this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
723 points (97.6% liked)
Gaming
3248 readers
63 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In crt they look great though
They looked better than in HD, but no one in their right mind thought that was peak performance. It was just better than anything we'd seen so far.
Child imagination and crt picture do wonders, while i agree with you that it wasn't peak performance, my childhood memories show me that this picture was way better than current AAA titles
Actually, the early 3D didn't look 'great' even on CRT. Particularly PS1 had affine texture mapping and a very "wobbly" low precision geometry operations, in addition to the obvious limitations of polygon count and texture resolution. It was "neat" and "novel" to see that be attempted, but it felt in some ways kind of like a step back from where 2D games had gotten by that point. Both visually and control wise (very awkward control/camera schemes were attempted back then).
Much of the "but it looks great on CRT" applies to pretty deliberately crafted pixel art given knowledge of how NTSC or PAL feeding into a CRT behaved. The artistic design knew precisely how it was going to be presented and used that for interesting tricks in how things got blurred (e.g. faux translucency by putting stripy sprites on top of each other and letting the blur fake the translucency). In the 3D land, the textures and models were going to be distorted before presentation so they couldn't do a lot of "leaning into the CRT" in their design. Consolation being that the hardware could now actually pull off the efects they were formerly relying on the CRT blur to pull off.
I'll second that... I always found PS1 3D games to be pure eye-cancer even when played on a CRT TV back in the day. N64 was good-but-not-great by comparison.
The first time I thought I was seeing real life on the screen was NFS3 on PC, which... well, looking back, I was clearly wrong, but it's decent-looking at least. The next time was when I briefly mistook my cousins playing NFL2K on Dreamcast for a Christmas day football game back in '99, and I feel like that generation of console (Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/OG XBox) is about where 3D games are, graphically at least, still palatable.
Yeah, pretty much right with you. N64 had the perspective correct texture mapping and more precise geometry calculation which did wonders for it to be good. The low geometry and tiny textures still made it like you said 'good, not great', and I'll concur that the generation you cited is the key part where I didn't feel like a step back from 2D games graphically.