The 2D art on PSX/N64 was superior to the 16–bit era. But yeah, tech requirements for good looking 3D is higher because the demands for detail are significantly higher (Example: the Chrono Trigger sprites look more pleasant than GE007, but the models for GE007 characters were much more detailed)… in other words, a nice looking 2D requires much less detail than a 3D model to look pleasing. Also, as brought up by Curl (really everything I’m saying has been brought up above), digital 3D art was still in its infancy while digital 2D art was advanced by this point… and to go deeper into the FF7 example, the 3D art was blocky and rudimentary, but the 2D art in that game was a massive jump over the 16-bit norms.

Anything that was made by the mid point of the 4th generation and remained pixel based by the 5th Gen has likely aged better than most of the catalog you'll find in the 5th,6th and even 7th Gen in some cases.

No wonder, Square Enix and indie studios saw potential in the artstyle.

Still wished Pokemon would make a legit attempt at doing a new sprite based Pokemon à la HD-2D

Yeah in the same way Sleeping Beauty looks better than Toy Story. They didn't have the experience with the tech yet.

I think many missed the point or i failed to deliver it.
It's not what whe think now its about back then.

Why did we back then consider the ps1/n64 graphics better(or at least we where just hyped about it being 3d?) When in reality most of it wasnt.

I understand the shift between 2d to 3d whas massive at the time,that whas the whole selling point,but in term of graphics it feels like a big step down.

Just a thought i had yesterday thou, still love playing on the ps1 and as some mentioned games like suikoden2/breath of fire 3/ castlevania symphony of the nigh DOES stand the test of time  better.

The step down in graphics quality was jarring even at the time. Consoles couldn't really do 3d until the PS3 era.

Luckily most people had blurry CRTs at the time...

Because 3D graphics were mind-boggling back in the mid 90s when we weren't used to seeing them, it was like when CGI first made its way into films and showed us things we'd never seen before, or when the first colour films/TV arrived.

It was new and exciting back then, it only looks "bad" now because we're used to the vastly superior 3D graphics that have evolved since.

Hnn,as a kid i whas hyped about the ps1 thou,games like ff7,8,9 blew me away.

I disagree with your ps2 statement heavily, ps2 could do 3d just fine.  Ffx etc even today looks gorgous  and plays smoothly,many ps3 games however oei oei,terrible framerates and screen tearing.

I do think that the Donkey Kong Country games look better than DK64. Obviously DK64 is technically in a completely different league from those older games, but those 2d graphics have aged a lot better and better capture the look and feel of Rare's version of DK.

Basically it boils down to the SNES being better able to capture the intent of the artists with its sprites than the N64 was with its rudimentary polygons. On a purely technical level there is no SNES game that looks better than any N64 game since the gulf in technology is so vast.

Good 2D is always prettier than bad 3D.
I got into 3D gaming late, getting a computer with 3D card 1998, so I kind of missed the ugly 3D era.

On related note, I've often found some EGA/16 color games (Monkey Island, Loom, King's Quest IV...) more eye pleasing than VGA/256 color versions and sequels.

Sometimes when makers have learned to make most of some technology/console, when the next gen/tech comes out it takes them long to adapt and the result is worse than previously. As PS1 was the "first 3D console", it may suffer from this more than any other console in history. (Well, except N64, as PS at least had the advantage of disc space.)

Adult sprites age better than newborn polygons.