cosmicnut on 12/3/2008 at 16:13
I think the difference is that later engine games, really built an envrionment you can enjoy.
Some of the older engines can be like looking at one of those annyoing hidden pictures, you have to squint your eyes and take it all with a pinch of salt to really get the effect.
Us older gamers are used to that. Take the first FPS I ever player
"Mercenary: Escape from Targ" on the Atari 800/Commador 64
This was a polygon based engine. A corridor was a square box in the middle of the screen with diagonal lines coming out of it on a single colour background. When you moved forwards the square got bigger. Turning round was a bit of a mess with all these lines going everwhere. You really had to put overtime in to understanding the world.
It can be downloaded these days, give it a try!
Of course Doom/System Shock took that a huge leap forward, giving you environments that didn't require as much imagination to see. Doom3/Half Life2 goes further. Crysis goes further still. We can sit back and enjoy the game a lot easier because we don't have to look past so many engine "features".
Because of this, the "it still looks good" time frame has been widened.
It doesn't mean the games are better, just easier on the eyes.
Ahh, I remember the days when storyline meant something like a bad fanfic on a fold out from the tape insert and the dashing hero an beautiful heroine where 3 large fat pixels!
steo on 12/3/2008 at 16:42
My point was that if we consider graphics and graphics alone (and ignore hardware limitations) no one would still be playing SS, SS2, thief, deus ex, doom, quake or even newer games like morrowind because there are games out there with better graphics. I used five years as the cut off to include doom 3, since there are still games being made that can't match its looks (cue lots of people ripping on D3 for being too dark).
Graphics are something that is entirely dependent on the technology available and the hardware limitations of the time and any game whose merit lies predominantly in looking sweet will inevitably be quickly lost to the mists. I wasn't saying that old games necessarily look bad but you'd have to be a bit of a nutter to say that system shock looks better than doom 3.
And no, I'm not a graphics whore. I only completed system shock for the first time two or three years ago and I still play games like doom, hexen, infinity engine rpgs etc.
Kolya on 12/3/2008 at 20:09
Myst in 3d? Mmmmh.
:D
I've played all the other ones or still do, like Morrowind and Alice from time to time.
Lansing on 12/3/2008 at 22:52
I'm just wondering how long it'll be before someone points out that the person crying "GRAPHICS WHORE" has done a huge amount of work for the SS2 community to improve.... graphics.
(tongue firmly in cheek :))
piano-sam on 12/3/2008 at 23:23
Quote Posted by steo
My point was that if we consider graphics and graphics alone (and ignore hardware limitations) no one would still be playing SS, SS2, thief, deus ex, doom, quake or even newer games like morrowind because there are games out there with better graphics. I used five years as the cut off to include doom 3, since there are still games being made that can't match its looks (cue lots of people ripping on D3 for being too dark).
That makes no sense. Whats the purpose of considering a game without considering it's gameplay? What the hell even is a game when you toss out gameplay? Whats the point you're getting at? Is it something like "Games based soley on the novelty of their graphics are quickly outpaced in their merits?" then say that. Cryptic analogies F T L.
ExtravaGoose on 13/3/2008 at 01:40
Quote Posted by steo
My point was that if we consider graphics and graphics alone (and ignore hardware limitations) no one would still be playing SS, SS2, thief, deus ex, doom, quake or even newer games like morrowind because there are games out there with better graphics. I used five years as the cut off to include doom 3, since there are still games being made that can't match its looks (cue lots of people ripping on D3 for being too dark).
Graphics are something that is entirely dependent on the technology available and the hardware limitations of the time and any game whose merit lies predominantly in looking sweet will inevitably be quickly lost to the mists. I wasn't saying that old games necessarily look bad but you'd have to be a bit of a nutter to say that system shock looks better than doom 3.
And no, I'm not a graphics whore. I only completed system shock for the first time two or three years ago and I still play games like doom, hexen, infinity engine rpgs etc.
I kinda really do not like your comments - whats the point of a stupidly suped up game graphics wise that has absolutely crap gameplay, story etc etc. Some of the newer graphically pretty games all lack in the latter when compared to games such as Half Life & System Shock 1 & 2 in my opinion...
SS1 - I just cannot get it working :(
But, I'd personally still be playing SS2 - Its not bad Graphically and it is still an incredible game - especially with the fan made mods and stuff
Trance on 13/3/2008 at 02:20
Are you guys both brain-dead or something? Steo's point is passing through you without being absorbed.
ZylonBane on 13/3/2008 at 04:43
Quote Posted by ExtravaGoose
SS1 - I just cannot get it working
If you can get DOSBox working, you can get SS1 working.
Volitions Advocate on 13/3/2008 at 07:41
Quote Posted by ExtravaGoose
whats the point of a stupidly suped up game graphics wise that has absolutely crap gameplay, story etc etc.
dunno... ask midway... *cough*
I've been playing Realms of the Haunting and Quest for Glory 1 for the past month or so.. Dosbox rocks.
