Am I the only one who hates the "graphics don't matter, only gameplay does" line?
I had been meaning to make this sort of topic for a long time and I couldn't help but notice all the times I hear things like "aren't these old/retro games great? I don't care about graphics at all as long as the gameplay is good!"
But that statement, while well intentioned, I think does a horrible diservice to retro gaming and video gaming in general. And in a weird sort of way, is like the video game version of poltically correctness. The main problem I have with that statement is that it basically says that retro systems can't do awesome graphics/sound. True we've come a long way baby since the days of not only Virginia Slims (sorry couldn't resist) but Pong and Atari and such and we now have games with near photo realistic graphics, surround sound, and can even play some of them with gamers all over the world.
But that being said things like graphics/sound meant every bit as much if not more back in the old days than they do today. And I don't know about the rest of you but I think games from say the 3rd/4th/5th gen especially that can truly push the console and really create beautiful eye/ear candy are that much more fascinating. And while I have nothing against modern gaming at all, whenever I see the photo realisticish graphics in commercials and such I kinda sorta feel "heh" about it because it just seems a bit too easy now (given what 8th gen machines can do)...shoot I've gone on record as saying I can hardly tell this difference between PS3/PS4 graphics, while the difference between say, the very best looking N64 games versus say, Luigi's Mansion on the GC (or shoot, even that cute little 128 Marios demo!) is like night and day....and boy did that Smash Bros Melee intro blow me away the first time I saw it back in 2001...or even the SNES ten years prior. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reason I find retro games more fascinating (especially the audio/visual part) is that to make awesome graphics/sound you had more limited resources to do so and thus I feel like to to make it happen really took some skill. Like remember all those neat "helper" chips some NES/SNES games had (like the MMC5, Super FX, C4; look 'em up) to make the games look/sound "above and beyond" what the system was thought to be able to handle? That's a key example of what I mean.
Another common saying lately I don't quite get is this notion of "this game hasn't aged well" or "the graphics don't hold up now" (this seems to be most common for 5th gen, PS1/N64 games). Now, I totally get that the vast majority of gamers today grew up in the 6th gen onward so the nostagic thing for older gens isn't there, and that's totally not their fault! Still it just seems odd for someone to call a PS1 classic (like what I'm playing, FF8) and be all like "Yuk, the graphics look so ugly! Everything's all pointy and jagged!" Well, gamers didn't think so back in the 5th gen. Still I will concede that even for an early PS1 game, Bubsy 3D looks pretty darn pathetic. And would I be wrong in saying that even when the first Tomb Raider first came out, most gamers even at the time thought her pointy breasts looked kinda weird?
Ocarina of Time I've even heard given as another example of "the graphics haven't aged very well"...but again I don't get it. Nearly every major reviewer gave the game at or near a perfect 10/100 (including graphics/sound)...Gamespot in particular gave it 10s in all five categories at the time. And I do indeed think the game is beautiful and very well done...but isn't it the same game now as it was in 1998? I mean a game's graphics and such don't just magically deteriorate over time, as the expression above seems to kinda say! hee hee
I'm probably not explaining all this as well as I'd like, it's just something I've noticed in gaming culture lately and I just wanted to share my observations.
But that statement, while well intentioned, I think does a horrible diservice to retro gaming and video gaming in general. And in a weird sort of way, is like the video game version of poltically correctness. The main problem I have with that statement is that it basically says that retro systems can't do awesome graphics/sound. True we've come a long way baby since the days of not only Virginia Slims (sorry couldn't resist) but Pong and Atari and such and we now have games with near photo realistic graphics, surround sound, and can even play some of them with gamers all over the world.
But that being said things like graphics/sound meant every bit as much if not more back in the old days than they do today. And I don't know about the rest of you but I think games from say the 3rd/4th/5th gen especially that can truly push the console and really create beautiful eye/ear candy are that much more fascinating. And while I have nothing against modern gaming at all, whenever I see the photo realisticish graphics in commercials and such I kinda sorta feel "heh" about it because it just seems a bit too easy now (given what 8th gen machines can do)...shoot I've gone on record as saying I can hardly tell this difference between PS3/PS4 graphics, while the difference between say, the very best looking N64 games versus say, Luigi's Mansion on the GC (or shoot, even that cute little 128 Marios demo!) is like night and day....and boy did that Smash Bros Melee intro blow me away the first time I saw it back in 2001...or even the SNES ten years prior. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reason I find retro games more fascinating (especially the audio/visual part) is that to make awesome graphics/sound you had more limited resources to do so and thus I feel like to to make it happen really took some skill. Like remember all those neat "helper" chips some NES/SNES games had (like the MMC5, Super FX, C4; look 'em up) to make the games look/sound "above and beyond" what the system was thought to be able to handle? That's a key example of what I mean.
Another common saying lately I don't quite get is this notion of "this game hasn't aged well" or "the graphics don't hold up now" (this seems to be most common for 5th gen, PS1/N64 games). Now, I totally get that the vast majority of gamers today grew up in the 6th gen onward so the nostagic thing for older gens isn't there, and that's totally not their fault! Still it just seems odd for someone to call a PS1 classic (like what I'm playing, FF8) and be all like "Yuk, the graphics look so ugly! Everything's all pointy and jagged!" Well, gamers didn't think so back in the 5th gen. Still I will concede that even for an early PS1 game, Bubsy 3D looks pretty darn pathetic. And would I be wrong in saying that even when the first Tomb Raider first came out, most gamers even at the time thought her pointy breasts looked kinda weird?
Ocarina of Time I've even heard given as another example of "the graphics haven't aged very well"...but again I don't get it. Nearly every major reviewer gave the game at or near a perfect 10/100 (including graphics/sound)...Gamespot in particular gave it 10s in all five categories at the time. And I do indeed think the game is beautiful and very well done...but isn't it the same game now as it was in 1998? I mean a game's graphics and such don't just magically deteriorate over time, as the expression above seems to kinda say! hee hee
I'm probably not explaining all this as well as I'd like, it's just something I've noticed in gaming culture lately and I just wanted to share my observations.
Comments
Originally posted by: Estil
Ocarina of Time I've even heard given as another example of "the graphics haven't aged very well"...but again I don't get it. Nearly every major reviewer gave the game at or near a perfect 10/100 (including graphics/sound)...Gamespot in particular gave it 10s in all five categories at the time. And I do indeed think the game is beautiful and very well done...but isn't it the same game now as it was in 1998? I mean a game's graphics and such don't just magically deteriorate over time, as the expression above seems to kinda say!
I think with games like that, stuff from early Playstation and N64, the gameplay is a little closer to today's games (in 3D, not side scrolling, more open world, etc.) than it was to the games that preceded it. So the feel of the game is overall similar to today's consoles and computer games, and some people make a correlation in their minds.
You don't see today's compared to Super Mario Bros. because other than the new Wii U versions, there' s not anything like the old sidescrollers. Plus, side scrolling games are a little more forgiving graphics wise than the early 3D games.
My opinion, of course. And I'm not bashing older graphics. I still play them and recognize them for what they were at the time.
But yes, back-in-the-day, SEGA and SNES nerds argued hard about who had better graphics or the better color palette.
Same even earlier with NES and SMS or Colecovision.
But I don't see anything wrong with saying a games graphics "didn't age well".
OoT looks like shit, by modern standards. So does the bulk of what came out on the PS1.
At the time, we were willing to look past all of the blocky polygons and crappy textures, because we didn't know any better.
But put some Mario 64 rehash level from Galaxy 2 next to the original, and it is pretty clear the N64 version just looks like ass.
It is no different than going back and watching movies from the 90's that had CGI.
Back then, it was mind blowing.
But in retrospect, with an eye trained by modern standards, actors often look like paper cutouts pasted in front of a second screen.
Another interesting story I want to share was that I was a student manager for my HS baseball team my junior/senior years (I can't believe it's already been 15 years since I graduated HS...and I felt the same way last year regarding reaching ten years since I was at UK) and in my senior year I got to go with the team to Florida for spring break 1999 (my first time seeing the ocean BTW). It just so happened both a N64 and a PS1 made the trip and I got to see both in action playing a baseball game! The N64 had All-Star Baseball '99 and I loved how that game looked...while I couldn't believe how all jaggedy and weird the PS1 baseball game looked by comparison (I don't remember the name). I figured at the time the 64-bit N64 could do twice as good graphics as the mere 32-bit PS1? But you see what I mean? We're talking games not only from the same gen but also released probably about the same time (games at launch of course won't look as good as games near the end of a console's lifecycle for obvious reasons and of course there's no way to predict the future then or now.
Yeah I'm a graphics whore (that is I do love a beautiful work of art; especially on a retro console where it took real skill and clever/creative use of the hardware)...but I'd like to think I'm a least a FAIR graphics whore.
It doesn't bother me much, but you'll never catch me saying that phrase, because:
A) It's pointing out the obvious.
C) Graphics do matter, to an extent. So does music.
D) Internally, I try to judge games based on the era they were released, AND by today's standards. Two different scores.
E) It sounds like the person who chooses to play a title and says, "Graphics don't matter, only gameplay does" is trying to justify their love for the game they enjoy, a bit like convincing yourself that "Math is Fun" by abusing the word "Fun". "Reading is FUN-damental". "Fun with Science". "Sunday FUNday" (Actually that game is kind of fun, but in this case the word 'fun' is trying to sell you on the idea that "Church is Fun"). You may have had fun with it, great. But if you have to reassure and advertise that something is 'fun' in the title -- let's face it -- it probably isn't to the general populace.
The word 'fun' sounds weird the more I say it. Fun, fun, fun.
There are old games that still look good because they had a timeless art style that still appeals to modern tastes.
There are lots of old games that don't.
Originally posted by: cirellio
C) Graphics do matter, to an extent. So does music.
D) Internally, I try to judge games based on the era they were released, AND by today's standards. Two different scores.
I agree with (c), but don't really see the point of (d).
(C) Graphics matter to the extent that if they are distractingly bad (or bad enough that you can't tell what you're doing) then it is going to hurt gameplay.
But I would be hard pressed to think of any of the fun SNES titles that have bad graphics, to begin with.
(D) You're playing the game today. Either it is fun today, or it's not.
There was a time when PONG was pretty much all we had.
And in the absence of alternatives, most of us probably would have tried to find enjoyment with it.
But after a lifetime of playing more complex stuff it would be hard to say that PONG is actually a good or enjoyable game.
"I don't care how much processing power the machine has, as long as the gameplay is good."
Originally posted by: cirellio
Without (D), you can't judge the graphics of the game based on the other games of that time period and on that same hardware. It assumes that all SNES games have equal graphics and sound. That's why (D) is important, to compare SNES games to SNES games, etc.
Of course all games of a console aren't gonna have equal graphics/sound/etc...as the console's lifecycle progresses programmers will by then have more practice in being able to better use the system's resources.
And remember how I said I'm fascinated by a retro console needing real skill and clever programming and so on? This isn't really a graphics sort of thing but one of most fascinating examples I think is Video Chess for the Atari 2600...see you need up to eight pieces/sprites on a line but the poor 2600 could only do six at a time. Look up the Wiki article and see how they cleverly got around that to make a chess game on the Atari 2600 possible.
Originally posted by: cirellio
Without (D), you can't judge the graphics of the game based on the other games of that time period and on that same hardware. It assumes that all SNES games have equal graphics and sound. That's why (D) is important, to compare SNES games to SNES games, etc.
I disagree, since I don't think judging graphics objectively is particularly important, at all.
Either the total package is a fun game where you can visually tell what you're doing... or it's not.
There is an enormous spectrum of graphics that meet that objective, ranging from Atari 2600 quality all the way to modern systems.
At the same time, games throughout that entire spectrum of graphics offerings have failed to visually do what they needed to do be fun and playable.
There really isn't some fundamental need to break it down and say "well this is fun for an Atari game" or "this looks good for an NES game".
If the graphic style isn't appealing, it isn't appealing.
Personally, I like sprite based games, and I generally don't like the graphics on early polygon render based games.
To the point that lots of those early polygon games are distracting and unplayable, simply because the visual clarity of what is going on isn't there.
The release date isn't particularly relevant when you look back at some early-gen PS1 game and can barely distinguish on screen details because of the graphics limitations.
I'm far more impressed with Z-scaling and background scrolling on an NES than on an Xbox 360. It takes serious skill and resources to pull off stuff like that on limited hardware, but it's a freebie afterthought on today's consoles. If I look at old games and only think of them based on today's merits, then how can we appreciate feats such as the rotating tower on Kirby's Adventure?
A painting isn't just judged on beauty or what it has to say, but skill level involved as well.
For instance if the artist limited themselves to only using two colors, yet created a painting where you can't even tell, it's all the more amazing.
One is a technical achievement. The other is "does it actually look good" to you right now, today.
The former is a function of the technological platform and the time it was done.
The latter isn't, at least in my opinion.
I think lots of old game look great and stand the test of time, without needing to handicap them by saying "well that looks good...for an NES game".
I feel like alot more than graphics and gameplay go into a video game and everything is important.
Originally posted by: gutsman004
Saying that back then making the graphics took skill is doing is disservice to the people making games today. It takes skills,probably more so,to make the graphics for today's games so I believe the "took more skill back then" comment is inaccurate. It's analogous to saying it took more skill to build a car from the 60s than one from 2014. Try to work on a modern car as opposed to one back then....good luck.
I never said modern games aren't doing impressive stuff too. Pull off something amazing and I judge it within the limitations of that console. I never said this only applies to old consoles or new and I would never do such a disservice to devs, as I am one myself.
I thought people here, of all places, would understand how amazing for instance Shadow of the Colossus is ... especially given that it is rendered on the PS2. IMO not respecting the people who pulled off these amazing tricks in the first place within the limitations of their systems (because it's done on modern consoles all the time) is doing them a disservice.
Originally posted by: gutsman004
Saying that back then making the graphics took skill is doing is disservice to the people making games today. It takes skills,probably more so,to make the graphics for today's games so I believe the "took more skill back then" comment is inaccurate. It's analogous to saying it took more skill to build a car from the 60s than one from 2014. Try to work on a modern car as opposed to one back then....good luck.
I never said modern games aren't doing impressive stuff too. Pull off something amazing and I judge it within the limitations of that console. I never said this only applies to old consoles or new and I would never do such a disservice to devs, as I am one myself.
I thought people here, of all places, would understand how amazing for instance Shadow of the Colossus is ... especially given that it is rendered on the PS2. IMO not respecting the people who pulled off these amazing tricks in the first place within the limitations of their systems (because it's done on modern consoles all the time) is doing them a disservice.
Oh,I was actually referring to Estil's original post when he had said something about it. Whether retro or modern,skill is involved. Most of us have no clue how much skill,blood,sweat,and tears are involved in making a game. I can say that making a game look and play well with limited or very limited resources is more skillful than if you have all resources at your disposal....in my opinion anyway.
Obviously some games don't age well graphically but I honestly never cared about that myself. If a game is fun then that's all that matters. I can have just as much fun playing asteroids on 2600 as I can playing gta v. It's whatever you're in the mood to play.
Being a snob to great games because the graphics are to modern or to old is just denying yourself much like fanboys do.
Originally posted by: Stryphos
Why the heck did people play Atari games?
Because video games were a new idea. Why people still play anything pre-NES now blows my mind.
I personally *hated* the first 3D generation. I don't think they aged poorly, I thought they looked terrible even then. I've always been into all games, including PC, which was able to do decent resolutions like 1024x768 while consoles were still 240p. I had an N64 and thought a few games were fun, but I never had a PS1. I just waited until emulation was decent enough to run the games at higher resolutions. I played the PC versions of FF7, FF8 etc. One of the coolest things in early 3D consoles was Dreamcast's VGA box
That's why I actually sort of agree with the "aging well/poorly" thing. Low resolution 3D just looks like garbage, but low resolution 2D looks artistic. A lot of indie developers and artists will still make pixellated games and artwork, but no one wants to make "low resolution 3D" games because they're just plain ugly with no redeeming value except to try to re-render them as high resolution as possible. It's not about the system itself either, 2D stuff looks great on PS1. I think it's basically because 2D isn't trying to look like reality, but 3D (for the most part) is. And when it looks like a jagged blurry mess, it misses the mark, but 2D never set out to fool anyone into believing it was real, so it retains artistic value.
So yeah, I get your sentiment - it also sort of implies that modern games cannot possibly have good gameplay if they have pretty graphics. That's as ridiculous as any other blanket statement like "All music made after 1999 sucks." or something.