Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[Lilani]

Games went from very low resolution to very high. In low resolution games the dots are bigger which means there is more information you can fill that space with. This meant that you could imagine that the stick figure in Ultima that you are a mighty warrior with streaming hair and shiny, rock-hard abs or the colorful blob in Dragon Quest is a brave Samurai Warrior. In new games, the resolution from sitting distance is high enough to look realistic - that is, it appears the same as looking at an object in the real world. This means that you yourself can only BE one character - the one you are looking at. There is no space for you to fill with your own information. So the more realistic the character we are portraying is, the less it is you. Older games are fueled by your own imagination, and so they are better, in the same way that old tech cartoons are better than new tech ones such as 3D.

Let's say we applied this logic to color and movies. You could argue films were more colorful in the black-and-white days because you could fill in the gaps with your imagination. You could say Citizen Kane was a wild and crazy adventure in technicolor Wonderland where everybody's complection looked like Oompa Loompas and they dressed like the Lollypop Guild.

How? How could that possibly fit within the gaps of Citizen Kane? I challenge you to try this.

That was sort of my point. You don't fill in the gaps with black and white movies, you simply accept it as a part of the style. The same goes with games, well at least while you are playing it. I didn't play through Pokemon actively imagining images of being a fully-rendered character in a fully-rendered environment. I accepted the style for what it was. It was stylized, just as cartoons are. I did get quite engrossed, but it wasn't because the limited graphics caused me to see more vivid images or insert my own. It was because I got engrossed in the gameplay and levels. I have loved the graphical improvements with every new installation, the broadened range of styles gives the world even more depth and even more to get lost in. I did to a bit of "role-playing" I guess, but I wasn't really able to do this well until they made a female model available. And even then I didn't really mind the preset look. Immersion relies less on graphics and more on gameplay. It does require a balance, though. The gameplay must be solid and engrossing and the graphics should at the very least not distract from this.

Good point, but not quite there. So all art is aimed at accurately portrayal? What about modern abstract art? We don't know how humans long ago saw other humans. It's possible they found the stick figure the most suitable form.

That isn't what I was saying at all. I was simply saying we can't know for sure what the ideal level of graphical sophistication would have been for the games of old. What if the original Legend of Zelda game were made today? I'm pretty sure, at the very least, it would look a bit more sophisticated. Same goes with Super Mario Brothers. I don't think those characters looked so simple because Shigeru Miyamoto really had a thing for pixels, or so that they were simple enough for people to use their own imaginations to fill in the blanks. They looked like that because that's all they could do with the graphics of the time. You can even tell he tried his hardest to define who his characters were, but those few stacks of pixels were as far as he could get at the point of delivery.

If the old limited graphics of yesteryear better enable your imagination, I'm afraid it wasn't intentional, at least most of the time. They were just doing the best they could with the tools they had. I'm sure they would have loved to deliver colorful and well-defined characters with sophisticated aesthetics, but they couldn't.

 

[Atmos Duality]

There is something to be said for the value of "Inspiration through abstraction".
But I wouldn't go around calling it "better".

 

[R0cklobster]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

 

[The_Echo]

snip

I've heard this argument time and again. Well...

I have nothing against lower-res graphics, and I even prefer them depending on the game and how they're used, but I disagree with you. Sorry, but no. You're actually pretty wrong. Video games have always had defined characters with defined visual representations (perhaps not every game, but your post seems to set the precedent that generalizing is alright). The only difference between then and now is we have better tech with which to visually represent these characters in-game.

You can use your imagination to enhance these outdated sprites' visual flair all you want, but I don't think that's what the developers were intending when they made the game, or that they even wanted you to.

This means that you yourself can only BE one character - the one you are looking at.

You know, sometimes, that's actually the point. It helps the narrative to have a defined protagonist.

I'm sure you'll notice that first-person games, or games where you create your own character generally have lesser stories because the dev has to compensate for the freedom they've given you. As a recent and popular example, Skyrim. Bethesda had to write a main quest, but none of it could have anything to do with the player as anything more than a role. When playing the main quest, you are not playing as Admiral Asshat. You are playing as the Dovahkiin, and all of your hard work will be attributed to that same ambiguous title. So, even though you did all that, and the character you created is you by proxy, the one who gets the credit in the end is the Dragonborn, and nobody even knows who the hell that is.

Conversely, in a game like Kingdom Hearts, there are no such false pretenses, and because Sora is a defined character with defined qualities, the story can actually envelop him and even revolve around him to some degree, rather than simply involving him.

 

[Dryk]

(I consider the gamebyro engine more like one big glitch than an actual engine).

Really? My only experience with it is Defense Grid and the Wii port of Bully and they ran fine.

Hey Nintendo.

This;

Is much, much better than the schizophrenic camera and blurry sprites you have in Black and White.

Yeah they actually look life the official art now.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

EDIT: Actually, no. On second thought, do try. I want to hear how this [http://www.helpfulsnowman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Player-harvesting-a-Little-Sister.jpg] would be more dramatically captivating if she just had a couple of pixels arranged into a frowny face.

Easy. This [http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/590/draft_lens18984243module155859025photo_1324140649amnesia.jpg] is scarier because it gives less information about the monster. When I can see my adversary clearly it becames much less terrifying because I know what I'm up against. My imagination is what does all the work in fear.

I wouldn't necessarily say "Dramatically Captivating" equals "scary." The fact that the little sister's reaction to harvesting or saving her truly is more captivating with more descriptors. Seeing her facial expressions throughout it can cause automatic reactions in people, whereas if it were less detailed, with less facial expression within the little sister's face, there is a larger chance that people will not connect with it as easily. Even games with simpler graphics(not quite 8 bit, but not super high res) can help with immersion and deepening the effect of a story to the player.

I will agree with seeing less of a monster can help you be more afraid of it, with one little add on. Amnesia does have decent graphics, and seeing the nice lines of a scary monster is a bit scarier to me than a black blob with pointy square bits.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

 

[R0cklobster]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

Irrespective of how valid the analogy was, my point still stands.

 

[Ryotknife]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

quite a bit of difference, however a book plays into the "strengths" of low res games even more so than the games in question. Which makes me wonder why would you play videogames at ALL when books are a much better venue for yourself. Hell, there is even less of a stigma associated with reading books than playing games. Win-win for you!

as to why people presume that games with better graphics are superior....well that is because it is the logical train of thought. when you improve one aspect of a product, it is logical to presume that either the package as a whole benefits from it or it remains the same. very very very VERY rarely does an improvement weaken the product as a whole.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

quite a bit of difference, however a book plays into the "strengths" of low res games even more so than the games in question. Which makes me wonder why would you play videogames at ALL when books are a much better venue for yourself. Hell, there is even less of a stigma associated with reading books than playing games. Win-win for you!

as to why people presume that games with better graphics are superior....well that is because it is the logical train of thought. when you improve one aspect of a product, it is logical to presume that either the package as a whole benefits from it or it remains the same. very very very VERY rarely does an improvement weaken the product as a whole.

So why are books better for me than games again? One offers me a personal point of view with little opportunity for participation. The other offers total participation in a created world. Totally different media with totally different aims. If I want to learn something then books are probably better - then again, maybe not, but we've seen very few quality educational games. The Dr. Brain games back in the 90s were the best I can think of.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

Irrespective of how valid the analogy was, my point still stands.

Not in my view. The medium of the book provides little interactivity, being a medium for dissemination of a private viewpoint. The game is a communication between creator and consumer which requires player input. It is the player which creates the game so it makes sense that increasing participation will be an improvement. The opposite usually applies with the book.

 

[R0cklobster]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

Irrespective of how valid the analogy was, my point still stands.

Not in my view. The medium of the book provides little interactivity, being a medium for dissemination of a private viewpoint. The game is a communication between creator and consumer which requires player input. It is the player which creates the game so it makes sense that increasing participation will be an improvement. The opposite usually applies with the book.

Again, while I will admit that the book analogy was shitty, the analogy in and of itself did not make up my entire argument. The point was that the latitude given to the player for filling in graphical gaps using their own imagination is not the only factor that determines the level of enjoyment one gets from playing a game, as you suggested "Older games are fueled by your own imagination, and so they are better".

As others have pointed out, if you take a game and simply turn down the resolution and graphics to the lowest practical level, will that make the game suddenly more enjoyable for the reasons you stated in the original post?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What the OP said does not mean that older graphics are objectively 'better', just that it has some preferable characteristics to modern graphics. How much a game allows the player to fill in the gaps using their own imagination is not the only metric that matters when deciding how 'good' a game is, it's only ONE aspect that could contribute to the quality of a game. I can't see how what the OP said is any different to saying "The abridged version of book X contains less detail than the regular version, therefore it is better."

Uhh...seriously? You don't see any different between a book and a game? I'm just... I don't even...

Irrespective of how valid the analogy was, my point still stands.

Not in my view. The medium of the book provides little interactivity, being a medium for dissemination of a private viewpoint. The game is a communication between creator and consumer which requires player input. It is the player which creates the game so it makes sense that increasing participation will be an improvement. The opposite usually applies with the book.

Again, while I will admit that the book analogy was shitty, the analogy in and of itself did not make up my entire argument. The point was that the latitude given to the player for filling in graphical gaps using their own imagination is not the only factor that determines the level of enjoyment one gets from playing a game, as you suggested "Older games are fueled by your own imagination, and so they are better".

As others have pointed out, if you take a game and simply turn down the resolution and graphics to the lowest practical level, will that make the game suddenly more enjoyable for the reasons you stated in the original post?

If there are higher resolutions available, obviously the game was designed for use with them. So a game like CoD where realism is important, higher resolution is better. Also, not everyone plays a game for enjoyment. Many play to fulfil a social need.

 

[legendp]

Games went from very low resolution to very high. In low resolution games the dots are bigger which means there is more information you can fill that space with. This meant that you could imagine that the stick figure in Ultima that you are a mighty warrior with streaming hair and shiny, rock-hard abs or the colorful blob in Dragon Quest is a brave Samurai Warrior. In new games, the resolution from sitting distance is high enough to look realistic - that is, it appears the same as looking at an object in the real world. This means that you yourself can only BE one character - the one you are looking at. There is no space for you to fill with your own information. So the more realistic the character we are portraying is, the less it is you. Older games are fueled by your own imagination, and so they are better, in the same way that old tech cartoons are better than new tech ones such as 3D.

If I want Imagination I'll read a book or just day dream. Although even with modern games I can imagine myself in the game (or movie) as someone else (as supporting character perhaps). Who knows maybe It was because I was'nt in existence until 94 so I missed the pixel age and I prefer games like portal 2 and mass effect 2 for imagination (However when I play games like Exit Path then I kind of understand what your saying, but I don't agree with it, then again everyone has an opinion and you are entitled to yours). Personally give me an entire universe like mass effect to explore and imagine what it would be like to be there rather than a few pixels and try and fantasise (I'd rather day dream). I find I imagine more when playing something like mirrors edge over mario.

The key to good imagination in a game is not how many pixels it has or how realistic it is, It is how artistic and immersive it is (imo), and this can and has been done in newer 3d games

 

[Pandaman1911]

Is this just too far over people's heads? Maybe I should post a "why Obsidian is better than Bioware thread" or "why JRPGs suck"

Hey, hey, no need to insult other people's intelligence just because they disagree with you.

While I suppose I can see where you're coming from, in theory, graphics technology has advanced enough where games can create truly beautiful works of art. The first time I played Oblivion, and stepped outside into the world, leaving the Imperial Prison, and got a face full of HDR, and all that other goodness, it blew my 2006 socks off. While graphics shouldn't really matter in a game (unless they somehow interfere with gameplay), wanting your game to look the best that it can certainly isn't a bad thing.

 

[Gigano]

...using that logic, no games at all should be even better, since there's then absolutely no limits, only your own imagination.

Plenty of other reasons photo realistic graphics are problematic though: They can hurt the option for creative art design, drain resources from script/gameplay, make levels shorter and less varied since each texture takes longer, lead to less frequent releases due to the work involved, decrease the willingness to experiment since each game is such huge investment etc. etc.

But there are other games than the AAA releases who can pick that up, and sometimes you just want your MP5K w. red dot sight to look like an MP5K w. red dot sight, not three black pixels shooting a red pixel. Such can help immersion rather than hinder it.

 

[John the Gamer]

Anyone mention Dwarf Fortress yet?

Well, there exists a game called Slaves of Armok II: Dwarf Fortress. It is awesome.

Spoiler

Good luck.

 

[kingthrall]

Anyone mention Dwarf Fortress yet?

Well, there exists a game called Slaves of Armok II: Dwarf Fortress. It is awesome.

Spoiler

Good luck.

It looks like a game called ZZT from Epic Megagames

 

[accipitre]

Anyone mention Dwarf Fortress yet?

Well, there exists a game called Slaves of Armok II: Dwarf Fortress. It is awesome.

Spoiler

Good luck.

Yeah, I mentioned it a page or two ago. Don't think anyone really noticed. Which is too bad, because the very existance of Dwarf Fortress (not to mention its popularity) kinda brings the entire argument here to a grinding halt with a pure white beam of light, magma, beer, and dead kittens.

 

[John the Gamer]

Anyone mention Dwarf Fortress yet?

Well, there exists a game called Slaves of Armok II: Dwarf Fortress. It is awesome.

Spoiler

Good luck.

Yeah, I mentioned it a page or two ago. Don't think anyone really noticed. Which is too bad, because the very existance of Dwarf Fortress (not to mention its popularity) kinda brings the entire argument here to a grinding halt with a pure white beam of light, magma, beer, and dead kittens.

I had a lot of fun this weekend modding the game to make flying dwarves. FLYING. DORFS. Can you imagine the chaos? (My adventurer was one-shot punched to death by a flying dwarven vampire)