4 ms·

The problem is that 3D often doesn't tend to age well, as polygon count, texture mapping, terrain sculpting, particle effects and other graphics fidelity has be

The problem is that 3D often doesn't tend to age well, as polygon count, texture mapping, terrain sculpting, particle effects and other graphics fidelity has been consistently and rapidly improving over the past 20 years or so. That doesn't mean that it makes the games less enjoyable, necessarily, but certain art styles are just better at conveying timelessness. At some point we'll probably reach a certain peak level of graphics that can simply be considered "good enough" for most purposes henceforth (Have we already?), but in general investing too much in graphics for production purposes over tech demos and research, is often shaky.

falcolas 11y ago
> The problem is that 3D often doesn't tend to age well, as polygon count, texture mapping, terrain sculpting, particle effects and other graphics fidelity has been consistently and rapidly improving over the past 20 years or so. This hasn't stopped Mario 3D, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, or Final Fantasy VII from becoming classics, despite being some of the first games in the 3D space. > That doesn't mean that it makes the games less enjoyable, necessarily, but certain art styles are just better at conveying timelessness. However, that art style is not pixel art. I've gone back and tried to play some of the pixelated stars from the past - they don't age well on modern display devices. From their 40pt fonts, to their pixels which actually look worse on LCD monitors than they did on our old CRT TVs. They are still classics, and frequently enjoyable, but in many ways they require a bit of context to understand why they were such classics.
- pmarin 11y ago
  >However, that art style is not pixel art. I've gone back and tried to play some of the pixelated stars from the past - they don't age well on modern display devices. From their 40pt fonts, to their pixels which actually look worse on LCD monitors than they did on our old CRT TVs. I have a stash of bulky crt monitors and TVs for this reason. They are almost free nowadays.
Zardoz84 11y ago
Look to DooM, perhaps is the 3d game that age better that any other.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Actually, DOOM isn't pure 3D at all. The graphics are 2D sprites and your field of view is strictly limited to a 2D plane, but the use of isomorphic projection and billboarding techniques are used to create depth. That's why it's timeless.
  - aqme28 11y ago
    This applies to every proper 3D game though (excepting VR) > "...your field of view is strictly limited to a 2D plane, but the use of isomorphic projection and billboarding techniques are used to create depth"
    - Zardoz84 11y ago
      Read this : http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine
  - banachtarski 11y ago
    Everybody uses billboarding techniques and 2d sprites and stuff. We're just a lot better at it now than before.
    - Zardoz84 11y ago
      Again, read this : http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine The original DooM engine isn't based on billboarding.
      - banachtarski 11y ago
        Why did you attach it to me instead of the OP who made the original claim?
dspillett 11y ago
> The problem is that 3D often doesn't tend to age well We are well past the point where it explicitly ages badly though. HL2 still looks pretty good IMO and that is past a decade old. A few years ago you couldn't say that about many decade old games. No 3D game released now that doesn't look terrible to start with is going to look hideous against what-ever is modern in a decade's time - it won't look as good of course, there will various bits of flair/realism/detail/what-ever missing somewhere, and the uncanny valley and such effects will be more noticeable, but it'll be perfectly playable and if the game is good the lesser graphics won't make it any less good. Going back to HL2, if you compare it to Bioshock Infinite you can see the improvements in technology over the years, but it sill just looks less refined, not bad, and the differences don't affect immersion much (I would argue that BSI is more immersive, but that is mainly due to the design improvements (the whole but: art, music, story, ...) and not really due to the graphical improvements on their own).
Too 11y ago
2D doesn't always age that well either, try to play Diablo II or Starcraft 1. I promise it will not look the same way as you remember it. 3d can age well also, Warcraft III still looks better than most modern games, it might not have dynamic lightning, shadows, etc but the overall impression is just stunning. Warcraft III is such a great example of how make sure the 3D isn't working against you, both from gameplay and visual perspective. The camera angle is always fixed which means they can optimize the way characters look from that particular angle, not like sims 3d where you can zoom in and around and end up looking at an untextured ceiling. This also makes it much easier to design the gameplay such as selection and control of characters because there is only one scenario to cater for, instead of twisting the camera to select a character behind a building/mountain you simply design the game so that characters can't be hidden behind mountains. Other 3d RTS games from that era(probably today as well) made the mistake of thinking we haz 3d!!!1 now the player should be able to move around everywhere which just can only end with infinite bad camera angles instead of one good one.
- mercurial 11y ago
  > 2D doesn't always age that well either, try to play Diablo II or Starcraft 1. I promise it will not look the same way as you remember it. One of the main issues with 2D is the fixed resolution. If you can live with that, it's not bad. I actually played D2 again a few years ago and really enjoyed it. Same for Planescape Torment.
  - aaaaabbbbbb 11y ago
    Pixel art has problems with the fixed resolutions of modern displays (which CRTs lacked), yeah, but vector art and/or high-resolution but (relatively) sparsely-detailed/stylized 2D art can be effectively scaled to a wide range of resolutions with minimal artifacts.
RobertKerans 11y ago
Yeah, I get this - obviously it's game-dependent (and there are exceptional examples that have aged well, as pointed out by others), but I generally find this game-breakingly noticeable when I've tried to play older 3D games. I was at a games exhibition recently which had a huge collection of playable historic games, and the one that really stood out was Tomb Raider, which was almost almost impossible to play, the graphics are just horrific. But more recently, I tried to play Fallout on the PS3, and gave up, mainly because of the graphics. I felt the same about Skyrim. Compared to something like LA Noire on the PS3, the gulf in graphics was huge. The more I think about it, it's not as much the graphics per se that age things terribly, it's how populated the world is, and how reactive it is to player actions. GTA2, for example, is still quite a lot of fun, and I found it much more playable than GTA3

falcolas 11y ago

> The problem is that 3D often doesn't tend to age well, as polygon count, texture mapping, terrain sculpting, particle effects and other graphics fidelity has been consistently and rapidly improving over the past 20 years or so. This hasn't stopped Mario 3D, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, or Final Fantasy VII from becoming classics, despite being some of the first games in the 3D space. > That doesn't mean that it makes the games less enjoyable, necessarily, but certain art styles are just better at conveying timelessness. However, that art style is not pixel art. I've gone back and tried to play some of the pixelated stars from the past - they don't age well on modern display devices. From their 40pt fonts, to their pixels which actually look worse on LCD monitors than they did on our old CRT TVs. They are still classics, and frequently enjoyable, but in many ways they require a bit of context to understand why they were such classics.

pmarin 11y ago
>However, that art style is not pixel art. I've gone back and tried to play some of the pixelated stars from the past - they don't age well on modern display devices. From their 40pt fonts, to their pixels which actually look worse on LCD monitors than they did on our old CRT TVs. I have a stash of bulky crt monitors and TVs for this reason. They are almost free nowadays.

Zardoz84 11y ago

Look to DooM, perhaps is the 3d game that age better that any other.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Actually, DOOM isn't pure 3D at all. The graphics are 2D sprites and your field of view is strictly limited to a 2D plane, but the use of isomorphic projection and billboarding techniques are used to create depth. That's why it's timeless.
- aqme28 11y ago
  This applies to every proper 3D game though (excepting VR) > "...your field of view is strictly limited to a 2D plane, but the use of isomorphic projection and billboarding techniques are used to create depth"
  - Zardoz84 11y ago
    Read this : http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine
- banachtarski 11y ago
  Everybody uses billboarding techniques and 2d sprites and stuff. We're just a lot better at it now than before.
  - Zardoz84 11y ago
    Again, read this : http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_rendering_engine The original DooM engine isn't based on billboarding.
    - banachtarski 11y ago
      Why did you attach it to me instead of the OP who made the original claim?

dspillett 11y ago

> The problem is that 3D often doesn't tend to age well We are well past the point where it explicitly ages badly though. HL2 still looks pretty good IMO and that is past a decade old. A few years ago you couldn't say that about many decade old games. No 3D game released now that doesn't look terrible to start with is going to look hideous against what-ever is modern in a decade's time - it won't look as good of course, there will various bits of flair/realism/detail/what-ever missing somewhere, and the uncanny valley and such effects will be more noticeable, but it'll be perfectly playable and if the game is good the lesser graphics won't make it any less good. Going back to HL2, if you compare it to Bioshock Infinite you can see the improvements in technology over the years, but it sill just looks less refined, not bad, and the differences don't affect immersion much (I would argue that BSI is more immersive, but that is mainly due to the design improvements (the whole but: art, music, story, ...) and not really due to the graphical improvements on their own).

Too 11y ago

2D doesn't always age that well either, try to play Diablo II or Starcraft 1. I promise it will not look the same way as you remember it. 3d can age well also, Warcraft III still looks better than most modern games, it might not have dynamic lightning, shadows, etc but the overall impression is just stunning. Warcraft III is such a great example of how make sure the 3D isn't working against you, both from gameplay and visual perspective. The camera angle is always fixed which means they can optimize the way characters look from that particular angle, not like sims 3d where you can zoom in and around and end up looking at an untextured ceiling. This also makes it much easier to design the gameplay such as selection and control of characters because there is only one scenario to cater for, instead of twisting the camera to select a character behind a building/mountain you simply design the game so that characters can't be hidden behind mountains. Other 3d RTS games from that era(probably today as well) made the mistake of thinking we haz 3d!!!1 now the player should be able to move around everywhere which just can only end with infinite bad camera angles instead of one good one.

mercurial 11y ago
> 2D doesn't always age that well either, try to play Diablo II or Starcraft 1. I promise it will not look the same way as you remember it. One of the main issues with 2D is the fixed resolution. If you can live with that, it's not bad. I actually played D2 again a few years ago and really enjoyed it. Same for Planescape Torment.
- aaaaabbbbbb 11y ago
  Pixel art has problems with the fixed resolutions of modern displays (which CRTs lacked), yeah, but vector art and/or high-resolution but (relatively) sparsely-detailed/stylized 2D art can be effectively scaled to a wide range of resolutions with minimal artifacts.

RobertKerans 11y ago

Yeah, I get this - obviously it's game-dependent (and there are exceptional examples that have aged well, as pointed out by others), but I generally find this game-breakingly noticeable when I've tried to play older 3D games. I was at a games exhibition recently which had a huge collection of playable historic games, and the one that really stood out was Tomb Raider, which was almost almost impossible to play, the graphics are just horrific. But more recently, I tried to play Fallout on the PS3, and gave up, mainly because of the graphics. I felt the same about Skyrim. Compared to something like LA Noire on the PS3, the gulf in graphics was huge. The more I think about it, it's not as much the graphics per se that age things terribly, it's how populated the world is, and how reactive it is to player actions. GTA2, for example, is still quite a lot of fun, and I found it much more playable than GTA3