Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[Black Arrow Officer]

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:

 

[Snotnarok]

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.

 

[Mike Richards]

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'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

 

[ZephyriaSoul]

Oh, gonna put in a few more cents.

Cel shading art style will NEVER age, at least, not to me.
Games like Cel Damage, XIII, and Killer7 still look INCREDIBLY good.

 

[ResonanceSD]

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.

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.

 

[Kahunaburger]

EDIT: Actually, no. On second thought, do try. I want to hear how this [http://www.helpfulsnowman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Player-harvesting-a-Little-Sister.jpg] 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.)

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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?

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

EDIT: Actually, no. On second thought, do try. I want to hear how this [http://www.helpfulsnowman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Player-harvesting-a-Little-Sister.jpg] would be more dramatically captivating if she just had a couple of pixels arranged into a frowny face.

Easy. This [http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/590/draft_lens18984243module155859025photo_1324140649amnesia.jpg] 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.

 

[Unsilenced]

EDIT: Actually, no. On second thought, do try. I want to hear how this [http://www.helpfulsnowman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Player-harvesting-a-Little-Sister.jpg] 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 [http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/590/draft_lens18984243module155859025photo_1324140649amnesia.jpg] 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 [http://images.wikia.com/amnesia/images/2/2a/Tumblr_lfxc88h3OZ1qbzf0vo1_500.jpg] 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.

 

[Unsilenced]

EDIT: Derp post.

 

[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?

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?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

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.

 

[Vault101]

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.

[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

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

 

[Fanboy]

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.

 

[Xanadu84]

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.

 

[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.