Maybe we prefer older games because they're not even the "same medium" as modern games?

[El Presidente]

Not buying this. You can make beautiful and great stylistic games, but you can also make beautiful and great photo-realistic games. There is nothing inherently bad about photorealism, it's still all about design and implementation.

Games around early-mid 90s that were stylistic were stylistic because at that time, those were the technical limitations. As it happens, around that time, gaming industry targeted nerds/geeks and was run by small companies of enthusiasts. But that's just a coincidence. You can make an argument that photorealistic games cost more to make, and thus lead to all sorts of negative shit (large publishers, less resources for designing gameplay), but it still varies from case to case.

When games started going more photorealistic in late 90s/early 2000s, no one complained, because even though early 3D games like Half-Life, Deus Ex, Dark Forces 2, Thief, Gothic, etc were more photorealistic than their predecessors, they were still really good.

Those games from late 90s/early aughts, especially the ones you listed, still provided this "dreamlike" feeling because they aren't actually photorealistic at all. There is absolutely something to what blue collar Bill Clinton is trying to get across here. Graphics peaked during PS2 era and did not need to get any better. There was still plenty of room for abstraction. Art direction and photorealism contribute to that dreamlike kino that I love coming across so rarely in games.

Exactly. Sure the games from the late 90's had to rely far less on more vague abstractions to represent things on the screen, but they were comparably lower-fidelity artistic symbols still, there was still room and plenty of invitation for the player's imagination, albeit on a whole different level when compared to, say, the early Ultima games or Wizardries.

No rocky structure in this world looks liks this:

They were still working on "symbols" level. Not to mention too what JarlFrank said, because of this, there was a far greater symbiosis between artistic representation and gameplay. The visuals served the gameplay. The blocky nature of TR's level "triumphed over" the representation. Nowadays, it's the other way around. You first have the realism, then afterwards you have to solve how to turn this realism into the playable thing you're making. The result is, like the example he gave, devs having to paint climbable ledges with white paint to indicate what's climbable and what isn't. Sure you also have the latent dumbing down of video games playing a big part in this too, of course. But this is essentially a problem that derives from photorealism.

When you're playing with symbols you instantly understand and accept there are rules at play, and that you operate inside these rules. Like a board game, for example. You know you can't just take your piece and do this and fuck all:

There's a ruleset to respect and it is inherent in a way to the abstraction of the game. When the game looks just like real life on the other hand, then why can't you solve all problems with crazier real life solutions? Because you're still trapped in a ruleset still, just one that has no "veil of abstraction" between you and the game. You're not operating on "symbols-level", and yet you still have to constraint the player with just a handful of options the game allows for. That, and, going back to the original point, it leaves no room for the imagination when you are representing things in a fully direct way.

 

[__scribbles__]

Previous Renaissance era titles were even better in this regard

Which ones? KOTOR sure, but I can't think of a game where dialogue felt as natural and immersive as in Bloodlines.

I agree with varied quests though, nothing beats Arcanum in that department.

 

[El Presidente]

I think ultimately the point is that you can't compete with the mind and win, the mind will always win. That's why you don't show what's in the box:

No matter what they could've shown, it would have been far tamer than what you pictured in your head. It's way more disturbing like this, because your imagination will come up with your worst nightmare possible and put it inside that box.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

My first PC game was Wolf3D, it had an amazing atmosphere. This amazing atmosphere was accomplished with less colors, less sound and less of everything than today. Because you are "guessing" way more while playing, you are imagining more.

I would argue Majula in Dark souls 2 has the best atmosphere of any game location ever. It's haunting, comfortable and unsettling all at once. It's absolutely amazingly well put together and it isn't better or worse for using your imagination. The game feels the way it feels and that isn't a new game or an old game problem. I can imagine there's an enemy around every corner in Majula but that doesn't make it better or worse than what it is and all I should be judging it on.

There was no need to look to developers to provide companions with "personality", because the player (if they so choose) could provide their own backstory. The player using imagination and creativity, could provide enough internal motivation independent of intrusive narrative prodding. The modern practice of relying entirely on NPC's cedes more and more control to the developer, which is repugnant to autonomy enjoyed by the player of earlier crpgs. With such a divide, it truly is a different mindset and a different medium.

There is also no need for developers not to provide companions with "personality". Your argument applied to books is so silly.

"Books shouldn't have words in them because I can imagine anything better than the writers can write"

Probably true but it's just silly. I can't stand modern game writing and characters but I also don't think there is exclusively one way to make a game. I can enjoy a dialogless walking sim if the visuals engage me or I can enjoy an ancient JRPG with awful sprite work but an amazing story. I don't need to imagine any more or less to enjoy them. What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings to it?

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

They were still working on "symbols" level. Not to mention too what @JarlFrank said, because of this, there was a far greater symbiosis between artistic representation and gameplay. The visuals served the gameplay. The blocky nature of TR's level "triumphed over" the representation. Nowadays, it's the other way around. You first have the realism, then afterwards you have to solve how to turn this realism into the playable thing you're making. The result is, like the example he gave, devs having to paint climbable ledges with white paint to indicate what's climbable and what isn't. Sure you also have the latent dumbing down of video games playing a big part in this too, of course. But this is essentially a problem that derives from photorealism.

Yellow tarps are a curse against humanity and every dev using them needs to be fired BUT BOTW/TTOK make you look like a fool. Realistic cliffs, deeply entrenched into gameplay and the realism of different climbing surfaces does impact gameplay.

It's easy to look at photorealistic garbage like the Tomb raider reboot and see it's flaws. But every flaw has someone else doing it properly. How many of us play hunting games or safari games? I bet they use photo realism extremely well for a better experience than attack of the mutant camels ever could. Despite both being you shooting an animal to death. Probably the same for fishing games too. Maybe racing as well since a lot of the fun of modern Forza is the environments.

 

[Dorateen]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings to it?

The role-playing game hobby as founded is an interactive co-authored construct, and largely driven by the players plotting their own course. The role of the dungeon master or game master is traditionally that of a referee. The developer's directive, in this capacity, is to craft an adventure not tell a story. For the player to just sit back and enjoy what is presented is a weak, passive experience that is best left to modern offerings.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings to it?

The role-playing game hobby as founded is an interactive co-authored construct, and largely driven by the players plotting their own course. The role of the dungeon master or game master is traditionally that of a referee. The developer's directive, in this capacity, is to craft an adventure not tell a story. For the player to just sit back and enjoy what is presented is a weak, passive experience that is best left to modern offerings.

I do tabletop wargaming my friend. I am very aware of how role playing started and where it went. It doesn't mean I watch Ghost busters and start adding my own fanfic to it while I watch it. Ultimately the argument is "Games should let me write a fanfic as I play instead of presenting information that stops me". Which raises the question of why the fuck don't you just play DnD or something instead if that's the experience you want?

 

[Dorateen]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings to it?

The role-playing game hobby as founded is an interactive co-authored construct, and largely driven by the players plotting their own course. The role of the dungeon master or game master is traditionally that of a referee. The developer's directive, in this capacity, is to craft an adventure not tell a story. For the player to just sit back and enjoy what is presented is a weak, passive experience that is best left to modern offerings.

why the fuck don't you just play DnD or something instead if that's the experience you want?

Good idea. I will play more D&D Gold Box inspired computer roleplaying games that honor the traditions of the hobby.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings to it?

The role-playing game hobby as founded is an interactive co-authored construct, and largely driven by the players plotting their own course. The role of the dungeon master or game master is traditionally that of a referee. The developer's directive, in this capacity, is to craft an adventure not tell a story. For the player to just sit back and enjoy what is presented is a weak, passive experience that is best left to modern offerings.

why the fuck don't you just play DnD or something instead if that's the experience you want?

Good idea. I will play more D&D Gold Box inspired computer roleplaying games that honor the traditions of the hobby.

I'd not fault you for it, but I'm sure there's dudes going "Fucking casual faggots can't use their imagination! Should be playing D&D without a map or miniatures. Not those fucking computer game things. Ruins the experience!" the same way you're same modern games do.

To the guys saying games lack imagination now and you want to add your own fanfic to games as you play. How do you feel about the twitter freaks going "SAMUS IS TRANS! SHE'S OURS NOW BIGOT!"? From my perspective they're acting the same way you guys are. I'd rather not lump you into the same box but the path you're walking is very similar and I'm curious how you feel about it.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

While I agree with the premise of this thread, I'm not sure I agree with the argument itself. Imagine if you took modern games and just made them look like an older one. It wouldn't really be better, would it? You'd still have the same bland gameplay, just with a retro artstyle. I think the difference is in changes in basic gameplay design. A lot of the games we used to love did two things differently, they just created a bunch of systems and then level design that allowed you to take advantage of those systems. It's not just something complex like Ultima Underworld or Thief, simpler games did this too. Platformers, action-adventure games, FPSes. Modern game design, even open world design, is done in quite the opposite way, what do we want the players to do? Third-person shooters are basically a meme today because it's a sign that the developers did not actually give a toss about the game part of their game. There's at least minor bits of gameplay change between AAA FPSes and other genres, but every TPS plays the same.

 

[Raghar]

The mistake was cinematic dialogue that started with KotOR and Bloodlines (at the end of the Renaissance era).

Bloodlines has great dialogues, funny with lot of sexism and racism, and a lot of interesting stuff that proves these characters DO have a brain, and they are not just a random mannequin, or a random product of a US school system.

It has also consequences, when prince is using archaic words to describe he would be cursed for what he'd do, main character CAN say prince shouldn't forget to wear a clown hat, and then he gets on prince's shit list even more.

The acting was simplistic, but it was done extremely well considering limited resources they had.

 

[KörangarTheMighty]

The mistake was cinematic dialogue that started with KotOR and Bloodlines (at the end of the Renaissance era).

Nah, disagree. There was never a point in Witcher 1 where I was dying for more nuance in my responses that a wall of text could provide better, nor could text convey the emotion that you get through simple inflections of the actor in voice over work. Even games without much voice acting like Icewind Dale are elevated whenever it turns up. I remember Kresselack because of Tony Jay's vo. Same with Hrothgar and Jim Cummings. The lack of nuance in PC responses ought to have improved over time, but thanks to the undue focus on visuals among other things, stagnated from about 2007 onward. Player responses remained at 2007 levels of complexity at best and did not return to 1999 levels. There was nothing stopping them, no lack of technology, just unwillingness to allocate resources to where they ought to have been, rather than on pointless visual fluff.

The dynamic camera began with Deus Ex and I can think of a few others that had it prior to KotOR and Bloodlines. I have no issue with putting the camera focus on the dialog when that's what's happening. Autistic quibbles about how a character's lips move or whatever else should have been ignored, this again is a layer of abstraction, no different from the men sitting at the tables in the background in the OP's post. Provided the model is at the point where everyday bodily functions are animated, (gesturing, nodding, walking, running, speaking, blinking etc.) that is sufficient on the realism front. I can survive on less, and have done in the past, but ideally that is where it should be.

 

[Borelli]

Invisible walls and chest high walls you cannot jump over are more bearable the shittier graphics gets.

 

[luj1]

I would argue Majula in Dark souls 2 has the best atmosphere of any game location ever.

Can you tell us where do people like yourself come from so we can put up an electric fence and crocodile moat

 

[luj1]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings imagination to it?

Because it leads to decline.

 

[GaelicVigil]

I was thinking about this yesterday while playing Conquest of Elysium 5. I took a screenshot of this and thought it was such an epic moment of "wow!" it blew my mind.

I have a couple younger brothers, both are millennials in their early 30s and I know if I showed this to them they would not understand it at all. They would think this was ridiculously stupid and boring. To them, if a video game isn't the most cutting edge graphically and cinematically, it is not even worth touching.

So I do agree with the OP. It is not enough to classify all of these as "video games" anymore. I think these classic games are to modern games as books are to television. We need a completely new classification I think. Modern games do not hold my interest at all. I don't even see them as games anymore - more like interactive films or something.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings imagination to it?

Because it leads to decline.

No it doesn't. It's just a different experience.

 

[Tel Velothi]

I think it's many things and I so much agree with many posts here - but I think it also counts that we were younger/children back then, times were simpler, things were more beautiful and captivating because of our imagination.
But then again right now as adults we are just different and we look at art/games with different eye.

 

[luj1]

I can't think of a game where dialogue felt as natural and immersive as in Bloodlines.

Brother, for me, "immersive" is when I can read at my own pace instead of waiting for some annoying NPC to finish their lines. I don't need to hear every word and see every strand of hair on some NPC's face.

When you are reading a book, are you immersed? Therefore I am 1000% against the notion that immersion requires hyper-realistic simulation.

 

[luj1]

What is wrong with just enjoying what is presented to you instead of having to add your own toppings imagination to it?

Because it leads to decline.

No it doesn't. It's just a different experience.

It is a different experience. An experience which leads to decline of art and even of humanity.

 

[luj1]

I think ultimately the point is that you can't compete with the mind and win, the mind will always win. That's why you don't show what's in the box.

/thread

And that is a wrap.

 

[luj1]

The mistake was cinematic dialogue that started with KotOR and Bloodlines (at the end of the Renaissance era).

Bloodlines has great dialogues, funny with lot of sexism and racism, and a lot of interesting stuff that proves these characters DO have a brain, and they are not just a random mannequin, or a random product of a US school system.

It has also consequences, when prince is using archaic words to describe he would be cursed for what he'd do, main character CAN say prince shouldn't forget to wear a clown hat, and then he gets on prince's shit list even more.

The acting was simplistic, but it was done extremely well considering limited resources they had.

Did I say it was poorly done? Nope. Bloodlines was okay because it wasn't even 100% voice acted and the number of dialogue options was respectable. However conceptually it established a trajectory to decline.

 

[Halfling Rodeo]

It is a different experience. An experience which leads to decline of art and even of humanity.

Saying games are art is like saying wrestling is sports entertainment. No it isn't you giant fucking queer.

 

[luj1]

If drawing, painting, sculpting, composing, etc., is art, then videogames are definitely art.

Because videogames contain 2D drawings, 3D-sculpted objects, music, foley effects, etc.

If you can't understand this, then you are dumb.

 

[Nutmeg]

Video games are composed of art but they are also games.

It's like how the figurines in a chess set might be a beautiful sculptures, and we might even say the chess set as a whole is a work of art, but it is still different in nature to art for art's sake.