Fun Topic:Whats the worst graphics on a game you had played?

[RCBH928]

I have to say that low-poly is an art style in itself, and the companies that employed the best artists excelled. As games aged, there was the transition from low to high that was swapped out as the camera approached. Being born in the 80's I always tried to experience and understand the best that was available, and in 1991 when this came out it was Interactive 3D when every other computer only played pre-rendered vector playback demos. This could be played on mostly everyone's PC computer
3D VR experience - like the future Grand Theft Auto experience but not good enough to be a game.
Superscape VR

I agree that low-poly is an art style in itself, except its one of the most hated art styles. We have seen people create games mimicking retro graphics and there are those who think the Neo-Geo graphics look pleasing or Genesis, but no one likes low-poly.

[marurun]

Minecraft is super low-poly, sort of.

[RCBH928]

Minecraft is super low-poly, sort of.

I guess you are right, and I never liked its looks. I don't understand how everyone doesn't seem to be bothered by it, I get why everything is made out of squares, but why the low res. texture look?

[prfsnl_gmr]

I’m playing Mega Man Legends for the PS1 right now, and it actually looks pretty great, despite the low polygon counts. The bright colors and lengthy draw distances really help, and I think Capcom really knew how to manage PS1 resources. I was also shocked by how the graphics in the original Crash Bandicoot held up when I played through it last month, and Silent Bomber, another PS1 game I played this year, has also held up remarkably well.

[RCBH928]

I’m playing Mega Man Legends for the PS1 right now, and it actually looks pretty great, despite the low polygon counts. The bright colors and lengthy draw distances really help, and I think Capcom really knew how to manage PS1 resources. I was also shocked by how the graphics in the original Crash Bandicoot held up when I played through it last month, and Silent Bomber, another PS1 game I played this year, has also held up remarkably well.

They may still hold but I don't think its favored by anyone, unlike the 16-bit era(pixel graphics) where we have seen modern games like Stardew Valley implementing that look, no one is releasing a new game in low poly looks. I am specifically talking about 32-bit generation. There were a couple of FPS games released that were like a homage to 2000's FPS, I don't recall their names, but I am not sure if those are considered low poly. Would Quake and Duke Nukem be considered low poly?

[marurun]

IMO the major characteristic that defined 3D on the Saturn and especially PlayStation. Was jittery textures, warped textures, and snapping and popping of polygons. Basically, highly unstable 3D that was constantly in flux.

[samsonlonghair]

Yeah, a lot of PS1 games just looked like piles of Triangles. Even games that supposedly looked good, like FF7 just had pleasing cut scenes. The in-game art was crummy.

Take a look at trees in early PS1 games. They were oftentimes just two intersecting planes with the same bitmap applied to each plane. They looked more like paper cut out dioramas than living organisms.

[marurun]

As much a Saturn fanboy as I am, I can recognize that the PlayStation was more powerful and flexible at doing 3D. That said, the Saturn’s 3D did tend to look a tad more stable. Texturing was often messier, but textures were also a lot less twitchy and wiggly. And geometry often seemed a tad more solid, if simpler. But the N64 was really the first console that managed to make 3D work the way it is supposed to, with proper mipmapping and sub-pixel rendering.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Nothing wrong with FF7's art style imo. Even just technically speaking, people mentioning that one must not have played a lot of games of that era.

They may still hold but I don't think its favored by anyone

Well you've already been shown wrong here. Some also prefer 8-bit to 16-bit or 32-bit and beyond to 16-bit.

Oh and the loading seam, slowdown, lack of color and flicker totally defined NES graphics.

I didn’t write that! I like old PS1 graphics!

[RCBH928]

IMO the major characteristic that defined 3D on the Saturn and especially PlayStation. Was jittery textures, warped textures, and snapping and popping of polygons. Basically, highly unstable 3D that was constantly in flux.

Since those usually always come combined with low-poly, I may have been mixing the two. Can a game look good with low-poly but with stable 3D and high res. textures?idk

Yeah, a lot of PS1 games just looked like piles of Triangles. Even games that supposedly looked good, like FF7 just had pleasing cut scenes. The in-game art was crummy.

Take a look at trees in early PS1 games. They were oftentimes just two intersecting planes with the same bitmap applied to each plane. They looked more like paper cut out dioramas than living organisms.

The question is was this how they were perceived at the time or do we look back at them now and laugh at it?
I remember people thinking PSX graphics were realistic, and I am one of those people. Twisted Metal specifically gave me that shock.

Well you've already been shown wrong here. Some also prefer 8-bit to 16-bit or 32-bit and beyond to 16-bit.

Oh and the loading seam, slowdown, lack of color and flicker totally defined NES graphics.

I did say that people do still like 8-bit and 16-bit graphics looks. What I said is that I don't see that people like the low polygons which were the 32-bit.
and I agree about the NES graphics comment, it does add the extra feel.

Well you've already been shown wrong here. Some also prefer 8-bit to 16-bit or 32-bit and beyond to 16-bit.

Oh and the loading seam, slowdown, lack of color and flicker totally defined NES graphics.

I didn’t write that! I like old PS1 graphics!

Do you like them for nostalgic reasons or do you actually like the PSX graphics looks? As in, if they released a new game that looks like Medievil for psx would you think this game looks good?