Or just a Pen and paper tabletop game. Something like D&D makes you use a LOT more imagination than the older games.Hazy992 said:
Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.
- Thread starter Blood Brain Barrier
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't hate all modern games with modern graphics. But for me, it just feels less streamlined and imprecise. Landscapes don't seem to be realized. Most of the time, new games look ugly to me and everything seems sloppier and thrown about. I don't tend to like the aesthetic much of most newer games, and I get sick of them easier and go back to playing older games I feel are more fun to play, and look better.
For instance, this
and this
Look worse to me
than this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
You get the idea.
Games seemed to have been more aesthetically appealing overall back then. More rich paintings, more colours and less browns and greys. They moved between the cute, and the very picturesque. And things seemed more proportional. And it's also true that if you don't like what you're seeing, there's also a lot of good left up to the imagination to fix. I'd love to see more 16-Bit graphics in games. And especially more 2D sprites.
There are exceptionally beautiful modern games. But more times than not, I consider old games more beautiful.
For instance, this
and this
Look worse to me
than this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
You get the idea.
Games seemed to have been more aesthetically appealing overall back then. More rich paintings, more colours and less browns and greys. They moved between the cute, and the very picturesque. And things seemed more proportional. And it's also true that if you don't like what you're seeing, there's also a lot of good left up to the imagination to fix. I'd love to see more 16-Bit graphics in games. And especially more 2D sprites.
There are exceptionally beautiful modern games. But more times than not, I consider old games more beautiful.
He shoots.... He scores!Kahunaburger said:
Kahunaburger is on the money folks, graphics are a tool, to single them out and say "REtro/Realism/Cartoony/etc. is the best, end off" is wrong and fails to understand that games are made of many things in service to a end.
Graphics are a means, as is sound, as is difficulty, as is dialogue.
No, they are not. But being more primitive they have to force themselves to have more style. Hyper-realism was not an option for them, so they have to be more creative to conceal items, features and object. Now games have to make a decision about going for realism or stylized graphics, and I would agree stylized works better almost every time.
Compare this: Which one look better, the older game or the newer game?
Now try with realistic games. Which one looks better?
The moment you aim for realism, the game will not age gracefully.
Compare this: Which one look better, the older game or the newer game?
Now try with realistic games. Which one looks better?
The moment you aim for realism, the game will not age gracefully.
As has been said before, the problem with better graphics is that nowadays that's the only focus for developers, at the loss of mostly everything else. They have a set budget and can only do so much with that and the time they have, and because most people scream for better, more realistic graphics, they cave in. While I do prefer games to be as realistic and as detailed as possible, I will any day choose gameplay and story over graphics, and that's why to this day I still play games made back in the '90s and late '80s on DOS, Atari, Nintendo and C64 emulators. Some of those games have atrocious graphics, they're literally a pain to look at if you're used only to modern games, but the gameplay and story are second to none. They are fun, immersive and most even let you choose your own path instead of holding your hand from one cutscene to the next.
I would just like to say that I've NEVER played myself in an RPG of any shape or form. Ever. That would be utterly retarded. I'm a writer, I make stories (and play others' stories) of people who do not exist.
I would also like to jump on the "you are full of crap" bandwagon because I would much rather look at the wonderful scenery porn of, say, Skyrim than suffer through the environments of older games.
I would also like to jump on the "you are full of crap" bandwagon because I would much rather look at the wonderful scenery porn of, say, Skyrim than suffer through the environments of older games.
Maybe you should read more books, if you want to imagine what the characters look like for yourself. Old graphics aren't better, but they definitely hold more nostalgia and yeah, more opportunity to make it up for yourself. That's not really a feature though, you'd get laughed at for trying to pitch a game that has "low-res graphics, because the players like to imagine for themselves what the characters look like".
When i think of older graphics vs newer ones, I usually think of Megaman. The older games had tight controls and large areas, but then in Megaman 7 and 8 it lost the tightness that the previous game had. (and the megabuster non charged became a joke) playing Megaman 9 again rules! back to the basics... the fun, fun basics.
(legends was fun though, but in a completely different way.)
(legends was fun though, but in a completely different way.)
Honestly I feel like comparing old graphics to new ones is comparing apples to oranges... Sure they have their similarities. Sure they have things about them that would endear people to one over the other. Sure they have things about them that make them better for one purpose or another. But neither is inherently better than the other when it comes down to it.
To me what makes or breaks the beauty of a game is not how high or low the quality of the graphics are. It's how well they are implemented. A game can have low res graphics which does have it's strengths, but if the one using them has no idea how to they can just as easily fall flat onto their face and make what is just a jumble of colorful blocks. Same with high-res graphics, they do have their inherent strengths. But poor use of such tools can make it hard to look at.
In the end neither is really superior in the sense of one being better, like any tool they have their times and their places and it's up to the wielder of the tool to decide wether it works or it doesn't.
To me what makes or breaks the beauty of a game is not how high or low the quality of the graphics are. It's how well they are implemented. A game can have low res graphics which does have it's strengths, but if the one using them has no idea how to they can just as easily fall flat onto their face and make what is just a jumble of colorful blocks. Same with high-res graphics, they do have their inherent strengths. But poor use of such tools can make it hard to look at.
In the end neither is really superior in the sense of one being better, like any tool they have their times and their places and it's up to the wielder of the tool to decide wether it works or it doesn't.
Blood Brain Barrier said:
So the only way people could disagree with you is if they are to stupid to comprehend what you're saying, wow that's some ego you got.
The problem with your statement is it only works in games that want you to be an undefined character, games like Batman, Final Fantasy, or Mario do benefit from higher graphics and even games that don't have as set of a character but push atmosphere benefit from higher res graphics. The older style of graphics work for some games, much like the ugly ass blocks work for Minecraft but it wont work for everything.
I will never understand when people praise an art form, one that is specifically designed to TELL you what you're looking at, for being so shit at the aforementioned fact that "You get to use your imagination"
I am playing a game, or reading a book, or looking at a painting, the information of what i'm seeing comes from the source material; If I wanted to use my fucking imagination I wouldn't be playing a game, or reading a book, or looking at a painting - ID BE USING MY FUCKING IMAGINATION.
A blank canvas lets you use your imagination to its fullest, that doesn't make it a brilliant painting. It, in fact, isn't a painting at all.
So if the best "Pro" for saying that an indistinct, pixelated blob on my screen is better than a finely crafted, detailed character is "Hurrr yu get to use da imaginations!" then frankly I don't know where you're pulling these straws to cling to from.
I am playing a game, or reading a book, or looking at a painting, the information of what i'm seeing comes from the source material; If I wanted to use my fucking imagination I wouldn't be playing a game, or reading a book, or looking at a painting - ID BE USING MY FUCKING IMAGINATION.
A blank canvas lets you use your imagination to its fullest, that doesn't make it a brilliant painting. It, in fact, isn't a painting at all.
So if the best "Pro" for saying that an indistinct, pixelated blob on my screen is better than a finely crafted, detailed character is "Hurrr yu get to use da imaginations!" then frankly I don't know where you're pulling these straws to cling to from.
How so? It seen the top image had already predetermined half if not most of the character apperance for me already.Blood Brain Barrier said: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.Torrasque said:
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.
The character is male, with short spiky light brown hair and have black eyes which only leave the face.
At least the bottom image can still let me choose to make a female character with long red hair and green eyes.
Beside ain't the whole imaganation thing is over anyone once you look at the game cover or the manual books which usually show the character face or do you ignore those althogether for the sake of imaganation?
I disagree fairly vehemently, from my own personal experience, but I'd be willing to concede that older graphics, made with sprites got really good by the time 3D became the mainstay and games made with those look as good as we remember them for standing outside the fidelity race.
Or, more simply, 2D sprite graphics don't 'age' like modern games.
Or, more simply, 2D sprite graphics don't 'age' like modern games.
BAHAHAHHA this is hilarious an MMO, probably the least complex gaming genre. Games that make you farm, sell fictitious weapons online and have committed some of the stupidest people in the world to commit suicide over characters being hacked like WOW. My god man you really do know how to dig yourself in a grave here! It doesnt matter if the game is different with the comparison I was going to make, as it would still show the amount of effort committed on either side based on that genre. Then again it would be based fairly low being a MMO.Aeonknight said:
They should really sticky this because your kidding yourself about MMO's.
Check out this, the micro, some not so micro-like heh, and the funny random stuff like the shrapnel at the start from the explosion, the cutlass hitting the warrior.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJzGtxjIXhw
Aww that's adorable, someone thinks that by oversimplifying the gameplay of a genre that it demonstrates a lack of complexity. I can do that too. Know what your RTS consists of?kingthrall said:
Click. Click. Click. Maybe using the keypad if you're pro!
/sarcasm. Come back when you have an actual arguement rather than use the OP's flawed logic to take a stab at genre's you don't like.