LogFAQs > #882357501

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Was GoldenEye 007 on N64 over-rated?
Bass_X0 07/05/17 4:45:02 AM #61:	Lorenzo_2003 posted... Bass_X0 posted... a good game that has aged poorly is over-rated despite genuinely being good at the time of release. was it an over-rated game back then? no, its praise was fully deserved. but looking back at it now. flaws have come to light which weren't originally flaws. i think the graphics are terrible now and if i were to go back and play it, i'd likely say that the controls now feel clunky. That comes off as an unreasonable standard to have when you consider that there is no game that will look and play well 20 years later, as compared to what is then current. Maybe there is some gem that still holds up, but I'm struggling to think of it. Do you know of any game that came out 20 years ago and can still compete with the top offerings today or in the last couple of years? I didn't say that. There are still games from twenty or even thirty years ago that still look decent and play well today despite obviously not looking as good as games from today. Super Mario World and Zelda: A Link To The Past still looks and play amazing despite not being in full HD 3D like modern Mario and Zelda games are. The problem is that while 2D sprites can have a timeless appeal (although obviously not all of them), 3D games that look good for the time twenty years ago will generally look terrible today. It's like how CGI from the early 2000s looks terrible today whereas older hand-drawn Disney animation still has timeless appeal. Our eyes have just become adjusted to recognise low polygon counts, low resolution and low quality textures despite such things being standard back then. I'm not denying that Goldeneye looked good back when it was released, just that 3D ages fast. Super Mario 64 has also aged but because it intentionally had a simplistic cartoon style, its not aged as badly as Goldeneye which gave us the most detailed realistic graphics the N64 could do in 1997. And this whole topic came about from watching this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6yW42sHPuQ --- "Well, it's not a bad game. It's made by Capcom, so how could it?" ~ AVGN <cite>Bass_X0 posted [p:882357501] in Was Golden... [t:75529889]...</cite> <quote><cite>Lorenzo_2003 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bass_X0 posted...</cite> <quote> a good game that has aged poorly is over-rated despite genuinely being good at the time of release. was it an over-rated game back then? no, its praise was fully deserved. but looking back at it now. flaws have come to light which weren't originally flaws. i think the graphics are terrible now and if i were to go back and play it, i'd likely say that the controls now feel clunky.</quote> That comes off as an unreasonable standard to have when you consider that there is no game that will look and play well 20 years later, as compared to what is then current. Maybe there is some gem that still holds up, but I'm struggling to think of it. Do you know of any game that came out 20 years ago and can still compete with the top offerings today or in the last couple of years?</quote> I didn't say that. There are still games from twenty or even thirty years ago that still look decent and play well today despite obviously not looking as good as games from today. Super Mario World and Zelda: A Link To The Past still looks and play amazing despite not being in full HD 3D like modern Mario and Zelda games are. The problem is that while 2D sprites can have a timeless appeal (although obviously not all of them), 3D games that look good for the time twenty years ago will generally look terrible today. It's like how CGI from the early 2000s looks terrible today whereas older hand-drawn Disney animation still has timeless appeal. Our eyes have just become adjusted to recognise low polygon counts, low resolution and low quality textures despite such things being standard back then. I'm not denying that Goldeneye looked good back when it was released, just that 3D ages fast. Super Mario 64 has also aged but because it intentionally had a simplistic cartoon style, its not aged as badly as Goldeneye which gave us the most detailed realistic graphics the N64 could do in 1997. And this whole topic came about from watching this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6yW42sHPuQ --- "Well, it's not a bad game. It's made by Capcom, so how could it?" ~ AVGN</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1