GindyDraws
I will not disable my Adblock, HF
A game like GTA III you could easily argue as it had aged horribly.
But most of the list is bait.
But most of the list is bait.
A game like GTA III you could easily argue as it had aged horribly.
But most of the list is bait.
Resident Evil is another classic that aged about as bad as you can.
The updated remake fixes that god awful dub, and the graphics are really good. Problem with all versions is those ****ing tank controls.
The original Alone in the Dark is a classic that is in reality pretty bad, mostly because of how poorly it aged.
Myst is another one.
I cannot imagine those games being any better with different controls.
I LOVED the old RE controls. The static camera made it more difficult and scary. I cannot imagine those games being any better with different controls.
Amusing how a trash article can generate so much discussion.
Never got the hate for "tank controls": they work fine.
Tank controls are used in games with fixed camera angles: pressing up moves your character forward no matter which way they are facing.
The first Resident Evil game is one of the greats of the genre. REmake is especially great.
Whether or not something paved the way or was fresh at a given time shouldn't be relevant to whether or not it works visually. Strong aesthetics are timeless. And visuals do hold up when they're legitimately done with a tasteful eye rather than being overly reliant on and satisfied with the superficial polish that technology allows. There are more limitations in the past, true, but how nice something looks has more to do with how well something works within those limitations than it does with what those limitations actually are.As always @Shareefruck, relativity is a lost concept to you. Visuals are never going to completely hold up over time. It's an exponentially improving technology so games today are going to generally be better looking than games from even a few years ago, let alone games from 20 years ago.
Halo 1 came out November 15th 2001. Re-playing it, it looks pretty bad in comparison to Halo 5, even Halo 3 & 4. By today's standards it would be a very ugly game. But it wasn't made today, it was made 16 years ago with the technological limitations of 16 years ago. At the time it was an absolutely gorgeous game and it completely immersed a lot of people into it's universe. It showed a lot of people a lot of things they've never seen in a videogame before and that's why it's a "classic" game.
Also, L-O-****ing-L at comparing the cartoon animations on Super Nintendo with the attempts at the 3D, real life imitation attempts that paved the way for the graphical quality we have today.
If what you're saying were to be true then nothing would stand the test of time and nothing would be impressive.
I started playing RE games on the Dreamcast. Code Veronica was the first one I played. After that I think I played all of them on Gamecube and subsequent systems. I just don't feel you can get those atmospheres with camera's like in RE4/5 or an FPS like RE7.They'd be worse. But the whole game would have to be designed differently too so.... The only qualifier on that is the N64 version of 2 has the slow movements with more normal up is up down is down type inputs. I think that works pretty well.
I guess if you didn't grow up with them sure. But that was definitely part of the challenge of game and what made it so creepy. They had LOTS of jump scares which were fantastic and there would be an hour or so of gameplay without a zombie / scare but the whole time you are just waiting for one to pop out but instead you get a zombie dog! Holy hell! NOOOOO! So you run then try to shoot, run out of bullets and die... Then you realize the last typewriter you were at that you saved was halfway across the mansion from where you were and you had 3 typewriter inks on your body that are now gone.Game is absolutely unplayable for me because of these controls.
Also, with regards to the article itself, I will say that Mortal Kombat was an absolutely terrible ****ing game, even when it was released. It's mind-boggling that it's still an ongoing franchise that's considered a classic to this day.
Whether or not something paved the way or was fresh at a given time shouldn't be relevant to whether or not it works visually. Strong aesthetics are timeless. And visuals do hold up when they're legitimately done with a tasteful eye rather than being overly reliant on and satisfied with the superficial polish that technology allows. There are more limitations in the past, true, but how nice something looks has more to do with how well something works within those limitations than it does with what those limitations actually are.
If early pioneering 3D graphics look ugly today, it's because they weren't a finished product back in the day and over-reached, but people were willing to overlook it because it was fresh and new at the time. Why shouldn't cartoon visuals from the previous generation be compared to them if they're aesthetically more pleasing now?