I remember playing Doom for the first time and I remember thinking that graphics would never get any better than that. Like the arm even moves when he walks!
I remember Altered Beast having amazing graphics, but it was just memory goggles. I was very disappointed when I got around to firing it up in an emulator.
I remember getting deep into that game, trying to make my own levels with megs of RAM and having things crash. Changing all the sprites on some of the mobs, recording my own sounds and replacing various noises in the game. I learned how to strafe using 100& keyboard (couldn’t look up or down in that game), and dominating the evil. Good time to be a teenager. I still think some of the secret rooms in that game were some of the best.
@lobut I thought Donkey Kong Country on the SNES was photorealistic and rivaled movies like Terminator 2, which used the same technology behind the scenes. I thought every game would look the same as Donkey Kong Country in future.
I had those moments multiple times. I remember thinking the same about International Karate on the Amiga. Then my mind was blown with Street Fighter II, Max Payne was one for sure as mentioned elsewhere and let’s not forget Carmageddon, which got a little bit too realistic. Graphics technology developed so fast, you can’t compare it to today’s upgrades. As I’m older now 10 year old games still feel “new” to me.
Well, 8k is in allmost all home-usecases useless, 4k a better choice. Except maybe for video walls. Eye resolution is limited by angular resolution (visual acuity).
Agreed. I used to be blown away by a game from a technical standpoint 2-3 times per console generation and at a similar clip on the PC side. Now we are getting GTA V and Skyrim re-released for the 10th time. Neither of those games were groundbreaking at the time (IMO) as they both were good but predictable progressions from their previous entries.
Playing DKC and seeing the detailed sprites, Mario 64 (and several others) ushering in 3D, the FMVs in FF VII, and the enemy AI in FEAR, these things felt like monumental leaps forward. Nowadays, the closest thing I can think of is something like Elden Ring or TotK which to me is just taking an existing good game (Dark Souls/BotW) and slapping a mechanic onto it (Open world/crafting). They are both excellent games, but neither compare to the leap forward of FF VII or Mario 64.
Maybe I’m just jaded by adulthood and have my rose tinted glasses on.
grew up with c64, spectrum+3, master system, genesis, nes, snes. So when I bought a ps1 with my paper round money and started up the intro to Soul Blade, that would become Soul Calibur, the graphics jump shook me to my core and brought tears to my eyes. I was like "THIS is the peak of graphics. Nothing can beat this.
Even funnier with the boasting of “state of the art high resolution graphics” at the top. Though to be fair, the actual game looks infinitely better than that cover.
No, it was inaccurate, even at the time. The Famicom was built to cost and and mainly used cheap off-the-shelf components that were already obsolete when the system first released in 1983. The NES released in North America the same year as the Commodore Amiga, a system that actually was cutting edge, and represented a big leap forward in what home computers could do graphically. By the time Mega Man released, the Amiga was on it's second revision and other home computers were rapidly catching up to it's capabilities.
While Mega Man was one of the best games on the NES, it ran at the same resolution as every other game on the system, and was stuck working within the same limited color palette and low sprite limit that were more than five years behind the curve when it released.
This isn’t even the right color scheme for the character, so it’s not like they misinterpreted the sprite
Rock over here looks like he shit himself upon seeing a Mettaur and is trying (and failing) to pretend he didn’t.
Mega Man doesn’t even use a gun, he uses a Buster. The only time Mega Man has used a gun are instances that parody this boxart or rare occasions like when his internet incarnation uses the Gun Del Sol during crossover events with Boktai
I love bashing AI art but in AI art it’s usually the details that you spot at second glance that makes it fall apart. The Mega Man cover is just fundamentally messed up to a degree where even AI art is miles ahead.
Yeah true, AI art is more “looks OK at first glance, but smaller details are messed up”, while this one is the opposite of that so “smaller details are actually fine, but as a whole it looks quite messed up” haha
If you really want to experience the magic of a good and a terrible covert art check the us version of ico compared to the japanese/eu cover art. Now, that’s gonna be fun…
Not sure, aye. Cartridge slot is on the other side and it’s connected to the TV via RCA with stereo audio. hmm, I can’t think of another console that meets those prerequisites though.
The body shape looks kinda like an Atari 2600, but not exactly, and the cables aren't right for that either. I don't think the artists were trying to draw some particular console, just trying to evoke the general idea.
Remember the coverart for Phalanax and how it had NOTHING to do with the game at all? And when asked the company said they simply put a cover they thought would be eyecatching.
Why a random old coot with a banjo on a rocking chair would accomplish that is beyond me
This is how I feel about mobile games. Even the good mobile games will have some epically animated scene that shows all out war between a bunch of magical badasses with explosions and all kinds of epic shit.
Then the gameplay is some low effort turn based game where the characters barely move and the attack effects are pathetic light shows.
Games today (also games in the mid 90s) tend to focus on graphics and not as much gameplay, problem with this is that they tend to age poorly, which is why Atari, Famicom, and C64 games are well remembered and still being played to this day but Amiga games aren’t as much, they were primarily designed for graphics and thus look dated today.
It’s also why many Indie games embrace the retro style and game mechanics instead of going for graphical wows. These games are just relevant and enjoyed for longer.
I’m making an indie game. The last thing I’m focused on is the graphics. Nobody gives two shits if the game looks dated or not. The most important factor is how the player FEELS.
I want my players to feel like they are a master strategist as they make their way through my levels. I try to back this feeling up with some good music I’m having made for the game. The artist I’m working with has played a few levels just to get and idea of the vibe I’m going for.
I know there is more to it than that but I’m just one dude and if I’m going to spend the time, I’d rather make it fun than pretty.
Totally agree. A flashy light show will only keep people’s focus for a hot minute, but good core gameplay will keep players engaged for so much longer. Just look at dwarf fortress, lol.
I would say It Depends. I play almost exclusively indy games and yes AAA graphics aren’t what I’m expecting.
But some indy games just look like the dev threw the sprites together in less than half a day and it can be offputting. Dated can be ok, but rushed and butt ugly… Hell I almost skipped Rimworld way back when because the visuals looked so lazy.
The gameplay has to be really freaking fantastic to cover that up. In Rimworld’s case it was.
Mine looks like very early sega right now but that’s kind of the vibe I’m going for. I know what you mean though. The game is only in alpha but before I release it (if ever, it’s been years now 😅) I plan to spend a couple hundred on an artist to update it and clean it up more.
I’m still actively developing it but the shitty part is that the game might only be like 4 to 6 hours long despite all this time I’ve put into it. So I’m not even sure if I’ll charge money for it with such a low amount of content available to the player.
It’s very much a passion project so the goal was never to make a profit on it anyways. This is a story I want to tell and the game is my canvas.
I think it’s still true, after all the success of minimalist games (like vvvvv) and similar concepts is a tangible proof of that. Than, if we go back to the past, both atari and nintendo games used the in-game gaphics on the cover art. I remember getting into games cover art after that avgn cover art christmas episodes…side note: they’re still fun, give it a watch of you want.
I dunno if that’s the same. VVVVVV at no point indicates it’s supposed to represent anything more complex than what it looks like, it just embraces minimalism as it is.
You’re right on this…that was to say that minimalism never disappeared. I mean, as the technology evolved we adopted complex and detailed graphics. Of course, that was what they could do with what they had. Still, some atari games were complex, if not cryptic, some would be now full arg. Like that swordquest series, with modern technology that would have been a huge arg.
Spanish developers using Alfonso Azpiri’s art for their games is actually genius. If I was a kid in the late 80’s I would have bought game over or R.A.M the moment I saw the cover.
Add comment