Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadnought
The reason I consider it unfair (and I don't single out your comment, it's a coincidence, since it's a very popular opinion) is because by this logic modern games will be considered turds from gfx point of view in 50 years. It's not only PSX, the same is said about early 3D from otehr platforms, but PSX does get the biggest kick because of old animosities (sony suxxorz etc).
The low resolution does not matter, if you have skilled artists and coders.
There also wasn't any "over-reliance" on 3D because it was the dawn of new era and everybody and their granny wanted more and more of it. And Sony has rightly exploited it. It's only now that people get nostalgic for 2D, back then we couldn't care less about it.
|
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. However, the Saturn was far more powerful for the 2D stuff, and at no point did Sony want publishers to exploit the Saturns strengths in that arena because then it might alter the very carefully cultivated view that the PS1 was more powerful at everything.
It was so overly reliant on 3D, that lots of titles were converted from 2D to 3D that clearly had no business being changed.
Someone else explained it to me recently who works for Codemasters, and he hit the nail on the head.
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.
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.
The leap between PS1 and PS4 (ignoring PS2, PS3) is quite large, but the incremental steps between each generation isn't so big.
I can still play a PS2 title and certainly PS3 and not feel the same as PS1 stuff.
I still think Shadow of the Colossus is a great looking, great atmosphere game.
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.
But the same can't be said for the PS1 because we are still playing the same style of games as back in 1995 today, and the progression is more obvious.
And with respect, you can have the best graphic artists and coders in the world, but if your machine is going to turn everything into a low resolution blocky shaky experience, no coder or graphics artist can help you.
However, the few 2D titles the PS1 had, some were really nice.
Lomax was a highlight for me, but even then, compare that to the same developers previous effort Flink for the Mega Drive, whilst the former does look better, it doesn't look siginficantly better to make Flink look crap in comparison.
And the 2D stuff largely still looks excellent today on PS1, but unfortunately, there just wasn't enough of it.