Gamers insulting old games because of their graphics?

So, I have a story to share with you all.

A month or so ago, I went to GameForce to buy a game. I was looking around the Playstation section, because I don't have many PS games. I came across Syphon Filter and I asked the dude working there, "Hey, do you know anything about this game? I've heard about it, but I don't know the first thing about it." and he said, "It's pretty good, it's a lot better than the other games in the series. But of course, the graphics aren't that great."

The next day I was talking to my friend at school and he says, "So, have you bought any games recently?" And I said, "Yeah, I just bought Syphon Filter yesterday."

"Is it good?"

"Yeah, but the difficulty is kinda inconsistant."

"How are the graphics?"

"I don't really know what the standard for Playstation games is, so I can't say."

And then my acquantance nearby says, "The standard is CRAP. You're wasting your money." And then he walks off. (If you think that was uncalled for, it's mostly because he was high at the time. I hate it when he comes to school all full of drugs.)

Anyways, this whole Syphon Filter experience really bugged me. Why did the cashier at GameForce tell me that the graphics were bad? Did he think I was buying a PS1 game for graphics? No, I bought it for the GAME. And my druggie acquaintance at school told me that I was wasting my money for buying a game that wasn't current-gen.

So am I the only one who buys games because I want to PLAY them instead of look at them?

(Note: Yes, my druggie acquaintance is a gamer. Well, at least he claims he is.)

So, I have a story to share with you all.

A month or so ago, I went to GameForce to buy a game. I was looking around the Playstation section, because I don't have many PS games. I came across Syphon Filter and I asked the dude working there, "Hey, do you know anything about this game? I've heard about it, but I don't know the first thing about it." and he said, "It's pretty good, it's a lot better than the other games in the series. But of course, the graphics aren't that great."

The next day I was talking to my friend at school and he says, "So, have you bought any games recently?" And I said, "Yeah, I just bought Syphon Filter yesterday."

"Is it good?"

"Yeah, but the difficulty is kinda inconsistant."

"How are the graphics?"

"I don't really know what the standard for Playstation games is, so I can't say."

And then my acquantance nearby says, "The standard is CRAP. You're wasting your money." And then he walks off. (If you think that was uncalled for, it's mostly because he was high at the time. I hate it when he comes to school all full of drugs.)

Anyways, this whole Syphon Filter experience really bugged me. Why did the cashier at GameForce tell me that the graphics were bad? Did he think I was buying a PS1 game for graphics? No, I bought it for the GAME. And my druggie acquaintance at school told me that I was wasting my money for buying a game that wasn't current-gen.

So am I the only one who buys games because I want to PLAY them instead of look at them?

(Note: Yes, my druggie acquaintance is a gamer. Well, at least he claims he is.)

AbusementPark

Well... the first thing you notice when you play a game is the way it looks plain and simple, so graphics do matter in gaming, Its no different then women or guys(if you are a girl) the first you that attracts you to a game is the way it looks, sure if the gameplay is terrible you won't play it, but overall you have to look at a game first before you play it.

Really I think it is just a matter of it is easier to go forwards than backwards. When playing current gen games and then going back to older titles, it's hard NOT to notice the difference.

I think it also depends on when you started playing. If you started to play games in the PS1/N64 or even the PS2/Xbox/GC era going back to older games is probably a bit of a challenge, where as someone like me who started in the Atari days can make the transition easier. I'm sure its not the same way for all long time gamers but I am willing to bet that the percentage is higher. Are these the reasons why some bash older games graphics? Hell if I know, I'm just making a guess.

While I don't agree with the standpoint, I do understand and respect the fact that people may look at older titles that way.

Really I think it is just a matter of it is easier to go forwards than backwards. When playing current gen games and then going back to older titles, it's hard NOT to notice the difference.

I think it also depends on when you started playing. If you started to play games in the PS1/N64 or even the PS2/Xbox/GC era going back to older games is probably a bit of a challenge, where as someone like me who started in the Atari days can make the transition easier. I'm sure its not the same way for all long time gamers but I am willing to bet that the percentage is higher. Are these the reasons why some bash older games graphics? Hell if I know, I'm just making a guess.

While I don't agree with the standpoint, I do understand and respect the fact that people may look at older titles that way.

Gemini_Red

wizdom

Well... the first thing you notice when you play a game is the way it looks plain and simple, so graphics do matter in gaming, Its no different then women or guys(if you are a girl) the first you that attracts you to a game is the way it looks, sure if the gameplay is terrible you won't play it, but overall you have to look at a game first before you play it.

I totally agree that the graphics are the first thing that atracts you to the game but In the end it is really gameplay that really matters. A game could be the most beutiful game ever but if the gameplay sucks then who cares

Really I think it is just a matter of it is easier to go forwards than backwards. When playing current gen games and then going back to older titles, it's hard NOT to notice the difference.

I think it also depends on when you started playing. If you started to play games in the PS1/N64 or even the PS2/Xbox/GC era going back to older games is probably a bit of a challenge, where as someone like me who started in the Atari days can make the transition easier. I'm sure its not the same way for all long time gamers but I am willing to bet that the percentage is higher. Are these the reasons why some bash older games graphics? Hell if I know, I'm just making a guess.

While I don't agree with the standpoint, I do understand and respect the fact that people may look at older titles that way.

Gemini_Red

You definately hit the nail on the head with that one. Thats something I really struggle with when playing older 3D games from the ps1/n64 era. 2d games I'm fine with but going back and playing my old 3D games I find the graphics a big problem to overcome. Though if I can play the game for long enough I can get past it.

I know people that don't like Black and White movies and refuse to watch them.

One of them watched Fire Fox and thought it was ok....
Wanna talk about bad graphics LOL.
You know how many great Black and White movies they are missing?

As for the guy at the store, yes it was for him to tell you the graphics are not that great. If he did not 9 times out of 10 someone expecting Gears of War quality would likely have come back with a machete. With an old Playsation the range of graphics quality is very wide and some games are down right ugly to the point of interfering with play. I still think a game can be great without all the eye candy but nowadays you come to expect it. I think graphics are important but as others have said they can't fix a bad game.

Gameplay is king, always has been and always will be!

I've been a gamer for over twenty years and as long as it plays well I don't care about the graphics.

I played old games with better graphics than new released.But is true I don't like games with bad graphic, this is why I never like Diablo for e.gdayaccus007

Well... the first thing you notice when you play a game is the way it looks plain and simple, so graphics do matter in gaming, Its no different then women or guys(if you are a girl) the first you that attracts you to a game is the way it looks, sure if the gameplay is terrible you won't play it, but overall you have to look at a game first before you play it.

I'm sorry, but whenever I read stuff like this I really need to feel sorry for those the believe it. You are missing out on some truly amazing storylines out there if you are judging a game on how pretty it is. If anything graphics should be in the bottom 2 of how a game is judged; right above sound. The text-only games of old were some of the best and most immersive stories made. Now they throw some stupid physics model and shiney graphics and they think they made a good game. That's just stupid.

Graphics matter to a certain degree but it shouldn't make gamers dislike the game. I love metal gear solid (ps) and i don't care about the graphics at all.

your buddy is right , coz no one would play a game with a crapy graphics .

Well... the first thing you notice when you play a game is the way it looks plain and simple, so graphics do matter in gaming, Its no different then women or guys(if you are a girl) the first you that attracts you to a game is the way it looks, sure if the gameplay is terrible you won't play it, but overall you have to look at a game first before you play it.

weirjf

I'm sorry, but whenever I read stuff like this I really need to feel sorry for those the believe it. You are missing out on some truly amazing storylines out there if you are judging a game on how pretty it is. If anything graphics should be in the bottom 2 of how a game is judged; right above sound. The text-only games of old were some of the best and most immersive stories made. Now they throw some stupid physics model and shiney graphics and they think they made a good game. That's just stupid.

Now wait a second, are you talking about the quality of the sound or the artistic value of it? Because the artistic quality of the sound and graphics actually do matter to me. FFX wouldn't be nearly as good if it weren't for all the detail gone into the environments. Same with FF7 and all of those games with graphics that aren't up to todays standards.

Graphics matter to a certain degree but it shouldn't make gamers dislike the game. I love metal gear solid (ps) and i don't care about the graphics at all.

EmptySki

Metal Gear Solid had awesome graphics. The game basically blew me away the first time.

Yeah, but game-play mechanics and such also improves along with graphics. I played Diablo when it came out and it was easily one of my favourite and then came Diablo II. It was better than Diablo in a lot of ways. Blizzard had greatly improved on the original formula and coming back to the original was tough. The same can also be said for Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II. Baldur's Gate II is so much better than the original and I'm not talking graphics here. So sure the originals are my favourites but I'd rather play the sequels, because they just play better.

P.S. Another example Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 4.

No you are not, but most people care about graphics so people who don't know you are sure to say things that appeal to the majority of people they interact with. The clerk has probably recommended games with 'crap' graphics like Chrono Trigger and Earthbound only to have angry no brains storm back into the store next day to complain about the visuals.

You are not alone.

So, I have a story to share with you all.

A month or so ago, I went to GameForce to buy a game. I was looking around the Playstation section, because I don't have many PS games. I came across Syphon Filter and I asked the dude working there, "Hey, do you know anything about this game? I've heard about it, but I don't know the first thing about it." and he said, "It's pretty good, it's a lot better than the other games in the series. But of course, the graphics aren't that great."

The next day I was talking to my friend at school and he says, "So, have you bought any games recently?" And I said, "Yeah, I just bought Syphon Filter yesterday."

"Is it good?"

"Yeah, but the difficulty is kinda inconsistant."

"How are the graphics?"

"I don't really know what the standard for Playstation games is, so I can't say."

And then my acquantance nearby says, "The standard is CRAP. You're wasting your money." And then he walks off. (If you think that was uncalled for, it's mostly because he was high at the time. I hate it when he comes to school all full of drugs.)

Anyways, this whole Syphon Filter experience really bugged me. Why did the cashier at GameForce tell me that the graphics were bad? Did he think I was buying a PS1 game for graphics? No, I bought it for the GAME. And my druggie acquaintance at school told me that I was wasting my money for buying a game that wasn't current-gen.

So am I the only one who buys games because I want to PLAY them instead of look at them?

(Note: Yes, my druggie acquaintance is a gamer. Well, at least he claims he is.)

AbusementPark

Don't judge a book by its cover. The same goes for games.

I kind of have a different way of looking at it. Whereas most people consider the evolution of graphics to be completely linear and ever-progressing, I always view them as just another visual art, and I therefore rate the "success" of a games' graphics based on what the aesthetic endeavor was to begin with, which is not always going to be flashy spectacle and realism. In fact, the technical limitations of an early game just may serve to make the end result more impressive. Throughout my own life as a gamer, I've actually been able to assign specific expectations to each generation, and appreciate all of them equally.

The 3rd generation seemed to mostly be "about" creatively representing images and characters with the very limited number of pixels and available colors. As a child, I was not only able to simply accept this, but it sort of made the whole thing more fun, because I would have to use my imagination, sort of like drawing crappy crayon pictures or playing "pretend" with action figures. It was an art unto itself, as anyone who knows the story of Mario's graphical origins should know well.

With the 4th generation, not so much creativity was required, since the new graphics, while not realistic per se, were at least able to make every image look exactly like what it was meant to. The "art" portion was now a more traditional matter of making impressive 2D animations and backgrounds, which, towards the end, became fully realized with the likes of the Donkey Kong Country, Mortal Kombat and Earthworm Jim series.

Then the 5th generation came along, and the visual realism of the past gen was traded in for the gameplay realism of 3D characters and environments. In a sense, polygons and textures became the equivalent of 3rd gen pixels and color palettes, and using very limited amounts of them to sculpt character models became a skill unto itself (I like to use the ingenious "three long triangles to make link's nose" as a prime example)

The 6th generation, it seems, was analogous to the 5th the way the 4th related to the 3rd, in that the graphics no longer "represented" what they were supposed to be, but actually looked how they were intended to. While most of the generation was dedicated to looking as life-like as possible, a fine exception to this rule was of course, The Wind Waker, which had no pretensions of looking realistic at all, but was still without a doubt beautiful and aesthetically appealing to look at.

The current 7th generation seems to simply be a reiteration of the 6th, only superior in a purely linear technological sense. I think its safe to assume that graphically, this is where games are headed from now on, right along side CGI itself in its simple goal of achieving more and more photorealism as system specs allow for it. As long they're able to keep some sort of artistic integrity, and don't simply copy from real life, I'll be delighted, but I do in a weird way regret the peculiar identity each of the previous epochs could call their own.