Replaying Old Games: The Importance of Graphics

[Something Amyss]

I do prefer shinier graphics to an extent, but it's never been a barrier to me playing a game. If I liked the old Tomb Raiders, I'd probably still be able to play them. Sprites and the like do age better, yes, but it's not that huge a barrier for me.

 

[cfehunter]

I can quite happily play Dwarf Fortress and Rogue, Super Mario and Crash Bandicoot.

What I do take issue with though is extremely badly done low poly 3D. e.g Warzone 2100 and games from that brief era at the end of the 90's that tried to do too much with a very tight poly limit and ended up with artwork that looked terrible.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

As someone who a) plays a hell of a lot of 'older' games and b) views graphics as the most minimal part of a game I can honestly say it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Hell, if my old ZX Spectrum still worked I'd have no problem playing some of those games today. What makes a game is intuitive gameplay, a well designed gameworld, an intriguing story, and indepth mechanics that reward players who are willing to put the time in. If a game has one or more of those, it truly doesn't matter what it looks like.

 

[Unia]

As someone who can still play Daggerfall (until it bugs out and I'm stuck outside the walls), I'd say my tolerance for aged graphics is high. So long as there's no pixelhunting or hideously bright, blinking textures involved (ala System Shock), I can handle it. UI's on the other hand...

I play action rpgs, I like turn-based combat, but I will not be arsed with camouflaged turn based like with KotOR and Infinity engine based games anymore. That means no amount of HD windowdressing would make me slog through Baldur's gate

 

[Silly Hats]

To me, appreciating the graphics of older games depending on whether or I've played that game in the past. Re-experiencing graphically low res games is very different if you haven't played that particular game. I still play old games that I haven't played, though it almost messes with that part in my brain that confuses them with Nostalgia.

Kind of.

 

[Auron]

Early 3D was an abomination,

Spoiler

It's one of the reasons I think Deus Ex needs a remake, Tomb Raider had awful terrible gameplay as well(which in addition to playing lara turned me off the series for eternity.)

I really don't get people grinding on the Black Isle games, the graphic style looked great sans the cutscenes. I'd say the only time that truly turns me off gaming is early 3d or very old school 80's games, but even then there's still some value in the vintage.

Graphics are no big deal, unless they're truly eye searing or the game is one that leaned heavily on the quality of its visuals and has little to offer in the game play department.

Far, far, far more important than graphics when it comes to retro-gaming is the UI. Cumbersome, clunky or painful UI experiences will derail a happy memory far quicker than any aged graphics could ever hope to. It's part of the reason I won't hesitate to recommend, say, Planescape Torment to someone, but I won't recommend Ultima IV. Not because the latter isn't an excellent game and important RPG, but because Planescape won't provoke 1/10th of the UI agony.

Agreed. I tried playing Bladur's Gate Enhanced Edition on Steam and I just couldn't do it and it had nothing to do with graphics. The game plays like ass and had me wondering why the hell it was considered a classic.

I think people who never played AD&D can't appreciate the fact the game simulates it pretty well. It plays perfect far as I'm concerned, you can give any command you would in a game to your characters and the dialogue trees and options are generally far superior than you can find even in modern RPG games.

Never mind the graphics; does the gameplay hold up after X amount of years?

Case in point: Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. The graphics can look pretty stiff in some places. Whatever. The gameplay, however, hasn't aged well at all. I tried to play it recently and I couldn't get off the Endar Spire without falling asleep.

So yeah. Fuck graphics. I'm all about the gameplay.

It's the same goddamn gameplay in Dragon age down to the 3 man team(which used to be six back in the Infinity engine.) and abilities based on feats. I don't think you can say it's objectively bad, especially when 4 or 5 games like it were given millions of dollars to be made in Kickstarter last year, or maybe we just have terrible taste and cannot appreciate modern gaming.

 

[Sonicron]

anesthetics (the look and feel)

I think you mean aesthetics. Unless you feel huffing chloroform fumes enhances your audiovisual gaming experience.

Anyway, I'm right there with you. While in most cases graphics take a backseat to gameplay and story in my mind, they are a vital part of gaming nonetheless, and if a game is absolutely hideous because its once-brilliant graphics have aged incredibly poorly, then I really can't be arsed to replay them anymore. Though this kind of relative decline in quality (i.e. when measured against the possibilities of today) mostly affects graphics designed to look realistic, stylized stuff isn't completely exempt; playing stuff like Quake 3 Arena and Super Mario 64 today is an almost sure-fire way to contract eyeball cancer.
I tend to grant some leeway to old games I enjoyed a lot back in the day, especially the stuff that was mostly about gameplay and charming artistic direction, but most games from the post-SNES eras leading up to around 2008 I now consider too bloody hideous to replay at all.

 

[JediMB]

Though this kind of relative decline in quality (i.e. when measured against the possibilities of today) mostly affects graphics designed to look realistic, stylized stuff isn't completely exempt; playing stuff like Quake 3 Arena and Super Mario 64 today is an almost sure-fire way to contract eyeball cancer.

I never really played Quake 3, but personally I think the game still has gorgeous architecture and decent enough weapon effects to be fine.

Super Mario 64, though... well, I'm glad that the game got an updated DS remake. The environments in the original are fine enough, but the character models are pretty horrible.

EDIT: Okay, "horrible" is an exaggeration. But the models were pretty ugly.

 

[4RM3D]

Ehhhh whatever, if the game bothered to come up with a unique artstyle then age is practically a non-issue. Okami anyone?

I mean look at BlazBlue. That is never going to get dated. Ever.

...Persona 4...

Yeah, those game withstand the test of time. I've recently played Persona 3 and it still looks good. Also played the original Guilty Gear which still looks nice.

...I can play Final Fantasy IV-IX any time and enjoy the hell out of it. I guess I'm lucky that I'm a nostalgic person who never stops playing old classics.

FFVI to FFIX each have completely different art styles. FFVI with its pixels still looks good. While FFVII, the first 3D FF game, looks blocky. With FFVIII they went with a more 'realistic' look. And even though the graphics are pretty low-res now, it still looks okay. FFIX jumped back to the more old school'ish graphic style and still holds up today.

It's kinda interesting to see how all these different graphic styles (d)evolved over time (for FF).

Fallout 3 and NV, on the other hand... I went back and played recently... Gorgeous landscapes, but I got insanely freaked out by the dead cataract eyes everybody's sporting. They tripped and fell squarely into the uncanny valley.

Ah, the uncanny valley... this isn't a problem for todays old games, but it will become a problem soon when todays games will become old.

anesthetics (the look and feel)

I think you mean aesthetics. Unless you feel huffing chloroform fumes enhances your audiovisual gaming experience.

Hehe, whoops. Then again, under drugs I might not have as much troubles with outdated graphics as everything will look... awesome.

 

[Nomanslander]

I pretty much agree that sprites are a lot more easier to digest than early 3D art.

As for the question of whether or not graphics deep down really matter? I have to say they do. Even though gamers wouldn't like to admit it, a big part of gaming is the immersion factor, and you can't really feel immersed in a world that feels like you're treading through a downgraded dimension where everything is angular and seemingly artificial. Graphics might not have zero effect on gameplay (which is why I can still play Half Life 1 and enjoy it), but with the Black Mesa mod, I really felt like I was more or less there stuck in some giant facility in New Mexico with dangers on every corner.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Graphics don't really stop me from going back to re-play a game. It's a bit jarring though to go from Doom 3 to Metal Gear Solid. If the game is fun then I'll eventually go back to it no matter what it looks like. Of course there are also beautiful games that I don't ever want to touch again; like Crysis 2 and Final Fantasy XIII. Well I may go back to those two eventually...the one underwhelmed me and the other just pissed me off.

Anyway OP: I love the way Link to the Past looks when compared to Ocarina Mask. Wind Waker is my favorite Zelda game visually and my favorite of the 3D Zelda titles.

 

[Scars Unseen]

It's a bit of a balancing act. Graphics do matter, but I'm happy to trade them in for good gameplay or a well told story. And then there's the nostalgia factor...

 

[thejackyl]

PS1 and PS2 era games tend to have aged horribly, and I think this current era will have aged horribly once the graphics are stepped up noticeably. Games with stylized graphics tend to age a lot slower, I mean how old is Team Fortress 2, and it still looks great.

That being said: I still enjoy older games. Though I have a lower tolerance for clunky UIs and controls, which are/were prevalent in older games.

 

[Daft Time]

What do you think about replaying old games and graphics?

My problem in replaying old games is very, very rarely a graphical one - and in the cases it is, it's because the aesthetics are incredibly dull or the graphics actually hinders game-play. The truth is, I have the same problems with newer games. It's certainly not an issue unique to playing older games.

That said, I do run into a problem frequently while playing them that I rarely find with newer games; they suck to play. The kinaesthetics of all but a select few games is incredibly poor. The game-play is too often unintuitive, unrefined and the antithesis of enjoyable. It's interesting just how much certain elements of game design have evolved in a such short amount of time.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Graphics are no big deal, unless they're truly eye searing or the game is one that leaned heavily on the quality of its visuals and has little to offer in the game play department.

Far, far, far more important than graphics when it comes to retro-gaming is the UI. Cumbersome, clunky or painful UI experiences will derail a happy memory far quicker than any aged graphics could ever hope to. It's part of the reason I won't hesitate to recommend, say, Planescape Torment to someone, but I won't recommend Ultima IV. Not because the latter isn't an excellent game and important RPG, but because Planescape won't provoke 1/10th of the UI agony.

Agreed. I tried playing Bladur's Gate Enhanced Edition on Steam and I just couldn't do it and it had nothing to do with graphics. The game plays like ass and had me wondering why the hell it was considered a classic.

I think people who never played AD&D can't appreciate the fact the game simulates it pretty well. It plays perfect far as I'm concerned, you can give any command you would in a game to your characters and the dialogue trees and options are generally far superior than you can find even in modern RPG games.

Maybe so, but I enjoyed playing Neverwinter Nights for whatever that's worth. In Baldur's Gate my companion's can't be counted on to do anything. And WTF am I supposed to do if they happen to fall in battle? I guess I'm fucked if that happens then eh? And it will happen because they can't be counted on for shit. Also it seemed to me that you were greatly outclassed by your enemies very early in the game too. That just my experience.

 

[Aidan(Roland)]

I'd call it "Replaying Old Games: The Importance of Perspective." If you can't put yourself in the mindset of the time, then fine, you just can't, and you're not going to enjoy the game as much. That's a given.

It seems (to me) a mistake to compare games with what came later. though comparing games with what came before is fine and helps us gauge progress. The best comparison to make is other games of THE TIME, which generally means you have to play more than one old game. Playing MechWarrior 2? Spend a bit of time with Earthsiege. But don't for the love of god and country compare MechWarrior 2 with MechWarrior Online. That way madness lies. (though the other way around is totally coo')

 

[floppylobster]

If graphics were all there was to a game then that game was never good to begin with. It has to be fun. I still play many 80s games because they're still good games. I dug out the my PSOne a few months back and everything was utterly unplayable. I'd play Command & Conquer over C&C 4 any day.

 

[Quellist]

Imo it all depends on wether the game can stand up without good graphics. Graphics-centric games of the past i find very little interest in while i can happily boot up and play Final Fantasy VI or similar because the game itself is good enough not to require them.

 

[Darkasassin96]

For me its less about graphics and more about controls. As long as it controls well then I could play it no matter how it looked. Im playing a lot of old school RPGs from the gameboy era and let me tell you those still hold up today, adn the graphics arent half bad.