r/truegaming 2d ago

The magic of classic era graphics

I recently played an old version of World of Warcraft and then I played the new version of Classic Wow, with some graphical improvements, and something bothered me in the new version. I messed around with the options a little and realized that what bothered me most was the current shadows. I was only satisfied when I set the shadow to low and it looked similar to the original version of the game, with vibrant and highlighted colors, and lighting that, despite being less realistic, makes the atmosphere more fantasy-like. I noticed that the modern shadows make the game lose its magic and dull the colors, and it looks like a strange middle ground between something realistic and something fantasy.

I've noticed this because no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to like almost any current game. I feel extremely bored and sleepy after just a few minutes of playing, or I get lost in so many menus and intense camera movements that I become stressed and anxious. On the other hand, old games capture my attention as always and have a relaxing and calming effect on me. This satisfying effect is the combination of low-resolution textures, subtle camera movements and epic soundtracks. This is the well-being I seek. That's the feeling I want to have.

I think this combination causes an effect on the brain that is as if the mind completes the image, as if it stimulates the brain to look at a castle with textures in low resolution and the mind is forced to use more imagination, something different from seeing something ultra realistic and full of details but it will stay on the screen for 10 seconds and you will walk and change to another scene with a lot more details. There's something different about how the mind processes old graphics compared to modern ones. It's as if the first causes relaxation, as if you were sleeping and having beautiful dreams, and the second causes exhaustion, tiredness and stress.

60 Upvotes

29 comments sorted by

34

u/dat_potatoe 2d ago

Detached from nostalgia, I think the major thing lost with modern graphics is visual clarity. That's not a fidelity problem, it's an issue of developers not having restraint and over-detailing everything with needless details to the point no individual details actually stand out because there's millions of them competing for your attention. So your eyes just wander everywhere and you don't appreciate anything on screen.

I mean compare CS 1.6 (2000) to CS 2 (2023). Far more graphically detailed, but I feel like there's no significant loss in visual clarity or scene readability. It's very minimalist, very bright and clean. Just enough small details in the way of signs and furniture and so on to sell the place as a real place, but not so much that it's littered everywhere and in your face. No dust clouds or rubble or millions of cracks in the walls or excessively dark shadows or... basically just compare it to something like CoD and the difference is staggering.

3

u/itsPomy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Kind of a tangent, but I was playing thief not too long ago and one of the fun mechanics is different floor surfaces made different levels of noise. (Stealth game)

And I don't think that'd really work in modern games just cause it relies so much on consistent visual ques. I feel it would get lost if you had dozens of unique surfaces with their own clutter and debris.

u/Vagrant_Savant 17h ago

Something about the exaggerated sound effect of tile floors in the old Thief games jived with its low resolution visuals, even when you needed to play with the moss arrow "economy" to avoid setting off the Kill Bill siren of every enemy within half a kilometer radius from your buttclapping tile steps.

In a modern game, I don't know if they can get away with having such exaggerated sound cues; it was always jarring to me in some games like Metro 2077 and broken glass crunches. Maybe it was more tolerable in Thief because of its heavily compressed audio that blended into the rest of the game's slightly uncanny nature.

u/itsPomy 16h ago

For me it works much more because the visuals are dramatic than they are low res.

Thief's visuals are very painterly like old renaissance paintings, with big bright lights and deep dark shadows. You're supposed to vermin scurrying around the dark corners and cracks. So it makes sense any sound you give off is sharp and alarming.

0

u/bvanevery 1d ago

Well it begs a question though: what do you want? I agree that the CoD screes are far, far more detailed and that would make it harder to see enemies. But that's how combat in the real world actually is. Hard to see who's trying to kill you.

Heh, relaxing combat. Just wanna sidle up to my victim and shoot 'em between the eyes lol.

5

u/dat_potatoe 1d ago edited 1d ago

First, I don't think it's more like the real world necessarily. A lot of these hyper advanced graphics games are very stylized and full of a million post-processing effects and such that harm readability while ironically not resembling real life...real life isn't always picturesque, doesn't always have that obligatory Unreal Engine orange glow reflecting off of everything from an obligatory morning sun. Real life can be ugly, can be simple and lacking in excessive visual clutter, can be neutrally lit.

Second, well, it's a game. Dying from a pitch black corner is something that happens in real life but it doesn't make for satisfying gameplay. From a gameplay perspective, I don't want to strain my eyes trying to find enemies. From an artistic perspective, again I don't think all these dark shadows and visual noise actually makes for a prettier looking scene because it doesn't allow for appreciation of specific details. Sensory overload.

0

u/bvanevery 1d ago

One way to look at different things that different people want, is GNS theory. If I ask about simulation fidelity and then you say you want gameplay this and that, that's every much a conflict between Simulationist and Gamist perspectives. Then a Narrativist is going to chime in and say the only thing they want is for their chain to be yanked regularly, lol.

2

u/itsPomy 1d ago

I mean counter-strike is an arguably trying for realism much more than CoD. Yet if you watch videos on how they've remade the game for source 2 you'll notice they're very conscientious of updating graphics while also trying to keep the feel of gameplay good.

I was watching this breakdown of this rainy trainyard environment and they did a lot of clever things to add to the atmosphere that don't impede the gameplay.

For instance, you'll only ever see actual raindrops fall near lights, so there's no sheets of particles getting in the way of folks shooting eachother. But it's really not noticeable. Instead the level is filled with a fog which actually helps contrast players because the fog is subtly bright but their silhouettes are dark. And then you get to the actual train hard and they made sure you can see the wheels and such under the trains, HOWEVER, there's a one-way texture on both sides of the track so you can't actually see under and shoot under the train because being shot in the feet just isn't fun.

-1

u/behindtimes 1d ago

Higher visual clarity isn't always better.

The best example for me here, while not video game related, is The Joker from Batman (1966). Especially on reddit, everyone jokes about him having a mustache. But I never noticed that prior to HDTVs.

But going back to games, upscaled AI images, and even sometimes the original artwork, doesn't always look better than the lower resolution images. The higher the fidelity, the more apparent the flaws become.

66

u/RubiiJee 2d ago

I'm not convinced... I'll be honest, this just sounds like nostalgia talking. Your brain is associating positive memories with the visuals and then you're conflating that with net positivity.

-2

u/Foreign_Storm_7484 1d ago

I thought several times if it could just be me looking at things through the lens of nostalgia, but I concluded that it wasn't. I still use ps1, ps2 and n64 emulators, I play several games that I have never played in my life and the feeling is exactly the same as always. The quality of the works is so good that they have survived the decades. Many, many games are still fun and beautiful and with captivating stories, games that even playing for the first time today can touch you deeply. I finished ff9 for the first time and wow, what an impeccable work. There's love there. It has emotion and cinema. It has strong characters and an incredible soundtrack. The next day I played the new Spider Man for PS5, and my god, what a hell of a game. the combat is extremely irritating, the camera made me dizzy, a lot of noise, explosions and infinite details but nothing holds my attention. The movement is stuck, avoiding objects is not fun. It just seemed like a big show of graphics and how much it is possible to fry your brain with a lot of information at the same time.

8

u/nascentt 1d ago

Nostalgia for the style not for the specific games.

5

u/bvanevery 1d ago edited 1d ago

Liking a style better doesn't have to be nostalgia. I'm not "nostalgic" for the works of Monet for instance. He's just a better painter than a lot of other people.

0

u/MysteriousAlpaco 1d ago edited 1d ago

Love the gaslighting and hand waving "it's just nostalgia" 👋

u/bvanevery 15h ago

Yeah I don't like Lawrence of Arabia for the nostaliga either. It's just a better movie than a lot of other things.

9

u/Vanille987 1d ago

While there are a lot of valid points like the mentioned visual clarity, if it happens literal minutes in a game I feel this is a case of extreme nostalgia or preference. Also I'd say a lot of older games have a horrible camera that makes me more dizzy then modern games

4

u/Clickalz 2d ago

I put story and gameplay ahead of graphical complexity. Sure, it’s good to see older games get a boost by having their graphics sensitively updated. It’s good too when new games have gorgeously atmospheric artwork. Shadows, reflections, the appearance of water etc - interesting to see them improve.

But it’s not necessary to make it a primary goal of game design to focus on closing the gap between art and reality. In VR experiences maybe. In general pc and console gameplay, I don’t want to feel I‘m directing a movie.

4

u/slfnflctd 1d ago

It's going to vary across individuals, of course, but I feel like I know what you're talking about and I have a theory about it. For some of us, more detailed visual input eventually reaches a threshold where it becomes overwhelming, because there's so much going on that we can no longer 'fit it all in our heads'.

As someone else mentioned, this may be a good thing for something like VR where part of the point is to be immersed and feel transported to another place. When you're just doing some regular action gaming on a 2D screen, though, fewer needless distractions mean being able to focus more on the gameplay details and 'get in the zone'.

I remember when Oblivion came out and I got lost in it for months. I would often find an isolated spot, turn off the HUD, and simply soak in the scenery as if I was actually there. It was pointless in terms of gameplay, but I got true enjoyment from it. However, that was a completely different thing from jumping into Super Mario Galaxy (or an old RTS game like you mentioned), and I agree that more detailed graphics might have detracted from the more physical-skill orientation for some of us, myself included.

6

u/bvanevery 1d ago

I don't buy the overall thesis, but I don't feel experienced enough in the old and new to make valid comparisons anyways.

I can say that if I go into an art gallery or museum, different works have a different effect upon me. And it's never going to be as simple as a purported difference between "old and new games".

I'm inclined to say, you should concentrate on "jarring camera movements" as your explanation and see if that holds up. Because it's a lot more sensible than the other factors.

2

u/RollingDownTheHills 1d ago

"Almost any current game" is really broad. There's plenty of games coming out, all the time, without the negatives you mention.

That said I understand the nostalgia for older game visuals. There is something strangely comforting about them, though I'll take Elden Ring over any mid 2000's 3D action RPG any day.

3

u/xansies1 1d ago

I can deal with nes games, SNES and Genesis and maga drive games, the PS2 era consoles, the PS3 era, etc. but fuck me if gen 3 wasn't ugly as shit. There's literally no telling me that any 64 game looks good. Maybe PS1 at the end looked okay. Like breath of fire 4 was basically HD2D (or at least 2.5D) 25 years ago.

2

u/CryoProtea 1d ago

I've noticed this because no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to like almost any current game. I feel extremely bored and sleepy after just a few minutes of playing, or I get lost in so many menus and intense camera movements that I become stressed and anxious.

I feel you. More and more games that come out are boring or disorienting to me, but I think that's a consequence of both a larger audience and more developers making different kinds of games. Most of the most lauded AAA games no longer catch my attention, when they used to be my bread and butter.

That said, you can still find games that are more focused on gameplay and game feel, like older titles. You just have to know where to look.

Some "newer" games (as in not from the classic era) that I've enjoyed or have faith that they will be cool:

Hollow Knight

The Big Catch: Tacklebox

Undertale and deltarune

Axiom Verge 1 and 2

Aero GPX

Nightmare Kart

Spark the Electric Jester

RE2 Remake and RE4 remake

Devil May Cry V, though if you can get the HD collection, 3 is fantastic and you might like 1. We don't talk about 2...

Lunacid

Bug Fables

Shovel Knight Treasure Trove

Celeste

The Messenger

Pizza Tower

Antonblast

The Dark Souls games if you haven't played them yet

Nioh 2, but I'll admit there are a lot of menus and some unexplained things

Risk of Rain Returns

Risk of Rain 2 if it can ever be salvaged... Also the camera might be too chaotic for you

Armored Core VI, though the camera might fuck with you. Do you know if it's that the camera is too fast, too blurry, or something else?

Star Wars Squadrons

Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night

DOOM 2016 is simple in that it's mostly just you, your guns, and your fists slaughtering demons. I had a blast

Persona 5

Dragon Quest XI

Marvel's Spider-Man, if you ignore a lot of the side quests

Yakuza 0 is really good from what I've played, despite being a bit more complex

Prey 2017 is also fantastic if you give it a chance to prove itself to you, but again it's more complex

Witcher 3 seems great, but I abhor the menus

I think this combination causes an effect on the brain that is as if the mind completes the image, as if it stimulates the brain to look at a castle with textures in low resolution and the mind is forced to use more imagination, something different from seeing something ultra realistic and full of details but it will stay on the screen for 10 seconds and you will walk and change to another scene with a lot more details. There's something different about how the mind processes old graphics compared to modern ones. It's as if the first causes relaxation, as if you were sleeping and having beautiful dreams, and the second causes exhaustion, tiredness and stress.

I have autism and this sounds like when I get overstimulated. I also dislike ultra high details because they make me feel exhausted, too, from overstimulation.

0

u/xansies1 1d ago

I don't really agree with persona 5. That game literally defined modern jrpgs. It's turn based, but it's end stage turn based. And honestly the few turn based jrpgs that came out since 2016 absolutely almost 100% aped a lot of the UI and mechanics from persona 5.

0

u/CryoProtea 1d ago

I have always really had beef with a lot of conventional JRPG tropes, and Persona 5 either does away with them or makes them feel less like a slog, so I've had quite a fun time with what I've played of it so far.

-1

u/SeymourCousland 1d ago

I totally agree with your analysis. That's why I prefer playing original Mass Effect on my PS3 than playing the legendary edition on my PS5. The higher resolution and increased details completely destroy the atmosphere for me. Your brain is the most powerful gpu. What you see on your screen should just indicate the picture but not exactly depict it.

2

u/RollingDownTheHills 1d ago

But Mass Effect 2 and 3 largely look identical across the two systems. And those games were HD games to begin with.

-4

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Foreign_Storm_7484 1d ago

I expected a lot of people to point it out as nostalgia, but I know a lot of people would identify it too. And that's what you said: if I want to stay in an ultra-realistic room where I can open all the drawers and doors, well I can get up and do it in real life. The same if I want to see the sky on a beautiful day, a bit of nature

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

5

u/xansies1 1d ago edited 1d ago

... I don't know how old you are. I'm 33. Final fantasy 9 was a AAA game. Final fantasy 9 pushed the PS1 to its limits graphically. It was incredibly advanced in that department. I mean, maybe you think AAA then are better than now. Ive honestly played most games that have come out since 1995. Most games are forgettable. The exceptional ones are the ones you remember even if they are AAA or Indies by one guy. Like I still remember og kid Icarus and I still remember braid. Kid Icarus back in 1986 would have been considered AAA based on publisher and budget. Braid is definitely not, but I still remember it. But there are probably 100 Indies that I fucking forgot existed.

A better example would be something like trails series. I've played 11 of those games now and even for games now released just on current gen they still look like garbage. Hell half of the cold steel series also kinda played like garbage and I still liked it

-1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

3

u/xansies1 1d ago edited 1d ago

Maybe not forgettable, but I haven't thought about perfect dark or bloodrayne until I was trying to remember a game I never once thought of after i played it. The point was the example you gave was a AAA game was preferable to newer AAA games. Which is cool, some people think old games are better, but it sounded like you thought final fantasy 9 didn't have absolutely amazing graphics for its time. Like, if the PS1 could have done ray tracing and dynamic shadows and 4k, square would have done it for ff9. It's like saying you prefer games like tales of phantasia or Chrono trigger to games with good graphics now. Sure you can prefer sprites compared to 3d, but you picked literally the two best looking SNES games as an example when they would have been contemporarily in the same category as like cyber punk 2077 in terms of graphics. What I'm trying to say is these games never looked bad, they were the best the hardware at the time was capable of. These were the cutting age graphics of 25-30 years ago