I agree with this.

Depends, Paper Mario on the N64 still looks pretty decent, Crash 2 on the PS1 has aged pretty well visually, Kingdom Hearts 2 on the PS2 still looks pretty nice, but any GTA game of that era makes me want to vomit because of how bad they look. Late 360 and up games still look relatively same-y, don't see why make a big fuss about it.

Pong levels of graphics are still acceptable to me. Also PS1/N64/Saturn 3D games also look fine to me.

Sorry, double post

It's the game that matters, graphics are nice and all but add little to the way of gameplay in the end. Some games based on graphics don't age due to the art style, more cartoony graphics or cell shading has aged really well. Which is kind of why FF7 still works, many might same the graphics have aged but the pre-rendered screens and the block characters work still because of the nature of the game.

I think games that have suffered most in the year of development in the game industry are 3D fighting games. Old ones are slow and clunky, Tekken is hard to get to grips with.

There's no generation that IS or ISN'T acceptable, it's all down to how clean and intuitive what's being displayed comes across after all these years, some games that went for a "realistic" look on n64 or even ps2 are painful to play now.

I have no issue playing Super Mario Bros on the Nes, or Crash Bandicoot on PS1.

For an example of games I couldn't play now... well old RTS games are a prime example, I don't think there's any RTS game before Age of Empires that I could find playable.

PS3 is the bare minimum for me.

Personally, I can still fire up Space Invaders on the Atari 2600 and enjoy it just fine.

8-bit 640x480.

depends on artstyle and such as well

Eg here is harry potter game on gamecube and it does look great imo:


But for more realistic games ill go with ps3 graphics. PSVR is pretty much fine for me in that regrads but some titles like driveclub vr are already to bad looking.