Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics. Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |
Why bother watching cartoons or reading comic books? | |
Well by your very logic you wouldn't | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
Hmmm, no. I'd say better graphics, or better graphics polishing is better than older graphics. Graphics sell. And are eyecandy. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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
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 | |
Pfft. Ha. No. Turn settings on ultra low and play on a 640x480 resolution, if you feel that way. | |
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
"people arnt agreeing with me! obviously they just dont get it!!" | |
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. | |
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.... | |
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. | |
I think there's room for both detailed and system-intensive graphics and for simple, evocative graphics. Just like, you know, books and movies are both valid media. | |
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 | |
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 is nice and all, but don't even try to tell me that this would have been better in 8-bit. EDIT: Actually, no. On second thought, do try. I want to hear how this would be more dramatically captivating if she just had a couple of pixels arranged into a frowny face. | |
You can do this regardless of a game's graphics. | |
I don't think your opinion is way too far over people's heads, I think they just disagree with you. | |
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. | |
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.
Because the Branch of Goblin-Slaying is way overpowered. | |
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? :-P 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. | |
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. | |
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:
| |
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. | |
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 | |
Oh, gonna put in a few more cents. Cel shading art style will NEVER age, at least, not to me. | |
Tabletop RPGs are better than modern graphics because IT'S ALL IN YOUR MINDS!!!!! OP: No thanks, I enjoyed DnD sessions, but now I enjoy what thousands of dollars of computer hardware technology does. | |
Text. Graphics age, but good writing doesn't. (Well, I guess it does if you give the language 5+ centuries to change, but if people are still playing your game 5 centuries later, you've clearly done something right.) | |
Where did I say this? | |
And you'd be right. I never took any of the things you said as a negative. If it's truly an an imaginative experience that one is after, it doesn't get any better(as far as games go) than a pen and paper RPG. Ultima IV, classic though it may be, is a pale imitation of an RP focused D&D campaign. Tabletop gaming relies of the collective imagination of everyone at the table to create its stories. No video game can match that experience. And no, MMOs don't even come close, although they are capable of creating a different type of collective experience due to sheer numbers involved. Now here's where the OP's argument really breaks down in my mind. While tabletop games can create mind blowing creations of the group's collective imagination, they don't have to. In fact, they probably don't even do so often. When I was younger(around eleven) and I was first getting into D&D, the games we played were pretty much dungeon crawls. Effort was poured into the crafting(for the DM) and overcoming(for the players) of puzzles, traps and combat encounters. Other groups engage in power fantasy fulfillment. Some groups describe their characters. Some find pictures on the internet. Some draw their characters(not me... I've no talent for it). None of these choices are the right way to do it. I enjoy Baldur's Gate. I enjoy Ultima, and Eye of the Beholder, and Arcanum. I also enjoy Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls(haven't played Arena yet), System Shock 2, Half Life, etc. There is no wrong choice here. There is no superior choice. There is only your enjoyment, and if you are getting it, great. If not, then find it. Maybe look up an RP group or your local SCA chapter. | |
The funny thing is, as you get better and better at the game, you define it less and less by the art. When playing FPSes competitively, you talk about hitboxes. When playing Starcraft, you talk about your marine/zerg/zealot ball and its tactical shape management. When playing DOTA or LoL, you talk about positioning and placement and order of abilities and what have you. When playing Street Fighter, you talk about hit priority and timing and canceling. Hell, when playing competitive card games at high levels, most metagamers can completely disregard card functions by reducing them to status of +1 or -1 card advantage. Only those who now have completely blinded themselves to the things that draw people into the game in the first place are able to rise to that competitive level. When all the humanity and artistry and levity has been drained from the function, you see only the shapes, the zeros, the ones and what they represent, and how to manipulate them for best effect. The levity and artistry and humanity now has to come from the players, not the game. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |
this applies to lone survivor, for example. that game wouldnt feel the same if it was hd like the witcher 2.