3D games that are aging very well

[RCBH928]

Mario 64 amazing still looks pleasing..

I think most games from last generation (ps2/xbox/gc) will always look good.
I think they came to a level where realism and graphics match well enough. Sure the newer generations will eat them for breakfast, but they still look good.
I guess last generation for 3D is like Snes/Genesis for 2D. I think no one will look at 2D snes/genesis game and think WOW that is horrible graphics(Unless the graphics sucked in its time)

I got a question I don't have clear memory but I remember it was cool back then when they made things 3D and like real life for example tomb raider and Resident Evil. Now I look at them and I think "OH MY EYES", how that is possible? Was I only a kid? Will we look at UNcharted and think "OH MY EYES" in the future?
Or was it just so amazing compared to what was there in that time?

[DCsegaDH]

I agree,I don't think that most people will think last generation systems look bad.The newer systems don't get that much improved its just details now.I remember when PS came out I thought it was so advanced at the time,now I can't believe I thought that.

[elvis]

Ridge Racer Type 4 and Tekken 3 both still look very appealing to me, given their age and hardware limitations. I think both are excellent examples of doing the most with limited 3D hardware.

[ZeroAX]

I wonder how the future will see the current gray/brown generation.

[MrPopo]

I wonder how the future will see the current gray/brown generation.

It'll be amusing to see. I remember in earlier generations having this much drab was considered the hallmark of a poor game.

[Ack]

Soul Calibur still looks good, in my opinion.

I got a question I don't have clear memory but I remember it was cool back then when they made things 3D and like real life for example tomb raider and Resident Evil. Now I look at them and I think "OH MY EYES", how that is possible? Was I only a kid? Will we look at UNcharted and think "OH MY EYES" in the future?
Or was it just so amazing compared to what was there in that time?

I think it was just based around what we were used to at the time. Since we'd never experienced anything better, it looked really good. Now though, we revisit those titles and realize just how limited they were compared to what we've seen recently. There are even a few games I just generally can't bare to look at, as it physically hurts my eyes. Sadly Chrono Cross does this to me.

[ZeroAX]

also SD looks shit in HD tvs. I blame the makers, couldn't they put a SD mode?

[Pingfa]

As far as graphics go, Jedi Knight Academy may not be very technically impressive by current standards, but it looks nice and clean. Some of the best models I've seen have been made for JKA.

Besides that, I also find it very replayable - I usually end up uninstalling it eventually but always end up going back to it.

[jfrost]

I got a question I don't have clear memory but I remember it was cool back then when they made things 3D and like real life for example tomb raider and Resident Evil. Now I look at them and I think "OH MY EYES", how that is possible? Was I only a kid? Will we look at UNcharted and think "OH MY EYES" in the future?
Or was it just so amazing compared to what was there in that time?

I think it was just based around what we were used to at the time. Since we'd never experienced anything better, it looked really good. Now though, we revisit those titles and realize just how limited they were compared to what we've seen recently. There are even a few games I just generally can't bare to look at, as it physically hurts my eyes. Sadly Chrono Cross does this to me.

Virtua Racing was quite innovative, but I still thought it looked like shit when compared with the smooth 2D graphics I had on other games. I don't recall anyone saying that the game looked amazing, just that it was a big step forward. Might be wrong, though.

[MrPopo]

also SD looks shit in HD tvs. I blame the makers, couldn't they put a SD mode?

The vast majority of TV purchasers only deal with the following on a regular basis: TV, DVDs, and maybe a recent console. The recent consoles output HD. The upscalers are designed with TV broadcasts in mind, so those look fine. Similarly the DVDs get a decent upscale, since they're similar to the TV signal. Consumer-grade real-time computer graphics are an entirely different beast from digital captures of the real world, so making your TV look good for one is different from making it look good for the other. It gets worse when you consider the different kinds of retro signals. You've got the 240p and the 480i, both of which need to be processed in different ways to upscale to a 720 or 1080 display. It's a lot of effort on the TV manufacturers' end to satisfy a small segment of their user-base. Instead you get companies like Micomsoft who come out with niche products like the XRGB-3. The XRGB costs $300. Let's say that if we wanted to put that technology in a TV it would raise the price of the TV by $200. Do you think the average consumer would see that as worth the increase?