No shit. You're comparing relatively advanced 2D graphics to one of the first 3D adventures ever. What do you expect?

I'd say there are already 3D games that will graphically stand the test of time....mostly because, just like any graphically impressive 2D game, of good art. Games like Ico will not be considered "ugly" ten years from now.

I said most 3D games will look bad, not all of them, big difference.
Tomb Raider was released in 1996 on the PS1.

Dracula X:The Rondo of Blood
System:PC-Engine(Turbografx-16)
Release date: 1993


Dracula XX
SystemSuper Nintendo
Release date:1995


Super Castlevania IV
System:Super Nintendo
Release date:1991


Castlevania:Bloodlines
System:Sega Genesis
Release date:1994


Tomb Raider
System: Playstation 1
Release date:1996
The Playstation system itself was released in 1994.


Tomb Raider Chronicles
System: Playstation 1
Release date: 2000


Castlevania:Symphony of the Night
System: Playstation 1
Release date1997

Rondo of Blood.. tis a damn shame that few people got to play this game.. espically considering that SOTN is a direct sequel to it!

*hugs his Turbo Duo*

Galanthas, Tomb Raider has always looked like SHIT, even when it was first released and running on a 3dfx card.

I had no problem playing Ocarina of Time two years ago when I finally decided to give it a go. The graphics didn't bug me at all because it was such a great game. I can also go back and play the first Tomb Raider. I guess I'm not really "spoiled" graphics-wise. I can play any good game despite its graphics.

Same here. A good game will always be a good game, no matter how it compares graphically to newer games.

Resident Evil 2 is still bad-ass! That game never ceases to amaze!

Shhh



I think some of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying I can't or won't play older 3D titles, I'm just saying most won't stand up graphically over time. Meaning tens years from now you can play the same game,and have fun doing so, but also notice how asstacular the graphics were in a majority of them. Graphics hasn't stopped me from playing any games ever.

Finished Conker's Bad Fur Day last night, wasn't impressed, preferred Banjo-Kazooie. I thought Rare was losing their talent starting this gen but after playing Conker's I realized it started last gen. I laughed/smiled twice during the whole game. 1. The mighty poo was amusing, not because it was a poo monster, but it was a singing poo monster heh. 2. A conversation between two bats similar to this:Bat 1:"Hey, isn't that the guy that burnt barry? Bat 2:"Where?, I can't see". Bat 1:*shakes head* "Oh for ***** sake." I did dig the music in the *hub* area with the bees and such. End boss was a rip from SM64 tail swinging.

I'm sorry, but Galanthas has pretty much ended the discussion with the pictures he has posted. He's simply right, 3D games have not aged better than 2D games, and I suspect that they will not (Tomb Raider looked THAT bad-- who knew?). If you have an argument otherwise, please prove it... Still, probably my favorite time for gaming was on the N64, and I'd gladly go back to that, shitty graphics or not.

Marvel VS Capcom 2 and Samurai Showdown 5

compared to

Samurai Showdown 1

and

Street Fighter 2 Turbo

2d does age.

And if people return to 2d, and use today's consoles to make 2d graphics that look like anime/comic books, everything from the 16 bit days will look obsolete

Viewtiful Joe anyone?

2D does age.. this is true.. but in my opinion it ages a lot better.

I can play (most) old NES games and still be impressed with what they did with the hardware that they had. Zelda 1 & 2, Mario 3, Kirby's Adventure, all the Dragon Warriors, Faxanadu, Gradius.. there are plenty of games that still look pretty good considering.

Now, 3D on the other hand.. it's a lot harder to swallow the older stuff, even the best looking. Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are supposed to be 2 of the best looking games of that generation but I still had problems with Link's brick shaped hands, etc.. bad textures (I had textured 3D to begin with).. they're still great games, plenty of them on the PSone and N64.. but they don't look as pretty as the older 2D stuff, IMO.

I think we're at a good point in 3D stuff.. I really don't see it advancing much more.. and if it does, the games that take really advantage of it beyond what is capable of now will be far and few between.. not only that, but a good portion of the ones that will, will end up probably having poor games because they focused so much on making it look good. I think it's probably good that the next generation of systems don't advance TOO much graphically because I'd rather see developers go back to focusing on making fun and innovative games..

I don't think it is entirely fair to say 2D ages better than 3d due to the fact that every 2d game that has been used as an example were not made during the beginning of 2d gaming in general. Yet all the 3D games mentioned were all created during the very beginning of 3d games(besides Vector graphics). Maybe some people are forgetting what 2d graphics looked like in the very early 80's.



People have to remember that 3d graphics are still a relatively new thing and they have a way's to go before they reach the maturity that 2d gaming was at the time of 16 bit gaming consoles.

I dont know if what I have said has even made any sense....but whatever.

I just enjoy good fun games. Whether its Castlevania on the GBA, Bejewelled on my PDA or Metroid Prime on the Cube all that matters is if the game is fun to play.

I honestly don't know if 2D games were better or worse, but I have a lot of favorites that I can still go back and replay from the NES and SNES. That being said in some cases, especially sports, 3D is much better. After playing Tiger Woods 2004 and Madden 2004 I couldn't go back to something even a few years older.

Good games IMO will hold up though. The original Zelda is still fun, but even Ocarina still seems great to me. If the game is good the graphics are just one part of the whole.

I only brough up the NES because somebody earlier pointed it out as a comparison NES:Playstation::SNES:Playstation 2.. I remember horrible CGA graphics games and I too had an Atari 2600 and 5200..

But you also have to figure in that the 16bit era, while dominated by 2D games, started out with some 3D titles as well.. Star Fox on SNES and Virtua Racing on the Genny..

You get to move the guy.


I think it has to do with being a new system. Look at the difference between Mario 1 vs Mario 3. Or FFVII vs FFIX



It seems that just when the developers seem to nail the systems capabilitys they move to a new system.

Last screenshots from me

The NES was released in 1985 in the U.S

Bionic Commando
System:NES
Release date 1988

Super Mario Bros. 3
System:NES
Release date 1987

Mike Tyson's Punch-Out
System:NES
Release: 1986


The PS1 was released in 1995 in the U.S.
FF7
System PS1
release date: 1997

Except that pic you posted isn't even an in-game shot of FF9..

Interesting debate.

Even Shigeru Miyamoto has said that the games of this generation have a much longer lifespan, and that 10 years from now will be easy for someone to pick up and play, whereas games from even 5 years ago are hard to play.

Anyways, graphics really aren't an issue for me. Although playing a game with excellent graphics make the games that much more enjoyable. I'm not impressed with cinemas as much as great in-game graphics.