always be great games. I never did subscribe to the whole "horribly ugly, my eyes are bleeding" thing since I never had state of the art hardware I was always at least 5 years behind (in 2007 I was over a decade behind). CRT monitors do make all the difference though when playing these games and like you said PS1 games especially. I also use a tiny 13" Sharp TV for my consoles because it looks... well... sharp. 🤣
In fact I'm using a Samsung Syncmaster 753DF on my main Core 2 Duo PC right now, it seems a bit out of focus but other than that games look freaking fantastic on it. Even modern games like GTA IV benefit greatly in terms of picture quality. I don't think I'm ever going back to LCD (despite my electric bill probably going up).

Also yeah I own a 1984 PCjr so I got to play plenty of text adventures (including the greats from Infocom). 🤣
Also speaking of which I also have a soft spot for some of the CGA games as well, example Empire : Wargame of the Century. That game is freaking phenomenal!

I was born in 1990 so most of my gaming came in from 95 til probably 2004-ish (unless High school counts for that too then I would go til 2008. 😜). I mostly played the NES since it was easy to set up (We only had a single 486 Packard Bell when I was really young) and Super Mario Bros. 3 and Double Dragon never got old, but later we had multiple 90's computers so I played those much more (Duke3d, Doom, Quake, Warcraft 2, Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Civilization 2, Vangers (Dedicated so much freaking time to that game) etc.).

You have a similiar taste and gaming history to me then 😀 . I was also many years "behind", our family PC from 1991 to 2000 was a 386 and I was born in 1993, so my childhood was no Voodoos and Tulatins (seems to be an obsession here), and I am only glad for it 😀 the PC had mostly text editing software and late 80s games so I learned to appreciate games despite graphics and learned to edit autoexec.bat at the age of 6 (I messed up the PC, but to be fair I actually knew what the file was for, I just experimented a bit).

A bad game will still be a bad game regardless of how much time and money is spent making it look good. I have games that I still play on my Atari 2600 because they are great games for the time period even though the graphics capabilities of the console are primitive. The problem with commercial games is that they are built to strict budget and time limitations. The programmers would like for the game to be as good as it can be, of course, but the constraints placed on them by the management limit what they can do. If they pour too much of their time and budget into graphics, the rest of the game suffers. The real problem though, is that the public has been trained to value graphics above all else. A lackluster game that looks better than anything else on the market will be a hit while games that strive to achieve balance between graphics, story, and game play suffer because they don't look as slick as they could. That's the real downside to buying games from the big publishing houses. They want their teams to crank out hit games one after another as quickly as possible. Indie game developers can take as much as time as they feel they need to make their games 'just right' before they release them because they don't have anyone breathing down their necks to get them done as quickly and cheaply as possible so they can move on to the next one.

Also for PC games in the 97-99 era you'll have to disregard most game reviews written then as many magazines were on that "go 3dfx or go home" high, clouding fair judgment.

sliderider wrote:

A bad game will still be a bad game regardless of how much time and money is spent making it look good. I have games that I still play on my Atari 2600 because they are great games for the time period even though the graphics capabilities of the console are primitive. The problem with commercial games is that they are built to strict budget and time limitations. The programmers would like for the game to be as good as it can be, of course, but the constraints placed on them by the management limit what they can do. If they pour too much of their time and budget into graphics, the rest of the game suffers. The real problem though, is that the public has been trained to value graphics above all else. A lackluster game that looks better than anything else on the market will be a hit while games that strive to achieve balance between graphics, story, and game play suffer because they don't look as slick as they could. That's the real downside to buying games from the big publishing houses. They want their teams to crank out hit games one after another as quickly as possible. Indie game developers can take as much as time as they feel they need to make their games 'just right' before they release them because they don't have anyone breathing down their necks to get them done as quickly and cheaply as possible so they can move on to the next one.

Speaking of arcade games though, if you ever get a chance to buy an Intellivision get it. I bought one with the organizer case and most of the games you would want for the system for 2$ (I was buying a huge box of C64 stuff and the guy threw it in) and oh my freaking god is it cool. The graphics and sound kick Atari's ass and there are other exclusive games like Utopia that are just freaking awesome.

I'm less bothered by the fact that you can't count individual blades of grass than I am by all the other things f****** up games today.

For example, every game today seems to be tied to an online server, even if you only want to play the single player game. Stick in a PS3 game and what's the first thing it does? Download patches, then there are about 50 different options for the game that you can buy. How are you going to be able to play these games a decade from now when the company no longer supports them? Computer games aren't any better. It seems every commercial game today needs to be registered/activated online.

Then there's the design of the games themselves. "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." OK, thanks for the tip. "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." Umm yeah, I remember that from ten seconds ago, thanks. "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." Gee, really? You mean it's the same damn button I've been using for the last 30 minutes??? I never would have guessed! "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." "PRESS [O] TO CLIMB LADDER." "PRESS [X] TO OPEN CHEST." "PRESS [O] TO SEARCH BODY." ARGH!!! SHUT UP ALREADY!!!

Seriously, if gamers today are really this stupid, their homes must be covered in Post-It notes reminding them how to do everyday tasks, like turning on a light or opening the window. A few years from now, every FPS game will have big arrows over the enemies' heads saying "SHOOT HERE!"

Two minutes of gameplay and then you have to sit through a five minute cutscene. Is it a game or a movie? Why am I watching my character do things I should be doing myself?

When you actually start playing the game, "ACHIEVEMENT: STANDING IN PLACE FOR TEN SECONDS!" "ACHIEVEMENT: GETTING KILLED!" "ACHIEVEMENT: TRIPPING OVER THE SCENERY!" "ACHIEVEMENT: TURNING THE VIEW 90 DEGREES!"

And why is every pickup glowing? Walk into a pitch-black room and all the pickups are glowing like they're radioactive!

Games today may look better than they did in the past, but actual game design has taken a huge nosedive. 🙁

Yeah exactly, it's definitely catering to the small children and the "got to have it now!" generation.

I agree with everything you said Rekrul. And there are two issues in particular that I really have a problem with in today's PC games:

Rekrul wrote:

For example, every game today seems to be tied to an online server, even if you only want to play the single player game. Stick in a PS3 game and what's the first thing it does? Download patches, then there are about 50 different options for the game that you can buy. How are you going to be able to play these games a decade from now when the company no longer supports them? Computer games aren't any better. It seems every commercial game today needs to be registered/activated online.

This is my biggest gripe, and one of the main reasons I'm a retro gamer. I know it was done to try and curb piracy but really, enough is enough! If any PC game maker/retailer has this level of distrust then they might as well accuse me of being a crook, a cheat and a liar (and I'm not even a politician 😜 ). Hell, I don't even like playing online; just let me have the d%#* game so I can play peacefully in the privacy of my home, there's no need to check my honesty every single d%#* time! 😠

Rekrul wrote:

When you actually start playing the game, "ACHIEVEMENT: STANDING IN PLACE FOR TEN SECONDS!" "ACHIEVEMENT: GETTING KILLED!" "ACHIEVEMENT: TRIPPING OVER THE SCENERY!" "ACHIEVEMENT: TURNING THE VIEW 90 DEGREES!"

This is another gripe of mine. When did this silliness start? And why? Does clicking the game menu the right way also become an achievement? That's crazy! I rather play the game my own way, thank you very much! 😜

Rekrul wrote:

Then there's the design of the games themselves. "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." OK, thanks for the tip. "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." Umm yeah, I remember that from ten seconds ago, thanks. "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." Gee, really? You mean it's the same damn button I've been using for the last 30 minutes??? I never would have guessed! "PRESS [X] TO OPEN DOOR." "PRESS [O] TO CLIMB LADDER." "PRESS [X] TO OPEN CHEST." "PRESS [O] TO SEARCH BODY." ARGH!!! SHUT UP ALREADY!!!

Press [F] to pay respects

King_Corduroy wrote:

it's definitely catering to the small children

especially in this children's nintendo game!!!

Rekrul I share your dissatisfaction. The most annoying thing for me it's the "MASH THE BUTTONS TO DO X". I like Far Cry 3, but this is one aspect of it I really hate. It's a kick in the face, especially when you have a disability like me and you die due to a random encounter with a fucking crocodile because you didn't manage to mash the button fast enough. Games with "this button is reserved" are another pet hate for me, screw those, I NEED to be able to customize the controls so I'll be able to play the game. It's also an obvious sign of a console port, just like Windows 8 and it's "TAP this to do X" shows how's it's obviously geared for touchscreen devices. Many companies seem to forget that disabled gamers even exist. Sorry if I got a little offtopic.

And I notice an entirely different thing: instead of games looking like movies, the movies started looking like games! Just look at the new Hobbit movie, the scene where Bard jumps on the roof! Doesn't it look like a real-time cutscene where you'd be given control over him in a matter of seconds? There are other scenes in other movies (or should I call them cartoons now that 90% of the video is 3D?) that give the exact same feeling!

Btw, I judge the graphics by how organic they are, that way GTA III and VC are good enough for me. Morrowind is a little on the ugly side (great game though). Re-volt is cool, NFS HP2 is cool, Max Payne is godlike. I like how games from up to 2006 looked different from each other, even the way the polygons were styled. That was the era of precise modelling and polygon count optimization. And now is the era of high-poly HDR garbage. I would be happy to be wrong.

Gentleman, behold:

http://www.gamesradar.com/56-eye-melting-scre … o-game-history/

I feel it's hilarious that some people actually DEFEND this overblown kind of bloom effect.