Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411279 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 02:02:36 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesWhy do I like older games so much?
Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Author Topic: Why do I like older games so much?  (Read 7840 times)
Trash_Empire
Level 0
***



View Profile
« on: July 16, 2014, 05:30:32 AM »

Lots and lots of new games have been coming out and I get really turned away from them because of their good graphics. The weirdest thing to me is that for some reason I like the older graphics style better. This is why I am such a huge indie game fan, because the graphics aren't as crazy as the newer games. The graphics style I like most is back in the N64 era. Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of time have like perfect graphics to me. Is that weird? It is for a lot of other things to, I would rather play the original sims that the newer ones. Starcraft over Starcraft 2. The older X-Coms. Half Life over HL2. Counter Strike over CSGO. I feel really weird about this. It is a personal preference. Does anybody else have this?
Logged
Schoq
Level 10
*****


♡∞


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2014, 06:32:05 AM »

http://socks-studio.com/img/blog/854temp.gif

Cool things have certainly been done with few polygons rendered to a low resolution, and there are lots of arguments to be made individually in favour of e.g. HL over HL2 in terms of how they play, but if you think Zelda 64 has pleasing graphics overall you're actually mad.
Logged

♡ ♥ make games, not money ♥ ♡
erebusman
Level 2
**


no one of consequence


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2014, 06:48:03 AM »

Lots and lots of new games have been coming out and I get really turned away from them because of their good graphics. The weirdest thing to me is that for some reason I like the older graphics style better. This is why I am such a huge indie game fan, because the graphics aren't as crazy as the newer games. The graphics style I like most is back in the N64 era. Super Mario 64 and Ocarina of time have like perfect graphics to me. Is that weird? It is for a lot of other things to, I would rather play the original sims that the newer ones. Starcraft over Starcraft 2. The older X-Coms. Half Life over HL2. Counter Strike over CSGO. I feel really weird about this. It is a personal preference. Does anybody else have this?

My humble opinion is there are two primary factors for this:

- in the current 'high def approaching realism' it gets increasingly difficult to 'nail' all the subtle effects of reality in your game thus creating lots of small details that your brain knows are wrong with the character or the scene or the lighting and it bothers you.

- in older days they had less to work with from the point of memory, color bit depth, and disk space to hold the graphics and due to this a lot more 'manual' love around creating a consistently impressionistic look and feel to the graphics style.

Focusing on the impressionism rather than the realism ends up being a bit brilliant from the perspective of your brain - it can fill in all the details itself which in the end turn up feeling more rewarding to your brain *IT* supplied those details that were missing instead of noticing they were missing in the 'realistic' game.

That's just my personal feelings on the matter, I'm sure there are more theories about it than people -- including the funny comic linked by Schoq Smiley

Logged

Infernohawke Entertainment
gamerzap
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2014, 08:06:33 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley <- this may be your problem with the graphics.  The person above explained it pretty well, but this is the name.

Another thing may be that many people prefer stylized graphics in video games over realism, and, back when graphic artists couldn't hope to do realism, stylizing graphics was common.

Also, without impressive graphics or a lot of memory for intricate stories and detailed levels, many old games had to focus almost entirely on gameplay, which a lot of people like.
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2014, 08:36:07 AM »

i don't think the uncanny valley is a problem in my case. i prefer older graphics because i believe older graphics were *better* (generally speaking). what matters for graphics is style and self-consistency, clarity, etc., not how many polygons or colors are used -- e.g. what matters is how good it looks to the eye. a good artist can make better art with crayons than some random person can with oil painting. tools only take you so far. today's games simply have inferior artists, they usually hire some 3D artists out of school who were only trained in "3D modeling" or "3D animation" or something, and were not classically trained as artists. by contrast, in the older days, artists for games tended to be classically trained in the fine arts, not in specialist 3D modeling/animation

there are certainly exceptions, there are modern 3D games with very good art too, and there's old 2D games with terrible art, it's just that for most of them, since the artists aren't actually trained artists, they have little knowledge of how to use their tools and technology. the technology today is certainly superior, but the art direction and understanding of art for the average game artist is often inferior

to illustrate what i mean, compare the average indie 2D game with programmer art (e.g. the typical game maker game) with the average snes game. even with similar resolutions and color depth, usually the snes game has far better graphics, because it used actual artists and not programmers to make the art. again there are exceptions (like owlboy or something) but generally 2D indie games look inferior to 2D snes or nes games, because of a difference in artistic training, not due to any technology
Logged

ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2014, 08:41:53 AM »

to illustrate, compare final fantasy 6 with final fantasy 13 lightning returns (the newest final fantasy game)





can anyone really say that the latter image is *better* art? it's certainly higher tech art, but to me the first image is clearly the superior artistic work. even just visually, if i knew nothing about either game, i'd rather play a game that looks like the former than the latter
Logged

Cobralad
Cowardly Baby
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 16, 2014, 08:49:46 AM »

Looks more like you compare narrative of those pictures rather than visual style.
Normal gameplay screenshot of both games would make better judgement.
Logged
Trash_Empire
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 16, 2014, 09:06:32 AM »

I think the main focus in games today is the art. Indie games are interesting to me, because they focus on mechanics and stuff of that nature. That is what I liked about the older games. They ran smoothly, not realisticly. They focused on mechanics, not art. I think this is why, but I am still unsure.
Logged
ink.inc
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 16, 2014, 09:43:50 AM »

there are certainly exceptions, there are modern 3D games with very good art too, and there's old 2D games with terrible art, it's just that for most of them, since the artists aren't actually trained artists, they have little knowledge of how to use their tools and technology. the technology today is certainly superior, but the art direction and understanding of art for the average game artist is often inferior

yo this is a bunch of bullshit
Logged
ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)
Level 10
*****


Also known as रिंकू.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 16, 2014, 12:20:18 PM »

there's a lot of evidence to back up what i said though. the two main ones are:

the average career in game development today lasts around 4 years; people are hired out of college, fired after their first game, and never hired in the game industry again. the people making AAA games are literally almost all college kids fresh out of college. this is done to keep costs down, because if you hire new people you don't need to give anyone a raise. this wasn't the case in the 80s and 90s, because there wasn't as large a pool of new hirees to cycle through

secondly, the specialist fields of 3D art and 3D animation didn't exist back then, nobody went to college for it and was taught to do it. instead, because it was so new, they majored in the fine arts or illustration. today thousands or tens of thousands of people go to schools for 3D art in particular (often at places like dedicated 'videogame colleges'). a lot of these people wind up being hired, and work on the art of games even though they don't actually have any training in art besides some basic classes. whereas back then, when companies hired artists, they hired people with an actual art background, like yoshitaka amano (the character designer of ff6)

i don't really think either of those two points is arguable
Logged

erebusman
Level 2
**


no one of consequence


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2014, 03:38:09 PM »

there's a lot of evidence to back up what i said though. the two main ones are:

the average career in game development today lasts around 4 years; people are hired out of college, fired after their first game, and never hired in the game industry again. the people making AAA games are literally almost all college kids fresh out of college. this is done to keep costs down, because if you hire new people you don't need to give anyone a raise. this wasn't the case in the 80s and 90s, because there wasn't as large a pool of new hirees to cycle through

secondly, the specialist fields of 3D art and 3D animation didn't exist back then, nobody went to college for it and was taught to do it. instead, because it was so new, they majored in the fine arts or illustration. today thousands or tens of thousands of people go to schools for 3D art in particular (often at places like dedicated 'videogame colleges'). a lot of these people wind up being hired, and work on the art of games even though they don't actually have any training in art besides some basic classes. whereas back then, when companies hired artists, they hired people with an actual art background, like yoshitaka amano (the character designer of ff6)

i don't really think either of those two points is arguable

I can't argue with a word you've said here, its all true for the most part.

HOWEVER .. still amongst those college / technical school graduates / inexperienced dreamy-eyed enthusiasts who are hard up to be used like a brand new shrink wrapped Trojan and soonly discarded .... there are indeed some really talented people from whom to pick.

So AAA can indeed be produced by relatively inexperienced artist .. who also have talent. I think some games show that this gets done from time to time Smiley

One example where its clear its has NOT been happening for the longest time was The Elder Scrolls.  The faces for all the player/NPC models were atrocious and quickly replaced by the modding community with exceptionally better content.

Ironically The Elder Scrolls Online has 200% better character art than any of the single player Elder Scrolls games ever had? It should be backwards of that?
Logged

Infernohawke Entertainment
SundownKid
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2014, 11:26:35 PM »

That's understandable. Modern AAA games tend to sacrifice gameplay depth for graphics. While graphics have advanced, things such as AI have stayed relatively stagnant and game mechanics become repetitive and boring. And modern AAA graphics can tend to look cluttered or chaotic compared to the simplified graphics of previous generations.

In fact, that's one of the main reasons people are drawn to indie games and one of their main selling points. They can't compete in realistic 3D graphics, but everything else such as gameplay, story, etc. is fair game.
Logged

PicklesIIDX
Level 0
**


Follow your heart!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2014, 08:18:59 AM »

can anyone really say that the latter image is *better* art? it's certainly higher tech art, but to me the first image is clearly the superior artistic work. even just visually, if i knew nothing about either game, i'd rather play a game that looks like the former than the latter

I can't handle how biased these images are. So, to contrast, I'll post some biased images:





But, that's just to prove a point. Really, both games have fantastic art direction. They are consistent in their visual style, and will probably continuing looking good for many years.

What I do find interesting here is this discussion about nostalgia versus quality. To a certain degree we will all be biased to enjoy things that were experienced in our formative years. This is normally not bad or makes you crazy or anything. Vintage clothes are a way of expressing yourself, just like preferring older games. But, it could have detrimental effects. It could be a prejudice in which you view the world. Dismissing modern things because they are different will prevent you from having new formative experiences. When you hear a sweeping statement like 'I don't like AAA games' that's a warning sign. I guarantee there are at least a few games with large budgets that speak to the same impulses that many retro/indie games do. It's good to know your preferences, but it's also important to try out new things; to see if there is something you're missing.

What I'm personally interested in is being able to actually judge the quality of something I'm nostalgic about. As a developer, it's important for me to understand why I like things so I can incorporate my experiences into what i make. But if I love something for nostalgic reasons, and can't see the issues with it, I'll likely produce derivative works that don't stand up to anyone who isn't 12.

A similar thing that comes up is people complaining about derivative or simple work. For example, lots of metroidvanias come out from indies these days. It could be easy to complain that there are too many derivative games like this being made, but I wouldn't think that if I hadn't played a metroidvania yet. If that were the case, I'd probably react to Chasm or Ghost Song the same way I reacted to the first time I played Casltevania: SotN. Since there are always more people growing up in the world, it's important to have these new games come out to introduce the concepts we loved growing up to a new generation.
Logged

Glyph
Level 10
*****


Relax! It's all a dream! It HAS to be!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2014, 09:20:57 AM »

I still prefer the FF6 one simply because the FFXIII image is riddled with bloom effects. But comparing them feels kind of silly either way.
Logged


Trash_Empire
Level 0
***



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2014, 09:43:10 AM »

Another thing is newer games seem a lot slower to me. Even on a computer with really good specs, due to motion blur(which you can turn off sometimes) longer intros, and generally trying to make the game more realistic. This addition to games to make them more realistic feels a lot slower and I enjoy the older unrealistic stuff. It's just a personal preference.
Logged
InfiniteStateMachine
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2014, 05:08:16 PM »

to illustrate, compare final fantasy 6 with final fantasy 13 lightning returns (the newest final fantasy game)





can anyone really say that the latter image is *better* art? it's certainly higher tech art, but to me the first image is clearly the superior artistic work. even just visually, if i knew nothing about either game, i'd rather play a game that looks like the former than the latter

Well you did pick one of the most gorgeous pixel art games ever made  Grin This one seems like a no-brainer to me, the first image is definitely the superior artistic work.


there's a lot of evidence to back up what i said though. the two main ones are:

the average career in game development today lasts around 4 years; people are hired out of college, fired after their first game, and never hired in the game industry again. the people making AAA games are literally almost all college kids fresh out of college. this is done to keep costs down, because if you hire new people you don't need to give anyone a raise. this wasn't the case in the 80s and 90s, because there wasn't as large a pool of new hirees to cycle through

i don't really think either of those two points is arguable

I haven't worked at a lot of AAA studios but this is definitely not true from my experience. Most of the people I work with have been coding games/engines for decades.

I'd say it's somewhat more true in the mobile space.





EDIT : My 2 cents

I think the one thing about older games is because they had a graphical ceiling they hit quite easily back the they were forced to spend more time focusing on gameplay rather than graphics. 
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 05:23:48 PM by InfiniteStateMachine » Logged

saibot216
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2014, 09:29:48 PM »

I also like old games and I find it hard to explain to others. I don't think it has to do with the graphics, for me. I can't put my finger on it, but there's some kind of magic to older games that newer games seem to lack. Maybe it's the simplicity, whereas newer games tend to me so complex. Shrug
That said, I do dig that low poly PS1/N64 graphic style. Good stuff.
Logged

SirNiko
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2014, 05:44:08 AM »

I really hate it when I buy a new game, put it in the console, and have to wait 15 minutes to half an hour for the system to update and download patches. That's one thing I really miss about older games.
Logged
PicklesIIDX
Level 0
**


Follow your heart!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2014, 08:13:13 AM »

I also like old games and I find it hard to explain to others. I don't think it has to do with the graphics, for me. I can't put my finger on it, but there's some kind of magic to older games that newer games seem to lack. Maybe it's the simplicity, whereas newer games tend to me so complex. Shrug
That said, I do dig that low poly PS1/N64 graphic style. Good stuff.

Do you mind listing off some you the older games you like? One thing I've discovered is that when people refer to how great older games are, they mention the classics. Because the bad games are forgotten, it paints a picture where all old games are good. But, there are many, many bad old games; it's just that no one remembers them. Chrono Trigger and FF6 are great examples of why RPGS were good on the snes. But there were dozens more that won't be remembered. (Even alright games like Secret of Evermore).
Logged

saibot216
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2014, 01:56:44 PM »

I really hate it when I buy a new game, put it in the console, and have to wait 15 minutes to half an hour for the system to update and download patches. That's one thing I really miss about older games.

OH GOD YES! My first encounter with a PS3 was last year (I am so out of touch it's shameful) and I put the game in and it had to go through this whole installation process and it annoyed me a little bit. I miss being able to just pop in a game and play it.

@PicklesIIDX: My favorite old games are Azrael's Tear, Neverhood, Jedi Knight, ZPC, and Rainbow Six - to name a few.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic