# Graphics: Common Myths



## Rydian (Apr 15, 2013)

Graphics: Common Myths​


*"You don't need good graphics for a good game."*
Last I checked playing a game blind was pretty damn hard!  "Good" and "realistic" are two different words.  Good graphics are graphics that let a player know what's going on.  Graphics give the player information about the game so they can make proper decisions and understand what's going on.

Imagine trying to...
Play an FPS without a health meter or aiming crosshair/reticule, and having the camera not magically point where the gun points.







Play a level of Super Mario Bros where the powerups and enemies are represented with the same graphic, and the sky and ground are almost the same shade of color.




Watch out for that pit you can barely see!



*"This game looks childish, it must be easy to run."*
Lack of realism does not mean a lack of visual complexity.  While GPUs have increased in complexity over time, the two big killers of framerate are still polycount and shader complexity.


Polycount refers to polygons (or in gaming, triangles specifically), which are the little pieces of geometry that 3D models (players, enemies, items, the world itself) are made of.  The more on-screen at once, the more work the GPU has to do.  If you've ever played a game that had a noticeable speed drop when a ton of enemies went on-screen at once, that was likely too many polygons to render in a speedy fashion.

Smoother and more detailed shapes generally require many more polygons than rougher, more basic shapes....






However, it's entirely possible for a game to still use basic shapes, but include tons of them for a high polycount compared to other games.  Take terrain for an example.  This first image is an example of the kind of terrain you might see in an open-world RPG type of game.  Notice the number and density of the triangular polygons.






Now compare it to Minecraft, and you can see that although Minecraft uses simple shapes for the terrain, it's much more "detailed" as far as the polycount is concerned.






This translates to a lot more work the GPU has to do to render each frame, since it has many times more polygons/faces (two triangles per face of a square) to take into account.


Shaders are generally post-processing effects used to change the final form of a rendered image right before it's displayed to you.  The left image is with no shaders, the right image is with shaders, and there's lots of differences.






Shaders are often used to add glow effects, DoF blurring, motion blur, they can tint parts of the screen or a whole screen different colors depending on the lighting, add fast anti-aliasing, and more.  Shaders are very useful and used in almost every modern 3D/FPS game today, but too many complex shaders can bog down a GPU while only adding post-processing effects, so a game doesn't have to be realistic to have heavy shader effects.



The above video shows Minecraft, a decidedly-unrealistic game, with injected Shaders.  This made the game so heavy that I had to record in SD and still got FPS numbers bordering 15 on the low-end... but nobody would mistake that video for a real recording.




*"It's easier to make CoDShitClones and other 'real graphics' games than fantasy ones."*
In practice, fantasy creations are easier to get right than realistic ones due to an offshot of The Uncanny Valley.  The more familiar players are with an object, the more likely they are to notice small imperfections.  For an example, let's make the same modification to two separate objects.


First, let's take the Cactuar enemy from the Final Fantasy series, and greatly increase the size of the eyes.




No emotional response?  It still looks like a cactuar.


Now, let's do the same thing with something we're intimately familiar with: a human face.




_Creepy_.

When making realistic imagery, detail is much more important as even the smallest differences from the original (differences that wouldn't even be noticed with fantasy art) can be mentally amplified and jarring to a player, sometimes to the point of breaking immersion.





5/2/2013 - Changed the shader screenshot to a better one I took highlighting more differences.  Local reflections, bloom, FXAA, etc.


----------



## emigre (Apr 15, 2013)

Rydian said:


> ​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Just fixed that for you old chap.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 15, 2013)

Hit post instead of preview too early, but fixed some of the wording/typos and added another sentence or three for explanations.


----------



## Issac (Apr 15, 2013)

"You don't need good graphics"..." "Good" and "realistic" are two different words.".
Well that all comes down to the definition of "good". When I talk about good (or not so good) graphics, I generally mean that the graphics are complex/advanced or not.
Like you later say: "Lack of realism does not mean a lack of visual complexity."
So realism is not equivalent with good in my opinion.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 15, 2013)

Extra Credits had a pretty interesting take on the topic. It's well worth a watch.


----------



## Celice (Apr 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Imagine trying to...Play an FPS without a health meter or aiming crosshair/reticule.


There are actually a large pool of FPS players that will mod their games to have this exact setup. One of the biggest complaints about Far Cry 3 on PC was the forced HUD elements which broke immersion. Removing these HUD elements didn't actually make the game harder; survival instincts and caution served to preserve many player's avatar's lives, as well as there being other indications of health (such as red-blur and blood effects, color tone, sound deprivation, etc.). Removing crosshairs similarly didn't negatively affect the gaming experience: the bullets still magically shot within a cone placed around the center of the screen. So the displace of a reticle is actually irrelevant because bullet trajectory, in Far Cry 3 and most other FPS games, is going to be in the same relative spot, for the guns are fixed in a static place, and do not vary in their physical orientation (some FPS games on the Wii are the only contestions I can think of).

That seemed like the tamest claim worth responding to. A few others were too extreme to take seriously, unless that was the intention (satire).


----------



## Rydian (Apr 16, 2013)

Celice said:


> ~


I guess I should mention the camera being unhooked from the gun's aim too.



Celice said:


> That seemed like the tamest claim worth responding to. A few others were too extreme to take seriously, unless that was the intention (satire).


You haven't had the displeasure of coming across some of the worst video games in history, eh? 

Enemies and NPCs looking the same...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8FpigqfcvlM#t=662s

Graphics of the game not actually doing their job and being visible/functional...


etc.

Most games are not like the out-there examples I gave, _but some are_, and that's a bad thing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Extra Credits had a pretty interesting take on the topic. It's well worth a watch.


I agree with 99% of what was said, the 1% being that reviewers and consumers alike should ignore Graphical prowess and focus entirely on Aesthetics - that's not a good thing to do in my opinion. This enforces stagnation, because we give the impression of being fine with the Aesthetics delivered - there is no push for further development of Graphics since Aesthetics _are_ in a realm of their own.

I believe that Aesthetics are key to making a game look good, that much is true, however you can often improve upon Aesthetics by improving upon Graphic capabilities.

Take for instance Super Mario Bros., Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and New Super Mario Bros. - the hardware and the Graphics capabilities of Nintendo systems were pushed forwards and that push allowed for a revolution in the Aesthetics and the realization of artistic visions. As it was said in the video, stronger hardware allowed for more fidelity, more wiggle space for the art team to design whatever they felt like designing.

Graphics capabilities should be consistently pushed forwards while simultainoulsy artists should focus on making their products look approachable and pleasant.

I said earlier that Aesthetics and Graphics are in two realms of their own and I stand by that - Aesthetics are in the realm of art and Graphics in the realm of science.

There is, however, a one-way relationship between those realms - better Graphics capabilities allow for more possibilities in the Aesthetics department, but at the same time, no amount of coding will allow you to create stunning results if there is no hardware prowess to pull it off. What I'm saying is that the best artist in the world won't be able to create art without sufficient tools of his trade.

To conclude, we as consumers admire the artistic part of the product - the Aesthetics, however trends in Aesthetics of video games change with time and the hardware and its Graphics capabilities need to evolve simultainously to accomodate that, much like trends in painting changed as time went by and so did the techniques. We should very much focus and comment upon both.

Perhaps that was an unintentional slip of the tongue, but overall, the video does highlight why certain products are _"pretty"_ and some just _"aren't"_, which is great. What really creates the gap between Graphics and Aesthetics is that all Graphics eventually feel outdated but a good Aesthetic design remains timeless, however to create that Aesthetic design, one needs appropriate tools for the job.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> *snip*


 
I don't think they were arguing that only aesthetics matter. After all, they stressed that graphics give developers more fidelity. It seemed to me that they were just lamenting the fact that many people put all of the emphasis on graphical prowess when it's only a part of the equation - they then used examples to prove what that overemphasis can produce.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I don't think they were arguing that only aesthetics matter. After all, they stressed that graphics give developers more fidelity. It seemed to me that they were just lamenting the fact that many people put all of the emphasis on graphical prowess when it's only a part of the equation - they then used examples to prove what that overemphasis can produce.


...which is why I only disagree with the last... what, 2 sentences of the video?


----------



## Celice (Apr 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> I guess I should mention the camera being unhooked from the gun's aim too.


Even that is something several FPS players enjoy, especially in games where you can pull up an ironsight for manual aiming. I remember one Crysis mod that gave the physical actor and its components, such as the gun, their own momentum which would then affect things like the direction the moving player being distinct from the camera orientation, inertia of the body, as well as allowing the gun to fire in a direction distinct from the POV but relative to its own direction. It turned every combat experience into a visceral moment that basic gameplay can't seem to grasp: there was a definite need to orient yourself behind safety, to line up your shots, to conserve stamina and speed, and to always know your orientation. The average shooter, in comparison, feels like an on-rail shooter, or else like you're controlled a robot that pivots on three dimensions D:[/quote]


----------



## ComeTurismO (Apr 16, 2013)

Graphics don't make a good game at all. I've seen many games with good graphics, but they were quite shitty. I know so many games from year 2000+ with bad graphics, but games were a hit. Even games from 1990+ were good too, like SM64, or Donkey Kong 64, or MK64.. I can continue.
So, yeah.
But usually, people underestimate games from graphics, and also by the camera too. I recall someone hating Super Mario Sunshine for the camera, and there was this other game that was a 'good' game, but I can't recall the name, which had a bad camera too.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 16, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> Even games from 1990+ were good too, like SM64, or Donkey Kong 64, or MK64.


 
You do realize that those games had some of the most advanced graphics (as for as consoles went, at least) for their time, right?


----------



## ComeTurismO (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> You do realize that those games had some of the most advanced graphics (as for as consoles went, at least) for their time, right?


Yes, I agree with you. But people nowadays people judge those games for their graphics too. They think that OLD is not GOLD, so it's crappy, but what now is invented is more _better_.
EDIT = MORE:
I mean, I go to this SM64 forum, where TASing and speedrunning is discussed, and we had a troll come in, he was spamming saying SM64 is so awful because of its graphics, and the story line. He was saying that Miyamoto didn't have anything to think of too, back then. But as the years increased, the video games turned better.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 16, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> I mean, I go to this SM64 forum, where TASing and speedrunning is discussed, and we had a troll come in, he was spamming saying SM64 is so awful because of its graphics, and the story line. He was saying that Miyamoto didn't have anything to think of too, back then. But as the years increased, the video games turned better.


He's right. If only SM64 had a gripping story about Mario's quest to rescue the Princess from a giant tentacle lizard monster while trying to curb his addiction to magic mushrooms and solve the mystery of his missing twin brother.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 16, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> Yes, I agree with you. But people nowadays people judge those games for their graphics too. They think that OLD is not GOLD, so it's crappy, but what now is invented is more _better_.


 
Those are some real nice strawmen you just made up.

People caring about graphics,and a select few mistakenly prioritizing them above all else, is nothing new. People cared just as much in the 8 and 16 bit eras as they do now (Remember "Blast processing!" at all?). There's nothing "nowadays" about it.

Also, considering the huge wave of retro-revivals we've seen in recent years (Just glance at some of the most successful projects on Kickstarter - everything from Wasteland 2 and Torment to Shovel Knight), I don't buy your assertion that "people" automatically hate old games for their age and nothing else. Some may, sure, but that's a pretty sweeping generalization to make.


----------



## machomuu (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Those are some real nice strawmen you just made up.
> 
> People caring about graphics,and a select few mistakenly prioritizing them above all else, is nothing new. People cared just as much in the 8 and 16 bit eras as they do now (Remember "Blast processing!" at all?). There's nothing "nowadays" about it.
> 
> Also, considering the huge wave of retro-revivals we've seen in recent years (Just glance at some of the most successful projects on Kickstarter - everything from Wasteland 2 and Torment to Shovel Knight), I don't buy your assertion that "people" automatically hate old games for their age and nothing else. Some may, sure, but that's a pretty sweeping generalization to make.


Agreed.  In fact, in recent years, the interest in retro games has skyrocketed (well, that may be something of an overstatement), and this continues as retro and retro-styled games' availability and prominence increases between systems and platforms.  The average gamer is now far less likely to dismiss an older game for its graphics than they were a few years ago.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 16, 2013)

Celice said:


> Even that is something several FPS players enjoy, especially in games where you can pull up an ironsight for manual aiming. I remember one Crysis mod that gave the physical actor and its components, such as the gun, their own momentum which would then affect things like the direction the moving player being distinct from the camera orientation, inertia of the body, as well as allowing the gun to fire in a direction distinct from the POV but relative to its own direction. It turned every combat experience into a visceral moment that basic gameplay can't seem to grasp: there was a definite need to orient yourself behind safety, to line up your shots, to conserve stamina and speed, and to always know your orientation. The average shooter, in comparison, feels like an on-rail shooter, or else like you're controlled a robot that pivots on three dimensions D:


[/quote]Got any links/info?  'Cause I'm willing to bet that the camera and gun are still linked like in a video game, unless it was intended that iron sights would be the only way to actually get a shot off.


----------



## Nah3DS (Apr 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Now, let's do the same thing with something we're intimately familiar with: a human face.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 16, 2013)

Re retro games interest... has interest increased out of line with general games or has the concept just got better PR*. As for kickstarter rather than try to tie concepts like shareware, donationware and whatever else and say it already existed I will go the other way and say given that kickstarter did not really exist so much hasn't everything that got funding as such seen a massive increase?

*I might actually argue there could be serious negatives here owing to people seeking the wrong things but that is a different debate.

@Celice and the unbound guns..... I do recall a few older games having a free look mode unbound to the movement (granted this was around the time mice were not always a given) and I am sure we have all spun a tank turret around and suffered reversed controls. However is that all that functionally different to head bob/headwave which has been around for decades and increased reticule size when running?


----------



## Celice (Apr 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Got any links/info? 'Cause I'm willing to bet that the camera and gun are still linked like in a video game, unless it was intended that iron sights would be the only way to actually get a shot off.




The guns have a "loose" trajectory relative to the orientation of the weapon, but it's not perfect. The mod above, while it does have a physical distinction between the POV of the player and POV of the barrel, there's also a lot of magickery involving camera inertia.

There were also a few source mods which, using motion tracking or a wiimote, allowed guns to pivot exclusive of the POV, and function relative to its direction, rather than the player's.


----------



## Celice (Apr 16, 2013)

Celice said:


>




The guns have a "loose" trajectory relative to the orientation of the weapon, but it's not perfect. The mod above, while it does have a physical distinction between the POV of the player and POV of the barrel, there's also a lot of magickery involving camera inertia.

There were also a few source mods which, using motion tracking or a wiimote, allowed guns to pivot exclusive of the POV, and function relative to its direction, rather than the player's.



FAST6191 said:


> @Celice and the unbound guns..... I do recall a few older games having a free look mode unbound to the movement (granted this was around the time mice were not always a given) and I am sure we have all spun a tank turret around and suffered reversed controls. However is that all that functionally different to head bob/headwave which has been around for decades and increased reticule size when running?


I think in this case, the examples you bring up didn't actually change the direction bullets went--they were always fixated in a set cone that would be in the same position as the initial, non-freelook POV. The mods I'm mentioning unhook the gun from that fixed POV, allowing more visceral movement of not only the player, but of gun-specific effects, like recoil, scope magnification, and the like. I guess a nice comparison is the feeling of guns in Far Cry 3: they're pretty nice and physical, but it's an animation and sounds that make it so--the gun doesn't actually react according to physical effects, like sprinting, firing, iron sight. Instead the guns play a predetermined recording, and has that tinge of artificiality.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 16, 2013)

In the video, the camera's still linked to the gun.  The camera itself just jiggles away from the centerpoint.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 16, 2013)

I agree that if I was about to set about simulating it a base head bob/growing reticule as it is conventionally defined might not be ideal (true unbound is essentially a parent child dual coordinate systems affair -- I do not know if you actually know weapons in real life but think how many actually fail to use iron sights properly). However if I was going to approximate it again I would still return to the increased reticule but bias the reticule to one side or something like that.

Also just for giggles we have http://www.blackhall.net/HEAD_TORSO.htm . It says copyright 2002 with a site going on 1992 but hey.

I am going to have to have a little think about examples as most of the time I would have ignored unbound and just attributed it to firing from the hip/scope wobble type simulations. I have been playing games and accounting for wind, bullet drop and more for well over a decade and iron sights are a popular gig in most modern shooty games so it seems odd that it would otherwise not be there in a purer form somewhere.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 16, 2013)

Cool, thanks for another informative thread Rydian. I always wondered if it was more demanding to have smooth 3D-models like you would see in a Cell-shaded game then the more realistic.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 16, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Cool, thanks for another informative thread Rydian. I always wondered if it was more demanding to have smooth 3D-models like you would see in a Cell-shaded game then the more realistic.


That depends.  As far as the shading of the object itself is concerned, it's the same speed to do something in a toon fashion with hard shadow edges and lighter base color.

However cell-shaded games also tend to use an outline effect, which can be done one of two ways.  One is with shaders and other such post-processing effects, and another is to take the same model and scale it up, and then give it a material than has the outside invisible, and the inside visible (usually black).







The outer shell is a second object (that I set to wireframe so you can see the base object inside).  With the right material settings, any light rays that would pass close to the edge of the base object would hit the inner wall of the outline object, which would be set to fully black (no specular).  As you can probably guess, the second method adds polycount, while the first needs modern shaders and adds some more GPU core strain junk, so different games use different methods.

In general nowadays though, modern "realistic" games tend to use tons of shaders (because A-grade texture work is too hard or something) and would be much heavier than cell-shaded games, which need less to looks acceptable since they tend to work with solid groups of color without modifying them much.


----------



## duffmmann (Apr 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> *"You don't need good graphics for a good game."*​Last I checked playing a game blind was pretty damn hard! "Good" and "realistic" are two different words. Good graphics are graphics that let a player know what's going on. Graphics give the player information about the game so they can make proper decisions and understand what's going on.


 

Seriously?  When someone says the phrase do you really not know what they're talking about?  I would suggest not opening with this line of reasoning, as it immediately makes you look pompous, the rest of your discussion may be valid, but don't differentiate between two words that everybody know what they mean when they say the other word than what you'd prefer to hear.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 16, 2013)

Oh no, it's the Fun-stoppo!



duffmmann said:


> Seriously? When someone says the phrase do you really not know what they're talking about? I would suggest not opening with this line of reasoning, as it immediately makes you look pompous, the rest of your discussion may be valid, but don't differentiate between two words that everybody know what they mean when they say the other word than what you'd prefer to hear.


 
Because God help us if he starts off with a joke, right?


----------



## Rydian (Apr 16, 2013)

duffmmann said:


> Seriously?  When someone says the phrase do you really not know what they're talking about?


Actually, some people do think that it's what is meant.  Take note that a lot of the people you see arguing about systems and graphics _are literally 13 and under_.  That's why I started off with a clarification of a common misconception among the younger people.


----------



## duffmmann (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Oh no, it's the Fun-stoppo!
> 
> 
> 
> Because God help us if he starts off with a joke, right?


 
Based on his reply right below yours here, he's not joking.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 16, 2013)

duffmmann said:


> Based on his reply right below yours here, he's not joking.


 


> Last I checked playing a game blind was pretty damn hard!


 
Obvious joke (albeit a joke that demonstrates the point) is obvious.


----------



## duffmmann (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Obvious joke (albeit a joke that demonstrates the point) is obvious.


 
No no, as he said, he's trying to make a point against 13 year olds making the argument.  Which I can almost understand, but really I would imagine even most of them aren't that stupid.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 16, 2013)

duffmmann said:


> No no, as he said, he's trying to make a point against 13 year olds making the argument. Which I can almost understand, but really I would imagine even most of them aren't that stupid.


 
...And he does that by starting off with a joke. He goes to a ludicrous, comical extreme to make a point - graphics do make a game to some degree.

Also, really? You've been on this site alone 4 years - surely that should give some idea of what we're dealing with here.


----------



## duffmmann (Apr 16, 2013)

Gahars said:


> ...And he does that by starting off with a joke. He goes to a ludicrous, comical extreme to make a point - graphics do make a game to some degree.
> 
> Also, really? You've been on this site alone 4 years - surely that should give some idea of what we're dealing with here.


 
Well I didn't laugh, so I guess... try harder next time?  Joke is weak at best.


----------



## KingBlank (Apr 16, 2013)

Indie game devs use simple graphics most the time because its all they have available to them, this is what leads indie games to being so good, because the devs put loads of effort into the gameplay and aesthetics so the game will get peoples attention, In the indie scene something that has been done before is unlikely to gain much attention, unless its a big improvement.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 16, 2013)

KingBlank said:


> Indie game devs use simple graphics most the time because its all they have available to them, this is what leads indie games to being so good, because the devs put loads of effort into the gameplay and aesthetics so the game will get peoples attention, In the indie scene something that has been done before is unlikely to gain much attention, unless its a big improvement.


It's called _stylization_. As shown by Rydian, for example Minecraft has _quite complex_ graphics, actually - they're just stylized to look in a particular way. Similarily games like, say, _Faster Than Light_ seem to be very simple on the outside, but go on ahead and try turning _FTL _on on a poor PC - _not gonna work _because it too takes advantage of complex graphics libraries. Those games look the way they look because that's the artistic vision, not because the developers are in any way limited.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 17, 2013)

It is hard to beat video games blind. 

FTL is just inefficient because it loads lots of things uncompressed into RAM, skyrocketing the requirements.  It's 473MB of RAM sitting at the title screen, what with having preloaded pretty much every game asset, opposed to only loading sets of things as they will be needed.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 17, 2013)

duffmmann said:


> Well I didn't laugh, so I guess... try harder next time? Joke is weak at best.


 
Because all forms and types of humor is designed to make you laugh out loud, right?


----------



## KingBlank (Apr 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's called _stylization_. As shown by Rydian, for example Minecraft has _quite complex_ graphics, actually - they're just stylized to look in a particular way. Similarily games like, say, _Faster Than Light_ seem to be very simple on the outside, but go on ahead and try turning _FTL _on on a poor PC - _not gonna work _because it too takes advantage of complex graphics libraries. Those games look the way they look because that's the artistic vision, not because the developers are in any way limited.


 
What I was trying to say is not that the graphics are simple for the computer to render but that they are simple graphics to look at and to make.
minecraft - despite how hard it is to run undeniably still has 'simple' graphics, but It has complex environments (not taking into account mods and texture packs) 

The developers are limited in terms of budget and time, indie devs often live off their incomes so their time is limited.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 17, 2013)

Minecraft sold 10,000,000 PC copies as of a few days ago, money isn't an issue for them anymore for this... but they prefer to keep the dev team small so they can keep developing the way they have.


----------



## Foxchild (Apr 17, 2013)

Interesting how some games are considered to have "aged well" and others not so much.  Graphics obviously show their age, but that can be corrected with a fresh coat of paint - see all the HD releases that've been coming out.  Doing so must enhance the experience, since I doubt many people still play their old versions once they've picked up the new.  But when something like the actual gameplay doesn't stand the test of time (something once innovative is now meh) the game is forgotten.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Apr 19, 2013)

Foxchild said:


> Interesting how some games are considered to have "aged well" and others not so much. Graphics obviously show their age, but that can be corrected with a fresh coat of paint - see all the HD releases that've been coming out. Doing so must enhance the experience, since I doubt many people still play their old versions once they've picked up the new. But when something like the actual gameplay doesn't stand the test of time (something once innovative is now meh) the game is forgotten.


 
Eh the HD rereleases don't even make them look entirely "modern", just slightly better.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 19, 2013)

Sitting here I am going to have to pick at your points Foxchild.

Some of the rereleases have been horrible though that is not a terribly new concept (back in the day when porting actually meant something....). Silent Hill, the Tony Hawk HD game (I have since played it.....) and a many a handheld compilation or port that was actually adapted will attest to that one.

Actual gameplay and the test of time. First I think I will go with one of the ideas in games of them getting too complex (if going for the visual metaphor the progression of controllers is a good one) might play into this. Granted it says little about "test of time".
Similarly several games have been sideported, modded/hacked to fix issues or remade in new engines or corrected in later releases (sometimes at a cost where the original designers realised the shortcomings and the remake adds new/later abilities which break the game at those points).

As for "forgotten" it seems what is popular, what is remembered and what is "remembered" despite if all those people played it then would have eclipsed the reasonable amount for the time seems somewhat arbitrary and almost certainly arbitrary in retrospect (I am banking on several of the "COD clones" being remembered fondly in a decade or so for although they did improve upon the formula it was not enough to overcome burnout).


----------



## xwatchmanx (Apr 19, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Eh the HD rereleases don't even make them look entirely "modern", just slightly better.


All it really does is keep them from looking like shit on HDTVs.


----------



## Foxchild (Apr 20, 2013)

> All it really does is keep them from looking like shit on HDTVs.


 
True that.

What I'm thinking about is whether a game is still fun to play/worth playing 10-15 years later.  What is it that gives a game longevity?  It's almost inevitable that the graphics and control interface are going to show their age eventually.  I know the game companies decide which games to reincarnate into HD based on $$$, but not the modders and hackers out there doing it for nothing.  Plus, there are plenty of classics that will continue to survive without needing to be updated.  Personal preference and nostalgia are probably both factors in deciding which games are worth keeping, as well as being strong enough in other areas (story/characters, gameplay mechanics, etc.) that aging elsewhere can be forgiven.  What do you think?

Also, when will there be an HD rerelease of the Atari 2600's Adventure?


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 20, 2013)

Control schemes showing their age.....

Now many of the 3d cameras, especially those before we moved to proper dual sticks, will not hold up favourably and doubly so since we have still not come close to making a proper camera for a 3d game let alone back then. Still Zelda style z targeting worked OK for a lot of things, RE4 stop and shoot and straight over the shoulder locked camera all do well enough with proper level design.

This is probably where your 10-15 years comment comes into play though as the N64 is going on 17 years old now (about this time in June 1996 in Japan), the PS1 is a couple of years old give or take a few months and early mainstream full 3d was shockingly poor at holding up. Even worse if they tried something like you might see in modern games (resident evil works well enough though that was prerendered, vagrant story I can still play, MediEvil on the PS1 I can still enjoy but that was also a dual shock game).

Back on controls

Platform was a solved problem more or less coming into the NES and master system in terms of home consoles, was doing OK ish on the PC before then and even on the C64 it did OK. I will lump shmups in there as well.

Mouse and keyboard pretty much solved FPS and had done since around Quake and the ability to look up and down. That said even those that did not care quite so much for up and down did OK.

Driving. This depends if we are going 3d or top down/isometric. Arcades solved the latter years before and though the earlier attempts at full 3d (looking at many amiga efforts) the race to the horizon games more or less sorted that early on as well.

Flight games. Given we got to lament the passing of joysticks....

Now bad controls will probably always be bad controls (barring hackers coming along and fixing them of course*) but controls themselves have largely been a solved problem as long as the technology has been there to display it, which is basically forever though there will be milestones if you look at actual history.

*actually automated macros, programmable controllers and more existed even back in the day.


----------



## Rydian (Apr 20, 2013)

Joysticks are still a popular buy for players of Kerbal Space Program, at least.


----------

