The Video Game Critic

Alienblue and m0zart have an interesting discussion going on in the "realistic first person shooter" thread, so I thought I would continue it here, in its own thread.

The conversation was regarding the worth of the first generation 3D games on PS1, Saturn, and the N64 (I suppose you could include some 32x and Jaguar games in the discussion also).

Truth is, there is lots to not like in that generation. Truly, the industry had to take some big steps back in order to take leaps forward. The low polygon models look hideous today, and the animations are terrible. This is particularly obvious when I play PS1 stuff (since the N64 was quite a bit better than that graphically).

On the other hand, however, there were some INCREDIBLE titles released during that time. I've been playing Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy VII lately. Both are a little hard to appreciate at first: Modern graphics have us a little bit spoiled, and the early 3D stuff doesn't have the "charm" of well done 2D graphics, so I tend to get turned off more by early 3D than I do SNES or Genesis graphics today. Well done 2D graphics do seem more... timeless.

That said, those two games are amazing! Once you get used to those graphics again, you begin to realize how great those games were. They both seem to blend some of what made the 16 bit era great with new advances; namely, they weren't cutscene filled, they were still somewhat accessable without learning lots of new button schemes and techniques. They had great music that, though it was MIDI, wasn't the sort of "musical wallpaper" stuff that you tend to see with even the full orchestra soundtracks that you have today.

Anyway, curious to what everyone's takes might be on this interesting era.

-Rob

For the most part, I am also fine with the graphics, as long as the gameplay is not affected by by them.  What I DO have an issue with on some of those early 3D games is the repetition.  I have never been able to get very far into Alien vs. Predator on the Jaguar, even thought people rave about it, because my attention span shortens even more than it already is when every room and corridor looks exactly the same.  This was not the case in any N64 games I can think of, because by then they were really randomizing walls and interiors.  There probably aren't alot of games out there with this problem, but that is the one thing that does put me off when I see it. 

i actually like the true first gen 3D games with flat shading. games like star fox, and virtua racing have a clean and unique look that will never be replicated in mainstream gaming ever again.

when textures entered the equation things got ugly, and when you combine that with low frame rates you end up with some of the ugliest and most unplayable video games of all time.

First of all, I wasn't the one arguing with mOzart on the other thread, but since you asked...

I have stacks of old videogame magazines and it IS very obvious that first gen 3-D games , on the whole, have not aged as well as 2D games. The Saturn had some phenomanal 2D games and "modern" 2D like New Super mario bros. is only a LITTLE better. But todays 3D is WAYYY better. Early 3D was full of blocky pixelated blobs when you got too close to things, everything was kinda hexaganol (look at the early Laura Crofts boobs) and it just looks ugly now- NOW. Back then it really wowed us. You have to put it in perspective. Tomb Raider looks awful next to GTA: Vice City, but it looks INCREDIBLE next to the even older Starfox and Virtua Racer. Who knows how "primitive" we'll think of the PS3 in 2027?

I agree with Chrisbid.

As far as N64 goes, Mario 64 had some nice simple, clean graphics as well, and they still have charm and style. The games that tried to do too much are the worst ones to look at today. I think Goldeneye looks better than Perfect Dark, for example, far less ambitious but 'cleaner' overall. Banjo Kazzoie is a pretty good looking game, as well.

I find there's plenty of still good looking first generation games. Been playing ocarina of time and I find it looks great still. Blast corps is still visually appealing as is games like rogue squadron, Turok, perfect dark. On the PS1 crash team racing still holds up well as dos the wipeout games. Although I sold it last year, quake II on the PS1 was quite impressive. So there' plenty to like about first gen 3d games. I've been playing them more than anything else the last 6 months.

[QUOTE=Alienblue] You have to put it in perspective. Tomb Raider looks awful next to GTA: Vice City, but it looks INCREDIBLE next to the even older Starfox and Virtua Racer. Who knows how "primitive" we'll think of the PS3 in 2027?[/QUOTE]


no, the textures are what make a lot of saturn and psx games look like vomit. when textures were kept to a minimum like the faces in virtua fighter 2, you could maintain a clean look. primitive doesnt always mean bad. the same holds true in the atari and NES eras, more detailed graphics do not always equal better looking. a game like astroblast on the 2600 has very simple graphics compared to other games on the system, but it ran at a smooth 60fps, making for a very pretty game.

let's not forget the first TRUE 3D, polygonal games: Battlezone, Red Baron, Tempest, etc.. from the early 80's.  The polygons aren't even filled!

I find these a lot more charming and interesting than most PS1 games; you can really appreciate the ingenuity of the engineers to figure out how to do 3D, for the first time.  Plus their simplicity made them more accessible, and have a better "pick up and play" feel.

The reference in the previous post concerning the first true 3D games (Tempest, et al) is right on, along with a couple of Vectrex games.  But in this thread, the 3DO boasted some solid 3D games, most notably Shockwave.
I agree that it is the gameplay and not the graphics entirely that make a game fun.  For instance, the tank sim MI-Abrams for the Genesis I still enjoy playing, with it's extremely dated graphics. 

Yes - I think the gameplay is where it is at.  The graphics are icing on the cake.