Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PixelBits89 t1_j1i7u9a wrote

Ahh, people interpreting nostalgia for old games meaning looking like an old game is automatically an improvement.

17

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1i84yb wrote

What nostalgia? I've played games released decades ago that I have never played before and still prefer them over most games released today.

−10

PixelBits89 t1_j1i8q7z wrote

So how would making it have ps2 graphics change anything? Is it not still a modern game? If you like older games why do you think this would help anything. Modern rockstar is still modern rockstar. Regardless of why you like ps2 games my comment also asks how this changes anything. I personally prefer classic 16 bit genesis era games, but I can’t just ask a major developer to go back to that style and expect a product I’ll enjoy. There’s more to game making than just that.

9

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1i91dj wrote

Two words. Imagination interpretation.

−8

PixelBits89 t1_j1i9dlb wrote

What? You’re asking for a graphics change because you like that era of games. Is the reason you like it really just because of the graphics? I could somewhat understand that if you didn’t pick gta as the game. The old ps2 gta graphics are basically the same as modern, just less detail. Or do you prefer to imagine detail??? I don’t understand what you mean.

7

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1i9o2t wrote

High tier graphics has a tendency to compromise gameplay focused level design.

−6

PixelBits89 t1_j1iaxly wrote

I strongly disagree with this. There’s good and bad level design for all eras of games. In fact, you could argue limited graphical possibilities limits some things in games like gta, which in each era it comes out prides itself on looking more and more like irl. It’s part of the fun if the game. You get to do insane stuff in a mirror of the real world. It also aids immersion. It’s harder to feel like you’re in the world when everything looks like play dough. Games like red dead are a lot better when the graphics make you feel you’re standing right there.

And just having lower graphics doesn’t mean better level design. You do realize it’s not the same people working on graphics and levels, especially for large game development companies. If a modern game is worse it’s just because it’s worse.

Personally I’m not huge in graphics and I’ll play anything if it’s fun, but if you’re capable of it why not have everything look a little nicer? I’ll pick ps2 era games like metal gear solid 2 over most modern games, but that doesn’t mean they should just stop improving graphics. I absolutely love the old mortal kombats and I’ve found the modern ones to be extremely lacking, but one thing I do enjoy is how nice everything looks. It just adds a little flavour.

7

ABXandYorg t1_j1l3yms wrote

When you have limitations it forces creative innovation. Old game development meetings were full of people being told what they couldn’t do. Having isolated departments sounds good, but has that actually made games better or worse? I do agree that there is junk games in every generation. However, there is generational shifts in those percentages. Even console-specific shifts in those percentages. When I think back to the Atari 2600 , severe limitations, massive creativity, and large amount of good games. Even the Super Nintendo library is massively packed with top top notch titles, better than the Nintendo Switch with better graphics.

1

PixelBits89 t1_j1lbzyq wrote

But there’s also top notch titles now. What you’re saying would only be true if modern games were bad, which they’re not. Game devs today still have limitations. Rockstar doesn’t, but that’s because they’re top in triple a titles. But if you really want limitations play some modern indie games.

What you’re describing isn’t even the same limitations anyways. The main trial faced was power, not graphics. Even if they make a game that looks like it’s ps2 era they haven’t actually added any limitations to truly effect game play.

2

ABXandYorg t1_j1l39ug wrote

I agree with you. The graphics became the crutch for poor game design.

2

nathanwyer t1_j1iabdk wrote

How does the graphics being better make a game any worse?

5

ABXandYorg t1_j1l4kh9 wrote

Overimersion is worse feeling on better graphics if gameplay is bad. If gameplay is bad I want worse graphics.

0

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1iajqn wrote

Compromised gameplay and lack of imagination interpretation.

−6

nathanwyer t1_j1iauag wrote

Please give examples of both.

6

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1ib371 wrote

Just look at any modern day game.

−5

nathanwyer t1_j1icimi wrote

That didn't answer my question.

The first video games you play when you're young are always the ones you'll have the fondest memories of. I think you're just talking about nostalgia.

4

ABXandYorg t1_j1l4ox5 wrote

Not necessarily. I played 1970s Atari 2600 after 1980s NES. The Atari 2600 stands out more.

1

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1icony wrote

I've played several games in the past five years from the 90s that were significantly better than games recently released so that can not be it.

−1

HaalandBalonDl t1_j1irjcn wrote

Toilet seat IQ

3

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1itllg wrote

IKR?

0

aSimpleWardrobe t1_j1i1mx0 wrote

Far too late to go back now, and also too successful

It'll never happen

4

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1i2oph wrote

Hopefully an indie developer will do it.

1

ABXandYorg t1_j1l43c0 wrote

They are slowly starting to. Even if they didn’t you have to remember that there has already been so many amazing games made across the retro video game era that you could spend the rest of your life and never touch anything but top-tier games. So therefore it would be a relevant because you could spend the rest of your gaming life only playing amazing games by walking backwards in time instead of forwards. Once you co-op 2 player play an Atari 2600, single player on SNES, single player on PlayStation, or 4-player co-op play N64, those are memorable impressions that are hard to find equal to in modern gaming. Some of those games and programming skills were downright genius even by todays standards. To produce a game on an Atari 2600 was an exercise in insanity.

2

StillNoFcknClu t1_j1i8w26 wrote

It should have new graphics but a PS2 era vibe

3

Gay_Charlie OP t1_j1i93cf wrote

Precisely, I don't disagree with that.

2

RustyRuss_ t1_j1iffff wrote

Hang on - your post title specifically refers to “PS2 era graphics”.

So what do you want? New graphics or PS2 era graphics?

3

SipTheVoidJuice t1_j1ik2sz wrote

unlimited games but no games

3

ABXandYorg t1_j1l599w wrote

I have no idea what this means.

1

SipTheVoidJuice t1_j1l6h59 wrote

there was a schlatt (?) stream iirc where he was asked if he would rather have unlimited bacon but no games or unlimited games but no games

1

A50CALIBERSHOTGUN t1_j1kur0i wrote

I want older graphics because I can't run anything for shit

1

ABXandYorg t1_j1l5el2 wrote

That’s barely a problem anymore. Any game 5 years or more old will run In 2k on high graphic detail at 60 fps, so this is a moot issue today.

1

A50CALIBERSHOTGUN t1_j1l70ia wrote

I have a small laptop that runs assassins creed 2 at 30 FPS And I'd prefer to buy stuff for my quest instead of dumping £1000

1