Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.

[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.

 

[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.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

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

 

[rob_simple]

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.

 

[SmegInThePants]

my only problem w/graphics is developers too often spend a disproportionate amount of their time working on graphics rather than the game itself.

There's still only a finite amount of money developers/publishers are willing to put into a game - and you need a whole team of expensive employees to make nice graphics by today's standards.

I have no problem at all w/nice graphics, love 'em. But it should be the last priority, not the first. Get the nicest graphics you can while still creating the full and complete vision of your game. It won't look as nice as it would had you put 90 percent of your budget into the graphics, but what good are nice graphics on a crappy game.

 

[kingthrall]

I agree 100% with the Topic Starter, for all those trash talkers out there, new games just tend to elaborate on bloom and effects. Even the plots they use are terrible.

That said not all modern games are bad, but the vast majority are pathetic. Ive yet to see a game to top Myth II for all you haters of this thread.

Myth II is by far the most advanced rts ever made and if you think its less complicated than a modern game, I would be more than happy to do a little weigh in comparison to whatever you throw at me.

 

[lapan]

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.

Gothic? ...What? You never played Gothic, right? If you had you would know you play a set character.

Other than that, I feel games like The Witcher or Mass Effect are more RPGs than TES or Fallout. Action RPGs maybe, but TES games are hardly RPGs anymore. Massive sandboxes would be a more accurate label.

You play a nameless character, who can choose whatever class he wants in a open world. It's maybe not as free as the other examples, but it's still your own chaaracter to a degree.

 

[Archleone]

I can see where OP is coming from, but I've found some recent games that I found just as good if not better than some of the games from my childhood...but my major beef about the graphics issue is that some games place too much emphasis on graphics and not enough time on fleshing out the world of the game.

 

[Torrasque]

I get your argument OP, and I love old game graphics, but your argument fails in it's delivery.
You equate poor graphics to increased imagination of those graphics. This would translate in the art world to, "a blank sheet of paper is better than the Mona Lisa or anything Van Gogh ever painted" because you can imagine anything you want on a blank piece of paper whereas a painting (especially a very good one) has a set definition to it.

I'm not going to get into the whole "graphics are important but not really, but they are" argument because I've gone into it way too fucking much.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

I get your argument OP, and I love old game graphics, but your argument fails in it's delivery.
You equate poor graphics to increased imagination of those graphics. This would translate in the art world to, "a blank sheet of paper is better than the Mona Lisa or anything Van Gogh ever painted" because you can imagine anything you want on a blank piece of paper whereas a painting (especially a very good one) has a set definition to it.

Not at all. When you compare these two pictures, it is clear that the one on the top has more space for your imagination to fill in the gaps, the detail of the hair for example.

I mean, the top one could be anything, he's such a vague and undefined character visually. The one on the bottom is visually complete and has little room for filling in the gaps by imagination.

 

[Torrasque]

Myth II is by far the most advanced rts ever made and if you think its less complicated than a modern game, I would be more than happy to do a little weigh in comparison to whatever you throw at me.

Never heard of it, but upon my brief google search, I am greatly interested in this game. I shall have to hunt down a copy.

As for RTS advanced-ness, hmm...
____craft games are relatively simple but complex in execution.
Kingdom Under Fire is very simple but has a lot of strategy behind the execution.
Age of ____ games are more macro based than the ____craft games, but lack any convincing micro to make it engaging.
Advance Wars and Fire Emblem games are all about dat RNG and unit comp.
And then Ogre Battle 64 has a lot of unit management and the combat is very detailed, but it is not that advanced imo.

I'd have to play Myth 2 to see what you even mean by "advanced".
I consider Chess to be a simple game in theory but one of the most complex games in it's execution. What would you say about Chess?

 

[Torrasque]

I get your argument OP, and I love old game graphics, but your argument fails in it's delivery.
You equate poor graphics to increased imagination of those graphics. This would translate in the art world to, "a blank sheet of paper is better than the Mona Lisa or anything Van Gogh ever painted" because you can imagine anything you want on a blank piece of paper whereas a painting (especially a very good one) has a set definition to it.

Not at all. When you compare these two pictures, it is clear that the one on the top has more space for your imagination to fill in the gaps, the detail of the hair for example.

I mean, the top one could be anything, he's such a vague and undefined character visually. The one on the bottom is visually complete and has little room for filling in the gaps by imagination.

And in both cases, I can imagine the character to be a douchebag and bigot, or a shy introvert with a love of fuzzy things.
It doesn't matter if is a blank canvas or my own hand, my imagination is not bound by appearances.
I get that the first could be any person with shoulder length blonde hair, while the second is exactly what he looks like, but there is always room for your imagination to fill in the gaps. Just because there is slightly less space for your imagination to fill, doesn't mean that it is worse.
Your argument would mean that comics involving stick men are better than the highest quality animation just because that stick man can be anyone, and I think that is bullshit.

 

[xPixelatedx]

This meant that you could imagine

..Whats this? Imagine something? Next you are going to want people to solve puzzles, find keys, work their way through labyrinths and have epic boss battles that are actually difficult and requires multiple tries. Hey man, I play games to turn my brain off. Go back to Harvard, you thinker!

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to watch all three Transformers in a row.

 

[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.

Your right, I shouldn't take your EXACT WORDS as what you actually meant.

 

[Woodsey]

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"

Nope, we understand you perfectly; we just think it's a stupid suggestion. Shocking, really, that people could disagree with you.

If you're going to say it's imagination that makes the game better, why not just wave a stick in the air and pretend you're fighting goblins?

Exactly. If you prefer using your imagination then make a costume and a foam sword and run around outside.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

Absolutely agreed. Older graphics are not inherently better. We just remember the better examples of it more fondly than the crap. Same applies to todays engines. Years from now we'll remember the good examples and forget the bad.

That said, advanced graphical engines don't automatically make a newer game look good either. The key to a great looking game; regardless of the engine; is the art direction and the talent of the design team. A great design team can craft an amazing looking game using an old engine while a bad team, even using the most advanced engine available, would craft an eye-sore.

 

[Chemical Alia]

I liked playing Bubble Bobble because I had absolutely no idea what was going on or what half the enemies/items were supposed to be. It's cool when some stuff is left to your imagination as it makes the experience more personal, so it definitely has its place in games. But that can be done in plenty of ways.

 

[Aeonknight]

I agree 100% with the Topic Starter, for all those trash talkers out there, new games just tend to elaborate on bloom and effects. Even the plots they use are terrible.

That said not all modern games are bad, but the vast majority are pathetic. Ive yet to see a game to top Myth II for all you haters of this thread.

Myth II is by far the most advanced rts ever made and if you think its less complicated than a modern game, I would be more than happy to do a little weigh in comparison to whatever you throw at me.

You're comparing the depth of your old RTS to the graphical fidelity of say... an FPS. You may as well compare apples to oranges because your silly little game has no relevance to the arguement the OP is making.

A game can be complex without having to have shit graphics. Also I'm pretty sure I could throw some #'s from my MMO out to beat out your "complexity" of your RTS but I really don't want to get into a fanboy war over a flawed statement.