• Log In | Sign Up

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Top Games
  • Search
  • New Releases
  • Daily Deals
  • Forums

Adventure Gamers - Forums

Welcome to Adventure Gamers. Please Sign In or Join Now to post.

You are here: HomeForum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread

Post Marker Legend:

  • New Topic New posts
  • Old Topic No new posts

Currently online

IronCretinJdawg445Lady KestrelTimovieManwalas74

Support us, by purchasing through these affiliate links

   

Retro game fad: Opinions? 

Avatar

Total Posts: 120

Joined 2004-01-06

PM

Lets not forget how amazing To The Moon was, and the graphics for that were very low-res.

     

I’m on a whole new adventure.
Growing a mustache?
No. Bigger than that.
A beard?!?

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

I could be wrong, but I don’t think anybody here would argue with the idea that you CAN make an AWESOME adventure game with lo-res, or even NO graphics. And I’m pretty sure we’re all on the same page with the notion that it is eminently possible to have a LOUSY adventure game with spectacular graphics.

Where there seems to be some difference of taste is in the question of whether, quality of game otherwise being equal, there is anything to recommend “retro” (read: lo-res) graphics over “better” (read: higher resolution) graphics. I personally would say, while I won’t rule out the possibility that a game could exist where that would be the case, as a general rule my answer is no. Some here seem to prefer the “retro” graphics in a wider range of situations than I, and some seem so strongly opposed to them that they actually outweigh, to some degree, positives in other areas of game design, but I don’t think anybody would actually go so far as to EQUATE the “quality” of the graphics to the quality of the game.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1350

Joined 2009-04-28

PM

Mister Ed - 06 August 2012 02:12 PM

...but I don’t think anybody would actually go so far as to EQUATE the “quality” of the graphics to the quality of the game.

I have to respectfully disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly, there are some people, although I would guess a minority, who insist on “top end” graphics even in adventure games.

Secondly, there are those who will not even try playing games like Gabriel Knight because they are put off by the pixels! To some extent, if they weren’t around in the 80’s/90’s, I can see how it might be difficult to get into the look of the games.

Personally though, I agree that graphics do not equal overall quality!

     

3.5 time winner of the “Really Annoying Caption Contest Saboteur” Award!

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

Intense Degree - 06 August 2012 04:22 PM
Mister Ed - 06 August 2012 02:12 PM

...but I don’t think anybody would actually go so far as to EQUATE the “quality” of the graphics to the quality of the game.

I have to respectfully disagree, for two reasons.

Firstly, there are some people, although I would guess a minority, who insist on “top end” graphics even in adventure games.

Secondly, there are those who will not even try playing games like Gabriel Knight because they are put off by the pixels! To some extent, if they weren’t around in the 80’s/90’s, I can see how it might be difficult to get into the look of the games.

Personally though, I agree that graphics do not equal overall quality!

I agree with everything you just said, but I still don’t think that means anybody is EQUATING graphics quality with game quality, unless you are saying that they automatically think any game that HAS “top end” graphics is good. I haven’t seen anybody go THAT far. What you are saying is that some have a very strong bias against “retro” graphics. This is clearly true. I know that, though I played several in my younger days, I currently have a very strong bias against text-adventures. That doesn’t mean I think they are uniformly bad, just that they don’t interest me much right now. I also have a very strong bias against horror, which means SEVERAL well-regarded games, ones that I wouldn’t dream of arguing were low quality, are simply of zero interest to me.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 4011

Joined 2011-04-01

PM

Mister Ed - 06 August 2012 09:42 AM

I will say, however, that even in the original version I was bothered by the incongruity of the close-up shots, like Oscar showed, where Guybrush and Elaine look like regular, live-action humans. For the vast majority of the game the characters visually are treated as cartoons, with popping eyes, comically dropped jaws, that sort of thing, yet somehow whenever we see them close-up they look like normal people? Jarring, in my opinion. That’s why I’ve always felt that Curse of Monkey Island had by FAR the best visual style for the MI games.

Are you talking about SOMI? Could you give an example of this? I don’t get what you mean by popping eyes, since the characters had one dot for each eye. I thought close-up Elaine looked like Elaine, close-up Guybrush looked like Guybrush, etc. I wouldn’t call the general style cartoony and probably more towards the realist side for a game that has ghost pirates and voodoo.

MI2 was more stylized - maybe someone knows if MI2 had higher res than MI1? COMI certainly was.

     

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

Oscar - 06 August 2012 07:51 PM
Mister Ed - 06 August 2012 09:42 AM

I will say, however, that even in the original version I was bothered by the incongruity of the close-up shots, like Oscar showed, where Guybrush and Elaine look like regular, live-action humans. For the vast majority of the game the characters visually are treated as cartoons, with popping eyes, comically dropped jaws, that sort of thing, yet somehow whenever we see them close-up they look like normal people? Jarring, in my opinion. That’s why I’ve always felt that Curse of Monkey Island had by FAR the best visual style for the MI games.

Are you talking about SOMI? Could you give an example of this? I don’t get what you mean by popping eyes, since the characters had one dot for each eye. I thought close-up Elaine looked like Elaine, close-up Guybrush looked like Guybrush, etc. I wouldn’t call the general style cartoony and probably more towards the realist side for a game that has ghost pirates and voodoo.

MI2 was more stylized - maybe someone knows if MI2 had higher res than MI1? COMI certainly was.

Maybe I’m mixing up MI1 and MI2. I distinctly recall Guybrush having his eyes comically pop so they appeared huge at some point, as well as a jaw dropping a cartoonish amount (WAAAAAY more than would be physically possible).

     

Total Posts: 16

Joined 2012-06-05

PM

Intense Degree - 06 August 2012 04:22 PM

Secondly, there are those who will not even try playing games like Gabriel Knight because they are put off by the pixels! To some extent, if they weren’t around in the 80’s/90’s, I can see how it might be difficult to get into the look of the games.

I indeed find that these old graphics (and new pixel art games) make the games less enjoyable for me. I grew up on such low res graphics and even worse, playing adventures with pictures on the C64 or Spectrum, and I was fine with them at the time, but that doesn’t mean that I want to go back to those days.

So I’m one of those who’d love to see fewer of these pixel art games.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1350

Joined 2009-04-28

PM

Mister Ed - 06 August 2012 04:48 PM

I agree with everything you just said, but I still don’t think that means anybody is EQUATING graphics quality with game quality, unless you are saying that they automatically think any game that HAS “top end” graphics is good.

Perhaps not, but looking at it the other way round I think some people assume a game is bad because of “bad” graphics.

What you are saying is that some have a very strong bias against “retro” graphics. This is clearly true. I know that, though I played several in my younger days, I currently have a very strong bias against text-adventures. That doesn’t mean I think they are uniformly bad, just that they don’t interest me much right now. I also have a very strong bias against horror, which means SEVERAL well-regarded games, ones that I wouldn’t dream of arguing were low quality, are simply of zero interest to me.

If I understand correctly, you argue that I am mistaking opinion of “quality” with desire to play the game and you may be right to an extent, but I would counter that there is evidence in this thread of those who “mark games down” in their estimation solely because of graphics and therefore (I opine) the overall quality of the game in their eyes is lessened because of the graphics and this is a direct and proportional link even if it is arguably not directly “equating” the two - although I think on balance I would say it was.

To put it another way, if “pixel art” type graphics put you off a game to the extent that it is your sole criteria for judging it (as I think some people do) then the two are equated.

[Just to emphasize I am not criticising anyone’s views here and none of this is meant personally against anyone!  Smile]

     

3.5 time winner of the “Really Annoying Caption Contest Saboteur” Award!

Avatar

Total Posts: 514

Joined 2010-08-03

PM

graphics give off a feeling that everyone takes into account when judging sth.it’s like with comics/manga.there might be a good comic/manga in terms of story but the graphic style is not appealing enough for you to read it.if you’ve seen Hunter x Hunter the manga ,the story is good enough to get an anime but the drawings of the mangaka are so bad…at first i thought wtf….this dude is simply sending his prototypes instead of the polished ones.
the same applies to graphic adventures.when you play sth it’s not just about the story the graphics are just as important.they work in parallel with a story.and the better the graphics the more you appreciate the story and game.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 5035

Joined 2004-07-12

PM

dave_minall - 06 August 2012 11:58 AM

Lets not forget how amazing To The Moon was, and the graphics for that were very low-res.

Absolutely! The story captured me immediately. The graphics were not material.

Resonance, on the other hand, lost me from the get-go. Same retro graphics, but 30 minutes into the game I had not grasped what was going on, and I quit. If it had better graphics might have I continued? It’s possible.

I hate to bring up the subject of Casual Games here, but the graphics in some Casual Games are, for lack of a better term, stunning. See the new review of Azada -In Libro.

Perhaps I’m naive, but if you have a good story, but don’t have the budget to do high-quality graphics internally, isn’t outsourcing a viable option?

     

For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.

Avatar

Total Posts: 27

Joined 2012-08-11

PM

I ultimately think that we are judging such fields like graphics by movie standards rather than gaming standards. Ie: as technology advances in the film industry it is presumed that the effects will get better and better. Which means genres based around those effects will get better such as action/sci-fi/horror etc. This is a debatable point entirely on its own but my point is that games are not governed by the same laws as movies when it comes to graphics.

When the ps1 came out what was considered good graphics were the 3d polygons and en-mass 2d games were looked down upon, now as we look back I don’t think there as anyone that will say that the 3d graphics on the ps1 were better than the finely hand drawn pixel art that appeared on that console. I honestly believe that it will come to the same point in 10 years from now because 2d art has really reached it’s peak, there’s really nothing that could improve the quality of 2d art that hasn’t been done already. Where as 3d modelling is still progressing to better and better quality which makes older games in that genre look worse than what people remember them as being. Where as with pixel art that was seen as fantastic even 20 years ago, it is still seen as beautiful aka: Monkey Island 2.

The only real factor which has ever held back 2-d pixel art was resolution and to an extent the amount of colours. Where as with 3d models there are a whole host of factors which can hold back a games looks or make them look somewhat horrible 5 years after it’s release. The fact is that 3d art is a lot more reliant on technology strength than 2d art has ever been and the fact that 2d art had been around for centuries previous to the invention of pixel art which could potentially explain how well detailed, low resolution pixel art can still look beautiful to this day, where as the majority of what was high detailed graphics during the ps1 and ps2 era now look well repulsive and why most 3d games in which graphics age well are the simpler detailed cartoon style graphics. One factor that 3d games are still reliant on but 2d games are not reliant on is hardware strength, 3d games can only be as beautiful in terms of pure polygon count and resolution as the technology allows, where as 2d games aren’t held back by this anymore at all.

When we talk about games that use smaller resolutions on purpose and use purposely dated pixel art, I simply see it as another section of the artform and I think it absurd to think that it would be holding back the genre for the simple reason that it targets a niche audience and it has it’s place. We have many books and films created each year which are created in the form of past styles. We have books written in the style of classical dickens and Austin novels and many silent films among the art demographic with the most famous probably being the artist, these do not hold back their respective artforms. So it is ludicrous to think the retro styled video games will do so.

In terms of past retro genres such as that of point and click adventure games and 2d sidescrollers, I believe that we have been handed a gift because technology no longer stands in the way of creating a 2d game and we have technology that far surpasses what we need to create a very high quality game among these genres. Which means that 3d gaming is now in that rut where we used to be during the 90’s, where we had to make sure that our graphics were top notch and could compete with the graphics of our competitors but also worrying about whether or not the technology could handle it. We have now surpassed it, to the point that if you have a good artist bets are your game will look very pretty. We are now free to experiment to our hearts content and concentrate solely on the gameplay, on the things that aren’t just for advertising but for the actual game. (not that im saying the art is just for advertising)

With the fact that technology is not a hindrance to the 2d genre anymore means that we can take genres from the 2d era and perfect, experiment with them. To evolve the genres to the point that they can now incorporate elements of game play that developers in the 90s could only dream of.

I think this idea of retro in video games should be shed as quickly as possible, I mean with the exception of silent movies which was a hindrance due to technology rather than a specific genre such as comedy/horror etc. Do people call western films and world war 2 films made today retro films? Of course not even though they are retro genres of films. So why do gamers call specific independant genres of games such as point and click adventures, 2d platformers, 2d run’n'gun retro? These aren’t retro they are simply one of the many genres of the many genres of games that aren’t as popular as they once were like the western is for film.

Ps: Sorry if I rambled a bit but I thought I’d throw my 2 cents in well more like 100 pounds worth.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 514

Joined 2010-08-03

PM

BigBadBaal - 11 August 2012 11:24 AM

I ultimately think that we are judging such fields like graphics by movie standards rather than gaming standards.

i agree with most things you say but i doubt people are judging by movie standards.
sure in AAA titles in more graphics advanced games where every 2-3 years we have even more reality-like graphics sure they may use that as a standard.but in AGs…..i seriously doubt that.

i think that generally people want better graphics in AGs like they do in AAA FPS titles if that will introduce a new reality to them.something that will ring as true as the reality we live in.at least that’s the urge.new levels of immersion.

so having games come out in 2D either because it was a budgetary constraint or because it was artistic choice ,will probably be disheartening to people with the above mindset.

in the end it’s all about tastes and moods.one who likes old styles will like this wave of games.but there’s also the chance she does like it but her mood says something with better graphics for a change.or she might not like it and feel the need for a game with top notch graphics(like Beyond).

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 27

Joined 2012-08-11

PM

I agree with you that there are people out there with this point of view, but I would debate them to the point that graphics don’t make immersion. If you look at the Metroid Prime series, the Kotr and bethesda games, they are highly immersive to this day but not the most powerful graphically. (I know none of them are adventure games)

Tbh this is more a hindrance on my part because I’m blind to their point of view as I can go back and play old games like the ultima series and become very immersed in it. But I do tend have a very powerful visual imagination so this could be a talent that allows me to easily be immersed where others are more ground with the restrictions of reality. (I am in no way saying that I am better than these people, just that I may have a stronger imagination in the same way some-one would be able to run faster)

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 514

Joined 2010-08-03

PM

yes but immersion comes mainly through visual and audio right?isn’t that what makes us percept reality?as far as i know though there isn’t so much of a complaint about audio in games.i’ve never seen a thread about audio.but graphics….a lot.i’m not saying it’s the only important factor,it works along side audio but at a bigger percentage.even playing a text adventure you use your imagination to create those visuals and use them to get immersed.graphics just render that use of imagination not needed since the visuals are ready.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 27

Joined 2012-08-11

PM

the text based vs visual debate is the same books vs movies. That’s what I mean the graphics ultimately don’t hurt my immersion no matter how dated. There is actually a scientific debate about what affects us most sound or visuals or whether it depends on the person. For me it would definitely be sound more than graphics but it is subjective. I would say that your point that imagination is not needed with visuals is slightly off. When it comes to todays graphics and movies I would agree.

But with graphics from yesteryear I would say that you do need certain percentage of imagination depending on how developed the artwork is.

Also I personally find things that break immersion to be stuff like, Quick time events in games like god of war, killing moves at the end of a fights in bethesda games etc. Why? because the character you control is doing something elaborate with very little control from yourself. But that’s just me and I tend to be in the minority on this but hopefully you understand.

     

You are here: HomeForum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread

Welcome to the Adventure Gamers forums!

Back to the top