Early generation of 3D is depressingly bad.

Click here and disable ads!

Some time around 1994 to 1996, 2D sprites were reaching the peak of their quality and full 3D was just getting fashionable. The full 3D games made around that time - god, they are ugly. Yes, I am a graphics whore to a point. I can't deny it - but understand that I have had no problems with 2D games of 1980s and early 1990s, but early-1990s 3D is bad.

(At least Doom and Ultima Underworld have 2D sprites for enemies. I speak of full 3D games.)

I mean, I know that Alone in the Dark (1992) is a classic. A shame that I just can never get into or enjoy that game.

Look at it. It makes me eyes bleed.

Progress has to made somehow. Someone has to take the steps to get from there to here. Quake is only 3 years after AITD.

And AITD is not full 3D. It has 2D backdrops. Nor would I consider it a classic. A milestone in the development of 3d graphics and in the horror genre, yes. AITD2 is probably better deserving of the "classic" moniker.

I got headache from the likes of Jedi Knight and so.

3D is depressingly bad.
News at 11.

Lots of graphicswhores ITT, I am disappoint.

You will now get raped. Hard.

Without 3D we couldn't have ANY simulators, we couldn't have games like Homeworld, we couldn't have games with 3D exploration (including RPGs) and we couldn't have 3D shooters.
3D with proper 3D models also opens (alas unused) avenues when it comes to world interaction as it establishes the basis for physical engines (you can have 2D physical engine, but it won't do particularly good job simulating 3D world).

2D is shit.

if 2D is shit and 3D is shit, then 1D must be where it's at.

3D was shitty until 2005, and even then we got a lot of derp- looking games.
You don't even have to deal with this.
Ah, and as for OP- those all lowpoly games, from AITD to Soldiers of Fortune and Deus Ex, were actually tolerable. They wasn't meant to be fotorealistic, just to provide a readable lowpoly graphics. Just like ye olde gaems with their pixel- art and so on. Real atrocities happened when developers tried to do realistic graphics with that lowpoly models and blurred textures. Remember Morrowind ?

You're a disgrace to the glorious nation of Potato.

Absolutely. 1D remakes are teh future: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2011/01/wolfenstein-1d/

Actually felt more like a little spittle...

The point is that 3D engines do an awful work in simulating physics too, but the most important part is that the games that really use 3D proficiently gameplay wise could be counted in the single digit.
And modern 3D games managed the impossible task to be flatter than a flatline.

By the way, if you look into the 1990s, what kind of adventure game would you consider better looking and more functional - The Last Express or Alone In The Dark?

Better looking and more functional as what, action- adventure with close combat stuff, or cinematic adventure?

Transitions from 2D to 3D graphics managed to ruin many great series.

Even a ⑨ can figure it out.

I dunno. Grim Fandango looked pretty fucking good.

But would it have looked equally good if made by utilizing the tail-end of 2D graphics?

The most pretty games in 3D were made in 2002- 2004. Later 3D became a race of who will implement more useless shits like HDR etc and who will overuse it the most.

No, WTF? I've said that AITD2 is underrated, but it's cinematic action popamole compared to the first game.

Counterpoint: At least 3D games can be easily scaled up to high res and improved with texture pack mods.

Adventure games didn't because of 3D - they went 3D because they had declined and were looking for gimmicks.

Actually overall games declined because 3D was new hot thing that every game needed to have or so the guys on top thought that. So making 3D graphics became priority instead of quality content. Many games like Baldurs Gate 3, Van Buren, Master of Orion 3, Lords of Realm 3, Simon the Sorcerer 3 were postponed because victims of that transition.

Edit:

Good luck making Simon the Sorcerer 3 look pretty with texture pacs.