Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[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.

Gothic? ...What? You never played Gothic, right? If you had you would know you play a set character.

Other than that, I feel games like The Witcher or Mass Effect are more RPGs than TES or Fallout. Action RPGs maybe, but TES games are hardly RPGs anymore. Massive sandboxes would be a more accurate label.

You play a nameless character, who can choose whatever class he wants in a open world. It's maybe not as free as the other examples, but it's still your own chaaracter to a degree.

 

[Archleone]

I can see where OP is coming from, but I've found some recent games that I found just as good if not better than some of the games from my childhood...but my major beef about the graphics issue is that some games place too much emphasis on graphics and not enough time on fleshing out the world of the game.

 

[Torrasque]

I get your argument OP, and I love old game graphics, but your argument fails in it's delivery.
You equate poor graphics to increased imagination of those graphics. This would translate in the art world to, "a blank sheet of paper is better than the Mona Lisa or anything Van Gogh ever painted" because you can imagine anything you want on a blank piece of paper whereas a painting (especially a very good one) has a set definition to it.

I'm not going to get into the whole "graphics are important but not really, but they are" argument because I've gone into it way too fucking much.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I get your argument OP, and I love old game graphics, but your argument fails in it's delivery.
You equate poor graphics to increased imagination of those graphics. This would translate in the art world to, "a blank sheet of paper is better than the Mona Lisa or anything Van Gogh ever painted" because you can imagine anything you want on a blank piece of paper whereas a painting (especially a very good one) has a set definition to it.

Not at all. When you compare these two pictures, it is clear that the one on the top has more space for your imagination to fill in the gaps, the detail of the hair for example.

I mean, the top one could be anything, he's such a vague and undefined character visually. The one on the bottom is visually complete and has little room for filling in the gaps by imagination.

 

[Torrasque]

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.

Never heard of it, but upon my brief google search, I am greatly interested in this game. I shall have to hunt down a copy.

As for RTS advanced-ness, hmm...
____craft games are relatively simple but complex in execution.
Kingdom Under Fire is very simple but has a lot of strategy behind the execution.
Age of ____ games are more macro based than the ____craft games, but lack any convincing micro to make it engaging.
Advance Wars and Fire Emblem games are all about dat RNG and unit comp.
And then Ogre Battle 64 has a lot of unit management and the combat is very detailed, but it is not that advanced imo.

I'd have to play Myth 2 to see what you even mean by "advanced".
I consider Chess to be a simple game in theory but one of the most complex games in it's execution. What would you say about Chess?

 

[Torrasque]

I get your argument OP, and I love old game graphics, but your argument fails in it's delivery.
You equate poor graphics to increased imagination of those graphics. This would translate in the art world to, "a blank sheet of paper is better than the Mona Lisa or anything Van Gogh ever painted" because you can imagine anything you want on a blank piece of paper whereas a painting (especially a very good one) has a set definition to it.

Not at all. When you compare these two pictures, it is clear that the one on the top has more space for your imagination to fill in the gaps, the detail of the hair for example.

I mean, the top one could be anything, he's such a vague and undefined character visually. The one on the bottom is visually complete and has little room for filling in the gaps by imagination.

And in both cases, I can imagine the character to be a douchebag and bigot, or a shy introvert with a love of fuzzy things.
It doesn't matter if is a blank canvas or my own hand, my imagination is not bound by appearances.
I get that the first could be any person with shoulder length blonde hair, while the second is exactly what he looks like, but there is always room for your imagination to fill in the gaps. Just because there is slightly less space for your imagination to fill, doesn't mean that it is worse.
Your argument would mean that comics involving stick men are better than the highest quality animation just because that stick man can be anyone, and I think that is bullshit.

 

[xPixelatedx]

This meant that you could imagine

..Whats this? Imagine something? Next you are going to want people to solve puzzles, find keys, work their way through labyrinths and have epic boss battles that are actually difficult and requires multiple tries. Hey man, I play games to turn my brain off. Go back to Harvard, you thinker!

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to watch all three Transformers in a row.

 

[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.

Where did I say this?

"Older games are fueled by your own imagination, and so they are better"

If you can't even remember what you say, nobody is going to take what you said to heart.

Besides, you've commented on your own thread eleven times already -- you're obviously not interested in a discussion, you just want to flame people who disagree with you.

I would agree with you if that's what I meant. Better for what though? I think I explained that in the rest of the post. You can't fragment my post and extract a single line to obtain the meaning you want. The thread title should tell you that I'm not saying older games are better than newer games. Graphics are the topic.

Your right, I shouldn't take your EXACT WORDS as what you actually meant.

 

[Woodsey]

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"

Nope, we understand you perfectly; we just think it's a stupid suggestion. Shocking, really, that people could disagree with you.

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?

Exactly. If you prefer using your imagination then make a costume and a foam sword and run around outside.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

Absolutely agreed. Older graphics are not inherently better. We just remember the better examples of it more fondly than the crap. Same applies to todays engines. Years from now we'll remember the good examples and forget the bad.

That said, advanced graphical engines don't automatically make a newer game look good either. The key to a great looking game; regardless of the engine; is the art direction and the talent of the design team. A great design team can craft an amazing looking game using an old engine while a bad team, even using the most advanced engine available, would craft an eye-sore.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I liked playing Bubble Bobble because I had absolutely no idea what was going on or what half the enemies/items were supposed to be. It's cool when some stuff is left to your imagination as it makes the experience more personal, so it definitely has its place in games. But that can be done in plenty of ways.

 

[Aeonknight]

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.

You're comparing the depth of your old RTS to the graphical fidelity of say... an FPS. You may as well compare apples to oranges because your silly little game has no relevance to the arguement the OP is making.

A game can be complex without having to have shit graphics. Also I'm pretty sure I could throw some #'s from my MMO out to beat out your "complexity" of your RTS but I really don't want to get into a fanboy war over a flawed statement.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

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.

Or just a Pen and paper tabletop game. Something like D&D makes you use a LOT more imagination than the older games.

 

[LilithSlave]

I don't hate all modern games with modern graphics. But for me, it just feels less streamlined and imprecise. Landscapes don't seem to be realized. Most of the time, new games look ugly to me and everything seems sloppier and thrown about. I don't tend to like the aesthetic much of most newer games, and I get sick of them easier and go back to playing older games I feel are more fun to play, and look better.

For instance, this
and this
Look worse to me

than this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
You get the idea.

Games seemed to have been more aesthetically appealing overall back then. More rich paintings, more colours and less browns and greys. They moved between the cute, and the very picturesque. And things seemed more proportional. And it's also true that if you don't like what you're seeing, there's also a lot of good left up to the imagination to fix. I'd love to see more 16-Bit graphics in games. And especially more 2D sprites.

There are exceptionally beautiful modern games. But more times than not, I consider old games more beautiful.

 

[370999]

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.

He shoots.... He scores!

Kahunaburger is on the money folks, graphics are a tool, to single them out and say "REtro/Realism/Cartoony/etc. is the best, end off" is wrong and fails to understand that games are made of many things in service to a end.

Graphics are a means, as is sound, as is difficulty, as is dialogue.

 

[hermes]

No, they are not. But being more primitive they have to force themselves to have more style. Hyper-realism was not an option for them, so they have to be more creative to conceal items, features and object. Now games have to make a decision about going for realism or stylized graphics, and I would agree stylized works better almost every time.

Compare this: Which one look better, the older game or the newer game?

Spoiler

Spoiler

Now try with realistic games. Which one looks better?

Spoiler

Spoiler

The moment you aim for realism, the game will not age gracefully.

 

[Geliraden]

As has been said before, the problem with better graphics is that nowadays that's the only focus for developers, at the loss of mostly everything else. They have a set budget and can only do so much with that and the time they have, and because most people scream for better, more realistic graphics, they cave in. While I do prefer games to be as realistic and as detailed as possible, I will any day choose gameplay and story over graphics, and that's why to this day I still play games made back in the '90s and late '80s on DOS, Atari, Nintendo and C64 emulators. Some of those games have atrocious graphics, they're literally a pain to look at if you're used only to modern games, but the gameplay and story are second to none. They are fun, immersive and most even let you choose your own path instead of holding your hand from one cutscene to the next.

 

[Nimcha]

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.

I've never agreed with you on anything ever, but even I can't deny this is pretty much the best post in this thread.

 

[solemnwar]

I would just like to say that I've NEVER played myself in an RPG of any shape or form. Ever. That would be utterly retarded. I'm a writer, I make stories (and play others' stories) of people who do not exist.

I would also like to jump on the "you are full of crap" bandwagon because I would much rather look at the wonderful scenery porn of, say, Skyrim than suffer through the environments of older games.

 

[Sporky111]

Maybe you should read more books, if you want to imagine what the characters look like for yourself. Old graphics aren't better, but they definitely hold more nostalgia and yeah, more opportunity to make it up for yourself. That's not really a feature though, you'd get laughed at for trying to pitch a game that has "low-res graphics, because the players like to imagine for themselves what the characters look like".