RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   General RPG (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Anyone not care for the "bad-3d" phase? (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19412)

donjn February 2nd, 2013 00:08

Anyone not care for the "bad-3d" phase?
 
I have always felt that there was a time when 3d was really bad. Like so bad that sprites actually looked better to me. I think the time was 1996 to 1999.

For example

I like the look of World of Xeen better than Might and Magic VI and VII. I like the look of Realms of Arkania: Star Trail better than Shadows over Riva (the 1st person parts)

Anyone else agree or have a good example of a 1994 game they thought looked better simply because of sprites vs early 3d video card technology?

GhanBuriGhan February 2nd, 2013 00:35

I think most people would agree, that 2D from that era has aged better. Personally however I am fairly forgiving to early 3D if there is a good game there. I can still get immersed in Ultima Underworld or in Daggerfall. Betrayal at Krondor was almost too ugly, though.

JDR13 February 2nd, 2013 00:57

It's the reason why I have to play PS1 games with an emulator. :)

xSamhainx February 2nd, 2013 02:22

I dunno, i tend to think primitive 3D has a sort of charm to it, like a bad movie. 2D from that area definitely looks better than 3-D though, actually the backgrounds of games like Baulders gate, planescape, fallout etc. are beautiful to this day.

joxer February 2nd, 2013 03:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhanBuriGhan (Post 1061182511)
Betrayal at Krondor was almost too ugly, though.

It was unbearably ugly. But once you've played it for about 10 mins, you simply didn't care even if it was uglier than it was - the game was too awsome to stop playing it.

DArtagnan February 2nd, 2013 09:49

Definitely true. It's like early CGI versus practical effects from that time.

In that same way, it's actually still possible to outdo CGI with practical effects - and some games would look better in high resolution 2D, done with great care. It's just that no one is really doing that, sadly.

darkling February 2nd, 2013 10:25

I can't handle early 3D myself. Even when it was going on I couldn't handle it. Games got ridiculously ugly fast and the gaming press seemed like a bunch of liars praising all this blocky garbage being handed to us. I just all faith and mostly stopped gaming outside of roguelikes and weird 2D games and retro stuff.

I'm not particularly fond of any 3D until the current console generation, honestly. I played a bunch of the 2000's era stuff, but I can't go back there now. Like hell I'm going to ever try playing Gothic again.

DArtagnan February 2nd, 2013 10:27

Gothic is a game made possible because of 3D - and I'm very thankful for that.

darkling February 2nd, 2013 10:35

They should slap some HD paint on it! Gothic: EE!! Now with modern graphics and a manageable interface!

I mean, I'm sure it's great. But ugh, it's ugly.

PetrusOctavianus February 2nd, 2013 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by joxer (Post 1061182530)
It was unbearably ugly. But once you've played it for about 10 mins, you simply didn't care even if it was uglier than it was - the game was too awsome to stop playing it.

I recently played Betrayal of Krondor and Lands of Lore for the first time. Judging by the graphics you wouldn't believe they were released at the same time, but I much prefered the gameplay of BaK to the impressive (for its time) graphics and animations of Lands of Lore. LoL was still fun, though.

JemyM February 2nd, 2013 11:01

I can't handle early 3d well either. There's a rift somewhere between y2k where there was a huge leap in the quality of 3d models and I see that jump as essential as it was much easier to accept the polygons after that. I were actually better at handling the early titles where they used textures instead of polygon models so I am better to accept a game like Might & Magic VI today. I also don't like 3d games that forces low resolution upon you but that's another story.

Some early games with polygon models still managed to get to me, like Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill or Gabriel Knight 3 (I played all three long after their release), but these games needed a really strong story and good audio to make me forget about the graphics. Then you have games like Simon 3d that didn't just look awful but played awful as well, forcing you to run past endless polygon fields which you have to run through again if you die.

Screenshots
Spoiler


The most important thing to me are the faces. I need more than polygons as a face. Consider the following, I would say that the first two doesn't work for me. Kingpin is bearable, but when we come to No One Lives forever it's perfectly fine.

Pessimeister February 2nd, 2013 11:22

As an avid retro gamer, I'm quite forgiving of this era and actually sometimes get a little frustrated when people place so much emphasis on graphics over gameplay.
I mean really, have the modern trappings of 5000 gig videocards spoiled us that much?

One of my favourite console series had its beginnings in this early era; Tenchu. (1998) Whilst graphically it may have seen better days now, the stealth mechanics (Assassins what? Eat my katana imposter!) aural oriental atmosphere still make it eminently playable today.

Having said that, I tried for awhile to get into titles on the N64 such as Majora's Mask and the Castlevania64 and failed, but I mostly attribute that to the awkwardness of that particular console itself (and my lateness to it) rather anything specifically graphical.

JDR13 February 2nd, 2013 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pessimeister (Post 1061182571)
Having said that, I tried for awhile to get into titles on the N64 such as Majora's Mask and the Castlevania64 and failed, but I mostly attribute that to the awkwardness of that particular console itself (and my lateness to it) rather anything specifically graphical.

The N64 was, imo, one of the worst consoles ever released. The graphics were fine for the time, the problem was that most of the games just flat-out sucked. The horrible controller didn't help either.

And yeah, Castlevania 64 was terrible. Especially after the brilliance of Symphony of the Night on the PS1 two years earlier.

ToddMcF2002 February 2nd, 2013 15:11

Nothing compares to Die by the Sword :)

xSamhainx February 2nd, 2013 17:01

4 Attachment(s)
Nothing is a greater example of the state of graphic technology than a representation the female humanoid. From the lovely curves of the body to a beautiful face, you can fake a lot of things - but the female form is the bar to which all 3D is judged. As such, the Tomb Raider series is a great time capsule for viewing the progression of 3D technology.

It's funny, the first Lara is so crude that she practically looks like a blow up doll, yet I can remember people scrambling to get the "nude mod" for the original Tomb Raider! Hilarious!

I actually think the original Gothic looks pretty good for it's time


BTW - has anyone played the new Tomb Raider game? Ive played them all, so I'll eventually get around to it but curious if anyone's got any impressions for me.

Fnord February 3rd, 2013 01:25

I did not really like early 3D when early 3D was the hottest thing on the block. Sure, there were some great games released at this time, but early 3D just looked so awkward to me, even back then, when compared to the beautiful sprites of many games being released at the time.

JemyM February 3rd, 2013 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by xSamhainx (Post 1061182604)
BTW - has anyone played the new Tomb Raider game? Ive played them all, so I'll eventually get around to it but curious if anyone's got any impressions for me.

It's on my list, but so is Guardian of Light. I do not know what i feel about these prequels, Legend was the peak to me storywise but I did enjoy Underworld as well.

Alrik Fassbauer February 4th, 2013 18:42

I once got literally sick when I played "Crusaders Of Might & Magic".
It must've been 2006 or so.

blatantninja February 4th, 2013 19:38

For RPG's I can't really do it. I'd rather a monochrome sprite ala Ultima IV than early 3-D. I've tried a couple times to play the Ultima Underworld games and while I don't generally care about graphics, I just can't do it.

Zloth February 5th, 2013 03:34

<shrug> I'm still playing around with Thief: Gold. It's often tricky to tell if you're looking at a man or a woman until the voice acting cuts in. I'm still loving it, though.

I can deal with sprite graphics but I would rather have the polygons (though I agree faces are the worst). It's the perspectives, I think, that are the real bother for me. You'll have maybe 8 views for a given object (or less if it isn't important) and that's it. When it turns, it jumps between each view, making it terribly clear that this is not a real object at all. I would rather have the lego people than the playing card people - it's just more….

REAL! Which is exactly what I keep saying about the new stereoscopic 3D stuff! I smell a perception difference!

Is there anyone here with a doctorate in neurology? You need to disect donjn and me. (Sorry donjn, but the world has a right to know. 'The world' meaning 'not us two' I'm afraid. You started the topic, you knew the risks.) ;)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 13:03.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch