> Like a great movie, every frame was a painting - a bright blue soul sphere added
a nice highlight on top of a muted brownish-green canvas.
Well, that's unreasonably nostalgic. I do agree that a lot of modern games confuse high quality art with effects, but past video games were heavily, and (to their creators) excruciatingly limited by technical feasibility, NOT by deliberate artistic choices.
The classics you remember are not what the creator imagined or wanted. It was the least painful compromise. The creators had two sticks and were hell-bent to build a space station with those. Completely unreasonable. Immensely frustrating. A masterpiece, but definitely not what the creators would have created given more options – least of all id software, which were nothing if not cutting edge.
Artistic choices made to adapt to or account for technical constraints are still interesting artistic choices.
I mean you even see this in mainstream western art theory with colors. Only very very recently have painters had a full spectrum of colors and hues available without heavy constraints on some of them like price, toxicity, ability to mix or age in the presence of other colors.
The workarounds painters used could be highly technical, like using combinations of colors that causes optical illusion-like effects implying the difficult color. Or they could be not at all, like simply choosing to paint a setting where you wouldn't need to represent the difficult color.
These later changes, this opening up of technique and color, doesn't diminish the artistic merit of works that came before and had to struggle directly against those constraints. I don't think any artist at any time has been totally free to express their vision without technical constraints.
I think there's a lot of value in understanding the constraints when approaching a piece of art, and some value in trying to understand what the artist may have attempted without those constraints. But the constraints don't really affect the merit of what the artist did accomplish, only what they felt able to attempt. This feels really similar to me.
I replied to somebody else farther down along the same lines, but I do think the question of what id -would- have made with modern tools at their disposal is really interesting. Because in a lot of ways, id’s story is partially one of quadrupling down on pushing the engine forward. With quake, they hit another local maximum where the look and feel of the game meshed really well with the new engine capabilities. But then after that, one could argue that they had a slow descent into games looking better but at the same time worse. I would almost go as far as to say that it was a good thing that they were limited as they were, because it pushed them into something that looked so, so cool.
If you think about it, there are many artistic media that are extremely limiting. I mean, consider literal paint! The way that we receive art is surprisingly dependent on that limitation. Once upon a time we were painting on cave walls with crappy dyes. The tools and the painters kept getting better and better, and by the 17th-19th century you have masters contributing some of the most important art of all time. And then, all of a sudden, when we arrive in the 20th century we get color photos, and photoshop, and it’s all somehow _too powerful_. The Mona Lisa done in PS just isn’t the same. And I think it’s more than nostalgia that makes me say that.
To be honest I hate modern pixel art games because the sprites can rotate and move around but not respect a pixelated canvas. I see it as laziness or at the least, a lack of actual art direction.
Sure, some just do pixel art for budget reasons. In those cases it's still a limitation rather than a deliberate choice. But for example Hyper Light Drifter is modern and I consider it one of the best looking games I ever played.
It's not a technical limitation though, which is the thrust of the convo regarding Doom's lack of ray tracing or other fancy effects. Doom was low budget as well but still hired artists. As far as I'm concerned, making a game without an artist is like designing a static HTML webpage in 2022. Yes it will work, but is below the expected standards.
> Like a great movie, every frame was a painting - a bright blue soul sphere added a nice highlight on top of a muted brownish-green canvas.
Well, that's unreasonably nostalgic. I do agree that a lot of modern games confuse high quality art with effects, but past video games were heavily, and (to their creators) excruciatingly limited by technical feasibility, NOT by deliberate artistic choices.
The classics you remember are not what the creator imagined or wanted. It was the least painful compromise. The creators had two sticks and were hell-bent to build a space station with those. Completely unreasonable. Immensely frustrating. A masterpiece, but definitely not what the creators would have created given more options – least of all id software, which were nothing if not cutting edge.