Today my friend said old games have bad graphics [Archive]

NinjaJoey23

05-20-2007, 06:57 AM

Maybe outdated, but bad is a little universal.

Over a year ago, a guy I knew who worked at GameCrazy recommended that I "sell all those old games and get something sweet like a PS2 or Xbox!"

Anger started to well up in me, and all that I could do is shake my head and walk away.

jajaja

05-20-2007, 08:10 AM

How old is your friend? If hes young (like 15 years old or so) i can understand that he think old gfx sux.

davidleeroth

05-20-2007, 08:34 AM

Your friend speaks the truth. Calm the beef min.

Pantechnicon

05-20-2007, 08:47 AM

...and some time around the year 2020 your friend (who will probably be a DP member by then, too) will be pining for the "old school" games of his PS3, while oblivious kids born in or after that system's release year will struggle to understand how someone could possibly want to play a system as clunky as that old thing.

Substance > Form.

To me, "bad graphics" arguments are like trying to convince someone that we should never have landed on the moon in 1969 since we hadn't already developed a working warp drive system first.

Nebagram

05-20-2007, 09:01 AM

Saying bad graphics makes a game bad is like saying Citizen Kane was shit just because it was filmed in black and white. Hit the next person who argues with you with THAT one and see what happens. :)

RockOfAges

05-20-2007, 09:28 AM

Saying bad graphics makes a game bad is like saying Citizen Kane was shit just because it was filmed in black and white. Hit the next person who argues with you with THAT one and see what happens. :)

Citizen Kane WAS shit, but not because it was in BnW :P

Habeeb Hamusta

05-20-2007, 10:00 AM

HAHA. It depends on what it's getting compared to. 15 years ago...those games had great graphics. Now they don't because of technological innovations. It's common sense. 15 years from now...Xbox 360 games will be said to have bad graphics.

So anyways yeah, old games do have bad graphics now...but most are a lot more fun than contemporary games.

Chris

05-20-2007, 10:01 AM

@Habeeb Hamusta:
I really don't know why so many people seem to be so one-dimensional in their opinions about grafics.

As far as I'm concerned, grafics aren't all about how many polygons can be displayed at once, they're also about style, and even more important, functionality.
I'd even go so far and say that PONG has better grafics than Burnout Revenge.
While in PONG everything serves its purpose, Burnout Revenge is just a flashy mess, where the gameplay has taken a backseat to the nifty grafic effects.

First and foremost, I judge grafics in terms of their usefulness in supporting the gameplay and in this regard, a 30 year old game can very well be better than the newest grafical showcases.

Btw, I still think that the grafics of Wii Sports are among the best and most beautiful, this new generation has to offer so far.

slip81

05-20-2007, 11:19 AM

yo friend speaks truth, sprites are teh suxor.

MarioMania

05-20-2007, 01:45 PM

your friend is a arse

goemon

05-20-2007, 02:29 PM

If "bad" = "not photorealistic," then yes, old games do have bad graphics. However, I find the hand-drawn enemy sprites of Final Fantasy, the cute and colorful world of Choro Q, and the graphics of many other classic games to be much more beautiful than most of the current-gen stuff.

bangtango

05-20-2007, 02:38 PM

Push Upstairs

05-20-2007, 03:23 PM

He is partially right, some old games have shitty graphics.

Hello "Mortal Kombat" on Genesis!

MrSmiley381

05-20-2007, 04:06 PM

My friend said Fallout looked retarded and boring. Needless to say, I wanted to rip out his face.

Right. Graphics. Perhaps Fallout was a bad example, since it's only ten years old. Let's try, say, Castlevania. That's about twenty years old, and it still looks pretty sweet, all things considered.

I think our best bet is to "purge the infidels." Not surprisingly, purging infidels is costly and illegal. So, I suppose COA B is to ignore them.

Chaz From Phantasy Star 2

05-20-2007, 04:20 PM

Calm the beef min.

What???????????????????????????????????????

MarioMania

05-20-2007, 04:24 PM

He is partially right, some old games have shitty graphics.

Hello "Mortal Kombat" on Genesis!

What do you expect arcade graphics on the Genesis..

goemon

05-20-2007, 04:35 PM

What???????????????????????????????????????

tranlation: its gd but it theres no need to take a fukin orgasm over it some bollocks lyk that it means ok so weeshed ur hole na just jokin

cyberfluxor

05-20-2007, 04:54 PM

He's totally right, they do have bad graphics compared to todays standards. No reason to beat on the kid everyone. As a personal opinion though, good graphics only make a great game better!

Chris

05-20-2007, 05:56 PM

You should say "graphics", not "grafics." Please don't take that personally, though, because otherwise your reply is very well said and an excellent comment :) Good graphics don't make a bit of difference if the game isn't playable. Some of the classics on the NES (or any 8-bit system) are as playable as any game today.

Thx for the correction, no really.
I'm still learning.. (not my mother tongue)

He's totally right, they do have bad graphics compared to todays standards
I think those standards you're talking about are highly debatable.

idrougge

05-20-2007, 08:18 PM

He's totally right, they do have bad graphics compared to todays standards.

Today's standards don't make him right. It just shows that he can't think for himself.

DefaultGen

05-20-2007, 08:58 PM

.....

Nukie

05-20-2007, 09:26 PM

In the terms of pretty, flashy, oooo neat, for the most part it goes to the new games. But to say that older games have bad graphics becuase you are a tool is just wrong.

mregashu

05-20-2007, 10:06 PM

I would have your friend take a look at "Death and Return of Superman" and then check out Superman for the N64. Ask him which is a better representation of the character. That should help show him that greater technology doesn't equal better graphics. It's all in the hands of the developer.

Of course, if you want to compare, say, Gears of War and Donkey Kong Country your friend has a point. Today's best graphics are better than yesterdays. Way to go Captain Insight.

boatofcar

05-20-2007, 10:59 PM

I really don't see why everyone's so upset. Can't someone think that the graphics of today's games are more pleasing to the eye than games from 10 or 20 years ago? Personally, I think the average game made in 2007 looks a heck of a lot better than the average game made in 1997, because most of the games from that time were just starting to try out 3D (hello FFVII) and the results don't hold up at all.

cyberfluxor

05-20-2007, 11:27 PM

Chris & idrougge:
First re-read the second part of what I said. Then read a few following posts by mregashu and boatofcar, I'm on the similar track. Lets make this simple.

Doom was awesome back when it came out. When Doom 3 came out it was also cool but the graphics improved the game because now there was more gore in a game that's supposed to give the player that "WOW" affect. The thing about PC games that set them apart from console really is the graphics engines and their ability to adapt to new hardware (to a degree). Going back to Doom, no improvement on my computer right now since I first played it (except maybe less load times). Play Doom 3 on my new graphics card and now I can push it to or near the max than what was available on the market during the first release. Now since it's at the max now (what, nearly 3yrs after release?) it kept getting pushed and will continue to look "good" for a few more years to come. I'd say Doom 3 does look better than Doom simply due to a far superior graphics engine and it went from fixed 2D sprites to 3D models that could be refined with newer cards that could push the details and shading.

Now, if you want to make a debate about how Donkey Kong Country 3 sucks graphically for the SNES then I disagree with you. At this point you're claiming something designed for a specific system didn't utilize the hardware to the extent it could and should have, not "old games have bad graphics."

majinbuu

05-20-2007, 11:58 PM

just out of interest, what game does your sig come from goemon

boatofcar

05-21-2007, 12:19 AM

just out of interest, what game does your sig come from goemon

Only the best DP thread ever (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71891).

goemon

05-21-2007, 01:02 AM

just out of interest, what game does your sig come from goemon

Yeah, what boatofcar said. If you want to stick around here, you should read up on the most legendary experience I... wasn't actually involved in. Eat communism!

Push Upstairs

05-21-2007, 03:54 AM

What do you expect arcade graphics on the Genesis..

MK is far from being the only offender....MK just happened to be the first one that came to mind.

Every system has games that have shitty graphics. I'm sure even the PS2 has it's share of crappy looking games.

davidleeroth

05-21-2007, 04:41 AM

What???????????????????????????????????????

Huh?

http://www.students.tut.fi/~tiainen2/bad_graphics.jpg

Lady Jaye

05-21-2007, 01:12 PM

Well, StarFox on the SNES and other early 3D games do look like shit (my eyes! those polygons!!!). But comparing early-gen 3D to today's games is like comparing early Atari games with the NES...

Anyways, whether that makes them good or bad games is a whole different story.

RugalSizzler

05-21-2007, 01:21 PM

First off 3d has been around since I was around. Like near the end of 1970's 3d was around. in 1984 at least they had 3d in the movies like we have 3d but even sharper then the PS4.

What do you expect arcade graphics on the Genesis..

The Genesis could do arcade graphics and so did the NES as well many other systems before these systems. It is just about cost and effect. That is the problem with creating games. People need money to live unless you are willing to live at the company ( which some companies do ).

If you mean like Street Fighter Alpha then your not thinking right. You would have to compare the most popular arcade games at the time to what the genesis could pull off. The Genesis unlike arcades was not interchangable. Where you could have the same arcade unit but with more RAM or proccessing power.

Chris

05-21-2007, 04:11 PM

@cyberfluxor:
You just don't seem to get my point. While I think that an Atari 2600 game can have better graphics than an XBox 360 game (I briefly explained my thoughts in my first post) you're just viewing the topic from only one of many standpoints, which is shortsighted and doesn't do it justice imo.

Everyone that knows about Gamedesign, can assure you that new technology doesn't automatically lead to better graphics, cause as said, graphics shouldn't be judged only in terms of their technological prowess, but also on their functionality and usefullness or concept and style (something like Okami or Wii Sports comes to mind).

segagamer

05-21-2007, 05:05 PM

Old games may have bad graphics in comparison to today's games, but it does not necessarily mean the games themselves are bad (gameplay wise).

cyberfluxor

05-21-2007, 06:43 PM

Chris:
I understand where you're comming from. Graphics are the display of the world you're interacting with; if it does a clean way of presenting itself then it has "good" graphics.

As a software engineer the graphics from older games are outdated and most do show age. There are some amazing pieces of design that broke barriers and pushed hardware to the limits, no doubt about that. This is what limits knowledgable gamers (or someone with common sense) from declaring a game has bad graphics for it's time.

Back to the topic at hand however, "old games have bad graphics" means they have bad graphics, period. If you want to keep thinking this person meant "old games have *affective* graphics," then you're just kidding yourself.

kainemaxwell

05-21-2007, 08:55 PM

it's the gameplay that should matter most.

idrougge

05-22-2007, 02:04 PM

I could agree if someone said that "old systems have bad graphics", because generally they do, if compared to the cutting edge of today. But to say that old games had bad graphics, without any qualification, is as stupid as saying that 2007 games have bad graphics. There have always been games with good graphics and bad graphics.

To me, graphics are done by an artist. To some, graphics may also be done by a programmer (developments in 3D engines have displaced the unique role of the graphics artist, by moving much of what is displayed on-screen into the realm of mathematics). But if there is no artistic expression in a game's graphics, then the graphics are bad. And likewise, Castlevania III can have good graphics because Konami employed better graphicians than THQ does nowadays.

Any idiot can say that a photo looks better than a drawing, but then most people above the age of 13 would regard him as an idiot who can't tell medium and message apart.

Chris

05-22-2007, 02:22 PM

@cyberfluxor:
I understand your concerns and you're certainly right when you're saying that old games have bad grafics from a software engineers point of view, I just wanted to add that that that's not the only way to look at it, a Game Designer, for example, might disagree and rightfully so.

And as long as this thread wasn't called "old games have technically outdated graphics", I think my point is valid and I'll keep encouraging other people to look behind the mere technical figures, trying to get a deeper understanding of what makes good graphics.
Cause this could help keeping people from spitting out obtrusive generalisations.
But I'm pretty sure, that the person at hand, despite only referring to the technical aspects of graphics, hasn't even thought about that there could be more to it. That's what really bothers me and that's what I'm trying to adress.

calthaer

05-22-2007, 02:30 PM

Your friend should be beaten like a rented mule for making graphics out to be more important than gameplay, if that was the aim of his comment.

veronica_marsfan

05-22-2007, 03:52 PM

Today my friend said old games have bad graphics.

Your friend is correct. Old games have 320x240 resolution... which is only HALF the maximum NTSC or PAL tvs can support. Even newer games on the PS1 or N64 suffer from "blockiness" due to a lack of polygons.

But that's not why we play games, is it?

We play games *despite their ugliness* because they are hella fun! (To borrow a phrase from Cartman.) You don't need a bazillion colors and 10 million pixels to enjoy a game like Ms. Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros.

Tell them that.

BTW the same applies to old movies. Charlie Chaplin's movies may look "blurry" and "choppy" from inadequate framerate, but he's still darn funny! Just because a classic movie like Casablanca is in black-n-white is not going to stop me from watching it.

Only a fool would refuse to watch Casablanca or play Super Mario Bros.

[edit] [I'm going back to college in 2008 (or 9). It will be most-amusing watching the reactions of 18-22-yr-old college kids as I sit down & play my 8-bit Atari or 16-bit Super Nintendo. I can already predict it: "What are you playing that pixelated crap for?" haha.]

Push Upstairs

05-22-2007, 11:47 PM

Chaz has left the building.

I hope you don't expect a reply.

boatofcar

05-23-2007, 12:03 AM

I looked, but I can't find it...why'd he get banned?

Push Upstairs

05-23-2007, 12:10 AM

That is the $64,000 question.

Gapporin

05-23-2007, 01:17 AM

What???????????????????????????????????????

<Lil Jon>WHAT!?</Lil Jon>

ryborg

05-23-2007, 04:07 AM

I looked, but I can't find it...why'd he get banned?

I'm willing to suspend disbelief that RugalSin is a real person, but Chaz? No way. It's gotta be a gimmick account.

cyberfluxor

05-23-2007, 12:12 PM

Chris:
This is a criticial and always much needed and debated topic for the retro and classic gaming communities. There are elements that keep us all attracted to what we are even after beatting it. It's the lore to buy and play more of these similar games, some going a step father and collecting. The bottom line is it's all about enjoyment in what you have and that's what keeps these communities together and discussing.

IMO, all games that come with newly launched systems need something more than trying to push that next generation of graphics, rather new generations of proccessing power and what it can accomplish to make game elements better.

There are games I don't own because the designers made some god awful graphics that just aren't playable. On the otherside there are games I did buy because they looked great but dear god, who tested the game mechanics?! It's just a matter of buying, playing and experiencing what truely is a masterpiece and finding that perfect game for you.

ice1605

05-23-2007, 04:19 PM

How old is your friend? If hes young (like 15 years old or so) i can understand that he think old gfx sux.

I hate that, I guess you would call it a stereotype, of how young gamers only care about graphics. I am 16, and I don't care about graphics. I play my NES and Super NES, and love them! Best systems ever!

Vinnysdad

05-23-2007, 04:29 PM

I'm willing to suspend disbelief that RugalSin is a real person, but Chaz? No way. It's gotta be a gimmick account.

I thought Chaz was too stupid to be real and Rugalsizzler I hope is fake too because he just spouts off idiotic bull.

exit

05-23-2007, 05:15 PM

Tell them that.

Chaz, just like Veronica Mars, has been canceled. Please make a note of it.

idrougge

05-23-2007, 09:10 PM

Your friend is correct. Old games have 320x240 resolution... which is only HALF the maximum NTSC or PAL tvs can support. Even newer games on the PS1 or N64 suffer from "blockiness" due to a lack of polygons.

Yes, but a PS3 only has 1920x1080 resolution, and a limited amount of polygons. Even though its graphics may be interpreted as more photorealistic than a NES or a PSX, the graphics are still as stiff and unreal as any preceding game system. Despite all its power, the PS3 still doesn't have games which could fool anyone that you're looking at a movie.

veronica_marsfan

05-23-2007, 09:29 PM

Which is why I ALSO said the following:

We play games *despite their ugliness* because they are hella fun! (To borrow a phrase from Cartman.) You don't need a bazillion colors and 10 million pixels to enjoy a game like Ms. Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros.

PentiumMMX

05-24-2007, 12:31 PM

I've played games with good graphics (Kingdom Hearts 2), bad graphics (Final Fantasy VII), and no graphics (Text adventures. Yet to play Zork, though). Graphics are nothing to me as long as the game is still fun.

Though my sister's boyfreind is trying to claim PSX is more powerful then N64 by comparing it's real-time graphics to FF7's pre-rendered cut-scenes.

James8BitStar

05-24-2007, 01:04 PM

This reminds me of an experience I had recently. My cousin was over at my house, and he saw me playing Warcraft II. He said "those graphics are bad."

Then he watched me play Ducktales on the NES and didn't say anything. I giggled ten minutes in, and he was like, "What?" And I said, "Dude... you think Warcraft II has bad graphics but you haven't said anything about Ducktales."

But he's no graphics freak. When he was ten I got him addicted to Bubble Bobble and Archon. Mind you, we both had N64s at the time. Today he's sixteen and enjoys a lot of the oldschool stuff I expose him to.

I never really understood the graphics push, honestly. Honestly I think bad graphics make a game more immersive.

blissfulnoise

05-24-2007, 01:06 PM

First off 3d has been around since I was around. Like near the end of 1970's 3d was around. in 1984 at least they had 3d in the movies like we have 3d but even sharper then the PS4.

QFT.

3D was around forever! WTF NINTENDOS & ATARIS??? Why your playing old games with no 3ds?

hbkprm

05-24-2007, 03:40 PM

it gets better by the gen

XianXi

05-24-2007, 04:40 PM

That is like the most ignorant statement. It's called progress with technology. If they were ale to make the graphics that great back then dont you think it would have happened?

StBob

04-24-2008, 05:46 PM

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...........

LOL don't get too upset its true. The old games had crap graphics but.......
Back then a game had to stand on one thing to be great, it had to be fun.

Today you can dress up a turd of a game in good graphics.

I still have not seen a decent version of Archon on a new system, why?
I remember they made one for the 486PC and they just ruined the game. It was so slow during fight scenes that it was not Archon it was slowon. The game failed not because it was outdated but because playability issues.

All the old games were very playable, something you can't say about todays games. UT3 Sloooooooooow.

And where is an updated version of MULE?????? I mean 4 player same room each with his own joystick. The n64 could do it well so could the Wii.