I’ve never really cared much about graphics in video games, and a game can still be great with even the simplest of graphics - see the Faith series, for example. Interesting story and still has some good scares despite the 8-bit graphics.
To me many of these games with retro aesthetics (either because they’re actually retro or the dev decided to go with a retro style) don’t really feel dated, but rather nostalgic and charming in their own special way.
And many other people also don’t seem to care much about graphics. Minecraft and Roblox are very popular despite having very simplistic graphics, and every now and then a new gameplay video about some horror game with a retro aesthetic will pop up on my recommended, and so far I’ve never seen anyone complain about the graphics, only compliments about them being interesting, nostalgic and charming.
Also I have a potato PC, and it can’t run these modern 8K FPS games anyway, so having these games with simpler graphics that I can actually run is nice. But maybe that’s just me.
Please define “bad graphics”
Old graphics. Not bad graphics.
Thank you! I still have mad respect for people that had to work with what they had, and produced something truly playable - for example, things like Atari’s Pitfall. That hardware was positively primitive and it took real creativity to make something memorable.
I think it’s here where David Crane explains it, for example. I think I remember a video on the creation of Adventure on Atari, and the hacks that were required…for every platform (before and since) there are usually some constraints the creators are working with; the fact that many of these systems were able to do what they did often blows me away. I think as time goes on, obviously orders of power - memory, speed, storage have exploded, but then the creators are asked to do even more at that point, usually hitting some limit, but I’d never call what they did “bad”.
