I think there have always been "bad" and "good" games. What I dislike about modern games is that they are technically impressive but they generally are lacking in the ENJOY/PLAYABILITY areas. There aren't so many fresh ideas anymore. Another thing I hate is the "copycat effect". You get one game style that's get repeated over and over and over... you get the point.

And although I agree with Addict that same games requieres a "dark" or "brooming" atmosphere as per global setting, some others are just plain dull when choosing colours, no matter the level of technology involved.

Many commercial old games lack color too, it's not a new thing, though some do it for the sake of the limits (Dark Seed's 16 color shades of gigerivory being the only colors). One popular color lacking game of the era is Mechwarrior 2 (not counting mercs or anything after that colors it up), strange how this 1995 game doesn't look and sound out of place with today's mainstream clutter.

Colorfulness does associate a lot with the shareware scene though, perhaps it's all nostalgia about that and the laziness to make a new palette to replace the standard Deluxe Paint one. It is true that color became less interesting as soon as Call of Duty 4 came out though...

I also agree that the "5 year old games" comment is uncalled for.

I usually browse in the PC game magazines which my brother receives each month. There are always a few games, especially the third person shooters, that overdo light-bloom, bumpmapping and shadowing effects. resulting in very contrasted and unsaturated screenshots. It is kinda hard to define, but I recognize it immediately, and do not like it.

Now some games they are better with saturated colors, others are better without, but at least a good art-director should decide on it consciously, and should not use effects more heavily just because he can.

Either way I don't care much, Except for some rare flight-sim releases I don't buy games anymore.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

I think there have always been "bad" and "good" games. What I dislike about modern games is that they are technically impressive but they generally are lacking in the ENJOY/PLAYABILITY areas. There aren't so many fresh ideas anymore. Another thing I hate is the "copycat effect". You get one game style that's get repeated over and over and over... you get the point.

And although I agree with Addict that same games requieres a "dark" or "brooming" atmosphere as per global setting, some others are just plain dull when choosing colours, no matter the level of technology involved.

The thing I hate most is the sequel craze. Yes, there are some good franchises out there but sometimes they should just be laid to rest Like, did we really need Halo Wars and Halo ODST after Halo 3? Endless Tomb Raider sequels? Do we need to be playing Dynasty Warriors 37 a few years from now? Or more Crash Bandicoot games?

Anonymous Freak wrote:

Except I would agree, as the parent of a 5 year old, with the "go play a game made for a 5+ year old" comment.

I actually would agree with the "gaming for 5+ year old" comment in itself. Problem is, it looks to me that the comment was said in the context of ADDiCT being ADDiCT (check this out), which is also confirmed in later ADDiCT's post.

ADDiCT wrote:

The premise of this thread is plain silly. Comparing the "colour-ness" of the two example screenshots is comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit, but with a very different shape and taste.

So? If the particular apple in comparison just happens to be sour, your point doesn't contradict the fact that the apple is, in fact, sour.

Dirt 2 screenshot:

Real dirt track photograph:

Really, I wonder what makes you unable to see that Dirt 2 graphics is pale and washed out, not only when compared to WarCraft III, but also pale and washed out compared to real dirt track racing photograph. I'll leave my point there, thank you very much.

ADDiCT wrote:

- Technical aspects. Photo-realistic graphics were impossible until quite recently. Old DOS and 8/16-bit games had to look good with a very limited colour palette and resolution. There were no fancy shaders and graphic tricks like filters and stuff. So I guess devs basically had two choices: go for the "cartoonish" look (=relatively simple shapes, bright colours) or try to make their graphics look realistic with the limited technical capabilities of the target machine(s). The latter is very, very hard to do of course. You can easily distinguish between different "generations" of graphics when looking at old games. The shots in the OP are at least three generations "apart", so it's no wonder they look very different.

And THIS is supposed to rebuke my points, how? If anything, it only reinforces my point that washed-out colors of many modern games are trends and design choices instead of hardware limitation. Thank you. Next!

ADDiCT wrote:

The same is true for the two example screenshots in the OP: one game tries to realistically recreate a dirty race track

Then kindly explain, why did the graphic designer have to choose drab and washed colors, of millions of color available, by the way, instead of realistically vivid colors as shown on the real dirty race track photograph above?

ADDiCT wrote:

- Taste and perception.

Why thank you for pointing the obvious. Gee, gosh, I wonder what takes you so long to deduce that this thread IS about taste. This thread is about preference for vivid colors, and (dis)taste for drab, washed out colors. This thread is also to question whether there are other people sharing such taste. By the way, turned out there are.

ADDiCT wrote:

(that's why i recommended children games in an earlier post, as they probably deliver exactly what he describes)

Oh, I see. Wow, gosh, my apologize. I thought you were just being you. Well, it turns out there is a very slight possibility that you are a very amiable poster who does NOT like to make inflammatory posts on the person whose ideas you don't like. Gee, gosh, why I haven't realized it before?

But of course, there is also possibility that I shit out gold bricks everytime I sneeze when sitting on the closet.

ADDiCT wrote:

Oh, and: KAN, if you really think grass should look like R:0 G:255 B:0 then you should either go outside more often or cut down on the shrooms.

Ah, here we go again. I still remember how did you react to the "Gaming War Stories" thread. Well, my humblest and deepest apologize if it reaaaaaally hurts you that there ARE people who like to write down their gaming experience, and/or reading other people's gaming experience. Now it seems I have to apologize again because you seem to have angst on certain people's distaste for drab colors.

I wonder if it really hurts you to simply say, "well I like drab colors because it is more realistic to me, and because it is my subjective taste. So we don't share the same taste here, guys." BUT NOOOO, you just had to make smart-ass remarks about childern games, going outside, and mushrooms. Why, I'm not surprised.

ADDiCT wrote:

either learn to adapt and accept new (and possibly exciting!) possibilites, or shut up and play your 8-bit classics until you die. This behaviour reminds me of old people not wanting (or being able able to) change, for example, their eating habits.

Oh, what next? "Shut up and play your DOS games classics using DOSBOX until you die", eh?

You know, I'm tired of this "old people don't wanna change" bullshit. We don't like drab colors, and suddenly we are old people not wanting to change. We are bored with linear levels (which is as old as Pac-Man, by the way), and suddenly we are old people not wanting to change. What next, we don't like StarForce because we are old people not wanting to change? We refuse to buy marketing speech like "possibily exciting possibilities" because we are old people not wanting to change? Does it never occur to you that we don't like certain things not necessarily because it is new, but simply because they are not the things we like? (Or lacks the things we like?)

Do you genuinely believe, for example, that veteran flightsimmers are complaining about L.O.M.A.C simply because it is "new (and possibly exciting!) possibilites!", instead of the lack of dynamic campaign?

ADDiCT wrote:

I have grown up

Why, yes! Of course you have! In fact, you are probably the paragon of maturity throughout the entire board. And I am the King of England. And the Grand Duke of Saskatchewan. And I shit gold bricks every morning.

You know, there is one big difference between you and me. While I have no hesitation to express my distate for drab colors in games, I do not berate people who likes such colors. If you merely said, "I like drab colors of modern games, because my taste is different than yours", then I wouldn't ever have to react in such cynical manners. But no, you keep insisting to make inflamatory posts that attack the person instead of the subject matter.

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

And although I agree with Addict that same games requieres a "dark" or "brooming" atmosphere as per global setting, some others are just plain dull when choosing colours, no matter the level of technology involved.

Agree. Ultima VIII has such brooming atmosphere, but the colors are still vivid. Yes, the overall color theme is dark and brooding, but still vivid without being drab. Same goes with the volcanic area in Heroes II of Might and Magic. Dark and brooming, but not "washed".

leileilol wrote:

Many commercial old games lack color too, it's not a new thing, though some do it for the sake of the limits (Dark Seed's 16 color shades of gigerivory being the only colors). One popular color lacking game of the era is Mechwarrior 2 (not counting mercs or anything after that colors it up), strange how this 1995 game doesn't look and sound out of place with today's mainstream clutter..

Agree. This thread is not actually about "old games" vs "new games", but about drab, washed colors vs vivid colors. Actually, if I could find newer example than WarCraft III, I would have used it to show a game with vivid colors.

My only qualms for modern games with washed colors is that because, in the ear of 32-bit color depth, they should be able to create something more vivid than what we have today.

That's not saying all modern games has drab and "stonewashed" colors. IIRC there is a boxing games on PS3 that has both photo-realistic graphics and vivid colors. Is it Monday Night Boxing? I don't quite remember.

I remember on the Atari ST there were three graphics resolutions available. One was a high res(!) 640x400 monochrome that required a special monitor. The other two were both available with the color monitor. I think one was 640x200 using 4 out of a palette of 512 colors and the other was 320x200 using 16 out of a palette of 512 colors. Most games were programmed to use the lowest resolution mode because that resolution also had the most colors available. They used to say back then that you could use more colors to fool the eye into thinking the game was a higher resolution than it actually was. Advanced dithering and palette swapping techniques enhanced the illusion. Some intrepid souls, mostly Europeans, wrote games for the monochrome mode and there were some very good ones, but it wasn't the same without color in spite of the higher resolution. So resolution isn't everything.

sliderider wrote:

but it wasn't the same without color in spite of the higher resolution. So resolution isn't everything.

I'd like to add that, in modern 3D games, lower resolution + AA is better than higher resolution without AA, IMO.

Anyway, I remember the name of the boxing game I've mentioned in my previous post: Fight Night Rounds 4 for Playstation 3. It's an example of modern games with vivid colors, and it's actually more "photorealistic" than typical color scheme in many other games. I don't have a PS3, so I took the picture from an IGN screenshot.

While browsing for the game, I stumbled into another modern games with pleasant colors: Madden NFL 11 for PS3.

One may argue that PS3 may have better technology than typical PC ("apples vs oranges" comparison), but even the old GeForce2 is capable to show 3D graphics in 32-bit color depth, which translates to millions of colors. Thus, I always think that the drab colors is design choices instead of hardware limitation.

Thankfully, it seems the trend of having "stonewashed" color palette is not going to stay forever. At least I can still find pics with vivid colors among Battlefield Bad Company 2 screenshots (like this and this), which are better than those of Modern Warfare 2. If Bad Company's gameplay turns out to be good, then it would make an interesting entry on my "to buy" list.

EDIT: hmmm, Gamespot gave it 9.0 score, so it might be interesting.

I'm definitely with you in that I hate how most games nowadays have these bland, "realistic" grey-on-brown color pallets, but there are lots of other things about games nowadays that piss me off too, such as

- the over-emphasis on "realism" that many games (mostly shooters) have
- the lack of any good splitscreen/LAN multiplayer in most popular titles
- the over-emphasis on online play that many games have
- the expectation that most developers have that you're only going to play through their games once and move on to their sequels as soon as they're out
- the over-emphasis that many games have on trying to out-do Hollywood with boring plots, endless cutscenes, and an overall lack of gameplay
- the lack of moddability in many games that should be moddable in the first place
- the over-emphasis on paid DLC in games where the DLC should be user-generated and free
- the under-emphasis on actual fun that many games seem to have
- the lack of good music (or any music at all) that many games have

All this, and I'm only 16-years-old! Like seriously, this is the sort of rant that someone my father's age should be writing! 🤣

TLDR: Games are becoming too much like movies, and aren't nearly as much fun as they used to be.

sliderider wrote:

The thing I hate most is the sequel craze. Yes, there are some good franchises out there but sometimes they should just be laid to rest Like, did we really need Halo Wars and Halo ODST after Halo 3? Endless Tomb Raider sequels? Do we need to be playing Dynasty Warriors 37 a few years from now? Or more Crash Bandicoot games?

After the PSone I refused to buy a console for a few years. Partly because of the way the console companies split the franchises up [oddworld only on Xbox, for example] but also because it seemed as though with crash bandicoot and tomb raider, the new games were just the old ones "reskinned". In other words, an update to the later technology, seldom adding much to the gameplay. We did eventually buy MGS on the gamecube, but that was also more or less a reskinning it seemed.

Over a longer period this rewriting of old games can of course make a radical difference, but even then it's not always for the best. I always loved Quake 1 most of the id franchise's. Doom 3 was and is the biggest disappointment for me, I've never managed to play it more than twice for 15 minutes, and although I bought Quake 4 I never even installed it thanks to Doom 3 and the recollection of Quake 2 single player [also a yawn for me].

Back on topic, I think the colours are secondary but they do make a striking difference and you can get a bit sidetracked by this; they add another dimension to an experience but for me they dont make a clear difference of me playing or not. I think WoW looks beautiful, but I also like Quake 1. I go back to wow because it has so much richness of experience. I seldom do more than fire up q1, and then only because i love the colors and the demos as background [btw i hate q1 music, its much better with a reader rabbit cd in].

[offtopic]

In my modest opinion, Doom3 is boring but Quake 4 isn't. You should give it a try.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

snip this

ADDiCT wrote:

snip that

ADDiCT is a negative person who is here solely for himself. Flame bait. He has nothing positive to contribute to this forum.

Personally, even though I tend to agree about the color subject, I think games are really timeless. A game doesn't need to be the newest thing on the block in order to be good. There are also good "new" games out there but I tend to either buy from the €5 bucket or borrow more recent games from friends. Also I play very little recent games and stick to a small hand full of games I play online together with playing older games from time to time.

For instance, last weekend I had a LAN party with a friend playing FEAR. Man those proximity mines are so much fun haha! 2 weeks before that I had another LAN party with a friend and we played Total Annihilation with the Total Mayhem mod. We played it till deep into the night. And that's a game from 1997!
Next time we might even play some Dune2000 or Interstate 76 or perhaps do a lil coop mode Unreal 2 or FEAR.

I don't care if a game is old or not, as long as it's fun.

What does bug me (or should I say, bore me!) is that so many games are kinda the same the last couple years. It's all about tossing handgrenades and shooting people with a machinegun, driving tanks and all that.
Theres not much variation. On top of that, many current games use STEAM and such which means it's too much trouble for me to try those games in a LAN (+ I don't have enough high end computers that can run those games anyway).

Aliens vs Predator 2 online was a BLAST! 2001 vintage game 😀

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I'm definitely with you in that I hate how most games nowadays have these bland, "realistic" grey-on-brown color pallets, but th […]
Show full quote

I'm definitely with you in that I hate how most games nowadays have these bland, "realistic" grey-on-brown color pallets, but there are lots of other things about games nowadays that piss me off too, such as

- the over-emphasis on "realism" that many games (mostly shooters) have
- the lack of any good splitscreen/LAN multiplayer in most popular titles
- the over-emphasis on online play that many games have
- the expectation that most developers have that you're only going to play through their games once and move on to their sequels as soon as they're out
- the over-emphasis that many games have on trying to out-do Hollywood with boring plots, endless cutscenes, and an overall lack of gameplay
- the lack of moddability in many games that should be moddable in the first place
- the over-emphasis on paid DLC in games where the DLC should be user-generated and free
- the under-emphasis on actual fun that many games seem to have
- the lack of good music (or any music at all) that many games have

All this, and I'm only 16-years-old! Like seriously, this is the sort of rant that someone my father's age should be writing! 🤣

TLDR: Games are becoming too much like movies, and aren't nearly as much fun as they used to be.

The thing I hate most is spending $60 bucks on a new game and the single player mode takes about 10 minutes to complete. Why do they even bother including a single player mode at all? Why don't they just put a label on the box saying that this game is for online play only before someone who has no interest in online gaming buys it and ends up getting pissed off to the point where they never buy another game from that company again?

sliderider wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I'm definitely with you in that I hate how most games nowadays have these bland, "realistic" grey-on-brown color pallets, but th […]
Show full quote

I'm definitely with you in that I hate how most games nowadays have these bland, "realistic" grey-on-brown color pallets, but there are lots of other things about games nowadays that piss me off too, such as

- the over-emphasis on "realism" that many games (mostly shooters) have
- the lack of any good splitscreen/LAN multiplayer in most popular titles
- the over-emphasis on online play that many games have
- the expectation that most developers have that you're only going to play through their games once and move on to their sequels as soon as they're out
- the over-emphasis that many games have on trying to out-do Hollywood with boring plots, endless cutscenes, and an overall lack of gameplay
- the lack of moddability in many games that should be moddable in the first place
- the over-emphasis on paid DLC in games where the DLC should be user-generated and free
- the under-emphasis on actual fun that many games seem to have
- the lack of good music (or any music at all) that many games have

All this, and I'm only 16-years-old! Like seriously, this is the sort of rant that someone my father's age should be writing! 🤣

TLDR: Games are becoming too much like movies, and aren't nearly as much fun as they used to be.

The thing I hate most is spending $60 bucks on a new game and the single player mode takes about 10 minutes to complete. Why do they even bother including a single player mode at all? Why don't they just put a label on the box saying that this game is for online play only before someone who has no interest in online gaming buys it and ends up getting pissed off to the point where they never buy another game from that company again?

I always read some reviews before buying a game and if I buy a game for just €5, I can't really go wrong 😀

Tetrium wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

snip this

ADDiCT wrote:

snip that

ADDiCT is a negative person who is here solely for himself. Flame bait. He has nothing positive to contribute to this forum.

I couldn't agree more. While I don't mind healthy amount of flames (believe me, flames can be funny), unnecessary flames piss me off. Nothing is more annoying when a poster flames just for the sake of flaming. I have encountered such posters before, and usually, they can be identified by the following behavior:
(1) Nitpicking. Debating over irrelevant details while completely sidestepping the real argument being discussed.
(2) Complaining over non-existent issues.
(3) Leap of logic. For example, just because Joe uses the phrase "war story" in a gaming context, then they magically conclude that Joe glorifies real war.
(4) Attacking one's subjective opinion instead of one's argument.
(5) Sophistry and rhetoric. For example, "you are insulting game developers, while you don't contribute at all". Such phrase is fallacious, because it completely ignores the fact that: a) a bad game is a bad game b) people who don't create the product do have the right of free speech to criticize it.

In short, such posters tend to make every logical fallacies possible just to find excuses to flame, and that's really annoying.

Tetrium wrote:

Personally, even though I tend to agree about the color subject, I think games are really timeless. A game doesn't need to be the newest thing on the block in order to be good.

Yup. I don't mind drab colors as long as the gameplay is great. Fallout is an example, Total Air War is another.

And although this thread is about graphics instead of gameplay, I agree with you, eL_PuSHeR, and sliderider. First thing first, I actually don't mind first-person shooter, and I admit there are good first-person shooters around (like Medal of Honor, which is magnitudes better than Quake, by the way). But when most the games on the shelves are first-person shooters, then you see the problem.

Also, I still want a good single-player gaming experience. Death matches get old very fast, MMORPG usually boils down to boring repetitive tasks to maximize stats/item/whatever, while rushing in multiplayer RTS is not really fun. I'm being subjective here, but the only genre when I find multiplayer is fun is flightsim --and co-operatively instead of some mindless death match.

Finally, I don't like DRM at all. If a game requires you to connect to the internet in single-player mode, fine, but there should be some law (akin to truth in advertising) that requires such game to put a clear warning label to the consumers.

Tetrium wrote:

I always read some reviews before buying a game and if I buy a game for just €5, I can't really go wrong 😀

When Computer Gaming World was still around, I always wait for their review before buying the game in question. RIP, CGW. 😢

OK, so everyone who doesn't agree with every brainfart posted is automatically "flaming". Yeah, right. Go ahead guys and make your life easy. Why should you actually think about other opinions and points of view? Dismissing them is much easier. Pathetic.

PS: Wikipedia defines "flaming" thusly: "Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.". I fail to see hostility and/or insults in my post. Sarcasm, yes. Insults and hostility, no. Life isn't a big group hug you know.

PPS: the points I've made in that post you all love so much still stand, and are still valid IMO. I couldn't detect any good arguments against them. For instance, that red car/cheetah shot is a _photo_. Of a red car. Yes, a red car is more colourful than a (dirty) black/dark grey one. I can't see how that proves the point of modern games not being colourful enough.

ADDiCT wrote:

OK, so everyone who doesn't agree with every brainfart posted is automatically "flaming".

Isn't it ironic that the person who call other's post brain fart whines when people say he is flaming?

By the way, thank you for flying Boo Fucking Hoo Airways. We hope you had a pleasant whining. Please, cry on us again.

ADDiCT wrote:

Go ahead guys

No thanks. Despite whatever you have learned to enjoy in prison shower, we are not interested in giving you the pleasure.

ADDiCT wrote:

Why should you actually think about other opinions and points of view? Dismissing them is much easier.

OH PLEASE, don't try play victim here. There is ONE BIG DIFFERENCE between simply disagreeing and making CONDESCENDING REMARKS on an opinion you don't agree with. Again, boo fucking hoo.

As for your so-claimed "hard facts", see my rebuttal above. Your high school teacher probably doesn't mind to repeat the same thing over and over again, but I do.

ADDiCT wrote:

Pathetic.

The way I see it, the only one being pathetic here is you. Remember kid, you are the one who started all this shit on the first place, so if you are so eager to give, then be prepared to receive some.

ADDiCT wrote:

For instance, that red car/cheetah shot is a _photo_. Of a red car. Yes, a red car is more colourful than a (dirty) black/dark grey one. I can't see how that proves the point of modern games not being colourful enough.

Did you DELIBERATELY miss the fact that the color of the SOIL in the photograph is MORE VIBRANT than that in the game screenshot? Are you deliberately, intentionally trying to be stupid?

ADDiCT wrote:

PS: Wikipedia defines "flaming" thusly: "Flaming (also known as bashing) is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users.". I fail to see hostility and/or insults in my post.

Ah, no hostility, eh? No insults? Let see...

ADDiCT wrote:

Oh, and: KAN, if you really think grass should look like R:0 G:255 B:0 then you should either go outside more often or cut down on the shrooms.

No insult, eh? Yeah, right, whatever.

ADDiCT wrote:

shut up and play your 8-bit classics until you die.

AHA! A VERY FRIENDLY POST! Definitely no hostility at all. And of course, I am the King of England.

ADDiCT wrote:

Pathetic.

And of course, calling others pathetic is neither hostile nor insulting by ADDiCT's standard.

ADDiCT wrote:

Sarcasm, yes.

Sarcasm is hostile by definition. Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

So after all the lame whining and backpedaling, you unwittingly admit that you are being hostile. Very well, concession accepted.

Heheheeeee... We are a little agitated aren't we? Go for a walk or take a cold shower, that should help (; .