So basically this is something that I have been thinking about for some time.

I look back particularly at my time playing the N64 and in particular Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. Even though I was young at the time, I still recognised that the graphics were good, great even. But even back then, I still thought "the game would be better if the graphics for the explosions were better, if this looked better etc" but why would I have this definition of "better"?

Perfect Dark at the time had the best graphics I had yet seen, and yet I still wanted more. I didn't have another game to compare to (that had better graphics). What signs were there that I could read into the graphics that I could wish for more? I mean I guess I could be comparing to real life, but the issue there is that I don't know if the graphics could be called "realistic" or "stylised" (This explains the difference http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-uncanny-valley .If the game was meant to be as realistic as possible, I could compare it to photo realism, but if it was stylised, then I would have had nothing to compare the graphics too.

But at the time I did not wish or hope for photo realism, but better textures here and there, and lighting too. Why would I want this? What would I have read into the graphics that would make me want "more" or "better" graphics? If I look at gaming now, I can trace a line at games and say "the textures have been improving in these games, lighting is more realistic etc" and I can make projections based off this. And I can get a definition of "old" based on what graphics I have already seen and compare that to a new game and I can say "the graphics for the previous game are "old" and not as good, while the graphics for the latest game are new and better" and this definition of "old" and its connotations might mean that I will not enjoy playing an older game and might instead be distracted by the "outdated" graphics.

Going back to the Perfect Dark example. If I had not played other games on N64 or other consoles, and only played Perfect Dark, would I still have wanted better graphics? I guess what I'm asking is are there particular cultural things that I used to read into the game that said "more = better, that I read as more graphics = better?" At the time lots of people said Perfect Dark had better graphics than Goldeneye. But why was that touted? It's obvious neither game is photo realistic and that you are playing a game, so what is the deal with "better" graphics?

Another example. I can look at a building built in the 1950s and say "that building is old, outdated etc" (particular the drab Communist ones) and I can say this because I can look at a building built this year and compare the two. But if I was to show those two buildings to a tribesman who had never seen a structure taller then 2 stories, what would he think? How would he know that the 2011 building is newer and therefore better? What social signs do we use when arriving at the definition of "old" and "better" in this situation? Are these definitions we have of old, better, newer etc. something that is invented or something that is inherently part of humans?

I mean if we look at any age before about the 1800s, very little changed in any given period. You didn't wake up the next day and think that some brand new thing would be coming in and would make your life better or you would feel better. It's not as if new vases or other pottery were being invented everyday, and I doubt people expected it. It's not as if the caveman or the man on the savannah saw new things brought out every week or even over the course of a year. Did he look at pottery and say "it could be better?" Could he look at the inscriptions of people on it and think "those people are not very realistic, they could be done better?" Would that have been an unrealistic expectation? Is it only our technology that breeds this expectation we have now?
We expect it today. You need to change or progress or face death. We're not happy with Windows XP and instead new versions of Windows must be brought out that are "better" "new" etc. This makes sense from an economic perspective, but how did it come about?

Is this a consumerism thing? "You can't be happy with that old product, but only the new one will do it for you!". Was it something in our psyche that was exploited for the sake of consumerism or is it invented? Could any of us look at an old game and not be detracted or simply play the game as it is and not at compare the graphics to anything else? It's not enough to just say "i can accept these old graphics" because you're still making a comparison. They're still "old". Can you play an old game now without comparison?

Can I show Perfect Dark to a child who has never before played a game and have him believe the graphics are the best out? Would he believe me? And if not, why not? What would he use to compare the graphics he is seeing to what I am saying about them?

So anyway that came out differently to what I had in my head, but it's the best I can do. So yeah hopefully I get responses as I want to know that I am vindicated for all the time I put into this thread lol.

There are some buildings here built in the early part of the 1900s that I consider masterpieces. There are some built in the last five years that are pretty cool. While you can compare them it doesn't mean you can't appreciate both. Half Life 1, a great game with dated graphics wouldn't be better with bright 'n' shiny graphics, it would only look better. If you'll pardon me, it's a little superficial thinking things that look better have to be better. I'm not saying that they're not but they aren't every time.

Well, I for one don't really care about graphics, just the gameplay. I'm also happy that others like me play the N64 with Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I, however see a lot of people who just care about graphics, they don't care much about the gameplay at all when they choose a game to buy. In far too many cases people just compare the graphics and pick which looks better and not how they play or what review scores they got. For example, one time there was this kid in my local game store looking for a game to buy with his parents. He hadn't much of a clue what game he wanted but then after some time he finally chose what he wanted. That game was the tripe called Rogue Warrior for 360. The kid didn't even look 10 years old. He game the game to his mum who then asked him would he not like to get the game that she thought would be good, Metal Slug Anthology for the Wii. He looked at the the cover and said that it looked crap and didn't take a second look. They then bought the game and went out. Stupid kid. Anyway this is really common, good games getting left on shelves because they didn't meet a persons view of a good game. Too many believe in only graphics make a good game. I would have to say, thanks to the 3d films and other related stuff, a kid, even if they hadn't seen a game before would want better. HOWEVER, If they hadn't seen anything else, im sure you could trick them into thinking this would be the best ever. as a kid never thought about better graphics while on my ps1 and N64. I would play regardless of what they looked like.

Better...perhaps more involving both emotionally and physically? I've heard about this new gaming machine that's 360 degree screen, and treadmills arrayed in a circle around you. You wear a special suit and have a gun, and if you get shot the computer actually shoots paintballs at you.

Cool! I hope I can play it sometime as I run rings round Time Crisis! (Forgive the terrible pun)

Graphical quality is fairly easy to put on a scale, though, at least for early games. Increasing texture size = better. A 64x64 8bit texture is going to be objectively worse than a 1024x1024 32bit texture.

Beyond that you can introduce "features" like bumpmaps, parralax maps and so on. Presence of these features is better than the absence. It's all fairly straightforward.

Similarly for lighting (dynamic better than static etc), shadows (dynamic better than static, smooth dynamic better than rough dynamic etc), and various other graphical elements.

In terms of being 'better', it comes down, ultimately, not to "being photo-realistic" or whatever, but more to "being capable of photo-realism". The more texture properties you are able to play with, the more tricks you are able to play, the more you can fiddle with lighting....the closer you are to being able to fully realise the vision you have in your head. That vision may be of a crowded shopping mall, a post-apocalyptic new orleans, or the bowels of a tyranid hiveship: it doesn't particularly matter: the degree to which "X vs Y" can faithfully emulate that defines whether X is better than Y or vice versa.


You can't really apply the same principle to architecture, as it's not trying to emulate anything (or at least, even when it is, this is not considered the 'purpose' of architecture). Buildings just ARE. Some might be aesthetically pleasing, some might be ugly as fuck but incredibly efficient, there are a whole host of different criteria you could apply, and trying to equivalently crossmap all those to "graphics in games" is never going to work.

It's also worth noting that many techniques are benchmarked against a global illumination model using radiosity. They fire a fucktonne of light rays into a scene for a few days and see what they end up with. Then they figure out how well their new technique addresses the discrepancies between their 2 day image and their 16ms image. A lot of developments in game graphics essentially revolve around approximation to the global illumination model. Approximations to more complicated phenomena become viable as processing power and memory improve.

Well, you can go way down into the nitty gritty of why does current gen graphics matter at all when, 5 years from now, even the best optimizations are likely to be superceded by mediocre ones on stronger platforms.

Or you can resign yourself to concluding that it's primarily a fashion phenomenon, with just a tiny bit of an arms race inthere as well.

I fall in the latter group of people.

The fact that it's a fashion phenomenon doesn't mean that the experience you have of older games being less fun is wrong, or incorrect. It just means that you're not completely impossible to influence, and that the trends have slightly gotten to you.

It also doesn't help that the corporate funding of journalism caters exclusively to the newest games, so that shapes the entire discourse within the gaming industry.

The sad answer to your question is; You're a graphics whore.

I am partially. I can't really get into games with blots and stuff like old 386 games. Though more than that, don't mind. Actually prefer much of the older game graphics. 2D RTS always pawn 3D RTS for example. Also UE3 gives me a headache using it too long a time.
Also a lot of additional fluff like "bloom" or "motion blur" is ugly as hell, instead of making games prettier. Why all games still use it. To make me sick (litterally. Motion blur can do that) I guess...

If I pick up an old title like DX (although it now has New Vision of course) or NOLF I don't mind the graphics. I am never thinking "I wish this looked better". I can (and infact do) rather buy older games in discount rather than brand new bland games on full price.

So yeah, I also often wonder why some people put graphics on such a high pole and pass the best games just because they don't look like HAS NO SOUL #3, GRAPHICS NOTHING MORE (great game title!). Also I often see people have no idea what they hell they talk about. How often it doesn't happen actually a butt-ugly old game is seen as pretty (Diablo II is prettier than Torchlight/Dungeon Siege... SURE!) or that people expect FPS-type graphics in games that don't support that (That tank in that RPG doesn't look like Crysis 2! What the hell dudes? It's not like there are about 50 on a screen in the same time). Actually, sadly with the "progression" in RTS, that last fact is true.

TL/DR; "better" and "older" are generally phrases fitting together, not apart from each other...

@ Hassat

So what do you think about project HDTP, or the specially written direct x renderers for Deus Ex

Only use DX10 for NV, not sure what thte difference is without NV, so can't really speak much of that.

HDTP neither, since it's not released.
And while NV is nice, it's not like I am incapable to play Deus Ex without it due to the "horrible graphics" (actually, I prefer such realistic ones above the shiny plastic most modern games give you).

Yes, but what do you think about the people slaving away, trying to improve the textures. Or the people writing the new renderers. Are they essentially wasting their time? or are they doing something worthwhile?

it sounds like your point isn't that good graphics add nothing but rather that they shouldn't be considered necessary.

Well, obviously. Same for the TNM crew. Doing that much work for no profit. I can hardly NOT call that wasting time. Same with my own work on TSLRCM.
But as long as those people have fun with it...

You essentially just said that having fun is a waste of time...