Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[Jamash]

I disagree. While it's nice to use your imagination to make up for visual shortcomings, it's better when you don't have to.

Modern games and modern graphics have allowed me to create a good enough facsimile of myself that I don't need to pretend the character could be me, it is me.

Some of EA's Sports games like Fight Night and EA MMA allow me to take a high resolution photograph of my face and map it onto a character model in the game and after a few tweaks or the skeleton, I have a very realistic looking rendition of myself in the game, which for me is far more immersive than trying to pretend a pre-established block of pixels is me.

 

[Olas]

If you really want your games to look like shit, there are ways to accomplish that: adjust the resolution on your TV/monitor, buy a much worse TV/monitor, borrow a friends glasses and wear them while you play, or just gauge out your eyes all together. Then you can imagine the WHOLE WORLD.

 

[ZephyriaSoul]

Older 2d games age pretty well for me. I still throw in old Infinity Engine games and think they look good. 3d ages really bad, for the most part.

Ohhh yes. 1st gen 3D graphics aged HORRIBLY bad, wheras the SNES (At least, the good games on it) Have barely aged a bit.

 

[DEAD34345]

Well, I think what you're saying is partly true, but it doesn't make primitive graphics any "better" than modern graphics. If people really wanted only to fill in details themselves then the very best game in the world would be a black screen you could stare at while imagining your own, better game in your head. People don't (generally) buy games in order to drive their own imagination, they buy them to experience the products of other people's imagination (sometimes with contributions from their own).

I do agree that badly-done primitive graphics tend to seem much better than badly-done advanced graphics though. As you said, you can fill in a better image in your own mind with primitive games, whereas it's difficult to ignore the image presented by a more advanced game.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

I don't think graphics is the main thing why I still love some PS1 games so much. It's not much about the number of polygons you can put into it but the game's character. When I say character, I mean how the game essentially portray itself despite the graphics.

Of course, there are benefits to higher poly counts but that's a different matter I think.

 

[ZephyriaSoul]

Older 2d games age pretty well for me. I still throw in old Infinity Engine games and think they look good. 3d ages really bad, for the most part.

Ohhh yes. 1st gen 3D graphics aged HORRIBLY bad, wheras the SNES (At least, the good games on it) Have barely aged a bit.

Yeah, I can play Chrono Trigger, Mario and a tone of other games and they still look fine. I try to play some PS1 game, it's over. Usually I can handle the games that had pre-rended backgrounds on PS1, like final fantasy or whatever, since they still look fine, but other than that it's a no go.

Symphony of the night has held up incredibly well for me.

I tried playing OoT for the first time in years the other day, I could BARELY play it, I was so spoiled by modern graphics. As critikal would say "The skybox looked like shrek's asshole"

 

[chuckey]

Oh man your right!!! What was I thinking when I was playing all these linear one-minded games like skyrim or starcraft, or half-life?

Maybe I'll just go back to playing PONG. In that game I was a muscle bound hulk wearing armor made from the blood of my enemies forever bouncing back and forth the sacred crystal of enlightenment between the Line of Ritualistic Sacrifice with my arch-nemesis Atari...

OT: Really there was a time when all you had was your imagination because that's what developers expected to make up for the lack of details and graphics. As games got more advanced develpers were able to show exactly what they were thinking. Besides, without the upgrade in tech, we would never have gotten a game like Journey.

 

[DarkRyter]

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"

It's not that it's over our heads, it's that it's below our line of sight.

Your argument was that less detailed graphics make you use your imagination more. The problem is that you assumed using your imagination more was some sort of positive.

 

[fangface]

Super Mario world 2: Yoshi's Island still looks gorgeous.

 

[Phlakes]

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"

No, we understand exactly what you're trying to say and think it's bullshit. And then you try to rationalize it by thinking that everyone doesn't understand, because there's no way rational, free-thinking, intelligent people could disagree with you.

 

[Lugbzurg]

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.

Actually, I was able to find characterization in there for Gordon. I have come to the conclusion... he's kind of a jerk. The guy who's first to jump for the teabagging. I noticed this, due to things like how you can shut off the lights and bug the scientists, how he can make someone's soup explode, or how he can just go out and kill the guards for some ammunition.

Anyway, older graphics have left a lot more effort to be put into other mechanics, such as gameplay. I like to think of [Prototype] when I say this. The graphics were quite bad. But, guess what? The game was fantastic! It gave so much freedom and explosive awesomeness that I don't think would be there if they had put more of the budget into shiny graphics. Not to mention, these games could be made in far less time and with less effort... even back then! We haven't actually caught up with these graphics! Games are becoming shorter and less expansive, mostly due to more attention to the graphics. (This has been brought up in cases involving certain games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution.)

I think some of us need to just stop the efforts for a bit of this new stuff, download some mods, and build some new maps on Doom.

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

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.

this applies to lone survivor, for example. that game wouldnt feel the same if it was hd like the witcher 2.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

Why bother watching cartoons or reading comic books?

 

[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.

Why bother watching cartoons or reading comic books?

Well by your very logic you wouldn't

 

[demoman_chaos]

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 understand exactly what you mean. Part of the fun of the older games is using your imagination. Picturing things in your own way and not the artist's way. It is funner to look at some tiles and picture them as Tetris blocks than it is to have a Tetris block floor.

 

[Platypus540]

There's just no logical way this makes sense. You no longer have to pretend the stick figure looks like the character, you now actually see the character. If you need to use imagination to fill in your mental image of something in a visual medium then something is wrong. This is like saying that black and white filming is superior to color because the audience can imagine their own color scheme. There's no way to argue that, say, the first Starcraft is visually superior to the second, or that the original Civilization has better graphics than Civ V.

 

[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"

It's not that it's over our heads, it's that it's below our line of sight.

Your argument was that less detailed graphics make you use your imagination more. The problem is that you assumed using your imagination more was some sort of positive.

Well it is if the game is a role-playing simulator. I'd like to put character traits and physical attributes into my character that the game doesn't let me. Imagination is far more powerful than programming. So I do see it as a positive, but obviously if you are going for realism then it's no good. But 99% of games aren't about realism, that's why we play them.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

Why bother watching cartoons or reading comic books?

Well by your very logic you wouldn't

Not at all. By my logic this is more imaginative and participatory than the latest 3D, hi-res realistic animated movie:

You really think I'm telling people to draw their own cartoons? Or make their own games? I may have imagination but I'm no programmer.

 

[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.

Why bother watching cartoons or reading comic books?

Well by your very logic you wouldn't

Not at all. By my logic this is more imaginative and participatory than the latest 3D, hi-res realistic animated movie:

You really think I'm telling people to draw their own cartoons?

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.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Hmmm, no. I'd say better graphics, or better graphics polishing is better than older graphics.

Graphics sell. And are eyecandy.