People with Greater Imaginations - Do They Enjoy Classic Games More?

[Nz17]

I haven't been able to find a discussion dedicated to this topic on Digital Press, so let's get to talks: do people who have stronger imaginations enjoy classic games more than those that do not? Let's admit it, the graphics and sounds (or lack thereof) of early games do require some imagination to connect them to the subject they are supposed to be about. After all, Pong is just a white square moving among some lines unless you use your imagination. Yet still, you don't have to imagine the "correct subject" - Pong could be about something entirely besides tennis, like two weapons defense systems trying to prevent bombs from entering their respective countries.

Can people with little or weak imaginations enjoy games? Of course they can as games are games and people are "programmed" to play for entertainment and learning. But the question is not a boolean "Can they be played?" but rather, "Do the more imaginative among us enjoy these games to a greater extent?" and, "Do they have a higher tolerance for the lower resolution of sounds and visuals in classic games?"

I believe the answer to both of those questions is yes, but I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this topic.

[Baloo]

This is a very interesting topic, but to be honest I'm not sure how much imagination plays a role in the enjoyment of video games. While I will definitely say imagination is needed to create them, most nerds/video game geeks are some of the most technical people I know, while being very in-the-clouds. Details of stories have to be spot on and have perfect continuity. They'll argue over the technical specs of the X-Wing and the TIE Fighter, how programs are allowed to act in TRON, and how other things have to be grounded scientifically while bypassing the main point of a topic (That you can't build a laser that sends you into the computer). I would hardly say that's really using your imagination to be honest.

Really, I think it focuses more on a point of nostalgia, putting yourself in the timeframe of when the games were released. I still have an appreciation for graphics of the 32-bit era, in games like NiGHTS, Burning Rangers, Virtua Fighter 2, etc. where the graphics looked REALLY good for the time and pushed the limits of the system, as well as the colors on games like Ristar and Turtles in Time of the 16-bit era. Same goes for music and gameplay and other aspects.

[ccovell]

Yes, the topic of imagination often comes up when retro gamers get to talking about games like NES Zelda being more fun, or whenever young children prefer to play old SNES games sometimes rather than Wii games. I think it's true. Books are better for children than TV because they have to stretch their imaginative powers to enjoy the story, and they get more out of them as a result.

On a side note, imagination is like taste: you don't know it when you don't have it.

[Gameguy]

I would have thought it would be the opposite, with no imagination you'd never be able to think of anything better so you'd love any game you played.

Kind of like this;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6v8SHvL7Zs

[Collector_Gaming]

i think to enjoy games of the pre nintendo and sega era require imagination to fully enjoy them.
and to revert back to the retro box art thread. This is one reason why the art work was so amazing. To really give you a feel of what the game you are going to play kinda about by just looking at a image. Kinda like seeing the cover of a book.

i mean i got a extreme imagination still so i can pop any game in and fill gaps where graphics and sounds can't produce easily.

Those that i know of younger age who do not have this skill seem to have zero interest of older games cause of the lack of enhanced graphics and sound and such.

[Leo_A]

I don't think a vivd imagination is required to enjoy something like Pong.

I can play something like Video Olympics on the Atari 2600 with a skilled opponent all day and have a great time. And never once do I picture myself playing real life tennis and such.

Not that I think I'm weak in that area, I just don't think it's a critical element to enjoying classic games. And how the heck could you grade someone's imagination to make such a hypothesis? I'm sure most everyone here think's their imagination is more vivid then the next person's. Just because one enjoys something like the Atari 2600 more than the other is no evidence that that person is more imaginative.

It's an interesting theory, but I don't support it.

[Collector_Gaming]

well its kinda like going to a pink floyd concert.

wait... thats drug induced rofl

[Steven]

I always say, and others have said this before too, that give me an impression of a forest rather than an actual forest. In other words, LTTP woods. That's good enough for my imagination to create a fantasy world in. A fully functioning, living, breathing world.

Then give me a 3D forest with details top to bottom... meh.

I prefer the impression of the forest, versus the actual forest. After all video games are meant to be escapism, fantasy. Too realistic graphics eliminates some of the fantasy feel for me.

[Matt-El]

I am a very imaginative person and I really like classic games, so...yeah maybe I fit into your bubble....

But then again, sometimes its all about what triggers your imagination and creativity at a certain time. I daydreamed a lot as a kid too, and if i liked something, I got sucked in.

[jammajup]

I have recently had a recent discussion on another forum which is in a similar vein,back in the day when i started gaming you had no choice but be an imaginative person due to the limitations with graphics,look at "Adventure" on the atari 2600 for example the game cover depicts serpents,knights,etc but on screen you control a square block around the screen and its often joked the Dragons look like ducks..the same could be said with other systems including old computers with low resolution graphics.

[kafa111]

i think less imaginative people get bored from retro games quickly because they are not up to "standards", but when you put in imagination they quickly pass standards

[Collector_Gaming]

I have recently had a recent discussion on another forum which is in a similar vein,back in the day when i started gaming you had no choice but be an imaginative person due to the limitations with graphics,look at "Adventure" on the atari 2600 for example the game cover depicts serpents,knights,etc but on screen you control a square block around the screen and its often joked the Dragons look like ducks..the same could be said with other systems including old computers with low resolution graphics.

yea thats the point i was getting at

you had to imagine that square for instance is some epic hero out to save the day as that was all you had to work with.

[Atarileaf]

I prefer the impression of the forest, versus the actual forest. After all video games are meant to be escapism, fantasy. Too realistic graphics eliminates some of the fantasy feel for me.

Exactly and this can be compared to some of the best horror movies ever made, particularly those made by Hitchcock. Some of the best never show the "monster" or whatever evil the movie is trying to convey. You have to use your imagination and that makes the movie more enjoyable.

Now in todays CG infested world, everything is "shown" to the audience in all its high definition 3D glory and it isn't nearly as interesting.

[stalepie]

They probably do require a little more imagination and intelligence. I like the 8 bit and 16 bit eras because there was a kind of a "meeting halfway" between artist and player then, as you get to see his imagination at work but still use yours.

[MachineGex]

The first game I thought of was Atari's Adventure. That game is so enjoyable. When playing it, you get the feel of the whole adventure. When the Dragons were chasing you, you really feel like you were runnin' for your life. That is a great example of a game that needs some imagination in order to make it play better.

[maxlords]

I don't think imagination has much to do with it. I think it's more of a focus and attention span thing. If your focus is good and your attention span is good, you're going to have more fun with the older games in theory. The newer games attract people of all types more because they're both targeted to a wider audience and WAY more flashy. Easier to get sucked into even if you don't focus well or have a low attention span. That's what I think. I don't see that imagination is a part of it at all....you're not imagining the game, you're playing someone else's vision. You're reacting to what's THERE, not using your imagination.

Same with a movie...your attention span and the focus you devote dictate the majority of your immersion factor.

Books are different because you MUST imagine the content based on words, but with movies and games, the visual and auditory stimuli is present...no imagination required.

[Emperor Megas]

I don't see that imagination is a part of it at all....you're not imagining the game, you're playing someone else's vision. You're reacting to what's THERE, not using your imagination.

That's not true at all; I do both. Perhaps you weren't using your imagination, but I was imagining those seahorse looking dragons in Adventure were huge serpentine beasts with sharp teeth and claws waiting to shred my 'square' (which in my mind was a knight in shining silver armour, like the ones in the 80's Excalibur movie) to bits.

The 'icons' that represented characters and enemies in those old games were little different than words in a book. In many cases, I relayed more on imagination when playing those games than I did when reading a book with well fleshed out environments and characters.

Even modern games like Silent Hill 2: Restless Dreams used subtlety and innuendo to turned my imagination against me and gave me nightmares for weeks, and food for thought for several years. I think people with less imagination get less out of artistic mediums across the board;, especially those with less fleshed out subject matter.

[maxlords]

But it's not a NECESSARY component. They might have a different experience...sure, but it's not necessary to the enjoyment of the medium.

I don't imagine any more than what's onscreen when I play a game or watch a movie. Nothing. I do however have a very active imagination, so I definitely believe you can enjoy those games without the use of imagination.

Of course I typically don't play much pre-NES stuff, but I don't hate it either. I also read a TON and let me tell you, I get complete immersion in books just the same as I do in games, but I'm using my imagination to compensate for the lack of visual stimuli.

[InboRenge]

I grew up on the NES/SNES, having played the Atari only a couple of times at a friends place, and I have to truthfully say that I just can't get into most Atari games. There is a basic level of artistry that I require to aesthetically enjoy a game, that's completely lacking in the majority of Atari games.

Does this mean I lack in imagination? Hardly! I've played more than a few games of Dungeons and Dragons in my life, and I have no problem playing text based games.

Long story short: Yeah, to enjoy Atari games you need imagination, and a heaping helping of nostalgia, which I lack.

[Emperor Megas]

But it's not a NECESSARY component. They might have a different experience...sure, but it's not necessary to the enjoyment of the medium.

Oh, I agree. I don't think it's a necessity, but it certainly helps/helped me enjoy games more. Especially the Atari age stuff.