Are paitings outdated compared to photographies ?
It is very rare that i consider video-games graphics as outdated.
The rare occurences i do it, is when it feel that the area isn't well mastered, at beginning of an era.
I mention FPS as it is one of the first genre i played many games from different eras.
I basically sort them in a few eras :
A - Sprites in false 3D perspective. (like Land of Lore)
B - Sprites in actual 3D perspective.
C - 3D model in low-res 3D gameworld.
D - 3D model in standard-res gameworld.
E - HD FPS.
I can hardly consider HD as outdated, but for previous eras, most games i feel the graphics are outdated are games that come early in those eras.
Before Wolfenstein or Land Of Lore, there are games that try to use that perspective but lack of enough graphics to allow things to be seen clearly or a problem of pace. They haven't mastered the technology yet it can be seen. Then, with Wolfenstein, they mastered it and it feels right. There is a lack of details, but it isn't ugly. Then, they tried to add eight, with Tides or Doom, but in early games to do it, there is many flaws that can be seen. Build Engine FPS (Duke Nukem, Blood etc...) that came very late in the sprites FPS era are still really visually great today. They mastered sprite-based FPS technology. Those games aged far better IMO, than the first 3D based FPS that came in the same time, like Quake. In Quake, the 3D model are rough, ugly, the light are ugly, everything seems unprofessionnal by today's standards. Then, the 3D model are handled in a better way, they trying to make realistic FPS, in realistic context, with people that have an human face. First attempts aren't great, with many clone, lack of lipsing or bad lipsing, like in Deus Ex or Half-Life. FPS that came later, but still not in HD, had a better look.
The things that affects my vision of graphics aging are if the guys who did those mastered it or were just trying a new toy. Also, if those tools weren't complex enough to handle what they were trying to do. If the appearance of the monster you were trying to make look nothing like your magnificent drawing, and is even hardly recognisable, then rather than have a low-res version of your original monster, you better make a simplier one. Sometimes you have to implie instead of showing. Use the technology you have for what it is capable of. Most of the time, it implies trying to be less realistic in your design, while still being beautiful, or use symbol when you can't use creatures, but it can go beyond that.
I could say the same for other medium. IMO, the last silent movies have aged better than the early not silent movies, the late black/white aged better than the early color one. For instance, Jurrassic Park 1 was a mix of CGI & animatronics. The animatronics was a technology they already mastered and the animatronics dinosaurs are still fresh. The CGI wasn't as mastered as today, and Jurrassic park CGI dinosaurs didn't aged well. (i am reffering the original version. Not sure about the 3D reedition)
Of course, it comes from someone who cares to watch old movies, play old games, or see old paintings, and have perspective. But i can't get myself in the shoes of someone disregarding visual/sound because they are old.
On Wasteland area, i had the opportunity to try out other games from that era, and IMO, the graphics have aged pretty well, as they made the best use of the technology they had. They didn't show pictures that didn't help. You aren't much confused by the land, you always know where your character is on the map, the monster picture can be easily seen in the land and feel monster-ish enough, the portraits are wonderfull, the combat are text-based, but everything is understandable. It is effective most of the time, great on some occasions. Sometime, it implies instead of showing, but it provides enough to feel it.
My complains are mainly about the gameplay, even thought if other games of that same era have more problems.
- The basic control are intuitive, but when it come down to management (of skills, party, inventory etc...) it takes some time to get into it. Before you can get into it, you will have to read manuals/reserch on the internet, or play with the menues for a few hours, and not actually play the game.
- There is no tutorial, no initial quest. You are thrown in the gameworld, without knowing anything about the world, the gameplay, the quest, and there is nothing ingame to explain you. It can seriously put people off early on.
- Even after you played a while, i am not sure you can do a lot without some kind of walkthrough. Using a specific skill on a specific chest in a specific area to unlock better loot, is not intuitive, it is not something you can deduce from the area. If you want to explore things in depth, i think the walkthrough becomes necessary. There is so many "hidden" options that you could miss a lot of the game and not use a lot of your abilities & settings if you don't take the time to read outside sources.
- The forced iron-man savegame system. I get why it is there in some kind in which the main feature is the challenge. But in RPG or long games with stories, i rather have the iron-man as optionnal. It is not fun to replay the whole game if you handle poorly an endgame fight. (fortunatly, you can still force a crash of the game, so that defeat isn't aknowledged when you reload)
- I am glad they corrected this, but their DRM was utterly horrible, forcing you to use an external file (or a book, at the time) everytime the game tell you to look for paragraph X.
I know it would be almost impossible to have an ingame tutorial or tips during playthrough, but if they could at least allow two save slot by playthrough, it would keep more players on board.
On a more general note, i can be put off by some gameplay in older/newer games if they seem detrimental to the goal of the game, if they feel cheaty or trying to trap you, if they don't allow setting that they could allow, (when you can't bind for instance), if there is no way to help you to understand the controls, if you spend there is no way to get them while still playing, etc... For instance, most of the plateformers that can be binded, have a fast pace and a correct difficulty can't ever get old. On the other hand, early RPG, or rather dungeon crawlers that relies in advanced calculations, to advance in the next corridor, with little to no story reward, zero visual effect, ask you to remember word in qwerty (if azerty user) to take something from your inventory and give it to your wounded party member, while waiting two minutes for getting the result of your action, because the game is loading five paragraph of actions for the other monsters that are in another room and making noises, which tell you when you are with map coordinates, with no actual ending, and each room is procedurally generated the number of gameplay barriers outweight the rewards, the fun, or the interest of the story (especially if shallow or non-existing). It is a matter of balance.
Unless factually stated, you have to try if you want to know if the cons outweight the pros.
Otherwise, I couldn't have played it long with much fun nowadays.
The portraits are [arguably] improved, but lifeless.
