Do older games sometimes look better from being less cluttered? (Minimalism?)

[NecroLord]

Minimalistic interface is also something I like.
I don't want to see the game screen all cluttered with useless stuff.

 

[ds]

You can certainly go overboard with information overload in interfaces (see e.g. the modern HUD meme) but I wouldn't say that minimalism is always the best either. A good interface should have it's own unique character and that necessitates having more than just the bare essentials.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Recently I have been replaying System Shock 2 (I have been making a mod for it, but that's a different topic), and even though the lighting engine and models are ultra primitive compared to modern games, I still find a lot of the scenes very evocative and well done.

Admittedly this is with NewDark, which does add some extra effects and improves the lighting in subtle ways, but the overall point remains - this is a game that pales in comparison to modern visual fidelity, and yet oozes style and soul around every corner. There's a reason it still places highly in many "Scariest games of all time" lists.

 

[Ezekiel]

Right, forgot to mention something related to that mini-rant about misguided realism. One of the worst offenders isn't blur, but head bobbing. How often do you notice your view bobbing up and down as you walk or run? Essentially never. Our brains have learned to ignore it. It isn't strictly related to cluttered environments, but that your screen shakes violently from the slightest movement is a large part of why some games look so busy and unclear.

Equilibrium, another reason I prefer third person view over first person. Roll or throw yourself onto your side in real life or third person view and it will be much less disorienting and crappy than in a first person game.

 

[JC'sBarber]

Right, forgot to mention something related to that mini-rant about misguided realism. One of the worst offenders isn't blur, but head bobbing. How often do you notice your view bobbing up and down as you walk or run? Essentially never. Our brains have learned to ignore it. It isn't strictly related to cluttered environments, but that your screen shakes violently from the slightest movement is a large part of why some games look so busy and unclear.

Equilibrium, another reason I prefer third person view over first person. Roll or throw yourself onto your side in real life or third person view and it will be much less disorienting and crappy than in a first person game.

Nah, third-person games are a joke aside from 3D platformers, fighters, and other games where it's more-or-less a requirement. What's the fun in seeing everything that's around you, or having the character's ass take up a third of the screen?. I would much rather see through the eyes of the main character, like how I see through my own eyes in real-life. I don't see life through some overhead, disembodied perspective. There are many games that would be far superior if they were made in first-person, like Silent Hill.

 

[The people of Duckburg]

I don't see life through some overhead, disembodied perspective.

How many games are there that do work just like your life? Not that many, I suspect. Some games work better in first person, others work better in third person. The latter is particularly useful for games where you need to be able to tell your position and the environment, like many action games. Maybe you will say that you can do that just fine in real life, but in games you lack most of your senses, in particular touch and balance. They play a huge role in how well you can navigate your environment. In a first person game, you can't tell what your footing is like, if it's tilting, how stable it is, if it's moving, and many other things. Without looking down, obviously. Though even then you can't glean as much information as your senses of touch and balance will tell you immediately in real life. Another factor is that your field of view is generally larger in real life, unless you're playing with a very high FoV. There's a lot that a first person view won't tell you in a game.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Right, forgot to mention something related to that mini-rant about misguided realism. One of the worst offenders isn't blur, but head bobbing. How often do you notice your view bobbing up and down as you walk or run? Essentially never. Our brains have learned to ignore it. It isn't strictly related to cluttered environments, but that your screen shakes violently from the slightest movement is a large part of why some games look so busy and unclear.

Eh, I disagree.

Play a game with absolutely no headbobbing at all and your character will feel like they are simply floating above the ground.

Subtle headbobbing is actually useful from a gameplay perspective to differentiate between walking and flying, which admittedly is a very niche use for it and barely matters, especially since walking usually also has footstep sounds, but it's something.

I tend to find a VERY slight headbob to be pretty much perfect. Enough to not feel like a disembodied object floating through a level, but not enough to be annoying. From my experience most games get headbobbing right, or if they do overtune it, mostly do only very slightly.

Nah, third-person games are a joke aside from 3D platformers, fighters, and other games where it's more-or-less a requirement. What's the fun in seeing everything that's around you, or having the character's ass take up a third of the screen?. I would much rather see through the eyes of the main character, like how I see through my own eyes in real-life. I don't see life through some overhead, disembodied perspective. There are many games that would be far superior if they were made in first-person, like Silent Hill.

Upon reading this, I immedately thought "wow, what an idiot!" and was ready to knee-jerkingly respond, but now that I actually think about it, there are very few third-person games I consider to be particularly good. Especially in the action genre. Most stealth games are third person, and it kind of makes sense there (although the best stealth game of all time is first person, so maybe that's just something we accept without question because nobody makes stealth games anymore which aren't third person), but I struggle to find many good third person games outside that niche. Third person also makes sense for sports game and such as well, but if you play sports games you're automatically cringe anyway.

I am actually inclined to agree with you. For some reason, third person action games tend to be some of the most boring, cookie-cutter garbage on the market. I think the main problem is third person action games with an over-the-shoulder perspective that try to do free-aiming, which generally tend to be absolute garbage. I feel like third person doesn't fit that style of game at all, despite being a popular choice for action games. Not only does the character take up a significant portion of the screen which can get in the way when trying to aim, but third-person action games frequently have issues that don't exist in first-person games, like the camera pointing in a different direction to the player character, which can introduce problems when trying to face enemies and fire quickly. This is why most third-person action games now have a first-person aiming mode, because aiming in third person sucks. Even worse, they seem to be mostly console games, so you have a horrendous perspective combined with a horrible control scheme. No wonder they suck so much.

Your take about preferring first person because "that's how you see in real life" is completely retarded, but you're right that most third person action games tend to suck. I wouldn't say the same thing about ALL third person games, though. Just the vast majority of the popular ones (which tend to overwhelmingly be action games).

 

[JC'sBarber]

I take immersion seriously in games, and third-person titles typically have a ton of problems like shitty cameras and visual clutter. I will say again that certain types of games require a third-person view to be playable, like Devil May Cry. A first-person DMC-like would be interesting, but it would be an entirely different game and you certainly won't be doing any backflips in it. But I can't think of ANY third-person shooter that benefits from being in third person, same with survival horror games and even most action-adventure titles. If your game isn't a slick, fast paced action title or a 3D platformer, it's better off just being in first-person. I'm not a child that needs to see everything around me, and needs X-ray vision and a minimap to play.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Playing games primarily for immersion is extremely cringe, I suggest you don't say things like that in public. Gameplay is what matters. A lot of third person games just happen to suck for immersion AND gameplay.

 

[Gandalf]

Gameplay first. Immersion is welcomed. I like to be immersed. Cringe or not, it gives fun and I love fun. I game to have fun, but most importantly to have a game.

 

[Ezekiel]

I don't see life through some overhead, disembodied perspective.

How many games are there that do work just like your life? Not that many, I suspect. Some games work better in first person, others work better in third person. The latter is particularly useful for games where you need to be able to tell your position and the environment, like many action games. Maybe you will say that you can do that just fine in real life, but in games you lack most of your senses, in particular touch and balance. They play a huge role in how well you can navigate your environment. In a first person game, you can't tell what your footing is like, if it's tilting, how stable it is, if it's moving, and many other things. Without looking down, obviously. Though even then you can't glean as much information as your senses of touch and balance will tell you immediately in real life. Another factor is that your field of view is generally larger in real life, unless you're playing with a very high FoV. There's a lot that a first person view won't tell you in a game.

Not to mention the vast majority of first person games only letting you run forward without being able to look to the side, blinding the robotic protagonist. Also, the big gun on the screen can take up just as much space or more than the third person protagonist. Exactly, the perception is crappy.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Gameplay first. Immersion is welcomed. I like to be immersed. Cringe or not, it gives fun and I love fun. I game to have fun, but most importantly to have a game.

You play games to have fun?

You're right, that is cringe!

 

[Gandalf]

Gameplay first. Immersion is welcomed. I like to be immersed. Cringe or not, it gives fun and I love fun. I game to have fun, but most importantly to have a game.

You play games to have fun?

Yes. I like to have a lot of fun.

You're right, that is cringe!

Yes, you understood my post. Good

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Enjoying immersion is fine, just don't fall into the common trap of thinking a game with terrible gameplay is actually really good because it has "immersion" or does something manipulative with it's story. (watch literally any video essay on Youtube to see this in action)

 

[JC'sBarber]

Since when is immersion and good gameplay mutually exclusive?. Why do you think immersive sims like Deus Ex or Prey work in first-person, and wouldn't in third-person?. Third-person games will always have that disconnect, and the drawbacks aren't worth it IMO. It amazes me that it took so long for Capcom to realize Resident Evil is better in first-person, and even then they chose to demake the older titles with that retarded OTS perspective instead. It's almost as if these developers and publishers won't let go of third person games. Perhaps it's because it's more normie friendly to see your character on screen, and it's more open to DLCs like character skins.

 

[Ezekiel]

I take immersion seriously in games, and third-person titles typically have a ton of problems like shitty cameras and visual clutter. I will say again that certain types of games require a third-person view to be playable, like Devil May Cry. A first-person DMC-like would be interesting, but it would be an entirely different game and you certainly won't be doing any backflips in it. But I can't think of ANY third-person shooter that benefits from being in third person, same with survival horror games and even most action-adventure titles. If your game isn't a slick, fast paced action title or a 3D platformer, it's better off just being in first-person. I'm not a child that needs to see everything around me, and needs X-ray vision and a minimap to play.

But can you imagine such a third person shooter? If so, good enough. The power of a perspective is not determined by what the developers choose to make.

You didn't respond to my point about equilibrium, you just went some place else. So I don't get why you started the post with, "Nah."

 

[JC'sBarber]

I take immersion seriously in games, and third-person titles typically have a ton of problems like shitty cameras and visual clutter. I will say again that certain types of games require a third-person view to be playable, like Devil May Cry. A first-person DMC-like would be interesting, but it would be an entirely different game and you certainly won't be doing any backflips in it. But I can't think of ANY third-person shooter that benefits from being in third person, same with survival horror games and even most action-adventure titles. If your game isn't a slick, fast paced action title or a 3D platformer, it's better off just being in first-person. I'm not a child that needs to see everything around me, and needs X-ray vision and a minimap to play.

But can you imagine such a third person shooter? If so, good enough. The power of a perspective is not determined by what the developers choose to make.

You didn't respond to my point about equilibrium, you just went some place else. So I don't get why you started the post with, "Nah."

What do you mean by "equilibrium"?

 

[Nifft Batuff]

In real life for instance, there's no such thing as blurriness everywhere

Try to wave your hand fast and observe it.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

What do you mean by "equilibrium"?

Equilibrioception

Equilibrioception refers to the ability to experience and maintain physical balance. This ability is a function of the semicircular canals of the ear, that, when healthy, allow a person to maintain a sense of balance. When the semicircular canals are infected, or otherwise damaged, will cause a loss of balance.

 

[Ezekiel]

What do you mean by "equilibrium"?

Equilibrioception

Equilibrioception refers to the ability to experience and maintain physical balance. This ability is a function of the semicircular canals of the ear, that, when healthy, allow a person to maintain a sense of balance. When the semicircular canals are infected, or otherwise damaged, will cause a loss of balance.

Thank you.

Faith from Mirror's Edge rolling from a fall and the picture getting thrown around is not equilibrium.

Max Payne first person mods being probably violently shaky, tipped over crap as the character throws himself to his side is not equilibrium.

We can run while making fast, sudden turns and looking around in real life and it won't feel as wild as in a first person game, because we have a sense of self and the brain maintains balance.

Third person is truer to life. More immersive.

VR gets around much of the shittiness of first person, but has problems of its own.

 

[BrainMuncher]

Not to mention the vast majority of first person games only letting you run forward without being able to look to the side

You sound like you've never played a first person game

run forward without being able to look to the side

 

[Ezekiel]

Almost none of them, for a long, long time now. Still inferior for other mentioned reasons.

 

[BrainMuncher]

"Let me tell you all about the games I never played"

The last game I played that didn't let you do this was wolfenstein 3d. Flight & mech simulators were played with a joystick where the HAT switch was used for looking around. Console driving games do the same thing with the right analog stick. FPS had a strafe button. You must have stopped playing FP in the 80s

 

[talan]

Reminds me of the restoration of 'The last supper.' I saw it side by side with the pre-restoration version in a museum recently, I thought they had the signs switched. Forget art direction- you could drag a random drunk hobo off the street and he could do a better job managing this shit. It's like someone was doing a 'how to draw' tutorial and got bored half way through.

Further proof that new doesn't necessary means better. A 2002 game everyone bashes for looking cartoony has a more realistic and detailed graphics than a remake that was released 18 years later.
Character models themselves are actually the perfect example of "older games sometimes look better from being less cluttered".

Don't necessary hate "busy" graphics but whoever did the work on reforged clearly didn't nail it all and i also absolutely despise how unexpressive the character portraits look.

It looks like they screwed up the aspect ratio on the right hand side...

 

[Sigourn]

I prefer less clutter in games.
I couldn't stomach The Witcher 3 when running inside houses and such, so much shit going around you that if not for the massive UI prompts you would be hard pressed to guess what you could interact with or not.

With simpler graphics my eye is drawn to that which is important.