Why primitive, older graphics are better than modern graphics.
- Thread starter Blood Brain Barrier
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's still one point that doesn't remotely justify an absolute statement any more than "Vanilla is better than chocolate because white is a purer color".Blood Brain Barrier said:
Also, as I said, any RPG worth its salt has character customization. This renders your point moot.
And I get off telling you that better graphics are "better"... because they're called "better" graphics. When I say "because they're better", I was referring to the "better' part of "better graphics". That better?
Where do you get off telling us that simplified graphics are better? Or acting so goddang superior to everyone who doesn't share your opinions?Blood Brain Barrier said:
Let's say we applied this logic to color and movies. You could argue films were more colorful in the black-and-white days because you could fill in the gaps with your imagination. You could say Citizen Kane was a wild and crazy adventure in technicolor Wonderland where everybody's complection looked like Oompa Loompas and they dressed like the Lollypop Guild.Blood Brain Barrier said:
Older games were stylized, but I wouldn't say they all were "fueled by your imagination." I'm sure their creators had very clear pictures of what they wanted, they just had to tone it down to fit the limitations of their medium. Think about the old cave paintings from long ago. Do you think they were specifically aiming for stick figures? No, they were trying to portray humans. But they couldn't with their tools and limited knowledge of visually portraying the human form. So they made stick figures, they stylized them. They weren't trying to fuel your imagination, they were just doing the best they could. And they probably would have done more if they knew how (which they did as history progressed).
If gamemakers want more simple and stylized figures, they can still get that now. That isn't a problem. Hell, look at Minecraft. Look at I Am the Man. Look at VVVVV and Terraria and Tower to Heaven. Just because some developers want to clearly define what their characters look like doesn't mean all want to, and it doesn't mean all will. And as others have mentioned there's character creation, which would never exist as we know it now back in the NES and SNES era.
Here's the thing: 2D graphics tend to age very well. Super Mario Brothers 3 still looks good to me. On the other hand, it is rare [http://www.playdevil.net/uploader/files/1/Screenshots/Noplatformspecific/2011/Rayman_Origins/rayman_origins_2.jpg] that 2D graphics ever truly "wow" me.
That's where 3D graphics have an advantage. There was a time when this [http://images.wikia.com/zelda/images/4/49/Lake_Hylia_%28Ocarina_of_Time%29.png] amazed me. No, it doesn't anymore. But it used to. Now it's things like this [http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/105/1053742/red-dead-redemption-20091214044240230.jpg]. While that amazement may fade over time, I wouldn't want to sacrifice it. I like feeling in wonder if the scene I'm walking through.
So both styles have a place. We need not forsake one for the other.
That's where 3D graphics have an advantage. There was a time when this [http://images.wikia.com/zelda/images/4/49/Lake_Hylia_%28Ocarina_of_Time%29.png] amazed me. No, it doesn't anymore. But it used to. Now it's things like this [http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/105/1053742/red-dead-redemption-20091214044240230.jpg]. While that amazement may fade over time, I wouldn't want to sacrifice it. I like feeling in wonder if the scene I'm walking through.
So both styles have a place. We need not forsake one for the other.
You're just jealous over how fancy my nostalgia goggles are.Blaster395 said:
The funny thing is that what you may think is 'bad' (or shit) from back then is actually really good. I mean, in comparison to some of the absolutely terrible stuff that came out. Late Atari period, for example. ET. The 'unfinished' games of today that people ***** about can't compare to the broken stuff back then.
The point I'm getting at is that back then when all you had were limited graphics (sometimes no graphics at all, and the games were incredibly hard), your imagination covered up for it. With games today (pretty graphics and spoon-feedingly dumbed down game-play), there's no need to think and no more room for imagination.
That was until the last person that quoted me linked me to a great 16 bit game on Steam. There is much greatness to be had with it. I wish more people did that.
People have an opinion different to yours? Well clearly you are just confusing them with your wicked logic, it can't be the fact that they disagree with you?Blood Brain Barrier said:
What makes a game good is not it's age.
OP's argument is all well and good, but it ignores the flipside of the issue, which is having to squint your eyes at the screen and wonder aloud "WTF is that supposed to be?!? A rock? A giant gaping hole that I'll die if I fall down? Just a shadow?"
Having to imagine stuff to fill in the blanks can be a blessing and a curse, y'all.
Having to imagine stuff to fill in the blanks can be a blessing and a curse, y'all.
Viewing attributes of an object visually is not the same as creatively projecting them on an object. They're very different modes of customization, but still customization nonetheless.lacktheknack said:
How? How could that possibly fit within the gaps of Citizen Kane? I challenge you to try this.Lilani said:
Good point, but not quite there. So all art is aimed at accurately portrayal? What about modern abstract art? We don't know how humans long ago saw other humans. It's possible they found the stick figure the most suitable form.
I think the biggest thing we are lacking as we move from low-res or text based games to fully rendered 3d worlds is the focus on story and depth.
In the text MUD age, I could be anything and have anything and go anywhere within the bounds of the game's canon. Would you like a "Curved saber with a fine ivory inlay of a dragon on the hilt" that "sings through the air when waved"? Go ahead, convince a GM at a merchant event that its within the world's rules and it's yours. The GM's want to add a new realm, or change an existing one, and it's as simple as imagining and describing it.
That sort of creative agility has gone further and further away with each graphics iteration, and the game worlds we live in now are very dense with lore and imagination, but they are lacking that individuality that we used to have. Especially in the MMO space.
In the text MUD age, I could be anything and have anything and go anywhere within the bounds of the game's canon. Would you like a "Curved saber with a fine ivory inlay of a dragon on the hilt" that "sings through the air when waved"? Go ahead, convince a GM at a merchant event that its within the world's rules and it's yours. The GM's want to add a new realm, or change an existing one, and it's as simple as imagining and describing it.
That sort of creative agility has gone further and further away with each graphics iteration, and the game worlds we live in now are very dense with lore and imagination, but they are lacking that individuality that we used to have. Especially in the MMO space.
That was sort of my point. You don't fill in the gaps with black and white movies, you simply accept it as a part of the style. The same goes with games, well at least while you are playing it. I didn't play through Pokemon actively imagining images of being a fully-rendered character in a fully-rendered environment. I accepted the style for what it was. It was stylized, just as cartoons are. I did get quite engrossed, but it wasn't because the limited graphics caused me to see more vivid images or insert my own. It was because I got engrossed in the gameplay and levels. I have loved the graphical improvements with every new installation, the broadened range of styles gives the world even more depth and even more to get lost in. I did to a bit of "role-playing" I guess, but I wasn't really able to do this well until they made a female model available. And even then I didn't really mind the preset look. Immersion relies less on graphics and more on gameplay. It does require a balance, though. The gameplay must be solid and engrossing and the graphics should at the very least not distract from this.Blood Brain Barrier said:
That isn't what I was saying at all. I was simply saying we can't know for sure what the ideal level of graphical sophistication would have been for the games of old. What if the original Legend of Zelda game were made today? I'm pretty sure, at the very least, it would look a bit more sophisticated. Same goes with Super Mario Brothers. I don't think those characters looked so simple because Shigeru Miyamoto really had a thing for pixels, or so that they were simple enough for people to use their own imaginations to fill in the blanks. They looked like that because that's all they could do with the graphics of the time. You can even tell he tried his hardest to define who his characters were, but those few stacks of pixels were as far as he could get at the point of delivery.
If the old limited graphics of yesteryear better enable your imagination, I'm afraid it wasn't intentional, at least most of the time. They were just doing the best they could with the tools they had. I'm sure they would have loved to deliver colorful and well-defined characters with sophisticated aesthetics, but they couldn't.
There is something to be said for the value of "Inspiration through abstraction".
But I wouldn't go around calling it "better".
But I wouldn't go around calling it "better".