Retrogamers tend to play older video games. For me, this means I sometimes get used to visuals that aren't quite up to date (like Sega Genesis or N64.) Sometimes, after playing an older console for a long time, I'll switch to something more modern, and it hits me with this sensation of, "WOW! Those graphics look better than what I'm used to."
I thought it would be fun to do something like only play Atari for a week, then NES for the next week, something 16 bit after that then 32 and so on and so forth. Or even better? Play only Atari for a month then jump straight to Arkham Asylum or Crysis. It would simulate being a time traveler from the early eighties and would probably make my head explode.
I played Dead Rising for few weeks, then played Plants vs Zombies HD on my ipad, few cm's away from my eyes, and it looked as sharp as ever. I also played Solomon's Keep which is iphone game, on my ipad, so the resolution was so-so....
but still, when yesterday I switched my Dreamcast after like a year and a half of it being on the shelf, i checked out a game called Evil Twin...and i was upset. No really.
The graphics are super blurry, it looks like i didn't connect the wires correctly or something. Graphics are almost N64-ish.
I understand Dreamcast games look much better with VGA, but I don't want to switch to an HD tv because I am under the impression that older consoles don't play well wtih current HD tv's , and my VHS player too.
Actually, I've increasingly been having the opposite experience lately. Going back to older games and forgetting just how good they actually looked. Mario Kart Super Circuit comes to mind. I saw it in action again yesterday, and damn it's pretty. It normally happens when I play a 3D game on my DS too. I completely forget what it's capable of in 3D because nearly everything I own for it is in 2D! (Not to say that there's anything wrong with that )
Wind Waker also has this effect on me every time i play it. Damn that game looks good.
I often try to pretend that every game intended for the graphics it has, even though I know that the graphics of older games were largely decided on by the limitations of the technology at the time. I like to think "what if it was an artistic choice to use big blocky pixels instead of a requirement?" Thinking this way helps me see which games were truly comfortable in their medium because they made smart choices with what they had. The older games that pushed for more realism aged quickly and were soon outdated by games on higher technology with more realism. Other games seem to look just fine in their low-res state, like they were always meant to be played that way. For example, the graphics of Pac Man games only seem to get worse with every new attempt to make pac man look more like a cartoon person. There was a simple elegance to the minimal graphics of the original that Namco has never been able to improve upon. Or take a game like Q-bert. It's a big flashing pyramid with springy snakes and a weird orange guy with a long nose jumping around. It's weirdness and simple shapes belong in that time period. If someone tried to update it to HD, the game would only look worse.
I mostly find myself annoyed with "current-gen" graphics
this generation of graphics (DX9-DX11) feel too "plastic" for my taste
DX8 seems to be the last "gritty" graphical "layer" (I don't know any fancy terms)
of course I prefer sprites over 3D, but when I started playing Minecraft the other day I was just astounded by the perfection of it's graphics
16x16 tiles, is all a block will ever need (reminds me a lot of Daggerfall) and it is true 3D in all it's splendor...
as I tried to explain to a friend of mine:
what separates Minecraft (and Daggerfall to some extent) from for example Fallout 3/Oblivion is that they have timeless graphics
no true gamer will ever say that they have shitty graphics, because they have perfect representation of the objects they are trying to convey
there's no blurriness and there's no gloss; it's just plain 3D objects with simple sprite-palettes on top
in 20 years, when we play Oblivion/Fallout 3, we will be appalled by the right-down ugly graphics of these games, compared to the game we'll have by then
hell, Fallout 3/Oblivion looks like crap, even compared to something as simple as WoW
of course they are merely 2 examples of all the games out there, but if for instance you were to compare *insert generic Modern Warfare wannabe-title here*, you'll find that we're in an era where we try to achieve "realism" in games, whereas we don't have powerful computers/consoles enough to come even close
look at GTAIV on the 360, it's draw-distance is horrible and there's pop-up's everywhere, just because they try to hard
compare that to a sprite-based game, or a game with "blocky" 3D-sprites plastered on
these games will never look like crap, because they don't try to achieve the same level of "realism"
take Super Mario Bros 1, also as a splendid example
it's graphics will never be outdated, whilst if you boot up Mario64, you can easily see how limited it is within it's own frame
Super Mario World may very well be the "peak" of 2D Mario games, due to it being released on a console built for sprites, rather than 3D
games from early 80's-late-90's don't try to achieve "realism", they try to achieve art, much the same way as a comic-book/cartoon, usually don't try to look like a film, but rather what it truly is; a different art-form
if I sit and play Boulder Dash on the C64 and compare it to Boulder Dash for PC (Treasure Hunt); I can clearly see how the graphics have "evolved", but to me Rockford was just that; a simple sprite with simple animations (he'd tap his foot and blink); whilst nowadays he's sprite alone contains more colors than the whole game-series back then and is "smoother" than ever
I boot up Crysis and I think to myself: How the Hell do I get rid of all this lightning and unnecessary clutter that fills my screen? how do I make Crysis look like Shadow of Chernobyl in DX8?
I don't want fancy graphics and "realism" in my games; I want simplicity, I want to know that I am playing a "game", not watching a crappy-painted wannabe-3D-film
if I want realism, I'll go outside
whatever happened to Cel-Shading, per example?
brilliant art-form, which can make even the ugliest of 3D look splendid (Wind Waker/Jet Set Radio, were created on rather "low-gen" consoles, compared to their competition, yet they managed to outshine most other games on other consoles, through sheer art-direction)
of course, if I could have it my way, all 3D games would look like Minecraft/Quake 1/Daggerfall and all 2D games would look like Super Mario Bros (in terms of limitations of colors/resolution/etc.)
I don't own no fancy HD-TV, nor do I have any plans of ever in my life getting one; I've got a back-projected 44" that doesn't even have SCART; and you know what? Super Mario Bros. looks like it was made for this TV; I can hardly see the pixels! (even-though I do love mah pixels)
it's all a race for making the "best looking game evah!", whereas they all fail and will never be anything but "last-gen" graphics
the 16-bit era was where I jumped off the train
I still walk along the tracks, enjoying some 32-bit games as well, but I have no intentions of getting on the 360/PS3 track again
if anything I'll stick to my Wii, which doesn't try to achieve anything outside it's framework
it's a simple gaming-console, with simple graphics
and although I don't play it very often, apart from emulating older consoles, it's still my primary choice, if I am to play any current-gen
although I'll admit I'm a bit of a graphics-whore when it comes to Dwarf Fortress, as I like to have sprites instead of ASCII, but so be it.
kingmohd84 wrote:but still, when yesterday I switched my Dreamcast after like a year and a half of it being on the shelf, i checked out a game called Evil Twin...and i was upset. No really.
The graphics are super blurry, it looks like i didn't connect the wires correctly or something. Graphics are almost N64-ish.
I understand Dreamcast games look much better with VGA, but I don't want to switch to an HD tv because I am under the impression that older consoles don't play well wtih current HD tv's , and my VHS player too.
I would say that I don't like minecrafts graphics. The low res textures on everything look really blurred and things dont look very defined to me. And this is coming from a guy who loves n64 graphics. I get what you meant though
This reminds me of older games that tried to hard to look "real." Most of the memorable games took advantage of the hardware they had, in order to make things look appealing as opposed to realistic.
The first Mortal Kombat games. They went as far as using sprites of actual people to make it look "real." To me, it looked like shit. But games like Street Fighter just wanted things to look pretty, and did a damn good job at it too. They didn't really care about how real it looked, and that made it into a better looking game IMO.
I've always thought that developers who made the graphics cartoony and artistic were more visually successful than those who wanted it to look "real." Others might think differently, but if they want to see something realistic, there's always the option of stepping outside. I just want video games to be video games, and not life simulators.
Lord_Santa wrote:
hell, Fallout 3/Oblivion looks like crap, even compared to something as simple as WoW
Wat. There are many reasons why this statement makes no sense, but I'll go ahead and put it in some concrete terms. System requirements state that Fallout 3's minimum processor speed must be DOUBLE that of WoW's. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to explain this.
I understand what you're getting at with Minecraft as it's a very well put together game. However, are the point of graphics not to best convey whatever setting they are designed to do? Shouldn't graphics be based off of how well they use current technology to bring forth whatever setting they are trying to create?
Either way, check this out. Someone made a fully functioning computer... inside of minecraft.
)
