- Joined
- Dec 9, 2021
It seems almost like it's equally a fallacy on the consumer's part and a cash grab on the developer's part to assume higher quality graphics means improved visuals. I remember this being a huge discussion after the Silent Hill HD collection released, the increased graphical quality really did those games a disservice aesthetically, they just looked dull and uncanny.That thumbnail highlights an important issue with upscaling older textures. It makes the game look MORE dated. GTA: The Trilogy: The DEFINITIVE Edition proves that in spades. Games don't need ray-tracing, "16x times the detail," uncanny reflections or 4K resolution to "look good." Consistency in art direction is everything.
Even some games that have been reworked from the ground up to be faithful yet graphically superior remakes fall short visually. Crash Bandicoot 2 and 3 from the N. Sane trilogy are good examples, the originals just look better aesthetically in spite of their inferior graphics. Colours and effects are more vivid and pleasing to look at in ways I find hard to describe. It's like the lower resolution, graphical fidelity and the limited use of lighting outside of certain stages that use it as mechanic meant they put a lot more effort in to making the colours pop and catch your eye when something significant is on screen. To then take these stages, objects and effects designed with these limitations and workarounds in mind and apply modern graphics, it can still look good but it can't beat the original design.
Edit: formatting