Who else here thinks old games suck, because of their graphics?
I know you will think this is b8 and will jump at the chance to call me an underage or retarded, but I've been playing games since the 90s and I can't fathom why there is such devotion towards older games as opposed to newer one. Here is the thing most people don't realize. Graphics are a large part of how a game feels when you play it. I am not just talking about how shiny a brick in a newer game compared to an older. Think of it this way...
In FPS games a good shooting game isn't just about how many types of weapons and enemies there, what makes shooting satisfying is how the weapon looks when you shoot it (this is graphics) and sounds (sound design was also shit back then). Simply putting the crosshair over the target and clicking a button can be done in any game but its actually modern graphics that make it feel smoother and more responsive.
I've played FPS games pre 2005 and they are dogshit compared to modern ones, yes even COD blows them out of the water.
Its not just FPS games, take skyrim vs morrowind. Sure Skyrim is worse in a lot of areas as far as game design. But graphics make hitting something with an axe far more satisfying than the equivalent of knocking a stick against a cardboard cut out.
Games like Resident Evil 2, which were classics at the time are so limited by graphics that it basically has no game play except dodge the enemy in the narrow field of vision with horrible controls and click to shoot.
Graphics matter, whether you realize it or not.
>>320837014
I think this is a very subjective debate. I don't believe that graphics have anything to do with how satisfying it is to use a weapon, I think it's how the weapon functions and the details that count.
I'd agree that sound design plays a big part in games, but old games can still put their dated sounds to good use, they can work well with games set in a cyberpunk world for example.
I guess it just depends on your tolerance for older things.
Older games get such attention because they were groundbreaking at the time they came out, or even just really great games, is call of duty 6-7-8-9-10 groundbreaking? Shit no it's the same game for years now and they ask full price for it
Think of day of the tentacle, creative and funny story and jokes, original art style and atmosphere, why did people love it? O i have no idea
>>320837014
>I've played FPS games pre 2005 and they are dogshit compared to modern ones, yes even COD blows them out of the water.
no cod game is better than UT 2004
even with it's shit gfx imo
>Its not just FPS games, take skyrim vs morrowind. Sure Skyrim is worse in a lot of areas as far as game design
Gameplay matters more than anything else, whether you realize it or not. Yeah, graphics and sound and all that jazz can help enhance things even more, but a crappy game could have the prettiest graphics ever. Wouldn't make it any less crappy.
A lot of games these days also have less care and attention to detail put into them as well.
Another thing you neglected to take into consideration about weapons is versitility and impact they have. Take the Timesplitters or Turok games -- these games had a wide array of creative, unique weapons that all served different functions and felt unique. A lot of older games also had weapons that felt meaty and powerful; the sounds they made may have been crude, but they were loud, and the effects were striking. You shoot someone with a shotgun, for example, and they're brutalized. In a lot of modern games, shotguns, comparatively, may look and sound better, but feel weaker as far as someone actually getting hit by it goes.
Then there's the finer details. A lot of shooters, for example, have become entirely linear. Not much in the way of secret rooms or paths or hidden levels anymore; you might find a single room not marked on your way to an objective down a long narrow hallway with a "hidden" item in it, and the devs will call it a day and think that's that.
A lot of modern FPS games alone try to be Hollywood blockbusters, attempting to wow you with the visuals and sound effects alone without fleshing out the surrounding areas you're actually in or making them stand out from one another. You ever hear the phrase, "less is more"? A lot of modern games rely TOO heavily on graphics alone.
This is a long video, but I felt like this highlights some of the issues between modern and older games fairly decently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPqwDGXxLhU
>>320838679I want franken-chan to cut me up, defile me and experiment on me whatever she desires, giving me several mutations, making my existance a suffering and keeping me as her pet.
>>320839713
To add to this, not all modern games are like this, of course. The new Wolfenstein games did a fantastic job retaining the feel of the older games while modernizing things just enough and providing a nice shiny coating of new graphics. I wish more shooters attempted to strive to be like this; still going out of their way to flesh out the environments and worlds of the games by providing a ton of secrets, unique environments and weapons that felt powerful and varied from each other, all while working in improved graphics, sound and what not.
> Sure Skyrim is worse in a lot of areas as far as game design.
>But graphics make hitting something with an axe far more satisfying than the equivalent of knocking a stick against a cardboard cut out.
i've played games in 16 colors that had more satisfying combat than skyrim
game devs should stylize graphics because stylized art never really ages unlike attempts at realism age
use more vectors instead of rasters
use a consistent color scheme
these things will never age
A lot of older games focus on good gameplay and where that's concerned the graphics really don't matter that much. If you want to compare the classic FPS games like Quake and the original Half-life, and say COD is better because the guns look shinier, you are seriously missing the point of gameplay. Q3A and UT still look appealing to the eye despite being 16 years old.
Some games also make the atmosphere and design work with older / lower quality graphics, the original Silent Hill holds up way better as a game than most recent survival-horror games because it had effort put into it and made good use of available resources (using the fog to mask loading areas and create atmosphere). It doesn't really matter if the dogs looked like shit, they were spooky and weren't made for GFX-whores to jack off to them.
There's a reason a lot of older games have dedicated followings who say all new games are shit, even if people can be really pretentious about it, because they still work with what they have and made good games that hold up despite the quality. If you don't believe this look at every recent game that's sold itself on graphics and see how many people actually think are good and are still playing after the day one hype died down. The appeal of shiny graphics wears off 10 minutes after you see them.
>>320837014
Since we're talking about FPS I can't really get into early 3D shooters but love sprite based ones, is that weird?
>>320837014
>I've played FPS games pre 2005
which ones? Because yeah, shitty and medicore games existed before 2005 too
Kill yourself op
This is a bait thread, stop responding.
well it makes sense. gaming didnt become a mainstream hobby until around the ps2, when 3d graphics became acceptable. ps1 and prior attempts at 2.5d/3d just look like garbage.
>>320837014
>this post
>people will actually take this retarded faggots opinion seriously because he took the time to type it out, and /v/ is filled with retarded fucking liberals now that will eat any shit thats shoveled in to their mouths
>literally anything in a VIDEOGAME mattering other than the GAMEPLAY
i want the cancer to leave my hobby and fuck off back to movies and sports.
>>320837014
This is probably bait, but it's 4 o'clock and I don't care.
Graphics don't matter, aesthetics do, and older games can still be aesthetically well made while still being made within their hardware constraints.
There are plenty of older games that you can go back to and appreciate the work done and techniques used to get something looking, sounding and playing as well as they do, and honestly there is art in that.
Some examples off the top of my head, Metal Slug, Homeworld, Breath of Fire IV, WoW, (say what you will, but much of the older content holds up reasonably well today)
>>320841304
>people are trying to have discussions instead of dismissal reaction memes
Yeah I want the usual v back, so much better!
>>320837014
The main advantage better graphics have is that it's more appealing to look at immediately.
The main advantage inferior graphics have is that your imagination can fill in the blanks, making things last in your mind.
Of course, this is assuming both games have good art direction.
However, either way can work fine as long as gameplay is up to par.
>>320841313
Yeah, what this anon said.
>>320837014
> Games like Resident Evil 2, which were classics at the time are so limited by graphics
Early 3D games are awful, I can agree, but good 2D games will be looking good forever.
It's like comparing cartoons. Hell, I hated 3D cartoons when I was a kid, but back then they weren't looking good at most.And they still don't look good, though
>but I've been playing games since the 90s and I can't fathom why there is such devotion towards older games
you were probably that one poser faggot in school that didn't actually enjoy anything, you just did it to fit in.
video games, music, clothing, none of it actually meant anything to you. you only made moves to fit in with this group or that group, like a snake. truly autistic
>>320837014
Personal opinion but I could still play gunstar heroes and have a blast as opposed to alot of games released today.
Then:
Exploration was encouraged.
You had the sense that you were going on an adventure.
Games were shorter but the context remained relevant.
Annual releases added new modes and concepts to games.
Now:
DLC and pre-order exclusives.
The game lasts 80 hours, when 40 of those hours are filler missions that should be elective side-quests.
Explore an entire map, only to come away with basic items you already have capped.
Annual games are in fact only roster and character model updates.
>>320837014
DELETE THIS
I don't know about graphics, but over detailed designs nowadays are pissing me off
>we must add one trillion surfaces and bumps and ornaments to the armor, it's more realistic!
>>320837014
>I know you will think this is b8 and will jump at the chance to call me an underage
No shit people here will, given it's the truth.
>>320843414
>but I've been playing games since the 90s
lol stopped reading right there
>>320837014
Is that James Williems?
>>320837014
I suppose that graphics are definitely a factor, but they don't make or break a game for most people.
See Dwarf Fortress.
You're not underage, I think you have a valid point. Most of the time the furthest back I can go is Half-Life 1 era graphics, where it's "3D" but not too pixelly. Most of the old games I play are KOTOR-Vampire:Masquerade-ish graphics.
I know it's a meme game now, but Undertale was the first pixelly game I played in years that I could actually stand.
>>320837014
I can have much more fun with Doom and Doom 2 with anything after that. The modern CoDs for me are basically unplayable for some reason. The last one I enjoyed somewhat was the first Modern Warfare.
There are old games which aged like the best wine, and of course there are others wich aged like milk. It's really subjective.
>>320843817
thing is, dwarf fortress is played mainly by autistic persons, so that statement is pretty much void.
>>320843817
>but they don't make or break a game for most people.
>See Dwarf Fortress
But DF community isn't as big as, let's say, CoD community.
>>320841093
Look at the discussion above you. This is a good thread with good responses, rather than memefest shitposting.
I agree with OP in that the "feel" of the weapon, atmosphere, etc can have a big effect on immersion, especially since we've seen what good graphics can look like.
Some games are hard for me to get into because they look so damned dated, but, as others have said, good graphics don't necessarily mean good gameplay.
If your enjoyment of a game is derived in any way from its graphics you're just a shit pseudo-hobbyist and should stop wasting money on shit graphically-focused cinematic experiences that will harm the hobby in the long run
Stylization>Graphics, this isn't news if you started playing games prior to 2007.
>>320841304
>and /v/ is filled with retarded fucking liberals
Not everything's about your bloody yank politics. Most people don't give a shit.
>>320837014
I think saying things like "only gameplay matters" is dumb, because every aspect of the game relates to the gameplay. And gameplay alone without any music, graphic style or good level design would be boring
Happening.
>>320837014
This is bait.
Of course graphics matter, you're pointing FPS as a genre - and it's very graphics-heavy, all the popular FPS games of the past had great graphics which of course aged.
Later on you become obvious. Show me one gun from CoD that's more awesome than this:
https://youtu.be/Yga9fI6ucQM?t=1m40s
I'm waiting.
>>320844682
iPads aren't bad though.
