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

[El Presidente]

This is something I think about quite often, I don't know if anyone else already said it or put it to words better than I am, but could it be that the mix of non-realistic graphics and text heavy storytelling/systems makes for a final product that can't even be considered part of the same category as a modern, full realistic title, the same way you wouldn't consider games and books the same medium?

Things on the screen served as symbols. It's like they were not directly the thing per se, but a lower fidelity representation of it. Because of this, you'd inevitably use your imagination when looking at the game. It makes for a medium that isn't a book but at the same time isn't exactly showing directly the things to you as well. It's like a hybrid in-between of sorts.

And this is also why realistic remakes are all doomed to fail to some degree, as they'll have to take said symbols and pretty much come up with realistic imagery for them. Take this for example:

When you're looking at this you are but at the same time kinda "aren't" seeing Kefka laughing, it's a representation. You fill the gaps in your head. It doesn't look even half as stupid as it would if it was a 1:1 replica of this but with a photorealistic Kefka laughing exactly on this pose. Try to imagine how, for lack of a better word, cringe that would be - and that also wouldn't leave room for your imagination like the pixelart "symbol" Kefka does. Now imagine a FF6 remake as realistic as the one they recently did for FF7. There's simply no way to replicate this 1:1, what they'd do is invent new poses, moves, camera angles, etc, thus completely changing what was before "another medium" essentially.


Try and convince someone younger this is the most epic scene ever:

You can't, cause it's all in your mind... except it's not all in your mind, it's also represented graphically on the screen too... but it kinda "isn't" too... this is what I mean by hybrid and different medium, and this is why I adamantly believe it's not hurr durr le nostalgia rose tinted glasses, we simply prefer this "other medium" that instigates the player's imagination.

 

[Falksi]

Yup. The good ol' "imagination gap".

Same with films, for 20 odd years I had a whole backstory in my head about Darth Vader off the back of the few snippets which Obi Wan had stated. In my head he was a young, cocky buck more akin to Han Solo, but someone who was forced into situations which demanded darker actions, which ultimately in turn lead to Anakin aligning himself with said Dark Side, as it was the path which provided him with solutions. Phantom Menace just destroyed all that when there was no real artistic need for it, and modern games and films do the same - everything is saturated in unnecessary, lazy bollocks.

But we should throw gameplay into the mix too. Similar as the approach to presentation and storytelling, older games respected and thus demanded more of the player. Not only was the gameplay tighter because 1) pixel graphics allow for that and 2) AAA devs weren't as lazy on the whole, but it satisfied way more because most games challenged you. For example, nowadays you can be confident that any dungeon you undertake will see you coming out on top 9/10 times. But when playing some older games I'd prep for ages to go into a dungeon, getting the right items and equipment, because it felt like a proper adventure and I didn't know that my characters were gonna make it out, even with all that prep.

 

[El Presidente]

Yup. The good ol' "imagination gap".

Same with films, for 20 odd years I had a whole backstory in my head about Darth Vader off the back of a few snippets which Obi Wan had stated. In my head he was a young, cocky buck more akin to Han Solo, but someone who was forced into situations which demanded darker actions, which ultimately in turn lead to Anakin aligning himself with said Dark Side as it was the path which provided him with solutions. Phantom Menace just destroyed all that when there was no real artistic need for it, and modern games and films do the same - everything is saturated in unnecessary, lazy bollocks.

But we should throw gameplay into the mix too. Similar as the approach to presentation and storytelling, older games respected and thus demanded more of the player. Not only was the gameplay tighter because 1) pixel graphics allow for that and 2) AAA devs weren't as lazy on the whole. but it satisfied way more because most games challenged you. For example, nowadays you can be confident that any dungeon you undertake will see you coming out on top 9/10 times. But when playing some older games I'd prep for ages to go into a dungeon, getting the right items and equipment, because it felt like a proper adventure and I didn't know that my characters were gonna make it out, even with all that prep.

Yes, definitely, gameplay's also a major part of this difference, but precisely because it's such a prominent aspect we end up kinda dismissing the "symbols that allow for the imagination VS realism that doesn't leave room for the imagination" part of the deal. There's also the fact this is not so easy to put into words IMO, I suspect many retrofags feel it but can't point it out and end up dismissing the entire thing as "I just prefer old games, end of story".

In many many cases the "symbol" works very well but its hyper realistic counterpart most definitely wouldn't. This is why this guy here:

Gives such a perfect fucked up misery vibe, he's almost a zombie. He's a broken man, and carries the weight of the wasteland on his shoulders. Whenever you see this NPC you just know you're in some miserable shithole where life is hell.

Meanwhile, there's not 1 single NPC in Fallout 3/NV/4 that looks half as miserable as this guy does (not considering gamebryo's godawful models here ), and I bet you if they tried to recreate this NPC on these games it definitely wouldn't be as good. How's that possible (Bethesda's incompetence notwithstanding)? How can so few pixels convey so much more and even give you a fuller picture of its environment? It's because, as a "symbol", it leaves room for your imagination, while the realistic depiction wouldn't, it just is what it is, you get what you're looking at, no room for more.



Edit: by the way I suspect this topic here plays a major part in the "soul vs soulless" debate. Of course these games would have more soul, they have your imagination all over it connecting the dots, thus having "your own soul" playing a role when you experience them. The "soul" in soul vs soulless, it turns out, might be your own.

 

[Machocruz]

There's a Game-Simulation (simulation of the second-life variety) spectrum which also tends to align with a Symbolic-Literal spectrum, where one pole is purely competitive (you try to win, and victory is not a given) and abstract, and the other is purely, or trying to be, immersive and representational, and various games and eras of game sit at different points alont these spectrums. Precise words fail me, but the idea is that early video games are electronic kin to "pure" forms of game like board games, card games, puzzles, etc. all of which utilize symbolic representation, whether by aesthetic choice or by inherent demands/limitations of the materials, scope, rules, etc used to create the game. These primitive forms of game put the competitive aspect first and foremost and by a large degree, and thus the available resources are prioritized to that end. Today's video games are desgined as if to provide surrogate realities where its less about competition, even often devoid of it, and more about living out a fantasy through electronic means, and thus resources go towards trying to best recreate audiovisual reality; the further they go towards this end, the less in common they with other realms of gaming and how "game" has been understood for most of history. This is how things are evolving in the AAA sector, thus it's almost all Popamole.

I can't speak for every member, but generally I think We tend to prefer games to be Game first, and then some also want Simulation if it doesn't detract from Game. Old games, even ones labeled as some type of 'sim', place nearer the former side of the spectrum.

The imagination thing is also a factor and why Ultima, Wizardry, and roguelikes appeal to me, but I think it is not the foremost reason many on this board prefer the classics. Better, less brainless gameplay in current games would shorten the divide, i think. Of course, to those who think the proper end goal of video games is, should, or can only be surrogate reality, other's preference for older Games is just nostalgia.

 

[AndyS]

This sounds similar to the difference between cartooning and realistic art. Cartooning is more concerned with capturing an idea and getting it across quickly in an easily understood form instead of worrying about subtlety and realism.

 

[Gregz]

I agree with this.

Modern "games" are more like interactive films. It's a massive decline.

 

[JarlFrank]

It's more about approach to design, artstyle, gameplay, etc.

I love the atmosphere and vibe of 3D games from around the turn of the millennium. Games like Deus Ex, Thief, Tomb Raider, etc. They try to portray things as they are: you can interact with everything you see, all items and enemies are 3D objects, etc. But the artstyle, while trying to be realistic within the constraints of its time, also has enough stylization to allow for strange vistas and logic-defying architecture.

A lot of it is due to engines used, and the technology behind them. The 3D architecture of the time had many clear lines, leading to visual but also gameplay clarity.

In Tomb Raider and Thief, it's easy to see where you can mantle up a ledge. Because it's literally any ledge within reach. The relatively simple, angular 3D architecure and models are incredibly easy to read, yet a realistic enough approximation of real places to make for a convincing atmosphere.

Meanwhile, modern games overload on photorealism to the point that level architecture becomes a mess, and devs force artificial bullshit into their games to show the player what's interactable and what isn't. The new Tomb Raider games all have these hideous white-stained ledges to show you YES, YOU CAN CLIMB THIS LEDGE IN PARTICULAR. But if a ledge has no cumstains on it, you can't climb it. It's inconsistent and jarring.

Of course, technology and graphics aren't the only culprit here, but a radical change in AAA approaches to level design. Back in the day, they built big levels and let you loose. Explore, figure out the puzzles, navigate the place at your own pace. Today, they like to force you into the intended path without offering any alternatives, and they drop artificial hints like the white paint to solve the puzzles for you. You don't even have to figure out which way to go because the game clearly tells you.

Games back then were games. Modern AAA want to be movies in the guise of games. Completely different thing.

A good example of a modern game that works like a game is Dishonored. It has complex detailed modern 3D graphics, but it functions just like Tomb Raider, Thief, Deus Ex: every object, every terrain follows the same consistent rules. If you can reach it, you can climb it. No artificial coloring on any ledge. If a ledge exists, it can be mantled. Simple as. Clear, consistent rules that apply across every object in the game.

This is the big difference. Most modern AAA doesn't follow clear, consistent rules. Older games do.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

we prefer older games because they were games and meant to entertain. after zynga nothing has been the same anymore, they're just glorified slot machines or, at best, busywork simulators.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

A good example of a modern game that works like a game is Dishonored.

let me disagree, my good fellow. dishonored is "blink sized", it's so evident it hurts, all it takes is a brief look around to understand where you're supposed to be funneled. i still remember when i played thief for the first time, it was t2 demo, i spent hours on that with no idea where to go and always discovering something new.

 

[Iucounu]

Yup. The good ol' "imagination gap".

Yes, the same principle applies to more than just graphics detail. A corridor game lets you imagine a world outside the corridor ("if only I could climb that mountain"), but if the player can go anywhere he wants there's nothing left to imagine.

At least ambience music can set a mood not even real life can surpass, maybe that's one thing that's reasonable safe from technological progress.

 

[Axie]

Crisis became so big, even the grandmothers talk about it these days. This is something that happens between ages and is especially strongly perceived by artist and people of refined sensibilities (like most of the ’dexfags, of course). When traditional-enlightenment was giving its way to modernism, society gave up on old norms, old laws of behaviour – both privately and on macro level. But unwillingly and with great costs. Just look at what, say, Robert Musil writes of his age or how many empires died in first half of XX century.
Then we got into crisis of modernity and post-modernism era. We all lived it, we know how many shit was produced but there still was “good stuff” i.e. art that resonate. Now we are in some meta (-modern) territory and trying to find a way out of post-modern deconstruction and nihilism, and by nature of contemporary tech and way of life being surrounded by even more hyper-hyperproduction of shit. And few drops of “quality shit.” Hence, we congregate in joints like this, to swim in that swamp and catch good (enough) fish. Also, some of us to use the form of communication known as shitposting to de-stress from the said crisis.

Interesting thread, good posts. Sorry if derailing by not mentioning game-design specifically.

 

[OttoQuitmarck]

In "modern times" there still are games exactly like this, they're just indies and you have to look out more for them.

 

[luj1]

but could it be that the mix of non-realistic graphics and text heavy storytelling/systems makes for a final product that can't even be considered part of the same category as a modern, full realistic title, the same way you wouldn't consider games and books the same medium?

I talked about this a lot

Abstraction > simulation

This is why you never get this "dreamlike" feeling when playing interactive movies such as BG3, Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, becsuse they are oversimulated

But you always get it when playing Wizardry, KotC, etc.

Cleveland Mark Blakemore and Dorateen are some of the people who understand this and know what I mean

 

[luj1]

Less is more

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Photorealism never caught on in panting for the same reason. I think it goes further than "imagination". Our experience of the world is simply much richer than what can be captured by a photorealistic representation. What our eyes capture is always the result of a movement of our body and our entire body goes into the act of seeing, with all that entails. There is no disembodied, abstract .jpg you can extract from the brain. To convince the player he's really "seeing" what is represented in a movie, game, even a photo, you have to use tricks of the trade, also called art. You just can't take a photo of a sad person to represent sadness, even if they're appropriately desolate. It must be done in a very particular way in order to elicit the right response. But artistic representations can take almost any form and realism doesn't have a natural privilege.

The Kefka sprite works better than a modern 3D render ever could because it's closer to what we understand by the concept of his character, that is, what we experience by coming in contact with him while playing the game. It might not be that imagination is filling the gaps(more than it normally does), rather the opposite would be true in a modern 3D render, the imagination would have to work to abstract the character from the noise of his representation. That's not to say you can't make realistic characters with the same impact, only that the process would certainly be different. You can't simply translate a low resolution 2D pixel sprite into a higher resolution 3D render. You wouldn't do it with a great master painting either, and for the same reason.

 

[El Presidente]

Interesting thread, good posts.

To think just a few days ago I made the Enya's pussy smell speculation thread. It's the duality of man or something, or so I've heard. As you put it best, shitposting de-stresses.


I already thought about making this thread many times, I get reminded of it again every time I come upon one of these classics that instantly make me go "wow, just look at that, how incredibly captivating and dreamlike (like luj1 perfectly said) this is, unlike anything there is today". The "trigger" this time was Prince of Persia 2 being mentioned in another thread, which in turn made me think of Quest for Glory 2, a series I very much adore (alongside most other Sierra games) and I ended up watching a few videos for the nostalgia trip. Ended up watching this segment:

Time mark is about 53:00


Dude, the fucking poet/prophet is speaking, you better shut the fuck up and pay attention. Just look at this scene, it immediately pulls you in and grabs your attention, unlike virtually any modern AAA manages to do to me. It's just magical, manages to make me feel like a child staring at the computer screen again, hypnotized by the mystique. The perfect combination of great writing, great music, great atmosphere overall, and visuals that give plenty of room for your imagination to go wild like you're reading a good book. It's like the perfect playable fairy tale book, and this is a description I'd use for lots of Sierra games, hence why I love their games so much.

Take for instance the scene before the poet starts his speech, it's a great example too:

This is a scene that wouldn't work in a realistic AAA modern game like, at all. The men at the tables on the back for instance are there to convey the idea the Inn is crowded with more customers, and it works just perfectly. Nothing else is needed. In a realistic game they'd either just awkwardly sit there doing nothing, which shatters the immersion, or they'd have to keep doing a few animations or something which would make for a frustrating experience when you'd inevitably take them not for background scenery, which is what they are, but for interactive NPC, which they are not. Here though, in a way it's like the equivalent of vague brush strokes to represent a distant crowd in a painting. And it works, and it feeds your imagination about them, the place and the general atmosphere.

 

[laclongquan]

Nah, it's more like, the new games follow a different wave, a different school of thoughts, in artstyle compare to older games.

Looking at Fallout 4 and compare it to Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas. Not just color theme, but the fresh-off-factory vibe compare to rusty ancient rust.

Hell, look at old DOS style versus the Fallout 2 style. The old DOS, look carefully, is much more colorful, stronger color, than 90s, 2000s.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I mean, you're citing QFG2 (one of the best games ever) in your argument so clearly you are a man of taste, but... no. This argument just fails for me.

The natural extension of it is positing that William Shakespeare and Danielle Steele are operating in different media; just because one is total shit and one is total brilliance it doesn't mean that they do not share sufficient structural and formal similarities as to be considered very closely related.

 

[Nutmeg]

You can capture a good chunk of the symbolist nature of low resolution 2D art when using modern physics based rendering techniques and a realist art-style as long as the game also employs a fixed camera and artists make sure objects have good iconographic properties from the chosen camera distance(s) and angle(s). It's not so different from making 2D games consisting of pre-rendered 3D objects.

That it isn't executed often or well is because artists tend not to be intelligent enough to understand what exactly previous technical limitations were and how they influenced past art for better or worse given the psychological objectives of a game.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

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.

 

[OttoQuitmarck]

I think we are getting out of the realism hole slowly but surely. Devs will eventually figure out that realism is artistically uninteresting and stop focusing on it so much. It's mostly being done now out of novelty and being able to brag to the consumers "OUR GAME LOOKS LE BEST OUT OF ALL LE GAMES". You already see plenty more stylized releases. Oh and the diminished returns of being more and more realistic are already showing blatantly, I can barely tell the difference between a 2023 AAA release vs a 2015 one.

 

[Nutmeg]

Games like fortnite or whatever aren't realistic but they are still, IMO, hideous.

 

[True Ukrainian]

As small studio development becomes more common, we'll probably see a return to the earlier art styles used in games. The limitation is no longer hardware but cost of preparing assets.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Back in the day, they built big levels and let you loose. Explore, figure out the puzzles, navigate the place at your own pace. Today, they like to force you into the intended path without offering any alternatives, and they drop artificial hints like the white paint to solve the puzzles for you. You don't even have to figure out which way to go because the game clearly tells you.

God, so much this. I think the last big budget game I played that didn't do this was Cyberpunk. I recall doing a mission by climbing out a window and going through some weird, super sketchy path and then later realizing I'd skipped over 2 more obvious routes to the target. But in general, games want you to walk through their theme park in a certain direction to set up signposts like torches or ambushes in the right spots. It's irritating and triggers the meta-sense in my brain and takes me out of the experience.

You can capture a good chunk of the symbolist nature of low resolution 2D art when using modern physics based rendering techniques and a realist art-style as long as the game also employs a fixed camera and artists make sure objects have good iconographic properties from the chosen camera distance(s) and angle(s). It's not so different from making 2D games consisting of pre-rendered 3D objects.

That it isn't executed often or well is because artists tend not to be intelligent enough to understand what exactly previous technical limitations were and how they influenced past art for better or worse given the psychological objectives of a game.

I don't think that's really viable with how large these productions are. You have to remember it's not one artist making even a single room; it's a dozen or more being tard-wrangled into making something that fits the vision of one of the dozen middle managers being tard-wrangled by someone even higher up. Trying to get the guy making textures for brick walls to set up the symbolism for the guys make the textures for clothing, the guys making models for clothing, the guy making models for the enemies and the guy animating him AND the guy designing the gameplay properties of those animations to all work together... that's a pipedream.

This is a scene that wouldn't work in a realistic AAA modern game like, at all. The men at the tables on the back for instance are there to convey the idea the Inn is crowded with more customers, and it works just perfectly. Nothing else is needed. In a realistic game they'd either just awkwardly sit there doing nothing, which shatters the immersion, or they'd have to keep doing a few animations or something which would make for a frustrating experience when you'd inevitably take them not for background scenery, which is what they are, but for interactive NPC, which they are not. Here though, in a way it's like the equivalent of vague brush strokes to represent a distant crowd in a painting. And it works, and it feeds your imagination about them, the place and the general atmosphere.

I think this is a big part of it too, though it varies person to person. I recall when I was playing Cyberpunk I watched a review because everyone was bashing the shit out of it at the time. And half the complaints were about shit like the random background crowd not being hyper realistic with dayjobs and bathroom breaks or whatever when you followed one around for 20 minutes, or the way traffic behaved. I was like 'what the fuck are these people smoking, it's just a background crowd, I'm impressed there's more than 5 models and they're not all following a single path.'

In "modern times" there still are games exactly like this, they're just indies and you have to look out more for them.

100% this. I honestly feel like we're in a sort of second golden age right now with all the awesome indie stuff out there. There are so many developers out there who have experienced the great old stuff, understood it, and taken their own stab at it. They've got superior tools and resources to help them along, but still keep the project small enough to have a single artistic vision and focus on artstyle and gameplay over graphical fidelity and accessibility.

I think one aspect is that older games didn't just demand more of the player in terms of gameplay, but in terms of, for lack of a better term, skill at enjoying art. It's like the difference between a complex meal or piece of music only someone with a lot of experience can truly appreciate, and a simple thing anyone can enjoy by instinct alone. I don't necessarily think one is always better than the other, but you just can't reach the same variety of niche experience if you're limited to things anyone can understand at first glance. A deconstruction of a genre or even specific trope isn't something a newcomer is going to appreciate the same way as a grognard, so a lot of the AAA titles play it safe and don't do such things, or if they do, feel the need to explain the joke.

 

[Nutmeg]

I don't think that's really viable with how large these productions are. You have to remember it's not one artist making even a single room; it's a dozen or more being tard-wrangled into making something that fits the vision of one of the dozen middle managers being tard-wrangled by someone even higher up. Trying to get the guy making textures for brick walls to set up the symbolism for the guys make the textures for clothing, the guys making models for clothing, the guy making models for the enemies and the guy animating him AND the guy designing the gameplay properties of those animations to all work together... that's a pipedream.

Yes it's also a problem with extreme division of labor and tooling.