ITT: Games whose gameplay and content are so amazing that you completely ignore the shitty graphics.
I wouldn't call the graphics "shitty", more like dated. Still, the sheer amount of content, numerous play styles and the atmosphere all form this superb experience I couldn't put down once I started. I found the audio design to work brilliantly and create a good chunk of the mood, again showing that sounds > graphics in horror games. Still, the blocky graphics kinda fit the game's style as well;
I really hate those "hi-poly" 3D model replacement mods, since they make things look so... cartoony. Plasticy and out of place.
I don't give games a free pass based on age. Something might have been great "for its time" but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be objectively compared to something new based on how advanced it is. If I had to do that with graphics, I would have to do that with gameplay too, and consider Thief 2's stealth mechanics to be equal to Splinter Cell Conviction's stealth mechanics, when the former is objectively more advanced than the latter.
Take off your nostalgia goggles. I love the Thief games, the mechanics are excellent, the atmosphere is excellent, the world building is excellent, but there's no denying the visuals aged poorly.
No I meant today. Because I'm replaying the Thief series right now. I was blown away by the rain effects and colored lightmaps back in 2000 as well, but I don't let nostalgia elevate some aspect of a game above modern equivalents that are objectively more advanced. I would never try to make the case that the fully dynamic lighting in Thief Deadly Shadows is somehow equal with the static lightmaps of Thief 2 just because TDS is a newer game. Pixel lighting is more advanced than vertex lighting. Just like Thief stealth mechanics are more advanced than Dishonored's. Which are more advanced than Pac-Mans. Which are more advanced than Metal Gear Solid's.
The graphics are bad, the animation are bad, the fucking driving is bad, the gameplay is bad.
But the story is too good.
>and consider Thief 2's stealth mechanics to be equal to Splinter Cell Conviction's stealth mechanics
I don't know how you measure that criteria, maybe in the sense that Sam has a lot of tools at his disposal, but the SC games are so easy that any depth of mechanics is wasted.
>implying Chaos Theory isn't the apex of the series
This one for sure.
Really looking forward to Deus Ex:Revision. Modders say it should be out within 10 weeks.
>I don't know how you measure that criteria
Just based on how intricately the stealth is simulated. Thief and SC:Chaos Theory have complicated multi-factor simulations of visibility and audibility and AI that have a long memory and advanced behaviors based on what they have experience. SC: Conviction has binary visibility with distance-based static detection timer and very simple two-state audibility, and even simpler 3-state AI.
I honestly can't think of a single game where I thought the graphics were bad.
Any game I play, no matter how old, still looks appealing to me. If I play Doom, the game is semi colourful and it looks nice to me. If I play goddamn daikatana, it still looks fantastic to me. Everything is very clear to see, and everything is nice and sharp.
Even games with muddy textures are not something that I turn away from. I don't really compare games to real life. I just see them as games. Why should muddy textures make me think the game looks bad?
That's just me anyway. Most people would think the games I mentioned would look pretty bad if they came out today.
Can anyone tell me a game they think have terrible graphics?
To be fair though, the cutscenes are done in a way that looks way better than today's cinematics.
And if I had to take the old 2000's graphics of Thief 2 and the newer 2010's graphics of SC:Conviction and say that they're equal and one can't be more advanced than the other, I could not make any exception with the gameplay mechanics either. I would have to say that the shitty arcade stealth mechanics of Conviction are exactly as good as the immersive simulation stealth mechanics of Thief 2, just like the static-lit low-res graphics with max polycount of 2048 per frame are exactly as good as Unreal Engine 3. No thanks. Graphics age. Gameplay seems to age backwards.
Mostly are games with bad use of 3D on early stages.
There was a couple of them which they did a very awful job at it and now the new TV'n'shit, you can't sell well there.
Also most of the problem are the envoriment.
I can't stand some levels of Die By The Sword or the jungle of first Tomb Raider for example.
You kind of lost me here, you spelled out how SC:C's mechanics are shallower, then said it's the same as the more advanced mechanics from older games?
Are you arguing that the simpler newer system produces results that are the same as the older more complex system, or what?
As far as graphics, I don't disagree, Thief has visually aged poorly but the atmosphere, audio, and mechanics are still excellent
>Can anyone tell me a game they think have terrible graphics?
Well you spent the first part of your post explaining how you have powerful nostalgia goggles or rose tinted glasses or something, so it's a little pointless to say "This game looks bad", you'll just reply "It looks good to me." but here goes:
EverQuest, Silent Hill 1, and almost every 3D PS1 game including Metal Gear Solid.
Sure the visuals work, sure you can get into it and overlook the visuals, sure it looks a lot better in motion than in still images, but all in all it's very boxy and the textures are very low resolution.
I don't see how I could have nostalgia goggle for games I never played as a kid. Heck, my first console was a PS2. My first PC game was the orange box.
But even those games you mentioned just absolutely fine to me. For example, silent hill and MGS, while they have low resolutions and are very blocky, I don't see this blockyness as a bad thing. And the low resolution sort of gives the impression of more fluid gameplay, to me, since things seem to move a lot more thanks to the jagged edges.
Once again, I'm not saying that these games actually have good graphics by todays standards, I'm just giving my own view on it, which is that I don't see any game as having bad graphics. At least hardly any.
Maybe bad rats. That games graphics repulse me for some reason.
No I was arguing against the notion that those games are equal. Newer games like Conviction have objectively more advanced graphics than old ones like Thief 2, and old games like Thief 2 have objectively more advanced gameplay mechanics than new ones like Conviction. And if I had to defend Thief 2's dated graphics against Conviction's more advanced ones just because "it had great graphics for its time" -then I would have no choice but to defend Conviction's less advanced mechanics against Thief 2's advanced mechanics for the same reason.
Oh and the shitty greyscale stealth indicator mechanic of Conviction isn't a graphics issue even though it does make the game look like shit. It's related to the shitty gameplay.
Don't quite understand why some people consider STALKER's graphics "bad". Especially the lighting's superb, not to mention the texture work's damn good for such an old title running even older engine.
>They made some weird aesthetic choices in the first game with texture colors and things
Sure the models themselves look a tad dated, being aimed for ~2005 release initially, but never considered them "bad".
One thing I dislike with many mods are the totally muted, black shadows. Even in my screenshot above the clear weather should make the shadows more blue-tinted.
>dat gamma cranked up to the max
There goes all the atmosphere. Thief's lighting made its graphics look much better than it was.
I haven't tired Seven Shades of Mercury since it was released. I couldn't play it back then because the game ran at about 2fps. That was before all these new engine updates and stuff though.
Damn the Hammerite Imperium campaign was hype back then. It's a shame that it died like that.
I think the worst offense in terms of stalker aesthetics is how the model quality makes the iron sights view on every gun makes it look like a JPG image thats just been slapped in the middle of your screen
>texture work's damn good
not really, most of them are actually pretty ugly and low res (source; your pic). They're just very diligently normal mapped, and that honestly is more important to me than texture resolution, since it lends to immersion so much more.
But the gameplay in MGS sucks. You play as a dot in a green maze in the corner of your screen, and if you run into other dots from the wrong direction, they will chase you for exactly 30 seconds and go back to normal. And sometimes there's some ridiculous animu shit going on in that other part of the screen.
16 years later and no rts has surpassed it
I wasn't trying to say that games are bad because of a minimap. I was saying that the gameplay of MGS basically is the minimap. It's not "tactical espionage action". It's a game that was 15 years obsolete in 1998. It's an simplistic arcadey monster maze game. The rest of the screen is just a fancy 3d reimagining of that little maze game in the corner.
>I think the worst offense in terms of stalker aesthetics is how the model quality makes the iron sights view on every gun makes it look like a JPG image thats just been slapped in the middle of your screen
Are you by any chance talking about these scopes? Because they are modded, and yes they look awful.
The actual vanilla iron-sights are proper 3D models, and the scopes cover your whole screen, but funnily enough allow you to still see MORE than with these bad Gnomus Scopes mods.
eh, the only thing about about thief that stands out graphically is the lack of skeletal animation style which didn't exist in 3D modeled video games until Half-Life.
But the game looks fine, really.
Seriously, there's no way to call the assets of this game beautiful. The engine, however ...
wtf are you talking about? Thief has skeletal animations. It was motion captured. The models themselves are really low poly though, because the Dark Engine had a really low maximum polycount bottleneck.
If someone would remake King Kong except with access to modern special effecs tech, and would make the movie itself just as shitty as the original except with new visuals, would it not be okay to say that the new version is better?
Well of course it isn't. Peter Jackson did just that. New King Kong that as a movie is just as bad as the original, but has special effects that are a hundred years more advanced. And people won't admit that the original is objectively not as good.
Gotta agree with this, even the artwork looks amazing
Most critics consider the original to be the better version, because Jacksons has terrible pacing. Your entire argument hinges on the concept of modern effects to be inherently better, which is not necessarily the case.
>Your entire argument hinges on the concept of modern effects to be inherently better, which is not necessarily the case.
I'm sorry but I refuse to believe that anyone could hold the opinion that some of the earliest attempts at greenscreening could even hope to live up to quality of what amateurs today can accomplish with After Effects and 5 minutes to spare. Old isn't always objectively worse, but in some cases it really, really is.
So my argument actually hinged on those movies being structurally identical and different special effects -wise. Which they aren't so sorry about that. Anyway, the point was that it's okay to describe something that is obsolete as worse in that area than something more advanced.
They have not aged poorly, everything is still perfectly conveyed very clearly and crisply, and so has almost every game in this thread. Simply because it's very primitive and basic compared to complex modern graphics doesn't mean it has aged bad. Thief has aged fine, if you want a game that has aged poorly in graphics look at the original Metroid with repetitive rooms that are hard to distinguish between or Ultima Underworld with a tiny ass view distance. Or old games that have very limited resolutions, or games with low sprite counts causing flashing or low sprite counts making it hard to understand what is being conveyed.
You clearly do not understand aging and how it affects games, it's not just you thinking it looks shitty, aging is when the limited hardware or graphics actually hurts the gameplay or your ability to see things. Nearly every game listed in this thread have perfectly fine graphics that have not aged hardly at all if they have even a little.
I'd say that I can't really completely ignore the graphical limitations of the Build Engine games because of how strongly those limitations impact the gameplay. You literally can't look up or down because the pseudo-3d does not support perspective distortion. And that is really a problem with a game with so much verticality and platforming in its level design.
In a way I'd argue to fit the entire original wipEout trilogy into that category. The graphics aren't stellar at all. Tube-like tracks with very few details on the side and pop-in. However the gameplay might even beat wipEout HD itself
Not him, but before skeletal animation, the models were animated literally by affecting vertex position. Many older titles, such as Resident Evil and Medievl, were animated like this, which is also why the bodies in those games are made out of visible "chunks" of polygons: it was easier to move big, solid parts, since you could just rotate and move then one by one.
It wasn't before DarkEngine and HL1 that the skeletal animation became a big thing. Heck it was one of the huge TECHNOLOGY things they advertized HL1 with.
>some of the earliest attempts at greenscreening could even hope to live up to quality of what amateurs today can accomplish with After Effects and 5 minutes to spare
That's where you miss the point. Compare old stop motion with modern CGI. Compare matte painting with CGI backdrops. Compare scale models with CGI action.
>the models were animated literally by affecting vertex position
That's what skeletal animation does. The skeleton is but a set of joints and connections. They translate directly into a scene graph and group transforms. The only thing new, that you do mention, is that HL1 and others managed to transform vertices that are otherwise still connected to the remaining model. That's usually avoided because it leads to fugly artifacts.
idk if anyone's posted this yet but this. A lot of people would probably not even try this because of how old it looks, but I actually like the style and the pixely look, I also grew up playing this on my brothers pc so it's super nostalgic.
> what's your fav race?
> zerg master race 4me
>That's what skeletal animation does.
Yes, but before skeletal system was created, all that work had to be done manually, and in worst case scenario each frame had to be "captured" indivídually as well.
If you've ever done rigging in a 3D modeler, especially 3Ds Max, you know how bitch it is to assign individual dots to bones. Now think having to do that same work over and over again, posing the character's parts for individual shots, like in clay animation. That's the kind of shit devs had to deal with up until late 90s. It's just so common and automated (tweened motion, etc) nowadays, that people don't even think about it anymore. Same thing with other visual effects, like Z-buffering and perspective corrected textures.
>Yes, but before skeletal system was created, all that work had to be done manually, and in worst case scenario each frame had to be "captured" indivídually as well.
wtf? You assign vertices to a node in the scene graph, then let the skeleton work out the transform. You do the assignment once, then just animate the skeleton. The concept of a skeleton or scene graph is OLD stuff, very old.
Z-Buffering is not a visual effect. Perspective correction was one of the first features done by the GPU and few bothered implementing it in software
you should watch this korean. I think he solo'd like 9 guys at a tournament one time. And one time he beat a guy only with scv's at another tourny
Nah. At least not anymore.
Minecraft could've been great, but the devs are cancer. If they had kept with the wonderful idea of building shit, instead of adding quarter-baked RPG elements to it, it would have been great.
Yeah, it's too bad starcrafts graphics are the way they are, the best we're gonna get is just mods replacing the sprites in game and something like this. There isn't a whole lot you can do with 2d, mayn.
>never had decent internet
>couldn't play half life 1 until 2-3 years ago
>the game is amazing
the only part i didn't like was the opening in opposing force, i was forced to look at the soldier's mouth spazzing out for the entire scene
>You assign vertices to a node in the scene graph, then let the skeleton work out the transform. You do the assignment once, then just animate the skeleton
Yes, that's how it's been done for a while now.
BUT it did not become a widely used technique in game development before very lately. I've read several interviews and "Making Ofs" where devs have told about their pain with animating things back in the 90s.
For example Quake engines 1 through 3 did not have skeletal animation. They used per-vertex animation.
>16 years later and no rts has surpassed it
Hello, IMO, these I think might come close to being equals with the legend that is sc1:
- Tiberian Sun
- Red Alert 2
- C&C Zero Hour
- Age of Empires II
- Rise of Nations
>fix'd it for you, np.
>They used per-vertex animation
I do not see how that would in any way work and maintain model consistency. The worst case I can imagine is vertex group animation on the dev machine, then stored as transformed vertices in the gama data, to be played back when needed.
Got any citations for that claim?
yeah, fuck blizzard. They need to make a super starcraft 1 instead of coming out with shitty expansions for sc2 that only add campaigns and a couple new units per race, also wow needs to die, I've been waiting for warcraft 4 for too long. The least they could do is put the rts on it's own timeline so they can have that along with wow so neither of them fuck with each others lore. Also why have'nt they made a full on movie yet? They have better cutscenes then modern day pixar movies.
I skipped this when I was a kid and played it for the first time two years ago, at 30, after I got it in a steam gift exchange thread
I can say, without nostalgia goggles, that it is easily my favorite game of all time. The graphics look like shit smeared on the screen, and the UI is the most unintuitive I've ever seen. Everything else is fucking perfect enough that I don't even kind of care about the two shitty aspects.
I think Q3 had skellington animation.
Quake 1 and 2, on the other hand, just used a separate model for each frame. Or, rather, a separate set of vertex positions. That's why Quake 1's animations are like 5 FPS. Quake 2 had some kind of interploation (I think), and one of its side effects due to an error was the "jelly vertices" thing models did when animating.
Back at release Thief 1 was under attack for its underground sections, with repetitive textures and very little actual world detail. I remember a paper review back then, showing a sewer that was just a uniform hexagonal tube as far as you could see.
I think it's you who's being delusional if you think MGS has any depth or complexity to its gameplay. It is an 80's game release in the late 90's. There's no getting around it. If you take away everything that people usually praise it for, like the cinematic storytelling with ridiculous anime characters and retarded dialogue, in other words, distill that game into its gameplay alone, it is that little maze game with the dots that you play in the corner map. It's ridiculously arcadey and simple. It is the pac-man of stealth games.
>there is one for TG and TMA
Wait, they finished the one for Thief 2?
That's a little silly. Ironically enough, Thief 2 had LESS level variety than the first one
I liked some of the underground sections in TDP
Would you think that Dear Esther would be an even worse "game" if it looked as shit as it plays?
I personally liked Dear Esther, I feel like the only person on /v/ who did. I found the imagery pleasant, the style artistic, and the general mood haunting.
I know it's not a game so much as an interactive experience, but I don't think it deserves the aggression people seem to have for it.
But they're also something you can incorporate into your builds. They continued to add to the Minecraft purpose of building epic fortresses, unlike potions and experience points and enchantments, which essentially turn it into a weird attempt to recreate Dwarf Fortress' adventure mode and failing poorly.
Yep. It'll probably come out whenever Dorf Fort is finally finished.
Probably even longer than that for Newtonian Aurora.
I liked it as well, for those same reasons. Also seeing the ghosts watching you in the distance was generally unsettling.
We are going to get hounded now, but who cares.
>I know it's not a game so much as an interactive experience, but I don't think it deserves the aggression people seem to have for it.
I think an aspect is protectionism. The program is "invading" the space of games, at least in the eyes of people that are offended by it. As you say, it's an interactive experience more so than a game. When it's being lumped together with the games though, some people fear it lowers the expectations regarding game rules and interactivity. Not trying to defend the reactions, just trying to explain them, to some degree.
>say I consider music to be very important in video games
>a bunch of nostalgia and muh atmosphere autists agree with me, nobody is opposed
>say I consider graphics to be very important in VIDEO games
>OH MY GOD FUCKING UNDERAGE CODFAG I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT GRAFICS LOOK HOW HARDCORE I AM
Dammit /v/! Bad graphics are those that are really bad made, not dated graphics. Thief game had good graphics. Morrowind had really good graphics except for npc, that were really bad made. Skyrim textures at launch were SHIT.
You are completely retarded. OP just said he loved the games, and you keep on railing about "shit taste lel". Also
>visuals don't age
Visuals age like milk, especially early games in the 3D era.
I never played it and won't.
Probably the ones that have insane blur, lack of sharpness, DoF, glare yadda yadda. You know what I mean. Overdone bullshit that makes it hard to actually play and enjoy the game. I'm thinking Battlefield 3. Like I said graphics don't matter unless they annoy me and that's usually because of shitty overdone stuff. Not because of shitty textures. Although weapons that have shitty animations are a turn off.
Oh hello there, just being criminally underappreciated like usual.
these are modded graphics. Also, sci-fi environments tend to be easier than fantasy ones, because sci-fi has sterile walls and floors and stuff, while fantasy is all grown and natural.
what's fully rendered perspective 3D graphics? Perspective projection of polygons in computer games has been done since the late 70s. Before the dominance of hardware rasterizers non-polygonal 3D was actually feasible and in parts even preferred though.
>I think Q3 had skellington animation.
It didn't. It was still using the same per-vertex animation with much more improved tweening system for smoother transitions.
The reason Quake 3's animations were of higher quality is because the vertex coordinates weren't compressed (quantized) so aggressively. Quake 1 and 2 stored vertex coordinates with 8 bits per component (each of X, Y, Z), while Quake 3 used 16 bits per component. Quake 1 and 2's aggressive compression led to an ugly effect known as "vertex swimming".
Also, Quake 3's animations were created with more keyframes, generally 20 to 30 per second, whereas all animations in Quake and Quake 2 were created at 10 frames per second. But that's not nearly as noticeable as the compression
> " ITT: Games whose gameplay and content are so amazing that you completely ignore the shitty graphics. "
>Thread is literally praising these games
>Autists still need to jump and defend the shit graphics of games over a decade old that now look like minecraft
>"You're just a pleb who can't appreciate the effort the developers put into making the player be able to count the polygons on a character face"
We all like them but you took it too far. Niggers who get THIS assblasted usually are those who actually didn't play the games and want to sound like elitists
This is kinda stupid premise since graphics never bother me
If I have just played some new game and then go back to FPS from 2002 it looks weird at first but it takes like hour to "adjust" myself for the graphics even if the game is shitty
This game came out in the same year as SoulCalibur, Silent Hill or Metal Gear Solid.
the worst fucking thing to happen to Minecraft is the Nether World
You culd take it off the game and leave the rest of it as it is, and I'd like it
But the Nether slows down my laptop so much that I don't want to play Minecraft anymore
If it weren't for that, it would be a good, solid game
There's a good bunch of games that have come out since 2007 and look better than vanilla Crysis. The stuff you're thinking of are screenshots full of mods making the game run at 10 fps.
Put 65 hours into this game in about 2 playthroughs.
I went so long without knowing the joy.
Never played 3 since I knew I was too much of a nostalgiafag and wouldn't have anything that wasn't D2.
Is it too late to try it? Is the game dead? Are there any more expansions planned? Is it tru they removed the stat system?
There's also the fact that the combination of the strange low-polygon enemy models and the uncanny motion-captured animations make the game look unsettling, which is very appropriate for a horror game.
Starcraft 1, x-com series, ecstatica 1 & 2 (horrible graphics) dungeon keeper 1, age of empires 1&2, warcraft 1&2, portal 1 & 2, warsow, quake 1, 2 & 3, Day of the tentacle, GTA 1&2, THPS 1&2, Dota
I have vanilla Crysis on my PC. It still looks quite nice.
The textures and models are somewhat dated but the shaders are still top notch.
I'm not saying it hasn't been surpassed. Metro Last Light is noticeably better. However, considering how long the last console generation lasted and held widespread advancement back the games that blow away the first Crysis are very few.
>ecstatica 1 & 2 (horrible graphics)
You what?! Ecstatica was gorgeous! Doing EVERYTHING with ellipses was just pure genius
>dungeon keeper 1
The crooked model style was fantastic
>Day of the tentacle
timeless cartoon graphics, unless you're anal about resolution
Like ecstatica, the visuals were a design choice. Like ecstatica, an excellent design choice. It kept the whole game consistently pretty.
hard to find good screenshots of ecstatica 1, but yeah, the entire game, every single model, every character, is built from ellipses, thousands of them. It's a way to deal with the low polygon limitations back then (just look at the characters in early Alone in the Dark games) and gives the game a very consistent and unique art style, which also clashes interestingly with its rather brutal content
Speaking of Build Engine games, I don't understand why people seem to hate Redneck Rampage so much. Sure some of its level design is cryptic as fuck but I like the setting and stupid redneck references.
Though I guess people liked Duke Nukem 3d just for the level design anyway, so if you make a same kind of game with the same engine and have fucked up level design, I suppose the hate is justified then.
There's nothing pretty about GTA, and GTA 2 isn't much better unless it's night time. The visual style really comes together with the night time lighting.
>I don't understand why people seem to hate Redneck Rampage so much
In my experience people don't hate it so much as they are wildly indifferent to it. The market back then was terribly oversaturated with generic raycaster FPSes, Redneck Rampage was one of them. It got a little annoying
GTA2 has a nice art style I think. There aren't many games with 1920's retro-futuristic dystopian setting. You have fusion power plants, cyborg gangsters and cars that look like A-Fords.
>There's nothing pretty about GTA
To you, maybe. I love the topdown view, it was a really smart mechanism to make the city 3D and the variable distance camera helped a lot to deal with the otherwise awfully short viewing distance typical for topdown games. It also lead to a lot of sprites that are to this day very distinct.
I love the topdown view so much that Chinatown Wars is my favorite GTA game, next to GTA 1 and, long before any of the over-the-shoulder GTAs
Okay faggots, Thief 1 and 2 are some of my favorite games in the world, and I can safely say Thief 2 has the best level design out of any stealth game I have ever played, and some of the best gameplay.
The game is beutiful in what they had to deal with at the time with limitations, they really make shit as gorgeous as possible.
But come on, its graphics are SHIT, compared to even HL1.
That doesnt mean its not amazing looking, but graphically its dated.
The animations/models are the worst offenders.
Regardless you only need to play Trail of Blood and not be blind to see just how amazing looking Thief can be.
>1920's retro-futuristic dystopian setting
What a bunch of fucking buzzwords. The car designs seem to be inspired by The Fifth Element more than anything else, and parts of the game content imply that it's set in 1999, so at the time it was simply an overdrawn alternate present.
>The animations/models are the worst offenders.
The models are shit because of the extremely low poly limit, but the animations aren't bad. It's all motion captured. Thief 3 actually did not have motion captured animations so its animations weren't nearly as lifelike.
i don't even notice how old the game is since space is very simple stuff, looks nice even now. plus the faces and animations and stuff are actually pretty cool. man, gotta reinstall this
>The car designs seem to be inspired by The Fifth Element more than anything else
>Have urge to play Minecraft
modded because fuck vanilla
>Can't ever find a good place to call home
>30 minutes and a few random seeds later still can't find any good looking areas and give up on playing altogether
That helmet looks straight out of 1999. Impossible to mistake for a WW2-era helmet with aviator goggles
Animations were shit dude, Cutscenes were gorgeous if thats what you mean.
But guards and monsters moved like robotic toys.
Yeah I know the polylimit was the issue as well, those guys easily could have done amazing things without limitations.
At least they put all their effort into level design and gameplay when they couldnt on fancy models.
Notice the huge radiator grill? I do, on the top one, and any damn luxury car from the early 20s and 30s. Hell, it's a chopped top, typical for a hot rod, which, wait for it, is usually a heavily modified car from the 20s - 40s
wait what? Ok, NOBODY said the game takes place in 1920. They said the game takes place in a fictional future, that is inspired by the 1920s. So, of course the DJs will talk about the millenium. It's like Steampunk
I totally forgot TR2 still used the TR1 model. I did not forget that, compared to TR1, it was very bland, despite having a handful of memorable locations. Just too little tomb raiding and too much people shooting.
Deus Ex looked crappy in 2000. It was using a really dated engine even back then. People overlooked it because it was amazing, but even by the standards back then, it looked pretty bad.
Once you start thinking about it, trade lanes would be a maintenance nightmare.
Planets spin around the sun at different speeds, so they must be at a constant shift.
And I did some calculations out of fun, You would either have to have several thousands of them or have huge spacings between them to connect planets together.
was refering to old games. Like when you see dynamic lighting that was unheard of for its time period, do you treat it like a limitation, because it's crude vertex lighting, or like an achievement, because it's dynamic when everyone else was static?
I always liked how the levels in RR were so "realistic", as in they consisted of buildings with real rooms that had a purpose: bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, kitchens, storage closets etc.. It felt like a real world that people actually lived in.
you made me start watching a lets play of this
like it a lot so far
Yeah that's what I like about the levels too. The only problem is how insane some of the navigation is. Almost every level consists of at least one instance of having to find an extremely well hidden secret to continue. Even the very first level. Duke Nukem 3d always had an obvious crack in a wall to indicate that you can blow a hole through it with explosives. The first time you need to do that in RR, there's a tiny little hole that you would need to know to look in order to find. I still haven't figured out how to get through the last level of the first episode in RR, and I always end up noclipping through that one door.
>all those conflicting enviornments in the main field
Only thing that really annoyed me. I guess it's there to easily show where the new dungeons are, but fuck if it doesn't look odd.
I don't think there's a multiplayer game that is equally deep, dickish and fun.
Mario 64 has aged like fucking fine wine.
Are you serious? It still outdoes so many fucking platformers since then, its controls are as solid as ever.
Why do you think Mario64 was by far the most speedran game? Its fucking incredible with its controls/physics.
With a few texture and model packs it can look better than most modern games though, in all fairness.
Tell me about it. I was stuck for the longest time at the sawmill(?) because there was a key sitting randomly in a dark corner of an enclosed courtyard that you have to swim through some pipes to get to. It's so easy to miss because it doesn't make sense for a key to be there and there's nothing to draw your attention to that one specific corner.
You don't seem to understand.
The game is FFA by default and it's freeform diplomacy, coupled with the ridiculous power of many spells allows betrayals on a grand scale not possible in other games.
>You don't seem to understand.
I understand just fine, and I respect that game, no problem. I just realized that for lots of MMOs out there it's considered a good quality if it allows to be dickish. So it got me wondering if somewhere out there are games that discourage dickish behavior. Not prohibiting it or anything, but just making it ... well, not part of the game.
>Most modern MMOs I assume, since the number of game mechanics keeps decreasing.
No, they just try to limit or cutdown on dickery. They're still openly PvP and encourage competitive hostility between players
Arx Fatalis has pretty much fine graphics though. The only things that really stands out as bad are some weapons and the talking animation for goblins (which is silly as shit so I like it anyway).
Literally just letters, for anyone that doesn't know the game.
I'd slightly recommend the current state of Diablo 3 if you want to try something new. The combat is flashier and smoother that it's peers. However the "RPG-side" (character building) is lacking. Itemization was improved vastly, but it never hits the level of Diablo 2. Story is pure shit though with plenty of retcons (All the evils you fought in Diablo 2 + LoD are contained in a Black Soulstone).
However I would try out Grim Dawn instead. Basically Titan Quest 2.0.
Agreed. I played this game after the remake and I still loved it. The graphics didn't actually bother me too much (with the exception of playing "find the muton). The interface was a product of the file limitations of the time, though, and I'm glad when I played it I had OpenXCOM to elevate it to a playable level
Star Wars: Republic Commando
Hidden and Dangerous 2
Which 3, not that guy but the only one that gets a pass from me is probably Dragons Dogma. I love the game but look a this.
I still quite like the graphics, but in high resolutions you're in for a world of hurt
Mount and blade looks like shit though, the limbs are attatched to the torso like lego pieces and the overall graphics are pretty weak. Granted, RC has aged pretty well, better than I remember.
Just saying that story is pure shit is an understatement.
The whole thing with Tyrael becoming mortal, Leah story, SUPER SOULSTONE out of nowhere that can contain all the evils, Nephalem being supreme Mary Sues that can defeat a (former) member of Angiris council, power boosted by tons of souls AND by black soulstone too. What the fuck? It reminds me of Riddick Chronicles, where the stories later on were beyond Mary Sue shit.
It's just... FUCK, why? I swear I was never let down more by any other game. At this point, I just can't wait for a new expansion. I jut want to see how much more ridiculous can it get.
Take a look at the PC version for AGP cards. Crisp high resolution textures. What really bothers me about this game thoguh are the domes of the cities. They look like boxes, not spherical domes.
>It was using a really dated engine even back then.
lol go fuck yourself. UE1 was only 2 years old by the time Deus Ex came out, and it's Ion Storm's fault for making it look like crap by making all their maps blocky. UE1 was really advanced for its time, and can look damn good even today.
I like how the modern game is shaping up in terms of models but it wasnt much of a problem to me in the originals, but it was noticeable
in native at least, mods tend to beef up the models and textures alot
always thought he runs strange
like he shit his pants
It's in many ways not very fun, but shit just pick a place to build a hole in the ground as a house and build something small and explore your surroundings and move when you find something a bit better and continue until you do or transform the landscape into a home you want. Build an entire mountain range over shit if you want.
i like it but its just not as good as the more famous duke blood and sw
technically the graphics are better and they do some nice tricks to build the illusion of a 3d world but the sprites are ugly as fuck level design is kinda meh especially compared to the other games and it can get frustrating because of key placement/hidden buttons etc and generally being unbalanced check out rides again though its about as long as the original and the levels are just as good if not better
>all these niggas saying system shock 2
system shock 1 is a much better game but i know you faggots havn't ever played it
>tricks to build the illusion of a 3D world
Oh shut the fuck up. Raycasting is a reasonable and capable 3D rendering technique. Like every 3D rendering technique, including modern day polygonal rasterizers, it makes assumptions and uses simplifications to reduce the work load, but the presented world is 3 dimensional.
The subject of the thread is not old games, but games that play well and look like shit. System Shock (1) looks reasonably well, because it's a different age and the engine has a different design, while System Shock 2 suffers all the problems of early accelerated 3D, with very blurred textures and ridiculously low polygon count
>dat musical score
I knew we forgot someone... you.