Posted November 12, 2014
I think this thread speaks to the issue with "beautiful games". The games that attempted to be the best looking games are the ones I find to have aged the worst.
IMHO, the total package assists in how we perceive games as a whole. I think Thief looks great today. (sure, I prefer the fan texture models), but other than lots of empty rooms and sparse item placements in the original levels, I actually preferred the rough, rustic, dirty graphics and felt they helped pull the experience all together. Not so with Doom 3 or many of the games who were out to get the the ooohs and aaaahs. All I see when I launch those games is the gimmicks used to make them work (such as tight corridors and small maps, and excessive darkness).
Painkiller is another game I find still looks very good. The fun in that game is the weapons used, along with the very smooth gameplay with so much going on (very good ragdoll physics is rare, and lots and lots of gibs, mobs, and shadow work happening in very large, open, and detailed space).
Games like Heavy Rain break the beauty walls they create as soon as animations skip or clipping happens. Sure, it was pretty, but uglier games play better and don't yank you out of the moment with glaring graphical issues.
Its similar to the problem with HD. The more detail you can show, the better the objects should look and function.
One game I have that was tons of fun back in the day, is Diablo 1. I can't play it now. I can't tell items from mobs and navigating the dungeons is a pain. This is one of my examples of a game that aged horribly in the graphics department. It reminds me of going back and trying to play a PS1 game. How did we differentiate pixels back then???
IMHO, the total package assists in how we perceive games as a whole. I think Thief looks great today. (sure, I prefer the fan texture models), but other than lots of empty rooms and sparse item placements in the original levels, I actually preferred the rough, rustic, dirty graphics and felt they helped pull the experience all together. Not so with Doom 3 or many of the games who were out to get the the ooohs and aaaahs. All I see when I launch those games is the gimmicks used to make them work (such as tight corridors and small maps, and excessive darkness).
Painkiller is another game I find still looks very good. The fun in that game is the weapons used, along with the very smooth gameplay with so much going on (very good ragdoll physics is rare, and lots and lots of gibs, mobs, and shadow work happening in very large, open, and detailed space).
Games like Heavy Rain break the beauty walls they create as soon as animations skip or clipping happens. Sure, it was pretty, but uglier games play better and don't yank you out of the moment with glaring graphical issues.
Its similar to the problem with HD. The more detail you can show, the better the objects should look and function.
One game I have that was tons of fun back in the day, is Diablo 1. I can't play it now. I can't tell items from mobs and navigating the dungeons is a pain. This is one of my examples of a game that aged horribly in the graphics department. It reminds me of going back and trying to play a PS1 game. How did we differentiate pixels back then???