Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

General and high profile video game topics.
scotland171
Posts: 816
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby scotland171 » March 21st, 2015, 5:24 pm

Since we had a thread on generating some love for the early polygon period, I wanted to bring this up.   Usually, when I am shopping for a kids mobile game, I encounter  a lot of sprite 2D art styles to look retro, or neo-retro.   Today I had this artstyle presented.  Now remember this is a for a kid, so they are marketing to the parents, who would have grown up with those early polygon video game consoles like the PlayStation.    The screen shot below would look right at home on Quest 64 or something, wouldn't it?

toca-nature_artwork.jpg 
As time goes on, we might begin to associate 'retro' with the crude polygons and less with 2D sprites.

HardcoreSadism1
Posts: 526
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby HardcoreSadism1 » March 21st, 2015, 6:52 pm

No, I consider any generation more than ten years old "retro" even if to a smaller degree.

I consider this the generation where someone can dislike [insert media] because it's popular/successful, and not enjoy anything without having to invoke the bitter irony.

But that's just a thing with people I've noticed.

Jon1
Posts: 378
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby Jon1 » March 21st, 2015, 8:42 pm

It does look awfully ugly and PS1 like for sure. There might be something to trying to market to parents who grew up with this stuff. But another thing to remember. Not every system from the 5th gen had "crude" looking polygons. The polygons in Jaguar games looked amazing. It's just that for some inexplicable reason, developers had no idea how to use the system. So, yes, our memory of this generation is of ugly polygons, and that's basically our memory of the first several years or so of 3d in general. But it didn't have to be like that. Developers didn't know that you didn't have to rely on the 68k for the Jag until it was figured out after its demise. And even the 3d games that were made tend to look really good, and have aged far better than the other 5th gen systems. I'll agree, the quality of some of those games obscures how beautiful its graphics were. I'll use Hover Strike 3d as an example of how early 3d should of looked like. So all of the people I've argued with on this site that say that early 3d had to be ugly because of technological limitations, I call BS. Why does Hover Strike 3d look great then? The reason I don't play the PS1 anymore is because the games are ugly and uninteresting to me. And my friends feel the same way, as well as others on this board. Everyone knows it's not what it was playing those games in 1995 with the wow factor of never having played 3d with big worlds before.

Jon1
Posts: 378
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby Jon1 » March 21st, 2015, 9:00 pm

How we got from this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zejneO5qjWM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7oXmZNCHQ4

to this, is beyond me and in my opinion one of the biggest travesties in gaming history.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GppCTw_6f6I

And people say that's (painfully ugly early 3d) just the way it had to be. Total Garbage.

JWK1
Posts: 904
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby JWK1 » March 22nd, 2015, 9:53 am

Hover strike looks anything but great. Slightly sharper resolution comes at a cost of frame rate apparently. That game looks like it's running at... What? 15 fps? Sorry, Jon. It looks terrible. I-War at least can hold a playable frame rate. The game's graphics are ugly polygons (whether you think so or not) and game itself looks below mediocre, though.

Looking at these games now, I totally understand why you haven't provided examples in the past when you make outrageous claims. These games are nothing special to look at and far less so to be played. On the other hand, I played crash bandicoot 3 earlier this week and that game is still fun almost 20 years later.

shootingstar1
Posts: 9
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby shootingstar1 » March 22nd, 2015, 12:18 pm

I think that's a pretty ugly art style, I've seen better looking games on the playstation. [smile]  Most likely the game's graphic style exists because it's a mobile game so it has a lower budget on less powerful hardware which means simpler graphics.

Dogtanian1
Posts: 83
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby Dogtanian1 » March 22nd, 2015, 12:24 pm

Die Hard trilogy looks incredible compared to those other two monstrosities. There's so much more going on, and it actually looks fun (and is).

Sut1
Posts: 789
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby Sut1 » March 22nd, 2015, 12:52 pm

The drawing/viewing distance on Hoverstrike is horrible as well, the Jaguar just wasn't great at 3D. But 2D games it probably isn't far behind the Saturn.

HardcoreSadism1
Posts: 526
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby HardcoreSadism1 » March 22nd, 2015, 1:51 pm

The Jaguar's 3D games look just as bad as the worst 3D games in the PS1 Library. That is fact.

Also your failed baby of a games console could barely stand flashy 2D graphics. It was broken and the developers admitted that they didn't know how to fix it. It would not have mattered if they taken full advantage of a pathetically glitched on board memory.

Could you just enjoy the Jaguar without subjective hyperbole? It just comes off as 'Hipster' or whatever those ironic types are.

JWK1
Posts: 904
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm

Is the new 'retro' look 32/64 bit Early Polygon and not 16 bit Sprite

Postby JWK1 » March 22nd, 2015, 2:33 pm

[QUOTE=HardcoreSadism]Could you just enjoy the Jaguar without subjective hyperbole? It just comes off as 'Hipster' or whatever those ironic types are.[/QUOTE]

This. I don't understand why it seems impossible for *some* to just say they like a console, game or genre without shaming everyone else if they like something different. Being simultaneously combative and sensitive doesn't help either.


Return to “Video Games General”