Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you serious?

image

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.

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.

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'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.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
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.

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"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

While I will admit to donning the rose tinted shades for my collection of NES games and praising their glories past, I can't help but feel this thread (and admittedly, my own opinion), is tainted by that nostalgic "golden age syndrome".

Games really weren't better or worse then compared to now. As ever, there are shining gems and there are overpolished turds. For every Final Fantasy, Super Mario Bros, Castlevania, Mega Man, or other some such, there was an ET or Shaq-Fu. The amount of games that are ignored when one looks back to old 8 and 16 bit libraries is extreme, and equally narrow is the outlook of current gen.

I enjoy my classic Dragon Warrior, grind-fest though it is, but Frozen Synapse had me spellbound from start to finish. Left 4 Dead made for literally 100s of hours of fun, just like the number of games of Super Mario Bros I've played tag-team, or the fun of classic Castlevania versus the grizzly ass beatings of the modern Dante's Inferno or Lords of Shadow. The latter was especially enjoyable because while it nodded to a game I grew up on and idolize, it left down on its own path and left a few hooks to keep me thinking about how things play out after the curtain closes.

Overall, yes, a lot of titles in the modern day lack imagination, but I wouldn't go so far to say that the face of modern gaming is lesser than that of "retro" games. Enjoy both sides equally.

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"

While older style graphics have their own charm, no. Higher graphical fidelity leads to an increase in detail and design opportunities for things like characters (even just NPC's), environment, special effects, actual facial expressions, etc.

That's not to say that a game with old school graphics can't be good or preferable in some cases (example: Capcom's Mega Man 9 and 10 doing an 8 bit throwback. Also: Radiant Historia.) But "leaving those details up to your imagination" is not a valid write off for modern day design.

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.

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.

ruthaford_jive:
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.

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.

ZephyriaSoul:

ruthaford_jive:
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.

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.

ruthaford_jive:

ZephyriaSoul:

ruthaford_jive:
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"

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked