>>2934864 Panzer Dragoon, Jet grind radio, Monster rancher, Tekken 3, Spyro, Kirby 64, Conkers bad fur day, Banjo Kazooie, Majora's Mask. Probably more, but generally games with unique artstyles or that only had to render a limited playfield such as fighters.
I do; it's always the same fucking material, and you morons fall for it every goddamn time. You think the OP wanted a meaningful debate? Fuck no! It's all just amusement, or the post would've been more than one fucking sentence. They've already got their popcorn ready for when one of you 2D>3D ALWAYS NO EXCEPTIONS mongs that I know damn well lurk this board finally wanders in here to sperg out and make the thread a self-sustaining shitshow of autism and various mental problems. 'Till then, they'll just keep the fire stoked low with inflammatory starter-fluid posts and the occasional bump.
>>2935542 >Didn't even know that 3D vs 2D was an ongoing flamewar on /vr/. Not necessarily. What's worse is the usage of "age". It's quite well known that there's a vocal subset of /vr/ that will argue loudly and repeatedly how bits can't change, games can't age, etc. It's very predictable and used for trolling. If you want to use "age" without starting a riot, you pretty much got to either avoid the word, or move it away from the game, somehow. I don't agree with the people I described above, but they're a thing on this board, and it's good to keep them in mind when posting.
>>2935542 >Which 3D games holds up best today? It's still a stupid-ass question. If you like how a game looks, then it "holds up." If you don't like it, then it doesn't. It's not like some measurable thing. It's as stupid as asking "which games are unplayable today?"
Why don't you just ask "what are your favorite games" or "what do you think are the best-looking games" from this era instead?
>>2934864 I'd say most of the time the ones that tried to adhere to a style and worked with the limitations in mind are the ones who aged the best. Whenever they tried to be "realistic" they failed miserably, especially in the early attempts.
>>2934864 Tomb Raider 1 still has pretty impressive level design for an early 3D game. In comparison 2 featured many levels in modern locations that were still designed like an ancient location so it felt backward as fuck.
>>2938025 Cel shading is a very specific effect, that relies on having polygons to spare, and the ability to customize lighting computations (shaders, in some form). The PS has neither of these things. So you're unlikely to find cel shaded games on there. You will find games though going for a certain animated and not realistic style, which strongly resembles cel shading; and as usual, styles that don't aim to be realistic, stand the test of time best.
>>2938049 I agree - I just like the simple mechanics of that kind of game. A more modern version of that would probably be some of the Tell Tale games that are out now like a Wolf Among Us that are just simple story based games with no right or wrong
I also want to rant about some bullshit that I am seeing a lot on /vr/, and other boards. First things first, if a thread is on-topic (even if controversial), you have no reason to report it. If you don't like a thread, yet feel compelled to post in it, use the sage function to avoid bumping it. You can also hide the thread, or use filters to eliminate recurring threads.
Second, I am also sick of people here using >>>/v/ as a scapegoat for everything. The only /v/ influence I see here is that Mario 64 rolling rocks thread. /v/ is a terrible board, I know that. If /v/ felt compelled to post here, even just the occasional thread, we would not be one of the slowest boards on the site. Everything I don't like is /v/. If that isn't bullshit enough you can always blame /b/ or even Reddit. Most of /vr/'s problems are /vr/'s problems. This includes autism about TVs/monitors, only being allowed to have 1-2 PC gaming threads up at once (one of them being a spinoff of a formerly recurring /g/ thread), and the "no Dreamcast allowed, read the rules not the sticky" autists. The reason I get mad about constant frivolous reporting is that after a while the mods/janitors can't deal with the sheer volume of reports and eventually cave to the pressure and start removing threads at the drop of a hat. The only troll threads worth reporting are the ones from people saying that retro games are shit, etc. If someone is attacking the board topic entirely (calling /lgbt/ degenerates, preaching gun control on /k/, going on /n/ telling folks to quit riding bikes and trains and get a car, you get the idea) without even trying to turn it into a discussion, they should probably get reported. If you are triggered by controversial topics, or people posting the incorrect OP pasta in a thread, then hide it and move on, or go to some place more carefully curated like Reddit or some vintage gaming forums.
>>2939443 the outlines are based on a common cel shading method, certainly. The lighting is static, no toon shader. I'm surprised the outlines stay this stable, given the playstations tendency to wobbly vertices
>>2935673 You're an idiot. Games can be very unplayable today, whereas at release they were lauded as being good games.
Look at the original Warcraft. The game is unplayable. The UI and entire control set up are completely dated and frustrating to use to anyone who has any experience with more conventional RTS controls.
The game suffers heavily for this.
>Why don't you just ask "what are your favorite games" or "what do you think are the best-looking games" from this era instead?
Because that's not the point of this discussion, imbecile.
>>2940164 Not him, but you're the idiot man. Are you claiming some sort of biological evolutionary change in humans that has occurred that means they no longer find the original Warcraft appealing while they had loads of fun with it before? I hope you realize that most of this "unplayable today" or "aged" comes from the industry and magazines who obviously want people to buy the latest games. Some people seriously have ZERO ability to think.
>>2940395 DK64 is and always has been a fantastic looking game. It looks fucking brilliant, especially compared to most of today's games. How good it looks is not the same as how advanced it is. Full disclosure: I also just posted this >2940434, so I'm not trying to make out like I'm multiple people with this view.
>>2940434 Read the post you moron. I'm saying that the UI has dated because game design and development has put in so many quality of life improvements that it is unplayable to a person accustomed to modern gaming.
This can be a bad thing or a good thing depending on the game genre.
Games like Quake, Master of Orion 2 or Super Mario Bros 3 are so well made that they're basically timeless. There is minimal need to update them and they are still very playable.
>>2940454 I already gave you an example. Warcraft.
Even the second game has some critical improvements like multiple unit selection. The third game has tonnes of quality of life improvements like tab cycling of units within a squad, rally points, unit build queues etc.
>>2940440 Sure, there have been improvements made in a particular genres mechanics and controls, either in new IPs or sequels of the same game, but that still doesn't negate the potential fun you can have in an older game despite its flaws. If you could have fun with it back then you can have fun with it now if you tried. You need to have the context of a game in mind and the open mindedness to forgive its flaws as a product of its time.
There are even ways around a lot of these with mods like >>2940470 on DQ1 you can now emulate to use save states instead of using passwords, or speeding up the game to get around annoying UI. Even modern games have annoying parts about their UIs or controls that people overlook yet still have fun with.
>Games like Quake, Master of Orion 2 or Super Mario Bros 3 You can still remake these games and sell them because there will always be someone out there that doesn't like retro vidya at all and can't stand sub 1080p 60fps graphics. I've known plenty of people that don't touch these games because they think ALL of them have "aged badly". It is entirely a matter of taste and if you want to ignore good games because of graphics that are a product of their time then be my guest.
>>2940520 >You do realize that I've known plenty of people that complain about how in Starcraft you can only select 12 units Why would I realise this until you told me? 12 unit select in starcraft is constricting, but far more functional and playable, especially coupled with other QOL improvements, than anything in original warcraft.
>>2940820 An opinion often found on /vr/ is that older games had less handholding and required from the player to think, and develop a coherent mental model of the game world. People used to tutorialized amusement park games of the present will have a very hard time getting into these old games. Yet that's not perceived as an issue of the game being worse, or interfaces being inferior, but rather an indicator of the demands towards the player having deteriorated in the present.
The difference between games today and games then is that the "handholding" came in the manual for the game. Nowadays, you don't need to fill a manual full of information like that when you can have the player do a hands-on tutorial.
>>2940518 >forgive its flaws as a product of its time. >There are even ways around a lot of these with mods
No, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you use heavy modding to make the game more palatable, you are automatically conceding that the game is much less fun to play without them. I can't play JRPGs from the SNES era, for example, without having a fast forward button on the emulator get through the random encounters because it's fucking tedious.
I love playing old games, but for certain games, no amount of open mindedness is going to make me have fun, because the UI or mechanics are so out dated. I have been spoilt as a consumer by advances in game design etc.
>if you want to ignore good games because of graphics that are a product of their time then be my guest. I'm not talking about games being outdated because of graphics, don't misrepresent my argument.
>>2940904 Not disagreeing with your point at all, just a minor correction: Warcraft 1 had unit grouping, but it was obscure. Hold ctrl or something while selecting up to 4 units by clicking, no frame dragging
>>2940952 yeah, been there, done that. I think Dune 2 does it in a similar way. And 4 units is never enough. Warcraft is simple enough that you just build and rush. Where "rush" means sending a dozen or two dozen groups of 4 units each. Lots of wild clicking involved in not just micromanaging, but nanomanaging these poor guys.
>>2940963 > I think Dune 2 does it in a similar way. There's no grouping in Dune 2, but you could select a unit and order him to move on the other unit, so there was a chain of units when the first unit was ordered to move.
>>2941098 I don't remember precisely how many, I remember it wasn't infinite and kinda five or six units moved after the "head of the chain". Also, I played Genesis version, maybe on PC it was possible to chain more units.
Thread replies: 120 Thread images: 22
Thread DB ID: 462935
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.