What is the attraction of PS1-style visuals?

[leileilol]

The console step-up from PSX visuals is probably "Dreamcast multiplatform game visuals" which would just have no UV affinifying, and be a fixed 640x480 with a digital vertical blur applied and texture filtering that isn't perfect (PVR2 is known to wobble texcoords in some edge cases, and only has a 32 tap max bilinear) but that part would likely be skipped out of the lack of research into that. There's still dither (24bpp into 16bpp dithered in post) At least there'd be contemporary texture resolutions.

[Graf Zahl]

There's still one thing you seem to forget. These old consoles were normally connected to a crusty old analogue TV system - which means that any attempt to recreate the visuals will probably fail anyway because the low TV resolution was enough to hide the grossest shortcomings.

[leileilol]

The CRT factor might be one thing, but there were also the composite cables that came with it that had some considerable horizontal blur. There's always false claims of DC being capable of anti-aliasing because of that (not helped by misinterpretations of the rough attempt at 2x aniso that's "texture supersampling")

Dreamcast did support VGA out though (640x480x16@60hz). The digital vertical filter's disabled by that point. If 3d aesthetics are considered, it could potentially overlap with mid-00s Intel GMA suffering experiences. (GMA being PowerVR-based and enough PC games pushing vectors as the 6th gen consoles did, disregarding shaders).

That's not what i'm waiting for though. When's the emulateKennethScottKevinCloud texturing+coronasAndFlares+detailTextures+notEAX era starting?


also on crt simulations, i groan when I see 16:9 CRT bezels with off-model chromatic aberration shaders applied to fake the NTSC signaling (not for the glass)

[Caligari87]

I'm reminded somewhat of blackmetal bands that still record their albums by everyone standing around a tape recorder in the middle of the room. Yes, it sounds terrible. But the terribleness is part of the point.

Why do we still shoot on film, when digital has blown it out of the water for more than a decade? Why do we still paint on canvas when Wacom and Photoshop provide infinitely more flexibility? Why do we sculpt from clay and marble when 3D printing and injection forging are available?

Why mod for GZDoom when Unreal Engine 5 exists?

It's more than nostalgia. Art is about more than clarity and perfection. Art is about exploring a medium in order to craft a message, and in some cases the message is inextricably linked to the imperfections of the medium. You can't appreciate a Pollock without running your hand over it and feeling the discarded cigarette buried under 20 layers of crusted paint (or at least so I'm told).

If you don't get it, that's okay. Most of the people who like it don't fully understand either, least of all me. We're all chasing ghosts through the corridors of a forgotten house, trying to capture a brief slice of what made it meaningful.

[KynikossDragonn]

Why mod for GZDoom when Unreal Engine 5 exists?

Well I could think of numerous reasons why, that isn't to do with nostalgia. Unreal Engine 5 is a complete mess, and if you planned on making anything commercial you have to end up paying revenue to Epic.

[Rachael]

GZDoom games simply don't have the mass appeal that UE5 games do. Aggressive monetization soured the taste of modern video games for a huge chunk of the Boomer/GenX gamers, and a lot of the kids that weren't alive in the 90's to experience what it was like instead just want flashy cutting edge graphics that can only be provided by the latest whatever-RTX model video cards available which GZDoom is not yet powerful enough to accomplish. Plus it's nowhere near as feasible to generate realistic-looking environments with GZDoom as it would be with UE5.

That being said though, Godot exists, but it's still not on par with UE5 or Unity.

I'm sure it would be possible to turn the tide and make a GZDoom-based game mass-marketable, but with the way things are today that simply isn't going to happen. And if it ever does, it's just going to make the cancerous "AAA" publishers turn their cheesy money-printing schemes to older style games, instead, polluting the genre even more.

[Kinsie]

There's still one thing you seem to forget. These old consoles were normally connected to a crusty old analogue TV system - which means that any attempt to recreate the visuals will probably fail anyway because the low TV resolution was enough to hide the grossest shortcomings.

Dreamcast fully supported VGA monitor output in blazing 640x480 for most games, IIRC.

And if it ever does, it's just going to make the cancerous "AAA" publishers turn their cheesy money-printing schemes to older style games, instead, polluting the genre even more.

Hi-Fi Rush by the Microsoft-owned Tango Gameworks is openly and explicitly a callback to Dreamcast/PS2 games with its bright cel-shaded visuals and turn-of-the-millennium rock soundtrack, and it just handily outgrossed Square-Enix's latest overhyped $70 AAAA effort. Why fear the future, when we're already there?

[Graf Zahl]

Dreamcast fully supported VGA monitor output in blazing 640x480 for most games, IIRC.

I think this falls in the same category as playing Doom music with a Gravis Ultrasound, i.e. it won't change that for most users the lower fidelity option was the "original".

[Graf Zahl]

I'm reminded somewhat of blackmetal bands that still record their albums by everyone standing around a tape recorder in the middle of the room. Yes, it sounds terrible. But the terribleness is part of the point.

Why do we still shoot on film, when digital has blown it out of the water for more than a decade? Why do we still paint on canvas when Wacom and Photoshop provide infinitely more flexibility? Why do we sculpt from clay and marble when 3D printing and injection forging are available?

Why mod for GZDoom when Unreal Engine 5 exists?

It's more than nostalgia. Art is about more than clarity and perfection. Art is about exploring a medium in order to craft a message, and in some cases the message is inextricably linked to the imperfections of the medium. You can't appreciate a Pollock without running your hand over it and feeling the discarded cigarette buried under 20 layers of crusted paint (or at least so I'm told).

If you don't get it, that's okay. Most of the people who like it don't fully understand either, least of all me. We're all chasing ghosts through the corridors of a forgotten house, trying to capture a brief slice of what made it meaningful.

I'll be blunt here: With the exception of your Black Metal example, the rest is in a completely different category. All this is the deliberate choice of a different medium, comparable to making games on an older engine.

And that Black Metal example is just as weird and off-putting as deliberately screwing up the visuals of a game with shitty filters, if not even more so. Granted, it will keep the costs down, which is an economical necessity if all you produce is aural garbage...

[wildweasel]

if all you produce is aural garbage...

So again it boils down to opinions.

I'll quote Brian Eno here, as this once again becomes relevant:

Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.

[Graf Zahl]

You won't make me change my mind: If people try to sell crap as art I'm out.

Like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettecke

which found a truly fitting end...

[wildweasel]

You won't make me change my mind:

At this point, I am making no such attempt. I already know you don't like it and I'm not going to try to get you to like it. But if my attempts to get you to at least understand the mindset aren't working, either, then I, too, am out.

[Professor Hastig]

Huh?
So now just for being 'art', it is above criticism?

Art or not, if someone produces poor content, it should be everybody's right to either criticize or in extreme cases ridicule it.
Now we are back at the precise point where this discussion started, i.e. that as soon as the criticism starts, some people shout "shut up, this is art, you have no right to criticize it!", which boils down to shutting down the opposing view without putting forth any substantial argument why this would be legitimate.

[dpJudas]

Nobody said you couldn't criticize it, but I personally find Graf's viewpoint somewhat comical. Here we have a source port author of an ancient game, arguing that some people's taste for old is stupid while himself also being into old shit.

Ultimately this stuff comes down to what kind of thing you're into. It is like arguing some music genre is shit. It is an argument, yes, but rarely a very strong one. Just because the 90's developer was trying to make UE5 engine level graphics, but couldn't, doesn't mean the limitations can't have a charm of its own.

[Professor Hastig]

Nobody said you couldn't criticize it, but I personally find Graf's viewpoint somewhat comical. Here we have a source port author of an ancient game, arguing that some people's taste for old is stupid while himself also being into old shit.

I actually see a profound difference:

This discussion started about demodernizing new shit. GZDoom never was that, quite the opposite in fact - so correct me if I am wrong - but isn't its entire reason for existence the modernization of old shit?