[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Of course it was overly reliant on 3D titles. Sony made a point of putting off 2D games and wanting publishers to go for 3D. Why? Because the PS1 was so much better at 3D than the Saturn, it was the area it excelled at.

So Sony went for 3D not because it was the obvious future, but only because of the need to one up Saturn? Interesting way of looking at it

It does not matter how powerful Saturn was in 2D. People wanted Doom, Tekken and Ridge Racer. I generalise of course but this is what made the gaming world spin back then. Sure, there were some silly mistakes along the way, but overall I think it has worked out all right. We do have a 2D revival these days, and it's a great thing, but it's not like TES 6 will be made using pixel art. Even FF7 remake wasn't.

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

The reason the PS1 gets such a bad rap today, is because the style of games that it helped introduce, are still being played today, and the progression in the graphics is easy to see and compare.

Yes, and this is what I call out as totally unfair, for the reasons already stated. It's kinda okay when kids do it, or people with no interest in retro stuff, I can understand their lack of perspective, but seeing it in the retro gaming world causes me a heavy smh motion.

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

The reason the SNES 2D stuff still looks good today, is because the 2D style for the most part stopped/slowed down at its height, and has been infrequently revisited, whereas the Call of Duty style games has been a staple of a very long time so its so much easier to make the comparison.

But this, in a way, is precisely what I'm talking about. SNES was on the end of the long 2D line which has started in the late Seventies. You can go on and say that gfx from this era was also crap (as many people do: the common everything-before-NES-sucked trope), be it in the arcades or on the micros, because it was also zillion times more simpler, and it'd be exactly as unfair as comparing modern 3D gfx to its pioneer.

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

I still think Shadow of the Colossus is a great looking, great atmosphere game.

So is Silent Hill. And somebody above was complaing about the fog, totally missing the point of it being a crucial element of the atmosphere as well as a clever trick to bypass the hardware limitations.

Funnily enough I actually find most of the PS2 era 3D gfx actually quite boring and blan , and kinda prefer the dirty & wobbly PSX 3D - at least it had some character

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Lionheart on the Amiga is older than any PS1 title, and still objectively looks good. The reason why people don't look at Lionheart with the same "disdain" even though its older is because Lionheart can easily be described as a pinnacle title, i.e. whilst i'm sure a 2D platformer could look better, is any newer 2D title going to make Lionheart look primitive when comparing?

Unlikely.

This is the same angle as with SNES, you're comparing the pinnacle of one style, on an advanced plarform, to a pioneer of another, on the weakest initial link. Does not compute. Lionheart et al didn't appear out of the blue but were successors of a very long line, which has started many years before with Space War and Pong.

And, again, looking with said "disdain" is something I can not fathom, because I much prefer to look with respect, and a sort of awe, at what these folks were doing with such a silly hardware. And I can appreciate the artistry behind it all the same today, otherwise I could as well turn my nose at 2D, which is what many youngsters do (pixel art is big these days but it wasn't always like that).

Anyway, this is one of these modern myths I'm not going to argue about because it's just too prevalent and fixed in peoples minds, despite being totally unreasonable. I just hope that in the future people will appreciate the early days of 3D much more than my contemporaries.