>>725028458
As the other anon's post said. It was about not relying 100% on graphics, and knowing what style to use. Having a proper vision over slapping as much graphics as possible isn't the way. And on top of that, they had code wizards so OP that made those graphics even possible, not just relying on hardware alone.
The thing about your UE5 example is same as people now praising every game that used Doom engine etc.
It doesn't happen, only select few games that used that engine well on top of being good games are the ones people remember.
Castlevania 64 was said to be better looking than SotN because SotN used 2D graphics. I think you are missing that key point and seeing people complaining about devs these days focusing on 100% realism and peach fuzz and horse testicle temperature models as hypocritical when people like games from past which had cutting edge graphics for their time. The thing is that many of those games were on forefront of 3D polygon graphics and gameplay in vidya and had to wrangle those problems so the games themselves are actually good, as well as invent how to even run said games decently well with such graphics.
Now you have APIs and easier development tools handling that and still there are framedrops, major glitches, glitches, etc. everywhere even when the teamsizes are hundreds if not thousands big.
On the contrary Crash has few frame drops if there are too many TNTs and/or Nitros blowing up and even those framedrops look just funny and acts as borderline comical effect. An excuse of course and personal opinion but still. Meanwhile some modern games have framedrops if you walk in water for too long.
The realism thing as well. Those age like milk. Even some "just decent pixel graphics from SNES/Genesis/PS1 look better than TLOU on PS3 these days. Or Jesus Christ og Uncharted. Hell, Jak & Daxter on PS2 looks better than PS3 TLOU/Uncharted these days.
All three of those games were considered be pushing the graphics when they came out.
