Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[ronald1840]

I don't think this thread is really about why older/retro graphics are better... These things always turn negative.

Graphics aren't a selling point for me in games; the art style is what draws me in. I wouldn't expect a game like Devil Survivor 2 to have the same kind of visuals as FF13-2. Honestly, the J/RPGs I've played on the PS2 and PS1 have from bad to passable graphics. It doesn't matter because I play for the gameplay and characters.

I have no problem buying/downloading games from past generations. I have a PS3 and bought Final Fantasy 4-9 PSOne classics. FF9 and especially FF7 took me a couple hours to look over the dated look. I can't say they aged well, but it had no impact whatsoever on how much I enjoyed the game.

For me, primitive graphics across the earlier systems such as: Atari, NES, SNES, and N64 haven't aged well as a majority. There are some stand-out titles though that will last well into the next generation that will be classics (Secret of Mana, Paper Mario 2). Today's graphics and the art styles in their games have much improved from those earlier days.

I just want to know:

Why does it matter which generation had the best graphics anyway? Game A looks better than Game B... who really cares? What do we gain by labeling "this looks better than this?" These kinds of discussions never go anywhere positive.

 

[Kotep]

Expectations are going to continue to rise. When post-processing can realistically match natural lighting, it'll become material physics or soft blending like lighting through skin or something else. Graphics are always important. Hell, in text-based games, graphics are important. By which I mean there's a well-known IF interpreter that's specifically meant to look exceptionally good and have beautiful kerning. Graphics have and are always going to be a major concern.

It's just shallow as all hell if that's all the game focuses on, and 'graphics' aren't just made up of the techniques used to convert data into visuals.

 

[Songblade]

In reference to the forum subject, I think older graphics -can- be better by simplicity, leaving the details to be filled in by the beholder.

Some games though, like Skyrim, -are- beautiful though. That game has set the bar prettttty high

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.

Hey - if you have the right DM, a D&D game can be infinitely more entertaining than any video game.

Well, 2nd or 3rd editions anyway... never wrapped my head around 4th edition rules

 

[BENZOOKA]

Pfft. Ha. No. Turn settings on ultra low and play on a 640x480 resolution, if you feel that way.

 

[Vault101]

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.

no no no no no no NO NO!!!!!!

Im pretty sure todays youth are jsut fine..they arnt any worse off because the stuff in games actually LOOKS like the stuff in games,

personally I like shiny graphics because it helpd me engage.....could you imagine playing Mass effect with N64 graphics?...wouldn't be the same

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"

"people arnt agreeing with me! obviously they just dont get it!!"

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

In reference to the forum subject, I think older graphics -can- be better by simplicity, leaving the details to be filled in by the beholder.

Some games though, like Skyrim, -are- beautiful though. That game has set the bar prettttty high

And that's all I'm saying. Of course pretty graphics are beautiful. You have to consider what is better for gaming.

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.

 

[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"

"people arnt agreeing with me! obviously they just dont get it!!"

More like "people aren't replying, why?". That's what happens when you post a slab of advanced calculus formulas on a forum, so I figured....

 

[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 shiny 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.

No no no no no no NO NO!!!!!!

I'm pretty sure today's youth are just fine.. They aren't any worse off because the stuff in games actually LOOKS like the stuff in games,

Personally I like shiny graphics because it helped me engage..... Could you imagine playing Mass effect with N64 graphics?... Wouldn't be the same

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"

"People aren't agreeing with me! Obviously they just don't get it!!"

You're crazy, Mass Effect would have been awesome with N64 graphics. If anything, the cheaper graphics would have given the last game a better choice of endings . If there was a "Mass Effect 0" for the Nes or Sms, people would've been all over it. Sure it wouldn't have been the same, but it would still have been great.

I almost went off topic by saying that games would be better without cutscenes. Like Metroid: Other M. But that would have made the thread considerably ugly and less funny.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I think there's room for both detailed and system-intensive graphics [http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/195083-preview-the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings/TheWitcher2_263755_NO-620x.jpg] and for simple, evocative graphics [http://waltorious.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/brogue-poison-gas-2.jpg]. Just like, you know, books and movies are both valid media.

 

[Vault101]

You're crazy, Mass Effect would have been awesome with N64 graphics. If anything, the cheaper graphics would have given the last game a better choice of endings . If there was a "Mass Effect 0" for the Nes or Sms, people would've been all over it. Sure it wouldn't have been the same, but it would still have been great.

I almost went off topic by saying that games would be better without cutscenes. Like Metroid: Other M. But that would have made the thread considerably ugly and less funny.

Imagining talking to Liara or somone ..(like Deus Ex) ehh no just couldnt do it, it wouldn't be the same

and people go out and make all thease sweeping statments "cutscenes are bad!" "shiny graphics are bad!"

a cutscene is a tool...a tool that can be used or abused

 

[Unsilenced]

ITT: "Everything used to be better and everyone who disagrees is just not intellectual enough to understand it on the deep, meaningful level that my superior mind is capable of."

Imagination [http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/451020-Kaitsith/20/23/spongebob_imagination_by_kssael.png] is nice and all, but don't even try to tell me that this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6qVvbZC2Gs&feature=related] would have been better in 8-bit.

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.

 

[DarkRyter]

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. .

You can do this regardless of a game's graphics.

 

[Westaway]

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"

Is this just too far over people's heads?

too far over people's heads?

I don't think your opinion is way too far over people's heads, I think they just disagree with you.

 

[gideonkain]

I was pretty much on board with OP's statement until he made the declaration that this alone makes old games better than new games.

I agree that with more "rudimentary" graphics you automatically filled in character traits for yourself.

An interesting observation.

 

[Vern5]

Hail Snipsis!

While older games might force you to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, I don't think that this the reason why the game itself would be better. The reason why an older, less fancy-looking game might be considered better than a shiny, AAA current game is because, back then, one could not sell a game based purely upon how it looked. Back in the days of the SNES and PS1 you had to shore up your game's quality by providing as much gameplay content rather than attempt to dazzle people with high quality images. This was mostly due to limits in technology.

The natural result of limited graphical tech would be games that offer a lot to do and creative ways to play (i.e games like Chrono Trigger) but very lackluster graphics. If a game was both boring and plain to look at, it would not sell very well, thus killing the project.

Today, video game graphics are approaching the border of photorealism but that sort of quality takes both time and money. This why we get a lot of games today that are filled with HDR lighting and incredibly detailed textures/models but boring gameplay or very low replay value.

The main problem here is with designers who think that they can have a game succeed based purely upon how it looks. This is a short-sighted design philosophy that dooms many games to being "just okay" where they could have been amazing.

If you're going to say it's imagination that makes the game better, why not just wave a stick in the air and pretend you're fighting goblins?

Because the Branch of Goblin-Slaying is way overpowered.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

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 Zork was the best game ever, because you had no idea what your character was like at all? Did we just stop making good games when we started drawing pictures for them?

Your argument has several flaws. Firstly, neither all old games not all new games are like what you describe them to be... plenty of newer games are first-person and mostly let you see, say, your hands, leaving everything else up to your imagination.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the value of being able to roleplay in your videogames is a bit... subjective. DnD is not better than Call of Duty for everyone... a lot of people find the lack of defined detail unimmersive, but certain people love it. Different games exist for different reasons, different customers, different moods.

Fortunately, though, we have a vast array of games to choose from. If old games are your thing, then you're in luck! There are a lot of them out there that can be gotten on the cheap, and there's a lot of good gameplay there... but it isn't better than the new stuff. Well, okay, it's objectively better than a lot of the new stuff, but that's more a matter of style, execution, and artistic vision than it is of the actual technology that people had to work with.

 

[Racecarlock]

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.

Pardon my english (Swear words aren't french), but that's a stupid fucking argument. Imagination can overpower anything and everything, plus I like actually knowing what my protagonist looks like. There's games out there with character creation, but even if you're not playing one of those, you can still use your imagination to a great extent. But if you really want a game powered entirely by your own imagination, turn off the computer and the console and just shut your eyes and then start thinking. That's all you need to do.

 

[Black Arrow Officer]

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory has some damn good graphics for a game that came out in 2005, and lighting effects that surpass many modern games.

Now look at Modern Warfare 3, on Ultra Settings:

 

[Snotnarok]

There's some truth here. I mean just look at any Genesis/ Mega Drive Sonic game vs any 3D sonic game before pffft...Colors.

2D ages much better than 3D games that's for sure, even if a game is blocky it still moves nice and flows well. Unlike say ...Deus Ex the original, fine game but fuck that game did not age well...then again it didn't start off too pretty either.

 

[Mike Richards]

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've seen this argument before, and it's problematically both true and misleading. It's obvious that modern up-to-date visuals take more effort to create then graphics that were up-to-date for the 90's or earlier and that could potentially free up resources and time. But usually it implies that because of that difference in graphics old developers were always able to focus on making the gameplay good, and that's just not true. We don't remember as many of the shitty games, regardless of what they looked like, because we don't have to. We just remember the ones we liked, or the rarer ones that catastrophically disappointed us.

One look through the Angry Video Game Nerd's library proves we had just as many crappy releases in every era of gaming as we do now, perhaps evolution of graphics has changed what specifically goes wrong but it doesn't change things going wrong. It doesn't make sense to blame technical achievement because what matters is if the devs can create something fun. Crysis 2 looks amazing and it's a blast to play, Thor looks like shit and plays like it too, and they both came out in the same year.

Captcha: rough diamond. How fitting