/vr/ - Retro Games

>>7040452
I think the art quality is way more important than the technical aspects. You can have a great looking low poly game and a bland, cluttered mess of game despite modern graphics. Mega Man Legends is low poly and still looks better than most games. Mario 3 and Kirby's Adventure still look amazing.

>>7040460
Agreed, but I still like the ps1-windows xp look no matter how brown it is. And Legends is a gorgeous game.

>>7040460

>>7040721
Best reacc desu. That guy pretty much /thread

>>7040721
Who tf is this Anime Mustaine?

Anything before 3rd gen is eye cancer.

>>7040721

>>7040721
Hello me, meet the real me.

>How common is blindness to graphics
There are different kinds:

>autism and/or low-IQ
Where you can't tell the difference, you're just sensually blunted
.
>jaded/hipster/depressed
Where you prefer the styles of a previous, happier/trendier time, because of the mental or social feelings it gives you, such as superiority or comfort.

>effeminacy/sickness
Similar to the previous one, except more natural and genuine. This is where you simply prefer ugly/lame stuff, rather a coping mechanism to bash contemporary/trendy stuff or alleviate your depression. An example would be in this post >>7040460 where he seems to genuinely think Mega Man, Mario, and Kirby are the go-to examples of great art in general, rather than specifically E-rated kid-friendly stuff. However, that the same poster bothered to open with a put-down of technical power, is similar to the 2nd type I mentioned: jaded/hipster/depressed.

To add to that part in good faith, I believe he's getting at the fact that graphical power equates to style, while graphical art equates to substance. So shiny graphics might be more appealing at first glance, but if they are not used masterfully, you'd end preferring to play a weaker powered game that at least does look artful. The crucial part he missed, is that past a certain point, brute power/style automatically puts the artist on an infinitely higher plane than even the best artists within a weaker powered style. E.g. something as artistically average as the latest COD is still going to look more beautiful than even the most artistic lot of 60s games. Art style is therefore just an enrichment of technical power.

>>7040793
>Anything before 3rd gen is eye cancer.
You're calling the arcade golden-age eye cancer?

>>7040821
In my misfit's way of life

>>7040894
N I C E S T O R Y

>>7040452
>SOME

>>7040452
what bothers me the most of NES era games is not the graphics but the limited color palette
for example the sprites could only display 3 colors, I still play the games and have finished DQ I, II, III and even IV with it's horrific use of pink as town floortiles, but it sometimes pissed me off seeing the Mario sprite from 3 being only black, white and red.

>>7041509
The limited palette gives it the authenticity. I hate seeing these pixel art guys doing some low res 160x144 type shit but with 32 bit color? That's wack, it just looks like a photo that got zoomed in too much.

>>7041509
>>7041558

It should be mentioned, the color limitation wasn't the limit of colors, but the choice of colors themselves, the Famicom VDP had the most horrid hues, there are systems with simpler VDPs with better looking games, like the MSX and all the other consoles with the same VDP, like the Sega Mark 1

Yes, I actually think MSX games often look better than NES ones, simpler because of a better color palette, you can only use 3 or even 2 colors but as long as those colors look good together, your game will be aesthetic

Graphics don't matter to me much at all. I can play basically anything as far as graphics go. They aren't what makes it tough to go back to an old game for me.

What makes it tough is shit, unresponsive controls. This usually isn't a problem with arcade games, but it's a problem that plagues a lot of home console/computer games.

>>7040853
The post wasn't meant to put down technical power. Technical power obviously gives you a lot more options and graphics can be impressive just through being technically advanced. Less limitations means there's a larger range of art styles you can create.

>>7040452
>How common is zoomer shitposting?
Close to 100%

>>7040452
All these adventure games with remakes look disgusting and I always play the original. Gabriel knight remake is puke

>>7040452
graphics are one thing, those early 3d 5fps slideshows are a whole different issue

>>7041509
I played the first three Dragon Quest games for GBC and i cannot stand how the originals look

>>7041926
Even when 3d was "new", low fps put me off. I was probably spoiled by PC 3d stuff though, I had been playing games like X-Wing at 60fps for years before the first 3d consoles showed up

>>7040452
ms-dos, amiga and snes are the earliest generations I accept. Anything before those 3 looks like shit too me and plays like shit.

Only exception are pen&papers, card games and board games

>>7040853

I think a lot of it is that games aren't just an art style as well. There is a game, with writing, music, gameplay, etc.
People don't compartmentalize these facets well as they've very interconnected to begin with in games. And so, a game with a weaker art style but striking features in other ways can lead to a person to fall in love with a art style/graphics style despite flaws. In fact, those flaws tend towards being the very things people adore about the thing.
It's like how a man in love with a woman, deeply in love, will find her the most beautiful person around. It's not depression, or hipsterism, or sickness, it's a genuine appreciation of the whole of something.
You comment about processing power is interesting as well. It feels like there's some formula, let's say:

beauty = (x ** y)

Where x is graphical power, y is style as you defined it. So, style can grow beauty in some powerful ways, but it is still limited by and gets a leg up from the graphical power. Probably not that necessary to write out a formula on my part, but there you go.
I think that view is interesting, but I tend towards an optimization view of things as well. So, old graphics were limited, and thus the possible space you could represent was smaller, and therefore finding some beauty optimum within them was more likely to happen. People were able to converge to those qualities as well over time easier, as the search space was smaller.
As new games become so powerful they can represent almost anything, the search space becomes huge, impossibly huge. The heights of beauty that can be expressed are now near unlimited, but the possibility of finding it becomes much lower as the possibility space is so large, and so everyone is wandering around trying to find these things.

It's a hard problem.

I enjoyed your post.

>>7042469
>i am a zoomie
shocker

If you don't think Tempest, Pac-Man, Asteroids and Space Invaders are pretty nice looking , you are stupid and gay

>>7040853
Holy shit dude, you are a seriously dumb fuck. I don't think you understand other human beings at all.

>>7040460
this

>>7042696
True. Galaga was next level though.

The PC Engine had great graphics and the colour palette was a big art of that. Being a 4th gen baby, I struggle to appreciate the NES. Master System games also looked nicer. For the NES, Megaman, Zelda and Kirby's Adventure all look nice, and I guess SMB 2 does too.

I'm in just about the exact same boat as you OP, Atari graphics are a little too simle if you ask me and can't really convey very much. The most detailed atari games I can think of involve two frogs on lily pads facing opposite of one another (never played it and can't think of the name, forgive me) and pitfall. As for DOS games, I can handle them if they're colored, but I simply do not like the cyan, magenta, black, and white of the DOS games. I know for some that's part of the charm, and I can respect that, but it just doesn't do anything for me.

>>7040452
I can now appreciate game graphics on an electronic level which means even text mode graphics on even the Tandy trs 80 can look good to me if it makes good use of the hardware. The little lcd games can be impressive if you think of the technology that was around at the time. Even the old pongs I can appreciate how some guy spent ages arranging those transistors just perfectly until the game played. I have no line, I would even try an Odysee with TV overlays if I ever saw one. I just don't like games that don't use the hardware properly such as pitfall on nes with its poor scrolling.

>>7040452
>How common is blindness to graphics?
Among nerds it's rampant, and a lot of them believe that they're real connoisseurs as they consult Digital Foundry for pixel counts to determine what looks good, and as they marvel at how closely games that look like awkward ugly imitations of mediocre modern movies resemble real life. When you don't have blindness to graphics you can see the beauty in Pong when it lights up the deep round glass in a dark room, and the soft square paddles and ball leave behind glowing white phosphor trails as they move

>>7044854
I would add that most of these "nerds" don't know shit about graphics or even basic level programming.They compare game resolutions and hardware spec numbers(clock speeds) without any context.

A lot of remasters have missing effects but because "MUH RESOLUTION" no one bats an eye.Metal Wolf Chaos has missing lighting, .hack//gu has toned down particles and bloom, DMC lost motion blur/depth of field,etc.

These are the same people that seeing someone comment "X game has aged well" have the urge to point out that "he is playing on an emulator, it's jaggy on real hardware".

Like even if the first comment praised the cloth physhics or the the IA , he firmilys believe that is just some emulation mod, it's ridiculous.

Zx Spectrum has the same has res as an DS, but you've to be crazy to say that they are equivalent.

Youtube/forum posts saying shit like "Rogue Squadron1/Conker could pass as an DC/early PS2 game".They don't know even the difference between a high poly scene and a couple of stretched polys on the screen.It's genuinely baffling

>>7044823
I don't think I believed that an image could cause physical pain until I saw this picture.

>>7040452
I like low poly because I played them on happier times, now I just want to constantly die
also, realistic graphics are too cluttered, an example is ut2004 vs ut3 where there is so much detail you can't recognize shit

>>7045534
also
>ut3 is retro now
fuck this site

>>7040853
Excellent post.