I wonder if this is likely to become a trend in the gen Zs? In the off chance I accidentally g*me, I next any game resembling the art style of common pay to win games and sometimes even next any game where the graphics look "too good".
Because you know they're going to be endless fountains of "oh it looks like you need to buy gems" diarrhea.
As a natural evolution of this, retro games have a known history of being good, and new games with retro style graphics are kind of like boring green colored frogs. You know they're safe because they don't have all the wacky cartoony colors of the poison frogs.
If you need one more excuse, retro games imply better battery/thermals.
Old games do not have "bad graphics," they're frequently the best that technology was capable of at the time and should be regarded in that context
People today literally find old games unplayable. Their eyes cannot make out what the colors on the screen are supposed to be. Donkey Kong is as illegible as Thai script.
Weak-minded buffoons are unable to discern greatness yes
Pearls cast before swine are wasted
"Bad graphics" as a term should only refer to graphics that are difficult to visually interpret within the game design, or graphics that are simply too bland/uninspired to look visually interesting. Metal Gear Solid 1 doesn't have "bad graphics" because I can still visually distinguish what I'm looking at and they don't interfere with gameplay. Silent Hill doesn't have bad graphics because it has interesting design.
The recent Gotham Knights game has bad graphics because despite the game's attempt at realistic, compelling visuals, they come up very flat and weak in comparison to previous Batman Arkham games. Fortnite has bad graphics because it looks like a bland corporate cartoon mess.
Maybe some younger folk have a hard time interpreting what things in early 3D graphics are supposed to be? Or they have a harder time understanding the visual clues? I'd think the main difference would be gameplay design quirks in older games, not just the graphics, but things like figuring out where you're supposed to go without things like quest trackers or compass markers. Quality of life stuff like that seems like a bigger distinction between older and modern games than just visuals.
The Bloodborne PS1 "de-make" is a prime example of what good art direction and quality textures can do for that low-poly style.
At least for consuls, I genuinely don’t see what’s improved since the PS3 - XBoX 360 era of games. Almost all the big releases even seem to be remasters of games from that era.
Same problem with film and tv, consolidation and companies having to show increasingly larger profits makes anything other than established properties a risk for returns on the investment.
