Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[Xangba]

snip

Is taking a charisma route viable then? Also where can I find these patches?

I actually have a persuader/seducer character (among others of course), and it works well. Doesn't even have much combat training due to being able to make everyone think I'm gone, then slitting their throat from behind. Boss battles are kind of a ***** that way though, so plan ahead. You can't talk your way out of everything.

 

[Blaster395]

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.

Correction, they will just find it bad because they are not looking at it through nostalgia goggles.

 

[Blaster395]

double post, just ignore.

 

[OrpheusTelos]

I'm playing Xenogears right now, so I'm going to have to disagree. :-/ That is one fugly game.

 

[Vegosiux]

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..

Don't you mean MORE expensive.

Well, HR was not nearly as expansive as the first one, now was it.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

No? I mean sometimes I think the art style of older games was better at times. I'm playing Vectorman 2 right now, and I can get just as immersed in it as well as let's say... Oblivion. Two seperate games, genres, and generations. There is no right answer in my opinion.

I still play games from when I was a kid and can still use my imagination just as well. I had no idea when we turned the graphic options to "ultra high" that immediatly turns your imagination to "off." I always try to put myself in the shoes of the hero and fill in the fine detail with my imagaination whether it's 8bit or not.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

Sorry but if want to imagine myself being something I'm not I'll go write some self-insert fanfiction or something.

 

[lacktheknack]

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, your point just sucks.

I simply prefer better graphics (because they're better), and I never play "myself" in a game. Why play myself when I could be somebody else? That's why I play games.

Also, any RPG worth its salt has character customization, so that point is moot. If you want to play yourself in a story-driven third-person game, I think you misunderstand what "story-driven" entails.

Also, where do you get off proclaiming that old graphics are inherently better than new ones, give us ONE (flawed) POINT to your argument, then accuse US of being shallow?

Where do YOU get off telling us better graphics are better?

If you read the OP properly, you'd realise I never said one plays oneself in a game, but that one can more accurately portray one's desired character in a game with simplified graphics.

It's still one point that doesn't remotely justify an absolute statement any more than "Vanilla is better than chocolate because white is a purer color".

Also, as I said, any RPG worth its salt has character customization. This renders your point moot.

And I get off telling you that better graphics are "better"... because they're called "better" graphics. When I say "because they're better", I was referring to the "better' part of "better graphics". That better?

 

[lacktheknack]

>Any RPG worth its salt has character customization

Brb, throwing out all my Persona, Final Fantasy, Tales, Chrono, Lunar and Xeno games

Guilty of blanket statement. Sorry.

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

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, your point just sucks.

I simply prefer better graphics (because they're better), and I never play "myself" in a game. Why play myself when I could be somebody else? That's why I play games.

Also, any RPG worth its salt has character customization, so that point is moot. If you want to play yourself in a story-driven third-person game, I think you misunderstand what "story-driven" entails.

Also, where do you get off proclaiming that old graphics are inherently better than new ones, give us ONE (flawed) POINT to your argument, then accuse US of being shallow?

Where do YOU get off telling us better graphics are better?

If you read the OP properly, you'd realise I never said one plays oneself in a game, but that one can more accurately portray one's desired character in a game with simplified graphics.

Where do you get off telling us that simplified graphics are better? Or acting so goddang superior to everyone who doesn't share your opinions?

 

[Lilani]

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.

Let's say we applied this logic to color and movies. You could argue films were more colorful in the black-and-white days because you could fill in the gaps with your imagination. You could say Citizen Kane was a wild and crazy adventure in technicolor Wonderland where everybody's complection looked like Oompa Loompas and they dressed like the Lollypop Guild.

Older games were stylized, but I wouldn't say they all were "fueled by your imagination." I'm sure their creators had very clear pictures of what they wanted, they just had to tone it down to fit the limitations of their medium. Think about the old cave paintings from long ago. Do you think they were specifically aiming for stick figures? No, they were trying to portray humans. But they couldn't with their tools and limited knowledge of visually portraying the human form. So they made stick figures, they stylized them. They weren't trying to fuel your imagination, they were just doing the best they could. And they probably would have done more if they knew how (which they did as history progressed).

If gamemakers want more simple and stylized figures, they can still get that now. That isn't a problem. Hell, look at Minecraft. Look at I Am the Man. Look at VVVVV and Terraria and Tower to Heaven. Just because some developers want to clearly define what their characters look like doesn't mean all want to, and it doesn't mean all will. And as others have mentioned there's character creation, which would never exist as we know it now back in the NES and SNES era.

 

[DustyDrB]

Here's the thing: 2D graphics tend to age very well. Super Mario Brothers 3 still looks good to me. On the other hand, it is rare [http://www.playdevil.net/uploader/files/1/Screenshots/Noplatformspecific/2011/Rayman_Origins/rayman_origins_2.jpg] that 2D graphics ever truly "wow" me.

That's where 3D graphics have an advantage. There was a time when this [http://images.wikia.com/zelda/images/4/49/Lake_Hylia_%28Ocarina_of_Time%29.png] amazed me. No, it doesn't anymore. But it used to. Now it's things like this [http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/105/1053742/red-dead-redemption-20091214044240230.jpg]. While that amazement may fade over time, I wouldn't want to sacrifice it. I like feeling in wonder if the scene I'm walking through.

So both styles have a place. We need not forsake one for the other.

 

[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.

A FREAKING MEN!

hell why even use pen and paper?

just make the stuff up in your head.

Exactly. Save yourself some money

 

[TimeLord]

Hey Nintendo.

This;

Is much, much better than the schizophrenic camera and blurry sprites you have in Black and White.

 

[Quaidis]

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.

Correction, they will just find it bad because they are not looking at it through nostalgia goggles.

You're just jealous over how fancy my nostalgia goggles are.

The funny thing is that what you may think is 'bad' (or shit) from back then is actually really good. I mean, in comparison to some of the absolutely terrible stuff that came out. Late Atari period, for example. ET. The 'unfinished' games of today that people ***** about can't compare to the broken stuff back then.

The point I'm getting at is that back then when all you had were limited graphics (sometimes no graphics at all, and the games were incredibly hard), your imagination covered up for it. With games today (pretty graphics and spoon-feedingly dumbed down game-play), there's no need to think and no more room for imagination.

That was until the last person that quoted me linked me to a great 16 bit game on Steam. There is much greatness to be had with it. I wish more people did that.

 

[Supertegwyn]

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 have an opinion different to yours? Well clearly you are just confusing them with your wicked logic, it can't be the fact that they disagree with you?

What makes a game good is not it's age.

 

[AD-Stu]

OP's argument is all well and good, but it ignores the flipside of the issue, which is having to squint your eyes at the screen and wonder aloud "WTF is that supposed to be?!? A rock? A giant gaping hole that I'll die if I fall down? Just a shadow?"

Having to imagine stuff to fill in the blanks can be a blessing and a curse, y'all.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Also, as I said, any RPG worth its salt has character customization. This renders your point moot.

Viewing attributes of an object visually is not the same as creatively projecting them on an object. They're very different modes of customization, but still customization nonetheless.

 

[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.

Let's say we applied this logic to color and movies. You could argue films were more colorful in the black-and-white days because you could fill in the gaps with your imagination. You could say Citizen Kane was a wild and crazy adventure in technicolor Wonderland where everybody's complection looked like Oompa Loompas and they dressed like the Lollypop Guild.

How? How could that possibly fit within the gaps of Citizen Kane? I challenge you to try this.

Older games were stylized, but I wouldn't say they all were "fueled by your imagination." I'm sure their creators had very clear pictures of what they wanted, they just had to tone it down to fit the limitations of their medium. Think about the old cave paintings from long ago. Do you think they were specifically aiming for stick figures? No, they were trying to portray humans. But they couldn't with their tools and limited knowledge of visually portraying the human form. So they made stick figures, they stylized them. They weren't trying to fuel your imagination, they were just doing the best they could. And they probably would have done more if they knew how (which they did as history progressed).

Good point, but not quite there. So all art is aimed at accurately portrayal? What about modern abstract art? We don't know how humans long ago saw other humans. It's possible they found the stick figure the most suitable form.

 

[Demgar]

I think the biggest thing we are lacking as we move from low-res or text based games to fully rendered 3d worlds is the focus on story and depth.

In the text MUD age, I could be anything and have anything and go anywhere within the bounds of the game's canon. Would you like a "Curved saber with a fine ivory inlay of a dragon on the hilt" that "sings through the air when waved"? Go ahead, convince a GM at a merchant event that its within the world's rules and it's yours. The GM's want to add a new realm, or change an existing one, and it's as simple as imagining and describing it.

That sort of creative agility has gone further and further away with each graphics iteration, and the game worlds we live in now are very dense with lore and imagination, but they are lacking that individuality that we used to have. Especially in the MMO space.