Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[TaintedSaint]

in a way I agree with him look at cartoony games like viewtiful joe, hell earthworm jim. cartoony sprites age allot better than realistic games with high poly counts

 

[Randomeaninglessword]

I understand what you're trying to say, but that is a horrible generalization. Just because one single aspect of older graphics appeals to you doesn't mean that all older graphics are better than modern graphics. Besides, your argument is easily countered by any game that has character creation.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

And yet the palette swap enemies of gaming yore give me more terror than the three-colored (grey, brown, rust) mooks that swamp the industry today. Though, your reasoning is silly. They were less defined, so I can imagine them better? Well, now they're well defined, and I can see often more than I imagined of the character. Like the blackheads on their faces, or the hair on their moles. The brilliantly ebullient mustache nestled on Mario's upper lip in Super Mario World is decidedly iconic of the man, yet is barely there, but wholly conveys everything about the man's taste in soup strainers. Solid Snake's mustache in MGS4, however, is completely a mustache, to the point where we're seeing every dash of salt in that peppery lady tickler does nothing but suggest that several weeks of someone's life was spent modelling that particular lip wig.

Before, the idea was to convey an idea as distinctly but minimalistically as possible, where today we have the ability to portray things as they are. When competently done, both are impressive. And yet, both are still mustaches. One is the idea of mustache completely conveyed, and the other is a mustache. Conceptually, these are more or less the same. It's just an argument of "how much of a mustache each mustache is".

 

[evilneko]

Dear OP,

You have confused the following terms:

Aesthetics and Graphics.
Objective and Subjective.

Your premise is therefore flawed and your argument invalid.

 

[Scars Unseen]

No but if you wanna take it a step further you could just discard graphics together. If primitive graphics cause people to use their imaginations more then you could logically assume that no graphics at all would do that more still.

And you'd be right. I never took any of the things you said as a negative. If it's truly an an imaginative experience that one is after, it doesn't get any better(as far as games go) than a pen and paper RPG. Ultima IV, classic though it may be, is a pale imitation of an RP focused D&D campaign. Tabletop gaming relies of the collective imagination of everyone at the table to create its stories. No video game can match that experience. And no, MMOs don't even come close, although they are capable of creating a different type of collective experience due to sheer numbers involved.

Now here's where the OP's argument really breaks down in my mind. While tabletop games can create mind blowing creations of the group's collective imagination, they don't have to. In fact, they probably don't even do so often. When I was younger(around eleven) and I was first getting into D&D, the games we played were pretty much dungeon crawls. Effort was poured into the crafting(for the DM) and overcoming(for the players) of puzzles, traps and combat encounters. Other groups engage in power fantasy fulfillment. Some groups describe their characters. Some find pictures on the internet. Some draw their characters(not me... I've no talent for it). None of these choices are the right way to do it.

I enjoy Baldur's Gate. I enjoy Ultima, and Eye of the Beholder, and Arcanum. I also enjoy Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls(haven't played Arena yet), System Shock 2, Half Life, etc. There is no wrong choice here. There is no superior choice. There is only your enjoyment, and if you are getting it, great. If not, then find it. Maybe look up an RP group or your local SCA chapter.

Why bring in tabletop games? They have nothing to do with electronic gaming, and aren't related to the discussion in the thread. It's not like I'm anti-graphics or anything. As I pointed out, hi-res modern cartoon graphics like Bastion fit into what I'm talking about.

From your OP:

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.

You specifically invoked games that were trying to capture the feel of tabletop gaming and explicitly claimed that they are better for being fueled by your imagination. And Hazy's response, which I agreed with, is that if it's an imaginative experience you truly want, try tabletop gaming, which does a far better job than games like Ultima ever could. I contest the assertion that this is better than modern video games, but I would certainly concede that the two experiences are dissimilar.

I don't disagree with you, but it's not exactly helpful when the question is: "in electronic gaming, are older or modern graphics better?". That question is theoretical. Besides, I'm a lone gamer and don't own any expensive D&D campaigns nor do I know any tabletop gamers.

I'd say it's semi-helpful, as the conclusion my analogy brought me to is no, neither older nor modern graphics are superior, as that would indicate that one type of gamer is superior to another. There is no better, only preferred, and that is a personal decision.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Dear OP,

You have confused the following terms:

Aesthetics and Graphics.
Objective and Subjective.

Your premise is therefore flawed and your argument invalid.

How as my argument an aesthetic one?

Also, I don't believe in the objective/subjective distinction, but if I did it wouldn't apply here. If I presented an opinion, 'Cartoon images involve a higher level of imagination than real-life photographs' then that is not an invalid argument.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

All this amounts to is saying 'shit is subjective, yo'. This doesn't mean we can't make perceptions about different kinds of graphics and the way they affect the player. That is something that isn't subjective - you can see it. If you're sitting next to your friend and he jumps back in fear from a game, would you say that's subjective and therefore irrelevant?

No, but if he said that scary games were better than games that didn't scare him, and therefore we should make more games like the ones that scared him and lay off all the other styles of game that didn't, then I would say that's his subjective opinion and that we shouldn't discard every other style of game because he likes being scared.

The idea people are having problems with is that older graphics are BETTER, meaning we'd be better off if all games forgot about the shiny new graphical tools and went back to 8-bit. It's a rather... Ahmish attitude, almost, discounting all the things people like about the new stuff because you prefer the rustic feel of the old.

Now, if you said that the older graphics were able to accomplish something the newer stuff can't, and that the ability to put yourself into the character is nice upon occasion, then I think you'd find a lot of people agreed with you. However, there are also some things we can do nowadays that we couldn't have imagined doing before... frivolous things, sometimes, like letting you throw around soda cans and saw blades and other rubbish without having to TELL you what it is, because you can SEE it, and you can tell what it is. Things like showing you an army of a thousand orcs, rather than showing you some greenish dots or, like, 5 orcs and telling you via text that there is actually an army of them just offscreen. Things like having hidden doors and switches that you look for in the same way you would in real life, because you can see where they are if you're looking for them... these are all things you simply can't do with the old graphics, and some people like that.

Therefore, old graphics are not better than new graphics. They're different. They tell certain stories better, but they're worse at telling others. We should keep making games with the newer graphics, for no other reason than the fact that new technologies, if pursued, will produce graphics and therefore stories that we haven't seen yet and that, therefore, cannot be judged.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

So are you saying older graphics are better because they make you use your imagination more? Well then why even bother with a video game? Use a pen and paper.

You win.

No, seriously. Everyone stop replying. This post just said everything that could be said on the issue perfectly.

Pack it up, folks.

 

[evilneko]

How as my argument an aesthetic one?

Pretty much the entirety of it is.

Also, I don't believe in the objective/subjective distinction, but if I did it wouldn't apply here.

Okay, I'm outta here.

Well, I might as well finish at least.

If I presented an opinion, 'Cartoon images involve a higher level of imagination than real-life photographs' then that is not an invalid argument.

Of course it's an invalid argument, seeing as it's not an argument but an opinion.

Okay, now if you'll excuse me...

 

[Mariakko]

Older graphics are better for me personally because I run those games.
Diablo II is nice and smooth, Skyrim is jerky.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

So are you saying older graphics are better because they make you use your imagination more? Well then why even bother with a video game? Use a pen and paper.

^This right here. Honestly, read a book if your so interested in using your imagination.

 

[lapan]

Are you serious?

Besides, I think we moved away from RPGs were you play "yourself" long ago, and the genre has been better off for it. Much better.

Have you played any typical WRPG? Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Gothic, Fable, etc. are still game series where you create your own characters/"play yourself".

OT: I won't say older graphics are universally better, however wellmade 2d sprites can be just as good as "hyperrealistic" graphics. That said, i don't care about graphics that much myself, i'll always take gameplay over graphics.

 

[Kimarous]

Older games are "better" because lower-end graphics and an absence of voice acting allowed for more copy-pasta models and a fuckton of "content" (i.e. "text") to be crammed into it. When graphics got better, people got less tolerant of visual similarities, and more pixels meant unique models took up more space, hence the worlds couldn't be as big with high graphics. There's no way in hell that Skyrim or Oblivion could (currently) match the sheer copy-pasted scale that is Daggerfall. As for voice acting... well, voice actors need to be paid, and I don't think they want to spend years of their time playing the same character, trying to record every single possible scenario the developers could imagine. It takes time, space, and a lot of money to get those voices. It's not like the old days where the writer of dialogue could simply write whole novel's worth of dialogue. At least, not until we learn how to simulate voices in a believable manner that they can artificially say whatever has been written in-game (such as a custom-input name).

Bottom line, it just boils down to a simple truth that people need to accept: "If you want higher 'quality' games, expect less 'content' than older games. If you want more 'content', expect less 'quality' than newer games."

Captcha: "swan song" - how apropos.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

I agree with you, although not entirely. There are some advantages to newer graphics today, too.

But yes, I must say older graphics made me feel immersed a bit more than today's games.

I still play Doom online today, as you can see by my avatar. And I love the graphics because they give off a cartoony, gory feeling. They're artistic, interesting and generally look attractive because the game seems to have its own visual style.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

All this amounts to is saying 'shit is subjective, yo'. This doesn't mean we can't make perceptions about different kinds of graphics and the way they affect the player. That is something that isn't subjective - you can see it. If you're sitting next to your friend and he jumps back in fear from a game, would you say that's subjective and therefore irrelevant?

No, but if he said that scary games were better than games that didn't scare him, and therefore we should make more games like the ones that scared him and lay off all the other styles of game that didn't, then I would say that's his subjective opinion and that we shouldn't discard every other style of game because he likes being scared.

The idea people are having problems with is that older graphics are BETTER, meaning we'd be better off if all games forgot about the shiny new graphical tools and went back to 8-bit. It's a rather... Ahmish attitude, almost, discounting all the things people like about the new stuff because you prefer the rustic feel of the old.

Would it be an Amish attitude to say that a shovel is better for digging than a pencil? You're discounting the possibility of making judgments at all. We're not talking about people's preferences divorced from all other considerations. A photograph is better for conveying visual information than a cartoon - that is fact.

Now, if you said that the older graphics were able to accomplish something the newer stuff can't, and that the ability to put yourself into the character is nice upon occasion, then I think you'd find a lot of people agreed with you. However, there are also some things we can do nowadays that we couldn't have imagined doing before... frivolous things, sometimes, like letting you throw around soda cans and saw blades and other rubbish without having to TELL you what it is, because you can SEE it, and you can tell what it is. Things like showing you an army of a thousand orcs, rather than showing you some greenish dots or, like, 5 orcs and telling you via text that there is actually an army of them just offscreen. Things like having hidden doors and switches that you look for in the same way you would in real life, because you can see where they are if you're looking for them... these are all things you simply can't do with the old graphics, and some people like that.

Therefore, old graphics are not better than new graphics. They're different. They tell certain stories better, but they're worse at telling others. We should keep making games with the newer graphics, for no other reason than the fact that new technologies, if pursued, will produce graphics and therefore stories that we haven't seen yet and that, therefore, cannot be judged.

That's all I meant to say. But I appreciate the analysis, and agree with it.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

How as my argument an aesthetic one?

Pretty much the entirety of it is.

Also, I don't believe in the objective/subjective distinction, but if I did it wouldn't apply here.

Okay, I'm outta here.

Well, I might as well finish at least.

If I presented an opinion, 'Cartoon images involve a higher level of imagination than real-life photographs' then that is not an invalid argument.

Of course it's an invalid argument, seeing as it's not an argument but an opinion.

Okay, now if you'll excuse me...

Let me know when you've graduated from high school, I think you have some more English homework to work on. Particularly the words "aesthetic", "argument", and "opinion".

The OP was about as far from an aesthetic discussion as you can get. Function is the issue here.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Bear in mind too that cartoony graphics fit into the low-res category, even if they are hi-res. If that makes sense. And a lot of games are cartoony.

I disagree with your premise and even if I did agree with it I would disagree with this statement. When I look at a cartoon image what I see in my head is not my realistic imagining of the cartoon image or my own interpretation of it, I see a cartoon image. I'm pretty sure that this is what most people see when they look at one.

OT: Now why I disagree with your premise. While there definitely is some merit in less detailed graphics letting your imagination do more, that doesn't work for every game. Lot's of games have things they want to communicate which require more detail to communicate it effectively. Expressions, emotional scenes, or art styles that require more detail than pixels.

Take games like Journey, Shadow of the Colossus, or Dark Souls. Those games didn't look as good as they did because of high quality graphics, but they wouldn't have been able to do justice to the art design with N64 level graphics

 

[rob_simple]

OP you best be trollin'. If you want all your games to look like blocky shit then take your glasses off before you play them.

I achieve immersion in Western RPG's because my character is covered in 200 pounds of armour and I can't see them, anyway. In JRPG's I just pick the most aloof character and decide that's totally what I'd be like in that situation (Balthier in FFXII).

In FPS's I can't see my character so it's easy to become immersed and in games like God of War or Splatterhouse I don't want to be the character, I want to enjoy their story and guide them through it.

 

[SmegInThePants]

my only problem w/graphics is developers too often spend a disproportionate amount of their time working on graphics rather than the game itself.

There's still only a finite amount of money developers/publishers are willing to put into a game - and you need a whole team of expensive employees to make nice graphics by today's standards.

I have no problem at all w/nice graphics, love 'em. But it should be the last priority, not the first. Get the nicest graphics you can while still creating the full and complete vision of your game. It won't look as nice as it would had you put 90 percent of your budget into the graphics, but what good are nice graphics on a crappy game.

 

[kingthrall]

I agree 100% with the Topic Starter, for all those trash talkers out there, new games just tend to elaborate on bloom and effects. Even the plots they use are terrible.

That said not all modern games are bad, but the vast majority are pathetic. Ive yet to see a game to top Myth II for all you haters of this thread.

Myth II is by far the most advanced rts ever made and if you think its less complicated than a modern game, I would be more than happy to do a little weigh in comparison to whatever you throw at me.