Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma
l2read because nowhere did I say that it was horrible in comparison to our standards.
|
Ok maybe -you- didn't say it explicity but I got that vibe from you that you're comparing it to more modern games and you mentioning your 2004 eyes isn't exactly helping because in 2004 we already had games like doom 3 which is a whole different ball park of graphics development already.
Suikoden is also not a great comparison because it was 99% 2D with 3D environments in battles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma
At the time Sony had totally outclassed them and it's funny to hear anyone try to say "oh but they did the best they could". The bottom line is that at the time the graphics sucked, and I don't care how you try to justify it. Game's fine but the visual aspect was horrendous even to my 2004 eyes. Jeez.
|
Sony had totally outclassed them? In terms of real-time rendered visuals? I don't think so..
Different art styles aside, the visual quality of them was really not -that- great as you make it out to be.
<---- I love MGS1 but they had no facial animations at all btw, they just nodded their head like a retard whenever they spoke
All of these were best-selling ps1 games from around the same time of release date or later than ocarina of time (with the exception of gran turismo, which was released as early as 1997 but w/e).
Now tell me again how Sony totally outclassed Nintendo.
Sure Sony dominated the market but that was because they catered to an audience that was previously not exactly catered to (hence games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk's pro skater sold so well) and their production costs were a bit cheaper cause of their use of CDs but that doesn't mean the ps1 was better in terms of graphics or gameplay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma
and technically you're part monkey but nobody cares enough to dispute it
|
What the fuck was your point with this?
