Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

 

[hazabaza1]

And this is why character creation is good.
Plus, a definitive character look helps to define a character the same way describing one can't for many people.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

And this is why character creation is good.
Plus, a definitive character look helps to define a character the same way describing one can't for many people.

Exactly. And the more abstract input of the player's creation that goes into the game, the more a character is defined by the imagination and not by coding. No doubt people who love games like Skyrim, Dark Souls and Mass Effect will say their games character is more detailed, but there's a limit to what visual programming information can convey.

 

[distortedreality]

While I like your avatar OP, there's no way in hell i'm going to protect you from the shit storm you just invited on yourself.

 

[Schaaka]

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.[/quote]

Dont confuse 'Moved away' with 'lack of creativity'. Now'a'days everyone is a badass. Every Movie, Game and TableTop Rp you just sweat badass from your badassing badassery. Of course we couldnt play a down-to-earth realistic game of small fantasy. Id rather rp an inarticulate Steroided Simpleton than someone of normal stature. Cause challenge and immersion are for pussies.

Just give it up Blood Brain Barrier. Older games beat newer ones all day. When video games infused to main stream, the equation of money+popularity = corporate takeover. These large companies know how to make money and people buy into it.

The main problem is that these big funded 'money sink games' fool us by calling themselves games. The gaming industry really should divide into two genres. The casual games that are all pretty and easy and the hardcore ones that require alittle intuition and thought and the gods forbid some imagination.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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"

 

[Quaidis]

I've been worried about the creativity in today's youth. People are getting dumber as a whole and I know many kids who no longer want to think for themselves. If I hand a kid today a game from forever ago, they get confused, can't think themselves into the game, and put it down for something more shiney and pretty.

Personally, I miss the 'retro' look of 8 and 16 bit games. If they made a jrpg for the DS with a fresh story and the 16 bit look, I'd snatch it up.

But that's me. Games today normally pander to kids today. And these kids want shiny and pretty, and dumbed down easy.

Edit - I also miss the 90's. Everything went to this peak of extreme awesome in the 90's. It was even better than the 70's and 80's. 2000's went uphill in some categories and completely sacrificed others, making it less cool as a whole.

Edit 2 - I hate texting.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

I thought that was the point of pretty much every template WRPG character ever.

 

[JDLY]

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"

I think the issue with what you said is that your title is absolute. As in "primitive graphics are better and always will be better than modern graphics." It sounds like an extremist sort of view.

Sure primitive graphics did have stuff going for then, such as using your imagination to fill in the gaps, making the character more "you."

But there are plenty of things modern realistic graphics do better. I.e. looking realistic.

Both primitive graphics and modern graphics draw immersion through different ways. Primitive allows you to put yourself in the characters shoes via imagination. Realistic looks more like what we interact with everyday.

The main thing is, you seem to be judging the two based solely on this one concept, and not bringing in any other merits from either side.

 

[sextus the crazy]

I was thinking more along the lines of "worse resolution is cheaper to make, lowering costs and the barrier to entry".

 

[Hazy992]

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.

 

[Mike Richards]

I don't think we need imagination filling in the gaps anymore. While I hesitate to once again offhandedly compare games to movies because interactivity does make a big difference, you don't see movie goers complaining that it's too hard to imagine themselves in the role of the protagonist. In general I find games that try to define the player character are much more interesting then those that don't, for the simple fact that doing a story with an absent central figure usually leads to some odd narrative knots when you try to make it work out even. This is true in pretty much any medium, and it only really works when it's an intentional experiment.

There are exceptions of course, Half Life tells it's story without a hint of characterization for Gordon, but even it manages to recoup it's losses slightly. His name, appearance, and the way his friends interact with him all help to establish him as an actual part of the world and not as a camera floating through scripted events. Even if he's still extremely quiet, it doesn't leave everything up to the imagination and it's stronger for it.

The divide between being told an established story versus telling your own is complicated, but when it comes down to it I'd rather be told a great story about someone else then be able to insert myself into a lackluster story because the characters are too poorly defined.

It's not 'too far over my head', it's what I like playing more.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

So what you're trying to say is that older graphics are better because they're so shit you have to make up stuff to tolerate them? Absolute horse shit. There is no way in hell older graphics are better than newer graphics, it's plain to every eye that they're better.

Games that have you creating parts of the story, characters and setting should have the tools or you to do that rather than running on something that forces you to. Games that require you to assume the role of an already created character should try with every fibre of their being to fill every possible hole that you can fill with your own information. Neither should be aiming to have shitty graphics for either storytelling or visual purposes.

 

[Risingblade]

If I want to use my imagination I'll go read a book, paint something, make my own game etc

 

[BreakfastMan]

Wow. There is so much elitism coming from this thread.

OT: Older graphics can work for some things, but not others. For instance, the idea your provided is an area where old graphics would work well (though that is not the only way that could work). But, if you want to tell a specific story with a specific character, actually having an idea of what that character looks like is helpful, if not necessary.

 

[Yopaz]

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"

I don't think this is far over people's heads. It might be simply that your post is poorly put and you only mention one genre as an example and say that older graphics is better than modern.

Take a look at several old RPG games, there are plenty that wont let you live out the story the way you want it. There's lots of linear storytelling where your character got one personality and you got no impact on it. This is actually something modern games often try to implement with a varying degree of success. Immersion and graphics doesn't necessarily live in different worlds. The game design is more important than graphics. Really, I can't tell if you're trying to troll people here.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Why not just go read a choose your own adventure book then? Honestly, I don't give a shit how good or bad a games graphics are, as long as they have good art direction.

 

[Twilight_guy]

By your logic, the most fun a person can ever have is to look at a blank page and imagine all the possible things he could draw on it.

I acknowledge that its easier to imagine when your looking at blobs rather then something identifiable but your argument is idiotic. It places value on something your never proved to be better and it assume that I can't imagine anything about this new thing because it is more detailed. For someone who claims to value imagination you seem to lack it. I may not say what m,y avatar looks like but that doesn't mean I can't imagine his backstory, how he got to look that way, what he will do after the game, etc. etc. Hell go play an MMO and find some role-players. Imagination is still alive and kicking even if characters are more then blocks of pixels now.