I haven't played any 3D PS1 games in awhile besides side scrolling shooters so I forgot how bad some games looked. Went to a local KB that is closing today and picked up Conker's Bad Fur Day for $10.59 for the Nintendo 64, since I skipped getting it when it was originally released. I unpacked my N64 for the first time since storing it away in Aug 2001 and plugged everything in.

I stuck the cartridge in the slot with a smile knowing I was about to experience gaming bliss, or so I thought. I hit the power button and up comes the logos then out of nowhere my eyes were getting sliced by all the horrible jaggies. If that wasn't bad enough, everything seemed to move like I accidentally pushed a slow motion button somewhere. At first I thought it might be the game cartridge so I switched it out and stuck Zelda in and was assaulted by even more jaggies. I stopped then and decided to stick my Zelda:OoT disc in the Gamecube for comparisons and I was shocked at the difference. There were still jaggies in the GC version but not nearly as many so that bump in resolution helped quite alot.

I realized then that 10 years from now, most of these 3D games that are popular at the moment will look like shit and won't stand the test of time. I'm not a "graphics whore" or anything considering I think 2D>3D 90% of the time, it was just suprising that the picture I had remembered in my mind on how Zelda on the N64 looked and how it actually looked were so different. 2D just ages so much better than 3D and it's a shame Sony and other companies are trying to phase it out of existence on their consoles.

So when some of you complain about the PS2's 3D graphics in games being so horrible I suggest you pop in a PS1,Saturn or N64 game and look at their 3D games, it will shut you up real quick heh. PS2 may not be a powerhouse but it looks a shit load better than last gen's games. Ico alone mops up most 3D games this gen let alone last gen.

Back to Conker, I'm not really impressed at the moment. The voice acting is down right horrid, not even campy like the original RE, just bad. I haven't found anything humorous yet about the games dialogue or cutscenes, although I have only played a half hour or so. I think I have been desensitized to cussing,even when bleeped out, and toilet humor in games. I'm still gonna play the game, horrid jaggies and all, I hope it gets better though. Really I can't complain to much since I did get it for cheap price. Plus I wanna see the singing pile of Poo.

I'm playing Zelda: Ocarina of Time now and think it looks great. I have no problem with the graphics at all. I prefer the graphics in a lot of PS1 and N64 games to those in, say, Soul Calibur 2. I think the overly shiny and sharp graphics in that game and others like it make it look really fake and game-y.

Maybe YOU are spoiled, but I am not. I don't have any problems playing PSone or older games, after all I only play them because they are FUN, not because they look pretty.

I thought Star Raiders have the best 3D effects in any game (btw, the 2600 version is inferior to the XE/XL/5200 rev!

I'm spoiled. Not long ago I threw Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit for the PS1 into my PS2...I remember how impressed I was with the graphics and the feeling of, well, speed that the game had.

Urgh! It looked like my Playstation was simply vomiting random pixels toward the screen; I could barely see where I was going, and turned the game off... I guess 3D games age poorly....

Having said that... it still looked a lot better than "Electra Glide" did on my Atari 130XE...

I think it's kind of cool how the one of the most popular and still talked about games for the PS1 is a 2-D game - Castlevania:SOTN

(among fans, anyways)

Recently I fired up my Ape Escape PS1 game to entertain my daughter. That's a four year old game that I just loved. Now it's painful to even look at.

Damn you Ratchet and Clank, you've permanetly scarred my retnas.

A good game is always a good game, no matter what the graphics.

The pixel count doesn't make the game. It just makes it prettier.

Keep in mind that the 32-bit era was really the dawn of 3D graphics on a home console. It's really the Atari/Nintendo for the new generation of gamers. Fun memories, but really hard to go back and play some of those oldies.

We are really spoiled though...

...games cost no more than $50 now, and drop to $20 pretty quick. $15 if you use the BB card...

...systems do more than play games...

...games that normally would never be brought to the states are coming over because it's profitable now...

...even in a huge industry, the independent, small-time developer can still make a great game, release it in the US, and make a nice profit...

...the videogame industry is much more lucrative now, technology is easier/cheapter to deliver, and there are more players than before, increasing competition which means better games, better prices, and all that good capitalism stuff...

...generally speaking, there is much more crap, but i find myself buying many more quality games than i ever did in any previous gaming generation.

Amen.

You misunderstood me. I have no problems playing older games at all, matter of fact I'm playing Arc the Lad 1 at the moment. I was just saying with all the bitching going on about the PS2 has horrible graphics isn't true, last gen 3D is pretty bad overall. Although that was expected since it was the first gen for 3D for consoles. Just saying I noticed the slowdown and jaggies alot more now in last gen 3D games since in games today it's not as visible.

*edit

This will stand the test of time graphically


This won't and hasn't


This is the point I was trying to get across about 3D not standing the test of time in 10 years. Just look at the bear hehe. 2D ages better.

A great game is timeless.

Yeah, I guess I did misunderstand you. It just sounded like you didn't like playing older 3d games because they didn't have anti-aliasing and look very polished.

Not to mention, renting games is a breeze nowadays. Blockbuster [or anyone else] probably never heard of Atari, and they didn't carry a huge number of games for Genesis.
I actually hooked up my Sega Gen/32x/CD monstrosity after we got the 'old' tv hooked up, and I remember how easy it was to install the unit. Been having fun playing Popful Mail and some other definitely non-graphics-oriented games. Some of the others, however, didn't stand the test of time, or just don't appeal to me [of course I'm also getting a PS2 for Christmas, so I'm playing Soldiers of Fortune thinking 'I can't wait to play FFX', etc.]
While I certainly don't mind games looking as nice as they can, and we are to an extent spoiled graphically [but what are the _next_ gen games going to look like?], cliche'd as it is, there's no substitute for gameplay.
Other aspects whereby we are spoiled:

Growing acceptance of 'mature' games. Yes, most of them are juvenile-oriented T&A, or shock-value violence, and I don't think little kids should be playing those, but maybe as the gaming population continues to age, we'll actually be getting more mature-oriented plotlines and characters [for instance, Manhunt--haven't played the game, and i've heard it's disgusting, but the plotline is definitely mature, based on what I've heard.]

The increasing average age of gamers. Older gamers = more disposable income = more video game business = more competition, both in price and quality.

And didn't Theodore Sturgeon say, '90% of everything is crap'? With the Internet, we can see screenshots, read hundreds of reviews, see gameplay, which will help us avoid the crap; and have access to mail-ordering games which may not be available locally.

But it is neat to put in an old game, especially a bad game, and think, Man, not only is this game not fun, but it looks like crap! Then again, technology and capabilities do change; some of those games were 'cutting-edge' at the time. Virtua Racing and the super meg ram chip, or whatever. Sonic and 'blast processing'. Games that brag about '16 Meg!' I can't even imagine how the games will look when my son is old enough to be playing them; maybe on his 15th birthday I'll plug in Atari 2600 Combat or Defender to make him realize how old his dad is ; )

The graphics in Conker's Bad Fur day aren't so bad. But the bar scene in the beginning is really awful graphically and frame rate-wise though, once you get past that they get a bit better and stands up pretty well considering the hardware. Of course its nowhere close to what they can do today . But yeah, the content probably doesn't have the shock value today it had when it was released way back.

I agree that the graphics are terrible and don't stand the test of time.

I think this gen's games will hold up better though.

Compare it to the 2D generation. The NES games look awful today, still fun to play, but look horrible.

SNES/Genesis games on the other had still look fine as the 2D graphics were much better in that generation.

I think it's the same now, the first gen 3D games are still fun but look like crap. This gen offered a big refinement in 3D graphics, and I think like the SNES/Genesis games they'll hold up much better.

Conker is easily one of my top 10 gaming experiences ever. Call me new school, but I laughed, and laughed, and had a blast playing the multiplayer D-Day invasion mini game. I LOVE that game, and will happily buy the XBOX version.

Callme an old fogey (OK, I am!) but these days I'm mostly playing the Activision Anthology games on my GBA. Those oldies are still *hard*! And it's nice to have games where the only goal is to get better andbeat a high score (and maybe get a patch!) rather than using 'cheats' to get to the 'end.'

The graphics aren't anything to drool over, but they games are addicting still.

My other gaming obsession is playing Robotron on my multiwilliams arcade cabinet. That game is, and always will e, insane. I don't know any modern game that has the same degree of insane mayhem. And the 1984 graphics don't detract. (Although the huge slowdown on a couple of levels, like 30/35, is interesting....)

My friends and I had so much fun with this mini-game. We played it almost as much as Super Smash Bros.

2D games definitely seem to hold up better then early 3D. Even a few NES games, like Super Mario Bros 3, still hold up fine today. Many early 3D games really do make you wince though... that bear is funny

You are wrong! Tomb Raider 1 was awesome. They should have stopped milking the franchise b/c there was really nothing new being added (besides gimmicks) after the first. I can still remember the first time you run into that T-Rex.... And the level designs are just awe-inspiring.

Can never forget that T-Rex charging out of the darkness (draw-in?) Great stuff, but I agree with what Galanthas is saying also.. in fact, can I just agree with everyone?

I agree with most points, except that accessibility of the market to small time developers. I'd say that small time developers only have a small chance at making it and that is if they hook up with a big publisher. It seems to me that a high number of sequels are coming out in order to milk known franchises and there is an unwillingness of publishers to take many chances now that game development budgets are sky rocketing. I know Max Payne and a few others have been developed by previously unknown, small time developers on minimal budget, but Rockstar did publish it, and provide the backing they needed.

Low prices on games, and more competition is definitely the case and I'm very happy about that.

well, small-time games typically don't have huge budgets. Furthermore, finding a publisher now is extremely easy as publishing/distributing costs have plummeted since the dawn of the CD-based format. Because of the HUGE installed base of systems nowadays, even a small game like ICO will sell ONLY 75,000 copies, and still be profitable.

My first experience with this recently was when I started up Perfect Dark for the N64. I remember it being such a realistic experience! I ended up walking away with a headache after only 5 minutes....

And just like Conker's, I think PD is still a great game, just with dated graphics that have weathered time rather poorly.