Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
Rapporter dette indlæg
PS1 era started seeing a lot of stuff ported to Windows PCs, that with a simple fan patch or tool like DGVoodoo2 will run on PC usually with better performance and no texture warping. For example, the REBirth patches are a simple drag and drop dll file you can drop into certain PC versions of the first three Resident Evil games, and they'll play flawlessly on modern hardware. The Tomb Raider stuff have decompiled, patched, and recompiled exe files you can drag and drop in to make those play flawlessly on a modern PC, with full resolution and widescreen.
Often you'll also find closer to PC ports of PS1 era games on the Dreamcast. RE2, RE3, Soul Reaver, Episode 1 racer, Jedi Power Battles, and a lot more were ported to Dreamcast with almost all PC available improvements.
One thing I really enjoyed about playing RE3 on PC with the REBirth patch is they let me turn off door animations.
Game mechanics, including graphics have come a long way since retro games even though I would argue a lot of games today still carry at their base or in their core simplistic objectives like gameplay but....
Games have become more sophisticated too even including old PC games.
Time before that games, retro games certainly had their charms it's just in the current times I would rather play something that's more complex than just side scrolling through a level.
And yes I do include, even though if they are labeled "retro" modern or first FPS games in this sense because they at their core don't have to be labeled retro like old, even though if they are old... This is because,
FPS games are at their core still the same but do have more elevated worlds, lore ... basically a lot of aspects about them even the type or other types of games that they blend with like RPG/FPS and Survival/FPS etc.... It's not just FPS games that have evolved though.
Dungeon Crawlers are still being made today, I think at least and these are also very retro in their soul, just like FPS games are but... They do get more complex even if it's just regarding graphical fidelity where the content or the objectives (gameplay and objectives) still stay the same.
I don't mind that.
Like I don't mind retro games neither. Sometimes I even yearn for them seeing as I didn't really get the chance to play them too much as a kid, because of the transition that happened from consoles to PC's where PC's got much more viable and (became) readily available for individuals and families and there weren't any emulators for them, but more dedicated PC games and gaming in essence also changed I feel from what it once was when we consider old retro games for small consoles.
Even games on consoles changed due to hardware becoming more powerful I think.
At a point, considering history, so: at a point from then compared to now there is a sort of "falloff''; a threshold that occurs where after a point you simply can't go back I feel.
This is the case when it comes for instance to wanting to play old RPG games or old Dungeon Crawlers because the lack of really pure or good ones today (or just a lack of full stop) and then but you can't go back because ones that are old are just so basic that it becomes hard to "live'' like to reside in that world. I've actually had this a lot with again: Dungeon Crawlers, some of which are just so good in their soul.
...at their core.
Graphics aren't mechanics. They are fluff. And as such more and more companies have focused on that because games have become more hollow. Just look at how many third person cover shooter "story driven" crap there is now like TLOU, Far Cry, new Tomb Raiders... This isn't more sophisticated, it's copy-paste to chase the profit margins of a common denominator.
Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 actually had a unique style of game play to them with fun mechanics that got stripped from the series just to make it guess what?... another mediocre third person cover shooter most people get bored of before completing.
You're not wrong though even if most of it is nostalgia.
I do have a couple of CRTs but whne I'm sat in bed playing on whatever I've got setup I usually can't be bothered.
And certain consoles not only look better through CRT but actually are a pain with a modern LCD or whatever. I frequently play the PS2 and even though I use component (and yes, I've tried upscaling too) it can make my eyes water in time as it just doesn't look great.
I think it's becuase it sharpens up the imagery in one respect but leaves it dull texture wise especially it just makes your eyes water easily.
Doesn't happen on a CRT as it's all more level.
Mind you, on the other hand some older consoles like the Atari look bloody good on LCD. Or at least better. Can't really call that good.
yeah but that's considering modern overkill of graphical fidelity and no content, like someone said: "no soul'' and yeah so I do agree but I also have to disagree with where you say that graphics aren't a mechanic.
Theoretically no they aren't but as with also what you hint at and what I hopefully nailed to describe is that graphics are fluff. Yeah but what if graphics are an integral part of gameplay and game mechanics where again if for one there is balance between the two, graphics certainly add to the whole of experience nearly as if they themselves were mechanics (remember, mechanics also consist of graphics) and then also...
Um...
Yeah just was about to repeat myself I think but no so I do want to enlighten or highlight a little bit at least the importance of graphics like in modern games but be it considering that there is a certain balance hit, like forged and not again that it's just all fluff.
I'd rather play a good graphically intense game if I can say it that way with great (game and gameplay) mechanics as if from games of old than just to play an old game that has none.
That is rare I think. Hence why I mostly agree with you but also hope that you allow me to disagree at least in some ways or way.
Like...
What else are graphics but mechanics and but what else than forgotten this has become, in modern day games?
I could give an example. Gore. Graphical. Intense. Mechanical.
Maybe not so useful but still. Very additive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRXigbgqtOc
Addictive to the game and the experience. Mechanics.
(*just for clarity, gore isn't the only example of graphics like mechanics, I think)
It doesn't sharpen up the imagery, it actually softens it up, but what you notice is that a CRT doesn't have fixed pixel spacing. This means 256 horizontal pixels can be evenly spaced to fill that 4:3 (which would be roughly 320 wide) space. You can't do that on an LCD because pixel spacing is fixed.
What happens on an LCD when you try to force a 256x224 8:7 image into a 320x240 4:3 space is some of those pixels get doubled, others do not. Which one gets doubled, and which ones don't depends on the upscaling filter used. Some filters will look at two possible pixel colors/brightness and average them out. When this happens, it blurs the intended image.
The problem is, most emulators are set up to do this by default because of an often misguided concept that games were INTENDED to look horizontally stretched to 4:3, which, after testing countless games for 8:7 consoles like SNES, NES, TG16, PS1, I've discovered that this is not true. Those games were designed to fit 8:7 (which was the NTSC standard), and the stretch people got used to was just something they got used to.
But that's what several modern games do, fidelity overkill to compensate for a lack of pretty much everything else. I can use Resident Evil 3 as an example. The remake is superior in fidelity in every way. But game play is complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The original was 480p with fixed camera angles, game play is superior in every way. Capcom didn't care about gameplay, they cared about selling a remake and used that fidelity overkill to do it.
Skyrim is ranked as the best Elder Scrolls game mostly by people who have never played another. Morrowind and Oblivion both destroy it for story, gameplay, mechanics, and freedom.
It's nothing more than dangling a shiny set of keys over a toddler in the state modern gaming is in. That's why were seeing remake after remake after remake. The industry has stagnated.
Or at least nobody's efectively proven it.
I've seen it claimed MANY times that graphics are something like this, but the reality is for the most part you won't notice after a short while of playing because your brain gets used to it.
In other words you THINK it's important but it ain't because the brain's funny like that. It LOVES to fill in gaps.
Let me give you an example - have you ever heard people who grew up with a ceertain older video games system and haven't played that game or system in years? They go back to it and say the magic words "I don't remember it looking as bad as that"
You see the point? Your brain fills in the blanks and makes it seem like it was far better than reality.
I've tested this to some degree in gaming groups where we'd do things like this - get a game and stick someone down playing it for 10 minutes, then they'd walk away for a break, then return. Unbeknownst to them we'd reduce the fidelity loads and they wouldn't notice.
So no after a while you get comfortable and it fools you. As for it being a mechanic, nah, I've never seen evidence of that at all.
Honestly, I literally: LOVE the old Resident Evil Sprite based 3D pre-rendered background, tense gameplay having.....
Yeah.
In our lives, in our world we often hear: too much of anything.... well you know how the saying goes, like "too much of something isn't good" in essence but yeah.
Sometimes indeed, I yearn for something, anything retro. Retro but minus its downsides so to say.
And why not just elders get into 2023 mindset?
I definitely remember that. And it's not a CRT vs LCD thing but a brain thing. Some of it is the tint of nostalgia, but it's also the normalization of different looks. When I did an HD texture pack, widescreen hack, 60fps hack, and run Conker's Bad Fur Day at 1080p60.... it was just to make it look as good as I thought I remembered it looking.
Retro gaming is the future and only hope for pc gaming, with all newfound trends, state of games being released, modern game models, complexity of gameplay, content structure (ex entire expansions instead of numerous scattered little pieces that use to be overpriced too) and last but not least, aspect priorities (like story, gameplay, soundtrack >>> graphics) etc.
Hidden gems and silent hits like Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight, the Messenger, Dead Cells, Stardew Valley and numerous other titles, prove just that. Everybody sees the value in those and admits their superiority, even much younger people to the ones that played their spiritual predecessors once upon a time.
An experience. Presence, time. Passage of time, memory and recollection and ultimately a rendezvous.
There is a notion in science I guess, I don't know I am not learned but there is this notion like well basically which describes what is the ability of the brain to adapt to situations in order to overcome them, in essence as a goal for the being to survive. This is present from an evolutionary standpoint, it has been coded and wired over and over and over again in us, in our brains that it has become a part of our being. It has essentially become mechanical, integral. I think due to this like say the ability of the mind to hallucinate we therefore are relatively easy to fool and we ourselves fool ourselves by making up things as we go along.... Facts get deluded, the truth becomes obscure.
That is so, because we are used so much to the fact that we simply trust what we perceive but this coupled with the notion of imagination which can be at times tangible as reality itself at least when it's combined with the passage of time and memory and memories of an experience that we had in the past…
For one doesn't take away from the fact that there is a whole world around us and inside of us that we aren't familiar with but which in an instinctual sense we poses a portion of because we would in let's say 3 out of 5 cases act in a way that would represent that which we stand for. That which we know without knowing so to speak. Something that we through our actions would repeat regardless if the description around it has changed, regardless if environment has changed, regardless if we are aware of what we are doing.
Principally we would thus act the same way even if the or a situation is different, we would do as we are in a sense used to. Not so much in the way as what or how we have learned to act but rather how we know we should act. There are possibilities here like, we could act one way, we know that through learning to be moral we ought to act a way but in this sense I think that learning is not always the most solid of things, like it's not as clear as it seems what it entails. What learning means is more than just taking something at face value we think is right and we know is right but there is also, next to an individual sense an instinctual sense about learning that doesn't come from external values but is rather in a hereditary sense available to us from a time before we were even able to learn.
For instance sometimes we know something without knowing its description or how it works. It is familiar to us and we can work with it, we instinctually and reflexively can manipulate "it''. We know how to use it.
In essence what I am trying to describe at least in the way that I see it is that objectivity in this sense of adapting, applying doesn't always matter the idea is simply: to do. To act. To experience. Success in this sense isn't always the objective.
Relevant to that idea or maybe ideas is for instance that 9 out of 10 times we would do the same thing but 1 out of those 10 times there is a chance that we will do something different, something unexpected which could also bring about unexpected beneficial results which also on by itself would be considered: a success. Also. We could do it in such a way that it would become or mean a failure but this doesn't take away from the idea that if we repeat something enough times there is a chance that we will stumble upon a realization that could potentially question our whole basis of understanding.
This is more profound in other "fields'' than just being an average civilian or person I think because we as people aren't so steadfast to keep trying something and keep trying something and to keep trying it. In this sense we fail to be and to become an instrument and then we start to rely provided that there are such tools, we start to rely on external aids as it were that make our lives seemingly easier.
After all to try and to try again and never to see the point but then to use a tool which will guarantee we will know exactly that which we fail to see by ourselves becomes not just convenient at a point it, itself becomes the truth, the way we perceive the world and the tools that we use to perceive the world in the process starting to overlook or forget to look from within.
In the sense of graphics in this instance to play a game at a point in your life and then over a long time to come back to it and then to start noticing that indeed it; the game has been idealized by us to a point that the whole of the experience literally: everything about the game or the experience or the memory of the experience of the game then is so exaggerated up to a point that everything we said we saw, everything we thought to think: everything we know or thought we knew about it to be proven wrong.
That is not so much science on by itself it is just the folly of our ways, the shortcoming of being human it would seem.
That we are objectively wrong about the fact that we at the time of playing have had a certain experience or notion thereof and then by not repeating that experience frequently we sort of started to fill in the gaps over time and glorified the game to a point that it; the game isn't itself anymore, that it isn't even true anymore, which we become aware of when we come around to experience that game again.
Times change. Things change. Graphics and content changes. Perception in this sense changes over time at least in the sense of what we beget to be used to.
But then for instance for that game to be remade, let's say just purely in the graphical sense; something that happens I would say frequently in our modern time, here and now and then in this new form for the game to once again spark us in the same way that it has done in the past proves to me at last that for one we aren't always wrong when we refer to a nostalgic notion of a past experience in which nostalgia itself is or becomes a tool. Nostalgia is after all not some external factor but it in essence is or are our senses.
Graphics that are an actual mechanic that matter in the interaction between the player and the "it''; the game.
Games are something new. Interface between reality and our brain which are our senses have then suddenly gained a new layer. A graphical layer we could deposit.
Graphics or graphical on by itself It's maybe not a gameplay mechanic like the core of the gameplay that you play the game or experience the game through but in this sense of how you interact with the game IS a mechanic in the sense of how we experience the gameplay and thus the game that we are stuck on between this layer of reality and our brain which our senses then go through in order to perceive the game as a whole with its different mechanics. Mechanics like gameplay but also mechanics like audio and the visual aspect of the game. Little things like items in game and the player character but also how the game looks which to me is almost or basically as good as a gameplay mechanic because again then.
Experiencing an old game as it is now. That is never the same as how it was. Would this make us realize that for some reason we have changed so much that even the idea of revisiting or experiencing that old game becomes unappealing. Or would it make us realize that the appeal of what we have experienced before lies in the fact that we have experienced it then and not now?
Hmm, okay. But then...
When an old game gets remade. Remade in such a fashion that the gameplay of the game stays the same, the game mechanics are identical but just the game is made like in a new and so: modern game engine that fits in the current time and technological frame in and so is intended for to be played and experienced on and through modern hardware is the moment that when we start playing that old game again in a new form we fall in love with that game again.
Then, we remember. What it was that appealed so much to us back then and we can see it now because the game has gotten overhauled with modern graphics.
It's possible. It happens. I have experienced this, even though I hadn't played that remade game a lot since that time it resparked in me, I still have had immerse respect for it and through this technological reformation I also have gotten a newfound vision and recognize once again what the game was and what it is now and how it's relevant to my perception without having to imagine how it once was.
This notion proves that nostalgia isn't just a bygone notion of a time gone by which would make it meaningless because that time that is now gone can never be retained but also because we don't or rarely consider that the times themselves back then were different.
For example.
If we say that the game that we have known and remember is great because it was at the time experienced as such, being great and then playing that same game again in this time might reveal that it's really archaic. It's irrelevant it seems.
But why? Because it looks old? Does it play or does it feel old, no? Hmm, that is interesting….
So but one way of proving that it still could be relevant or even is for instance is if we reinstall this game on the hardware of the time, we don't play it on LCD monitors, we don't use modern peripherals… Use CRT monitors perhaps old IBM keyboards which are mechanical admittedly but… okay so maybe not everyone had them back then for some reason or failed to realize what mechanical means in this sense of transferring through the interface into the computor but okay… we had a generic membrane/rubber dome keyboard and a ball mouse.
We used the old game on that setup. Even though the bygone times are now gone and our perceptions have changed and have gotten used to the comforts of modern life, I think that via this way.
This perception of the game being bad changes, it can. Not considering or taking into account that our standards have changed and we have adapted to them and can't stand to bare how slow or ugly or lacking that old game is, portrayed or projected on the scale of that bygone time then the game hasn't changed. At last it hasn't changed much but something is still missing in order to add to our preception, one perception of the game that hasn't changed. Times have changed. Our notion of what is relevant has changed since that time.
The game hasn't changed. It CAN and when it does though, when the game changes like through a remaster (Diablo 2 Resurrected, I am looking at you) for instance then…. THEN we know that for instance.
On one hand this: It proves that graphics can be perceived as a, and I wouldn't here say (graphics) are a literal core game mechanic perhaps not in the sense of graphics being a gameplay mechanic as an actual thing but rather are sort of more abstract mechanics in terms of (more figuratively speaking) game mechanics in the sense of how we start to perceive this old but new game or new but old game in the sense that it, looking through this lens of graphics which act like the framework for the game where the experience becomes real as time is real as a passage from one to another point even though we don't see that because we simply can't but is non the less true; we can only imagine it and through some calculations there is a way to prove this, that that is actually real and it's 3 dimensional. We therefore don't say that time is a linear tunnel through space but rather we say that time is time or time passes. In this sense. Graphics are graphics. Like the audio is like the level design like the textures like the imaginary tools that we use in games like the avatar that we are but aren't really, because none of it matters. What matters is the experience itself. The game as a whole matters and all aspects of the game are relevant and are mechanical in nature. Just like time is. Time that passes.
All of these aspects are inherit to the game as a whole and therefore all aspects are the sum of their parts.
Like, times used to be different there weren't many games out there like that, as a matter of fact that old game was the original, first of its kind and when it came out it really resonated with me and the feeling I got from playing it is unmatched even to this day… 20/30/40 years after and I can't even start to describe it, how beautiful it looks in this modern day with modern graphics and how the game mechanics that are the same as they were before are still holding up great and even though unchanged, are still relevant and wonderful and so on…
And so on.
Irony is that most people can't express themselves when it comes to this or things like this. They don't stand still at it, don't care or think it's too much to bother so that then when someone says to them: "you are just being nostalgic about it, deal with it'' they go like.
Mmm. Yeah, you're right.
So no but then, on the other hand,
I've always despised these kinds of things though where people are in a way lured to behave in a certain way to prove that their subjectivity is objectively wrong. In effect to prove themselves stupid.
These kinds of "tests" or experiments are illusionary on by themselves. It's all merely psychological and if you dig back to what I've said about hallucinations, it. Is psychological. It doesn't have to do with the real world more than to imagine being a hunter in the wild and hiding in the bush in order to catch your pray so that you and your potential family of caveman can have a dinner. In modern times.
Like it was somewhere an element and what you see through your tests and experiments are mere remnants of it. Remnants of that psychology, which also isn't false necessarily it's just different. So much so to wonder are tests like that relevant for the future for what will we know by then or rather said: what will we not know?
Even though people may act in the wrong way there is no way to prove that their subjective experience is anything but that and again objectively they might, people might act differently like even to contradict themselves but again considering there is something like an inner world which over time gets overridden by many, many notions that society devises this touch with the self waters down, it becomes ''alien'' but...
It is, in my humble opinion not to say that it's not true. We have to explore this but we can't. We have to get out of the box, but we can't. We have to progress but we can't. We must try, but we can't. It's far too comfortable in here, living like this, being like this and so on. Truth is true even in the sense of subjective experience being as tangible as objectivity objectifies things to be.
For instance this is evident in the notion that all the things that there are in the world go through this brain-reailty interface filter, where we attribute meaning to things but ultimately we never ask ourselves are we right by doing this?
For. World is much bigger and wider in scope, higher deeper all of the above than our mere senses can sense and objectively experience and computers I think, computer like tools are a good measure to prove this fact. We can not know everything neither do we do so and furthermore we know but like a mere 0,00000000001% of reality because we ourselves recognize this... by ourselves.
Like what makes us so sure that what we have learned is any sort of truth like what is the fabric of reality? If it weren't for very finite measuring instruments like tools we wouldn't even know about the fabric of space and would just assume that whatever we imagine is true, whatever we say is the truth while in reality I think the point of life is to learn, to keep learning but also to question and keep questioning every convention perceived.
This is perhaps why some people who dare to imagine, while others are not, are shunned by just not being understood.
I don't know ultimately if graphics are a mechanic but that certainly, somewhere seems true to me for if there were no graphics.
If a game only consisted of a grid without containing textures we surely would notice that?
So you can keep removing, peeling back layers to the point that the individual believes that a thing is true just because it appears so but take away everything and even then somewhere.... We would question of, is or was the thing that we remember truly as basic as this?
Even though if we don't see it like even if we don't realize this.
Many things have been said and much has been written about this such as: Plato's allegory of the cave. Plato who also way before instruments and precise instruments had a hunch, I guess, that atoms are a thing.
1 : no new old. pc hardware is being made despite it could be done for pennies with todays production capacity.
2 : still working old hardware stocks are depleting cause of idiots scrapping it for resourcesm
3 : a handfull of maniacks have hoarded hundreds of old systems.. and are not selling any..
4 : many who never gamed in that era want to experience it.. bloody hipsters drive prices up.
I sold my system in 2005 for 20 euro.. to a poor person who did not have any pc..
**pentium 4 3200mhz
**4gb 133mhz dram
**360gb hd ide 7200rom
**geforce 2 500ti / voodoo 4 4500 agp (i owned both)
**creative audigy platinum
**plextor 16x8x48x cdrw
**pioneer 16x56x dvd
**floppydrive
**10/100/1000 ethernet
**21 inch crt triniton flatline 1600x1200
what I would not give to own it again.. these parts are imposdible to find now and likely it would cost nearly 10000 euro to get them all even if you did.