At what point were you satisfied with graphical progression? (discussion)

[Creamhoven]

Dear optic gamers,

 

when are we ever satisfied. We always hunger for more. Why eat only 6 buttery, honey covered slices of bread if you can have 7. It is a dark thing. If you have overindulged on wine and grapes, the time will eventually come when the clock tells you, it's time to cut back. You've dropped the ball. Getting too comfortable in the satisfaction of overindulgence is like eating ones own youth. Gone are the days of the naivity that spring brings. Bring it back with sunshine and nothern winds!

 

*cough*

 

My fellow atariagesters, we have seen great developements of graphical power from the Magnavox Odyssey

to modern gaming

Wow! It is impressive yes... but do we really need this level of graphics?

 

It is an individual type of thing. A matter of personal preferance.

 

Look at ray tracing:

Impressive, for sure, but is this necessary?

 

I personally feel like the 3D era of PS1 gaming was a bit rough. It's great don't get me wrong but it left alot to be desired.

 

 

Looking at PS2 graphics to be honest, I personally am fine with what I am seeing.

 

 

When it comes to 2D graphics the NeoGeo was not perfect but it a great job and it holds up really well.

 

 

Now to the discussion:

 

Has the gaming industry focused too much on graphical gimmicks?

 

What would be possible with less graphically intensive games that have a heavier focus on other things like physical simulation or innovative gameplay?

 

When were you satisfied with the graphical progession of videogames?

[BassGuitari]

I think I was always satisfied until something better came out. I can recall moments from my youth where I'd be playing something and thinking, "How could it possibly ever get better than this?" And then it did.

 

At some point it stopped mattering, though. By the early 2000s I was mostly into retro gaming and didn't really pay much attention to newer stuff that was coming out, with a few exceptions. I'd say as far as graphics go, I'm pretty easy to please.

[Creamhoven]

4 minutes ago, BassGuitari said:

I think I was always satisfied until something better came out. I can recall moments from my youth where I'd be playing something and thinking, "How could it possibly ever get better than this?" And then it did.

 

At some point it stopped mattering, though. By the early 2000s I was mostly into retro gaming and didn't really pay much attention to newer stuff that was coming out, with a few exceptions. I'd say as far as graphics go, I'm pretty easy to please.

Me too. I also find it offputting how these days some games look real, but not really...

[zzip]

I feel like I'm at that point currently.   Upgrading my PC to 1440p didn't really improve visuals much over 1080p, especially when the game is in motion,  you don't have time to notice how detailed the textures around you are.

 

With the PS5, I see so little that looks like a massive improvement over the PS4

 

The fact that so many comparison videos from Digital Foundry and others have to frequently pause the game and zoom in to show small differences in shadow quality between platforms just shows we've hit a point of diminishing returns in graphics.

[mickster]

For me it was the xbox360.  While there have been plenty of nicer games since that system, at that point, I no longer cared about better graphics.  Everything is pretty much good enough for me.

 

I will say at the time (before I noticed the shallow draw distance and simple poly counts), the first time seeing Mario 64, it really looked like I was playing a cartoon.  While the rest of the games for that system have not aged well, I think that super mario 64 is the perfect blend of artwork and processing power.  

[Creamhoven]

19 minutes ago, zzip said:

I feel like I'm at that point currently.   Upgrading my PC to 1440p didn't really improve visuals much over 1080p, especially when the game is in motion,  you don't have time to notice how detailed the textures around you are.

 

With the PS5, I see so little that looks like a massive improvement over the PS4

 

The fact that so many comparison videos from Digital Foundry and others have to frequently pause the game and zoom in to show small differences in shadow quality between platforms just shows we've hit a point of diminishing returns in graphics.

Sometimes I don't see the difference even with pausing and zooming.

 

12 minutes ago, mickster said:

For me it was the xbox360.  While there have been plenty of nicer games since that system, at that point, I no longer cared about better graphics.  Everything is pretty much good enough for me.

 

I will say at the time (before I noticed the shallow draw distance and simple poly counts), the first time seeing Mario 64, it really looked like I was playing a cartoon.  While the rest of the games for that system have not aged well, I think that super mario 64 is the perfect blend of artwork and processing power.  

Mario 64 is an absolute classic, a good showcase that all the bells and whistles of current games don't mean much.

[Tanooki]

Honestly I have a range really with it.  On the low end if it's worse off than the Colecovision or stock Famicom (NES) without any form of expansion(meaning SMB1 maxed the system) that's my low point.  The high point really was the PS3 generation of games and the level of detail they had.  Beyond that level it seems more like showing off and taking it too far for a return that does next to if not utterly nothing for me depending on a game by game situation.  And on the low end, there's a hard wall of where you can enjoy it or you're trying to stretch too much imagination out of some ugly ass blocks and buzzing sounds I do not want to put up with.

 

Even the stuff in the middle, clearly that first gen of 3D consoles (64/PS1) where it's rough, but they found ways to be creative that by now the angle of those low polygon models have an almost artistic quality to them and they really don't need you to stretch the imagination to get there.  Mario 64 is a perfect example or a few years later one of the few other truly competent 3D platformers Rayman 2.  Sure they had angles, Mario was more flat shaded and R2 had a lot of textured details light tricks etc Mario lacked.  They both look 'bad' by todays standards but are well enough made to stand great as it is too.  They work because they live on the quality of what works, not just what is seen.

[zzip]

deleted - wrong thread

Edited May 19, 2023 by zzip

[zzip]

16 hours ago, mickster said:

For me it was the xbox360.  While there have been plenty of nicer games since that system, at that point, I no longer cared about better graphics.  Everything is pretty much good enough for me.

 

2 hours ago, Tanooki said:

The high point really was the PS3 generation of games and the level of detail they had.  Beyond that level it seems more like showing off and taking it too far for a return that does next to if not utterly nothing for me depending on a game by game situation. 

 

I never had a PS3 or Xbox 360,  but didn't that generation have an epidemic of muddy-looking brown and gray-colored games caused by some technical limitations? (I forget the details)   And PS4/Xbox One allowed such games to be presented in full color?

[Creamhoven]

47 minutes ago, zzip said:

 

 

I never had a PS3 or Xbox 360,  but didn't that generation have an epidemic of muddy-looking brown and gray-colored games caused by some technical limitations? (I forget the details)   And PS4/Xbox One allowed such games to be presented in full color?

Thats what is possible on PS3

[Tanooki]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

 

 

I never had a PS3 or Xbox 360,  but didn't that generation have an epidemic of muddy-looking brown and gray-colored games caused by some technical limitations? (I forget the details)   And PS4/Xbox One allowed such games to be presented in full color?

Maybe?  I thought that was more on PS2 I recall that happening.  The PS3 had this level of detail on the high end that looks largely like PS4 stuff, just less secondary detail like total amounts of raindrops, blades of grass displayed if not moving, more room for better AI and stuff like that.  PS3 hit this tops for me where the detail was almost like sitting in a movie, such as it was with Uncharted 2.  After the jump of GC/PS2 to PS3 stuff the hops have been incremental at best really and at a cost not worth the price of what you got for me so I kind of gave up giving a damn as it wasn't worth it vs just having a PC to do that, better, and far more as it's not a walled gaming garden.

[mickster]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

 

 

I never had a PS3 or Xbox 360,  but didn't that generation have an epidemic of muddy-looking brown and gray-colored games caused by some technical limitations? (I forget the details)   And PS4/Xbox One allowed such games to be presented in full color?

Yes that is true, but raising the resolution to HD still made everything so much clearer and allowing publishers to have tighter/smaller UI was a huge improvement.  720p is a huge jump from NTSC.  Moving to HD really allowed a PC gamer to go back to the couch tv setup.  I am a better gamer with a mouse/keyboard and pc system.  I am a more comfortable gamer lounging on a couch with a xbox controller.  

[Razzie.P]

Actually, I think I've always been satisfied with graphical progression, and very pleased when the "next gen" comes along and improves it, then satisfied all over again.  The only exception to this, for me, was the PS1, Saturn, N64 eras.  I thought those took so many steps backwards... they looked ugly, ran poorly, and were just an overall mess.

 

Back in Atari, I loved the graphics and never really wanted "more."   Games were fun and I had a blast.

 

NES game along and I was amazed by things like "those awesome cutscenes in Ninja Gaiden...." and really didn't dwell on how I wanted more.

 

Genesis game along, and I was blown away when I played Altered Beast for the first time.

 

Etc, etc...  all the way through now.  Each gen has so many moments that stick out to me as "woah, look at this!!!"    (except that gen mentioned earlier)

 

 

 

For some odd reason, though,  I guess I've always wanted "more" out of my PC gaming.  I did seem to spend a lot of $$$ and troubleshooting always trying to hit that next resolution while running smoothly.

[zzip]

On 5/19/2023 at 10:07 PM, Razzie.P said:

Actually, I think I've always been satisfied with graphical progression, and very pleased when the "next gen" comes along and improves it, then satisfied all over again.  The only exception to this, for me, was the PS1, Saturn, N64 eras.  I thought those took so many steps backwards... they looked ugly, ran poorly, and were just an overall mess.

You mean the jump to early 3D?

 

That was a point in time I hated.   We finally had hardware that could render 2D beautifully,  but then all these games started arriving that did 3D poorly.   Blob like objects,  horrible looking environments, etc.   The worst part was when they took well executed 2D + Isometric games and made sequels that were 3D "just because".

[+Gemintronic]

Probably NEO GEO / Jaguar / Dreamcast.  Enough colors and minimal slowdown.  Everything N64 on up was focused on 3D fidelity which isn't a priority for me.

[Razzie.P]

45 minutes ago, zzip said:

You mean the jump to early 3D?

 

That was a point in time I hated.   We finally had hardware that could render 2D beautifully,  but then all these games started arriving that did 3D poorly.   Blob like objects,  horrible looking environments, etc.   The worst part was when they took well executed 2D + Isometric games and made sequels that were 3D "just because".

Yep, that was it.  And my thoughts were (and still are) pretty much the same as what you mentioned.

 

 

[Austin]

On 5/19/2023 at 10:11 AM, zzip said:

 

 

I never had a PS3 or Xbox 360,  but didn't that generation have an epidemic of muddy-looking brown and gray-colored games caused by some technical limitations? (I forget the details)   And PS4/Xbox One allowed such games to be presented in full color?

Definitely not caused by technical limitations. There were plenty of colorful games released during that generation. The issue was that publishers thought everyone wanted gritty, military-themed games and so brown and grey was a typical, deliberate design choice.

[Creamhoven]

2 hours ago, Austin said:

Definitely not caused by technical limitations. There were plenty of colorful games released during that generation. The issue was that publishers thought everyone wanted gritty, military-themed games and so brown and grey was a typical, deliberate design choice.

Yes the technical limitation was lazyness and bad direction.

[zzip]

On 5/26/2023 at 12:55 PM, Austin said:

Definitely not caused by technical limitations. There were plenty of colorful games released during that generation. The issue was that publishers thought everyone wanted gritty, military-themed games and so brown and grey was a typical, deliberate design choice.

According to this, it was technical https://www.gamedeveloper.com/art/why-quot-next-gen-games-quot-went-gray-brown-and-grey-   It had to do with lighting solutions that looked more realistic if you desaturated the palette

 

But I do think it became a style/design choice as well.    Still though, you didn't see this art direction so much once the PS4/Xbox One came out, most likely because those consoles had the resources to handle lighting better