15 "Classic" Video Games That Are Actually TERRIBLE

[Ceremony]

I've always seen this as a matter of fidelity. When creating digital graphics while new novelty can give you a temporary pass there's a certain threshold level in the technology you need to reach reach before you can start good results that can stand the test of time. Like for pixel graphics, no matter what you do you're not going to make something that's 'aesthetically pleasing'. Same problem extended to 8-bit games, it was almost there and maybe you can give some games a pass but overall the technology is still too limiting. You needed the jump to 16-bit before you really reach the threshold that the pixel grahics can still look good today - and many smaller scale indy games are still made to that standard.

So the problem with the PS1 gen for 3D graphics id it was basically where the NES was with pixels. SNES/Genesis 3D graphics (Starfox, Virtua Fighter 1) were basically Atari level, and the PS2 gen was the SNES-like jump to a reasonable minimum standard. Games like Metroid Prime, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, etc, they may not have had the horse power but the aesthetics really shined through.

Kind of the same thing with movies. While George Lucas didn't have all the fancy computer graphics back when he first made Star Wars, with what they did have the industry just passed the threshold to start making sci-fi moves that leaves no suspension of disbelief like Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, etc. The watchability of these movies would probably take a huge hit if they were made in the 60's or before.

While ironically old Star Wars films get worse when stuff clearly made in the 70s has CGI from 2008 shoehorned in for no reason at all

 

[aleshemsky83]

There's a lot of original star wars effects that have aged very well, what hasn't are matte painting (for any movie pretty much), they are just very obvious once you hit BluRay quality. DVD quality still hides it pretty well but the illusion didn't survive the jump to HD imo.

 

[Shareefruck]

I've always seen this as a matter of fidelity. When creating digital graphics while new novelty can give you a temporary pass there's a certain threshold level in the technology you need to reach reach before you can start good results that can stand the test of time. Like for pixel graphics, no matter what you do you're not going to make something that's 'aesthetically pleasing'. Same problem extended to 8-bit games, it was almost there and maybe you can give some games a pass but overall the technology is still too limiting. You needed the jump to 16-bit before you really reach the threshold that the pixel grahics can still look good today - and many smaller scale indy games are still made to that standard.

So the problem with the PS1 gen for 3D graphics id it was basically where the NES was with pixels. SNES/Genesis 3D graphics (Starfox, Virtua Fighter 1) were basically Atari level, and the PS2 gen was the SNES-like jump to a reasonable minimum standard. Games like Metroid Prime, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, etc, they may not have had the horse power but the aesthetics really shined through.

Kind of the same thing with movies. While George Lucas didn't have all the fancy computer graphics back when he first made Star Wars, with what they did have the industry just passed the threshold to start making sci-fi moves that leaves no suspension of disbelief like Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, etc. The watchability of these movies would probably take a huge hit if they were made in the 60's or before.

I agree to some extent, every new technology takes a while before it gets perfected, and perfected technologies come in cycles (although I would add that it's possible to work within the limitations of imperfect technology and use it in a way that's charming). But if you happen to make a game using technology that isn't ready yet (say PS1 graphics or Gameboy graphics) and you're unable to do it in a way that can stand the test of time, you're accepting a weaker result to conform with the norm at the time. Which is fine, but that choice is on you, and it's a valid weak-point to hold against a game when evaluating how strong the result actually is. Things don't start out gorgeous and then magically become doomed to become ugly as new technology surpasses it. A NES game that looks ugly now looked just as ugly back in the day, even though many overlooked it for the new technology, and it's reasonable to look back and scoff at the visuals when talking about whether or not something is good or bad, without being required to give it a free pass just because it's old and had reasons for being ugly.

At the same time, I disagree in that I think plenty of old things look just as good as new things, because they had enough good sense to work well within its limitations. I disagree that you're not going to be able to make something with really low fidelity aesthetically pleasing no matter what. That's only true if you judge what's aesthetically pleasing based on what has the highest fidelity, which to me is the wrong way to do it. My go to example would be that Super Mario Bros 3, to me, somehow looks a lot nicer in 8 bits for Nintendo than the 16 bit Super Nintendo version does, despite having a massive handicap in fidelity, color, and technology. Aesthetics have a lot more to do with making something look "right" than making something look polished, detailed, and technologically impressive, IMO.

 

[Emperoreddy]

I believe there are examples where the new tech wowed people that they looked past poor art direction, and only later people can look back objectively to see the game never looked good.

Why I think Nintendo games usually age well.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

FF7 is one of the most visually revolutionary games ever made. The prerendered backgrounds are works of art.

There's value in novelty and technology that transcends whether or not something "holds up." You can appreciate something for being daring and innovative even if it falls short twenty years later.

 

[Shareefruck]

FF7 is one of the most visually revolutionary games ever made. The prerendered backgrounds are works of art.

There's value in novelty and technology that transcends whether or not something "holds up." You can appreciate something for being daring and innovative even if it falls short twenty years later.

Sure you can, but I don't think it's necessary for someone to value that when evaluating whether or not they think a game is "terrible." Personally, I find a game's historical impact and influence to be completely separate from the quality of the game. Same with movies and albums.

I believe there are examples where the new tech wowed people that they looked past poor art direction, and only later people can look back objectively to see the game never looked good.

Why I think Nintendo games usually age well.

An unpopular opinion of mine is that even many of the latest massively marketed, hyper-realistic motion-captured 3D graphics won't hold up nearly as well as we think, and nearly as well as some older inferior-technology games do, because the whole uncanny valley awkwardness is so glaring and feels so wrong but is being completely forgiven and ignored in favor of the technology being so new and physically impressive.