When we look at the PS3 like we look at the ATARI 2600....

[DNT 2.5]

Duck tape 12,800 atari consoles together and maybe it will become a PS3 by magic.

Or you can just hot glue 500 SNESes together. (or 300 MegaDrives)

PS3=

[newt42]

Duck tape 12,800 atari consoles together and maybe it will become a PS3 by magic.

Or you can just hot glue 500 SNESes together. (or 300 MegaDrives)

PS3=

Sony's gonna sue if they ever find out about this.

[GSZX1337]

Duck tape 12,800 atari consoles together and maybe it will become a PS3 by magic.

Or you can just hot glue 500 SNESes together. (or 300 MegaDrives)

PS3=

Can't wait for the redesign.

I'm of the 'school' that believes unless 3D has certain artistic merits it becomes dated quite quickly. This is why Reboot looks hideous compared to Toy Story. And this is why I wouldn't touch most 32/64-bit 3D games with a barge-pole. If designers wish their games to look timeless they can invest in a unique look that doesn't solely depend on the polygon pushing power of the consoles.

-imagesnip-

Which one do you think looks 'better'?

I agree with you on this point. I'd rather play NiGHTS than those PS2 pixel pushing games even though NiGHTS is more outdated. Low-Res textures, aliasing, and lower FPS just don't bother me when I'm staring at what I like to describe as "moving art". Out of those two images though, I pick Burning Rangers. Why? Because it's on fire, and I hate that game.

[CRTGAMER]

Actually, the lack of backwards PS2 compatibility draws comparisons to the Atari 5200, in my humble opinion. Hopefully we will someday see a new PS3 (or even PS4) with some forum of backwards compatibility (hopefully hardware, or at least improved software support). I'm not in the market for one right now, because I am not much of a Sony fan, but when I do finally purchase one; it is going to be one of the original released with PS2 backwards compatibility (hardware).

It's one thing to not offer any form of backwards support from the beginning, but its a whole 'nother thing to offer something and then needlessly steal it away. So in that respect, maybe it is even worse than what Atari decided to do when they designed the 5200.

Agree backwards compatibility is a must, but unfortunately looks like a lost technology.
Backwards compatibility was an add on sale tool to maintain customer loyalty.
Now older games are now being offered as downloads to clean out of your wallet.

Atari did come out with this:



I have one of these, basically a 2600 module that plugs in 5200 cart slot. 2600 controllers plug in the side of the module. Hated 5200 controllers, but love Robotron, Space Dungeon games with Wico replacements and the Atari Trakball with Centipede! The 7800 also is 2600 compatible.

[BoringSupreez]

I think 20 years from now, when we look at PS3, we won't think it looks bad because of how few pixels it has and that sort of thing, we'll be saying it looks lame because you can still tell at a glance it's not real life.

[lost_within]

I wont consider anythign from this generation out of date until I go...dude he just shot me in the head and it didnt even make me black out.

[CRTGAMER]

I think the 2600 will be remembered as the first console game machine, even though Ralph's Magnavox Odyssey came out first, along with numerous Pong Games.

The PS3 will probably remembered for the revolutionary graphics of its time, maybe remembered for the generation of first consoles that offered game downloads and hopefully forgotten yellow light of death.

[Limewater]

I don't think we'll ever look at the PS3 the way we now look at the 2600. From the NES era on, video game graphics could at least look passably like what they were supposed to represent. The 2600's extremely limited graphical capabilities meant that most games were necessarily abstract.

For example, if you didn't have any previous knowledge going into adventure, you probably would be able to identify any of the items or enemies except for possibly the key and the castles. Only from the castles could you even extrapolate that your character was supposed to be some sort of man and those duck things were dragons.

But from the NES days on, you could tell what things were supposed to represent pretty easily. If you never knew who Mario was, you could look at Super Mario Bros. and still figure out what everything was. Mario looks like a guy in dungarees. The fire flowers look like flowers. The goombas look like walking mushrooms. The Koopa Troopas look like turtles.

So, we'll never really look at the PS3 the same way as we currently look at the 2600.

[Kebo]

PS3 graphics will never be seen as Atari 2600 graphics, unless we literally transcend our human minds into something entirely different. In fact, PS3 graphics will most likely never be seen as even mediocre. They may lose their ability to impress, though.

Many games now consist of legitimately good artwork, as in, it's good outside of the game experience, rather than comparisons between generations. For example, Blazblue has a timeless quality to it. Most of us could never draw those sprites, much less animate them. This is similar to say, a cartoon such as The Little mermaid, which is now over 20 years old, but we don't look at it like we do a master system game. Once art reaches a certain level, it transcends its era and time. PS3 is pretty close to that border, for me, it won't ever look bad, for others it may. But it'll never be primitive.

I'm an awful artist. But I can draw better than atari games. I think that's why we look back at it the way we do. It's simpler than a simple doodle on a piece of paper. And even as primitive as NES graphics are, relative to what someone can do with pen and paper, there is an aesthetic quality to many of them. Super Mario Bros. 3 doesn't look 'bad'. Simplicity has its own merit, and this is true even in basic forms of artwork. N64/PS1 age poorly because of muddiness, fog, jaggies, stretched textures, low resolution, and so on.

Also, I will always value PS3 graphics over photorealism except in a few situations. Do people want photorealistic comics? Rarely. Do we want photorealistic Mario? I don't see why the increase in graphics is always assumed to be a good thing, artistically.

[slowslow325]

I think that like 3 generations of children down from me, a kid used to only playing the brand new holodeck stuff will not even to be able to tell what the stuff on screen of a 2600 is. They'll just look at it as a bunch of random pixels.