Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Unsilenced:

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.

Easy. This is scarier because it gives less information about the monster. When I can see my adversary clearly it becames much less terrifying because I know what I'm up against. My imagination is what does all the work in fear.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
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.

Think you are a bit off topic there. While visually and technically graphics now are much, much better, what you are talking about is the way the narrative is delivered. Used to be a quiet type of main character so you could imagine he was how you wanted him to be but now (mostly) the RPG protaganist has a proper developed personality. I don't think that has to do with the graphics so much just the time that was in it. Arguable really if thats better and to be honest im not sure, but I will say I used to play those RPGs but not the ones today. Although that could be online multiplayers fault :/

Kahunaburger:

Unsilenced:

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.

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.)

Text allows for description in place of graphics, but that's... well... in place of graphics, and raises its own set of issues.

Easy. This is scarier because it gives less information about the monster. When I can see my adversary clearly it becames much less terrifying because I know what I'm up against. My imagination is what does all the work in fear.

The unknown is an important element of horror, but that doesn't really have to do with graphics so much as aesthetics and presentation.

This is a grunt without the weird moving effects you see in the game. It's not really that scary anymore, but it's still the same model. The fact that you don't see much of the monster is a matter of gameplay mechanics (punishing you for looking) and lighting. You could turn the graphics settings as low as you want, that thing would not be scary waddling at you from across a brightly lit room.

Plus, the thing I linked was a little sister being harvested. The point is that the player is forced to look while their character kills a mutated (but potentially savable) child for their own gain. This is a situation that benefits from clarity, as the facial expression is key.

EDIT: Derp post.

Guardian of Nekops:

Blood Brain Barrier:
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? :-P

We're talking about graphical games, or so I assumed. This is a COMPLETELY different media from text games, so should be treated differently and separately.

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.

All this amounts to is saying 'shit is subjective, yo'. This doesn't mean we can't make perceptions about different kinds of graphics and the way they affect the player. That is something that isn't subjective - you can see it. If you're sitting next to your friend and he jumps back in fear from a game, would you say that's subjective and therefore irrelevant?

Scars Unseen:

Hazy992:

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.

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.

Why bring in tabletop games? They have nothing to do with electronic gaming, and aren't related to the discussion in the thread. It's not like I'm anti-graphics or anything. As I pointed out, hi-res modern cartoon graphics like Bastion fit into what I'm talking about.

Blood Brain Barrier:
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.

Hixy:
[snip:/

I think people are forgetting subjectivity here

I dont WANT to use my imagination

Im not an uncreative person or incapable of making stuff up, but if I have to sqint at a bunch of pixels and pretend its my charachter..WHY is that better? no really tell me,

if I see what my charachter looks like Im more attatched..shes actually there, the other charachters respond to her, shes part of the story

to me its how the game reacts to my charachter as well, if I don;t feel like its "responding" to what Ive made up then its less compelling

hence why I prefer voices protagonists and games with more focus....OR if not outright voiced give me a wide range of text-dialouge options so I can role play (dragona ge origins/Fallout New Vegas)

role playing is good but I need somthing to work with

Blood Brain Barrier:

Scars Unseen:

Hazy992:

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.

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.

Why bring in tabletop games? They have nothing to do with electronic gaming, and aren't related to the discussion in the thread. It's not like I'm anti-graphics or anything. As I pointed out, hi-res modern cartoon graphics like Bastion fit into what I'm talking about.

From your OP:

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.

You specifically invoked games that were trying to capture the feel of tabletop gaming and explicitly claimed that they are better for being fueled by your imagination. And Hazy's response, which I agreed with, is that if it's an imaginative experience you truly want, try tabletop gaming, which does a far better job than games like Ultima ever could. I contest the assertion that this is better than modern video games, but I would certainly concede that the two experiences are dissimilar.

So what I think you're trying to say is the less detail and information we are given the more our imaginations will take over, and the more that is left to our imaginations the more engrossed in the game we will become?

I have to disagree. I think presentation is key, and that the amount of detail shown and information given doesn't matter as much as how both are presented to the player.

There is a point here, but its not the whole picture. Representational images often times can be seen as being pulled in 3 directions. One direction is the iconic, what you describe, simple images that allow for extrapolation, identification, and filling an image with your self. After all, you don't have details of your own face in your head, you just have a general image. Realistic images with details, similar to what you see with your eyes, take on a quality of otherness, of independent existence, of a self-ness of its own. The last direction is abstraction, not simplified or detailed, but altered to fit a certain style. All 3 directions are valid, and can be used to great...affect (Grammatical trap here!). You describe a good way to create a certain experience in a game, but its not the only way. Good graphics are not a bad thing. They are another tool in the toolbox of good Aesthetics.

Blood Brain Barrier:

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.

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.

It's funny, I actually really agree with this. In several cases, the ones that come to mind would be Starcraft and the original Tiberian Sun, I remember fondly creating those massive battles in my head and what it would have looked like on the ground. Although I don't believe that sense is totally gone, its just changed to using those game worlds in different situations (one of the recent memories would be what is Killzone 2's enemy was in GTA4).

The ability to create the worlds are still there, the set pieces are a little more detailed, but with that comes more epic environments and new ideas on how they can interact.

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"

>.> dood, just about every RPG making company is better then Bioware, hell I'd argue some of the newer story arcs in CoH are better then almost all of ToRs, if for no other reason then i feel like i matter more to the game world of CoH then i ever did in ToR

Scars Unseen:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Scars Unseen:

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.

Why bring in tabletop games? They have nothing to do with electronic gaming, and aren't related to the discussion in the thread. It's not like I'm anti-graphics or anything. As I pointed out, hi-res modern cartoon graphics like Bastion fit into what I'm talking about.

From your OP:

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.

You specifically invoked games that were trying to capture the feel of tabletop gaming and explicitly claimed that they are better for being fueled by your imagination. And Hazy's response, which I agreed with, is that if it's an imaginative experience you truly want, try tabletop gaming, which does a far better job than games like Ultima ever could. I contest the assertion that this is better than modern video games, but I would certainly concede that the two experiences are dissimilar.

I don't disagree with you, but it's not exactly helpful when the question is: "in electronic gaming, are older or modern graphics better?". That question is theoretical. Besides, I'm a lone gamer and don't own any expensive D&D campaigns nor do I know any tabletop gamers.

gideonkain:

Blood Brain Barrier:

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.

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.

It's funny. When I go back to play an old RPG, I tend to play as Cloud or Serge or Ryu or Locke instead of putting in my own name. I always used to put my name in but now I just don't care.

I will say that anime style graphics were much better in 2D, when our imagination could fill in the gaps.

in a way I agree with him look at cartoony games like viewtiful joe, hell earthworm jim. cartoony sprites age allot better than realistic games with high poly counts

If that one scene from Gears 2 had been a pixelated game, I would have not cared at all. Its carefully rendered graphics allowed them to take what had been an entirely shoe-horned in plot line that they might as well have just informed us of with a text scroll, and made it into one of the few scenes in a video game where I fucking cried. They could not have pulled off communicating the kind of pain Dom was going through without modern graphics to fully detail his face and use non-verbal body language to make you sympathise with what he's going through.

On the other hand, Dwarf Fortress would be a shit game for twats if it had tried to have fully rendered 3-D graphics. It just also happens to lose a lot of emotional impact in using ASCII rendering. I'm sure if they had carefully detailed every millimeter of the characters in the game, I, as well as many others, would be a lot less quick to gleefully massacre the poor bastards we're managing, but as it stands, when my fort even slightly runs low on food production, every one of the dozens of fucking lye makers I get in every wave of immigrants gets locked in a room and left to die, and it's because I don't care about a little wandering symbol with a few paragraphs of descriptive text. Sure, I can become attached to the occasional, important dwarf and imagine what they do much more vividly because of the ASCII rendering, but the point remains that once my fort is 80% lye maker, I just don't have a single shit to give as to whether or not they die horrible, horrible deaths, as long as a few not-worthless dwarves are left.

I understand what you're trying to say, but that is a horrible generalization. Just because one single aspect of older graphics appeals to you doesn't mean that all older graphics are better than modern graphics. Besides, your argument is easily countered by any game that has character creation.

And yet the palette swap enemies of gaming yore give me more terror than the three-colored (grey, brown, rust) mooks that swamp the industry today. Though, your reasoning is silly. They were less defined, so I can imagine them better? Well, now they're well defined, and I can see often more than I imagined of the character. Like the blackheads on their faces, or the hair on their moles. The brilliantly ebullient mustache nestled on Mario's upper lip in Super Mario World is decidedly iconic of the man, yet is barely there, but wholly conveys everything about the man's taste in soup strainers. Solid Snake's mustache in MGS4, however, is completely a mustache, to the point where we're seeing every dash of salt in that peppery lady tickler does nothing but suggest that several weeks of someone's life was spent modelling that particular lip wig.

Before, the idea was to convey an idea as distinctly but minimalistically as possible, where today we have the ability to portray things as they are. When competently done, both are impressive. And yet, both are still mustaches. One is the idea of mustache completely conveyed, and the other is a mustache. Conceptually, these are more or less the same. It's just an argument of "how much of a mustache each mustache is".

Dear OP,

You have confused the following terms:

Aesthetics and Graphics.
Objective and Subjective.

Your premise is therefore flawed and your argument invalid.

Blood Brain Barrier:

Scars Unseen:

Blood Brain Barrier:

Why bring in tabletop games? They have nothing to do with electronic gaming, and aren't related to the discussion in the thread. It's not like I'm anti-graphics or anything. As I pointed out, hi-res modern cartoon graphics like Bastion fit into what I'm talking about.

From your OP:

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.

You specifically invoked games that were trying to capture the feel of tabletop gaming and explicitly claimed that they are better for being fueled by your imagination. And Hazy's response, which I agreed with, is that if it's an imaginative experience you truly want, try tabletop gaming, which does a far better job than games like Ultima ever could. I contest the assertion that this is better than modern video games, but I would certainly concede that the two experiences are dissimilar.

I don't disagree with you, but it's not exactly helpful when the question is: "in electronic gaming, are older or modern graphics better?". That question is theoretical. Besides, I'm a lone gamer and don't own any expensive D&D campaigns nor do I know any tabletop gamers.

I'd say it's semi-helpful, as the conclusion my analogy brought me to is no, neither older nor modern graphics are superior, as that would indicate that one type of gamer is superior to another. There is no better, only preferred, and that is a personal decision.

evilneko:
Dear OP,

You have confused the following terms:

Aesthetics and Graphics.
Objective and Subjective.

Your premise is therefore flawed and your argument invalid.

How as my argument an aesthetic one?

Also, I don't believe in the objective/subjective distinction, but if I did it wouldn't apply here. If I presented an opinion, 'Cartoon images involve a higher level of imagination than real-life photographs' then that is not an invalid argument.

Blood Brain Barrier:

All this amounts to is saying 'shit is subjective, yo'. This doesn't mean we can't make perceptions about different kinds of graphics and the way they affect the player. That is something that isn't subjective - you can see it. If you're sitting next to your friend and he jumps back in fear from a game, would you say that's subjective and therefore irrelevant?

No, but if he said that scary games were better than games that didn't scare him, and therefore we should make more games like the ones that scared him and lay off all the other styles of game that didn't, then I would say that's his subjective opinion and that we shouldn't discard every other style of game because he likes being scared.

The idea people are having problems with is that older graphics are BETTER, meaning we'd be better off if all games forgot about the shiny new graphical tools and went back to 8-bit. It's a rather... Ahmish attitude, almost, discounting all the things people like about the new stuff because you prefer the rustic feel of the old.

Now, if you said that the older graphics were able to accomplish something the newer stuff can't, and that the ability to put yourself into the character is nice upon occasion, then I think you'd find a lot of people agreed with you. However, there are also some things we can do nowadays that we couldn't have imagined doing before... frivolous things, sometimes, like letting you throw around soda cans and saw blades and other rubbish without having to TELL you what it is, because you can SEE it, and you can tell what it is. Things like showing you an army of a thousand orcs, rather than showing you some greenish dots or, like, 5 orcs and telling you via text that there is actually an army of them just offscreen. Things like having hidden doors and switches that you look for in the same way you would in real life, because you can see where they are if you're looking for them... these are all things you simply can't do with the old graphics, and some people like that.

Therefore, old graphics are not better than new graphics. They're different. They tell certain stories better, but they're worse at telling others. We should keep making games with the newer graphics, for no other reason than the fact that new technologies, if pursued, will produce graphics and therefore stories that we haven't seen yet and that, therefore, cannot be judged.

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.

You win.

No, seriously. Everyone stop replying. This post just said everything that could be said on the issue perfectly.

Pack it up, folks.

Blood Brain Barrier:

How as my argument an aesthetic one?

Pretty much the entirety of it is.

Also, I don't believe in the objective/subjective distinction, but if I did it wouldn't apply here.

Okay, I'm outta here.

Well, I might as well finish at least.

If I presented an opinion, 'Cartoon images involve a higher level of imagination than real-life photographs' then that is not an invalid argument.

Of course it's an invalid argument, seeing as it's not an argument but an opinion.

Okay, now if you'll excuse me...

image

Older graphics are better for me personally because I run those games. :D
Diablo II is nice and smooth, Skyrim is jerky.

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.

^This right here. Honestly, read a book if your so interested in using your imagination.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
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.

Older games are "better" because lower-end graphics and an absence of voice acting allowed for more copy-pasta models and a fuckton of "content" (i.e. "text") to be crammed into it. When graphics got better, people got less tolerant of visual similarities, and more pixels meant unique models took up more space, hence the worlds couldn't be as big with high graphics. There's no way in hell that Skyrim or Oblivion could (currently) match the sheer copy-pasted scale that is Daggerfall. As for voice acting... well, voice actors need to be paid, and I don't think they want to spend years of their time playing the same character, trying to record every single possible scenario the developers could imagine. It takes time, space, and a lot of money to get those voices. It's not like the old days where the writer of dialogue could simply write whole novel's worth of dialogue. At least, not until we learn how to simulate voices in a believable manner that they can artificially say whatever has been written in-game (such as a custom-input name).

Bottom line, it just boils down to a simple truth that people need to accept: "If you want higher 'quality' games, expect less 'content' than older games. If you want more 'content', expect less 'quality' than newer games."

Captcha: "swan song" - how apropos.

I agree with you, although not entirely. There are some advantages to newer graphics today, too.

But yes, I must say older graphics made me feel immersed a bit more than today's games.

I still play Doom online today, as you can see by my avatar. And I love the graphics because they give off a cartoony, gory feeling. They're artistic, interesting and generally look attractive because the game seems to have its own visual style.

Guardian of Nekops:

Blood Brain Barrier:

All this amounts to is saying 'shit is subjective, yo'. This doesn't mean we can't make perceptions about different kinds of graphics and the way they affect the player. That is something that isn't subjective - you can see it. If you're sitting next to your friend and he jumps back in fear from a game, would you say that's subjective and therefore irrelevant?

No, but if he said that scary games were better than games that didn't scare him, and therefore we should make more games like the ones that scared him and lay off all the other styles of game that didn't, then I would say that's his subjective opinion and that we shouldn't discard every other style of game because he likes being scared.

The idea people are having problems with is that older graphics are BETTER, meaning we'd be better off if all games forgot about the shiny new graphical tools and went back to 8-bit. It's a rather... Ahmish attitude, almost, discounting all the things people like about the new stuff because you prefer the rustic feel of the old.

Would it be an Amish attitude to say that a shovel is better for digging than a pencil? You're discounting the possibility of making judgments at all. We're not talking about people's preferences divorced from all other considerations. A photograph is better for conveying visual information than a cartoon - that is fact.

Now, if you said that the older graphics were able to accomplish something the newer stuff can't, and that the ability to put yourself into the character is nice upon occasion, then I think you'd find a lot of people agreed with you. However, there are also some things we can do nowadays that we couldn't have imagined doing before... frivolous things, sometimes, like letting you throw around soda cans and saw blades and other rubbish without having to TELL you what it is, because you can SEE it, and you can tell what it is. Things like showing you an army of a thousand orcs, rather than showing you some greenish dots or, like, 5 orcs and telling you via text that there is actually an army of them just offscreen. Things like having hidden doors and switches that you look for in the same way you would in real life, because you can see where they are if you're looking for them... these are all things you simply can't do with the old graphics, and some people like that.

Therefore, old graphics are not better than new graphics. They're different. They tell certain stories better, but they're worse at telling others. We should keep making games with the newer graphics, for no other reason than the fact that new technologies, if pursued, will produce graphics and therefore stories that we haven't seen yet and that, therefore, cannot be judged.

That's all I meant to say. But I appreciate the analysis, and agree with it.

evilneko:

Blood Brain Barrier:

How as my argument an aesthetic one?

Pretty much the entirety of it is.

Also, I don't believe in the objective/subjective distinction, but if I did it wouldn't apply here.

Okay, I'm outta here.

Well, I might as well finish at least.

If I presented an opinion, 'Cartoon images involve a higher level of imagination than real-life photographs' then that is not an invalid argument.

Of course it's an invalid argument, seeing as it's not an argument but an opinion.

Okay, now if you'll excuse me...

Let me know when you've graduated from high school, I think you have some more English homework to work on. Particularly the words "aesthetic", "argument", and "opinion".

The OP was about as far from an aesthetic discussion as you can get. Function is the issue here.

Blood Brain Barrier:

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.

I disagree with your premise and even if I did agree with it I would disagree with this statement. When I look at a cartoon image what I see in my head is not my realistic imagining of the cartoon image or my own interpretation of it, I see a cartoon image. I'm pretty sure that this is what most people see when they look at one.

OT: Now why I disagree with your premise. While there definitely is some merit in less detailed graphics letting your imagination do more, that doesn't work for every game. Lot's of games have things they want to communicate which require more detail to communicate it effectively. Expressions, emotional scenes, or art styles that require more detail than pixels.

Take games like Journey, Shadow of the Colossus, or Dark Souls. Those games didn't look as good as they did because of high quality graphics, but they wouldn't have been able to do justice to the art design with N64 level graphics

OP you best be trollin'. If you want all your games to look like blocky shit then take your glasses off before you play them.

I achieve immersion in Western RPG's because my character is covered in 200 pounds of armour and I can't see them, anyway. In JRPG's I just pick the most aloof character and decide that's totally what I'd be like in that situation (Balthier in FFXII).

In FPS's I can't see my character so it's easy to become immersed and in games like God of War or Splatterhouse I don't want to be the character, I want to enjoy their story and guide them through it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked