2D games were so much more soulful than modern 3D games, I suppose its a reflection of society at the time vs now
3D (up to when I could be attentive) was immensely ugly, unartistic, if you take "2D as design" as a parameter. Flat (paradoxically), random - you take a screenshot and typically find the opposite of aesthetic pleasure. The instrument is not immediately fit for artistic purpose.
-- That more control can be imposed to painted flat material is hardly controvertible.
-- That the results prove that triangles defined objects are tools that require much higher mastery - well, if you cannot see it for yourself, suppose a panel of art critics will be there.
It doesn’t make sense to want to refute an argument you don’t understand. If you don’t know what the argument means, you don’t know if you agree or not.
Seems like you’re assuming (probably correctly) that “soulful” means something positive in some specific axis and your immediate reaction is that no, the thing you like must be better in every way. That response is already tainted with bias.
That's why you will find the modern AAA games (which is of course 3D) very soulless. However, the same soul still remains in indie games.
It had a charm the full game was missing. It reminded me of a puppet show and how large something so low fidelity can feel when filled out by imagination.
Likewise, there are plenty of amazing games nowadays, but the ragebait culture makes us focus on the bad ones.
Wasn’t there a dive on Freddy Pharkus up on FP recently?
These kind of folks still exist and still create. There is a lot more noise to sort through these days.
This aesthetic will keep trucking on in the AI era of slop, which will eat pixel art, will eat vector art, will try to eat high-res 3D art (and fail miserably), while only indies will care about the PSX/PS2 aesthetic with its fake dithering and 960x540 viewport size.
Playing Tiny Life for the first time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRLkrxRJiRI
One important premise of Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics is that you can trade resolution for identification and empathy. Lower graphical resolution is not just pixels swapped for soul as if it were a compromise, it's the mechanism that produces the binding. Every specific a face carries is a specific that can contradict the player, so subtracting detail buys the player room inside the character. A photorealistic face is somebody else's; a six-pixel face is yours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Comics
Scott's point is that when the world is concrete but the person is iconic, the player wears the person while believing the place -- which is what The Sims did with mumbling low-poly people in carefully detailed rooms, and what LCP did with one man drawn in a handful of pixels whom players named and worried about for forty years.
He calls the effect "masking":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masking_(comics)
Little Computer People Review (Commodore 64):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBRXWUVMAg4
The Sims wouldn't exist without This | Nostalgia Nerd:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYz_leh9J3E
That is why "soul over resolution" is not a hedge about the graphics, it's a claim about what the graphics are for.
Will Wright, Maxis, "Interfacing to Microworlds", Terry Winograd's user interface class at Stanford, April 26, 1996, previewing the Dollhouse prototype that became The Sims:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsxoZXaYJSk&t=4470s
Student: What about from person to person, you talking about the information that's contained within the objects, so there can be information in another person, that you want to interact with in the environment. Have you looked at any reasons why you would want to do that?
Will Wright: Oh yeah, I mean, that's that's the hard problem. I mean, simulating ants is hard enough, when you get to people there's really no hope.
There are two issues here. You can look at this as a technology. It's not a product right now. And there are a few directions this could go. I could see this becoming, let's say, a multiplayer network MUD kind of a thing. You might have a thousand people playing SimCity from the bottom up, each person building their own house in a big multi-user space. In which case that issue is a little less important, because most of the people are real people, and you're dealing with puppets.
As a standalone game, which is probably our closer target, we have to deal with the problem you're bringing up, which is how do we deal with people to people? And it's hard, I mean there's just -- I'm sure Terry can elaborate on that more than I can. But the best thing we can do is prop up a convincing illusion. We don't have to be doing a valid simulation of human personality. What we have to do is we have to put up something that's ambiguous enough to where somebody can read in what they want.
Actually in this thing what I have right now are people come up and they converse, but you don't hear what they're saying, they just gesture, and sometimes they look mad, sometimes they kind of look contemplative. It's kind of interesting how much people will read into that.
This is kind of dynamic that we've seen again and again where something happens in SimCity and they said "oh I was running my nuclear reactor near the red line, and then there was so much smoke coming out of it, this plane crashed, and because of that, this and that happened", and they'll describe this long causal chain of events that I know does not exist. I designed the simulation, I know that there's no linkage between the power output of the power plant, the planes crashing, but they're convinced it exists.
Don Hopkins: They're using it as a medium to tell stories about.
Will Wright: Yeah!
Don Hopkins: Where they're using it as a piece of paper, to write.
Will Wright: Yeah, that's exactly right. There's a parallel simulation going on here in the game. Everybody's taking a linear path through this, and they're basically, most people will attempt to understand things like this with a story. They'll think about "I did this, then that happened, because of that", and so the story becomes kind of their logical connection, their logical reverse engineering, of the simulation that they're playing inside of.
Now on the people's side, I think we can do a lot in this as a product, by propping up that illusion of people. Again, if this is a doll house, we don't want the dolls to be sentient things. We want the dolls to be interesting enough to where I can play games with them.
There was actually a really interesting doll that this company came out with. Oh, it was Worlds of Wonder, this really cool doll, I've got a couple of them after they went out of business. It's called the Julie doll. But it was like this $250 doll with voice recognition, and it said all these things. It had just a huge amount of ROM with digitized speech in it, and so it would sit there and try and have stupid conversations with you. And really it was kind of Eliza, or had keywords it would recognize, and give you these kind of non-committal responses.
But in the testing of that, well first of all it was a $300 doll. Who's going to buy the kid a $300 doll? So it was really more, it was actually the only doll I've ever seen that appealed to grown men. Grown men love this, I mean this is a hacker's doll.
But I talked to the guy who was working this project, and he said they put this in focus groups with girls. And they played with it for a while, and then after about a half an hour they take the batteries out, and keep playing with it.
And what was happening is that the girls were propping up this elaborate fantasy in their play, and the dolls were supposed to be a structure for that fantasy, they weren't supposed to be the fantasy. The doll was telling them what the fantasy was, and it was conflicting with what the girls were saying, and so it was interfering actively with their fantasy and their play.
So in that regard, I think we can actually kind of take that path with these people. And all we have to do is deal with them at a very local kind of a state machine, Braitenberg Machine kind of level, and say that they're angry, and they're hungry, and they're sleepy. And then we can actually do some things where maybe they have a little, what you might call, structural ambiguity about what they're actually saying.
One of the thoughts I had about this project in particular is that you'd see the people go up and they talk, and there would be some kind of a flavor to their conversation, but it would be more like Peanuts. When they did the TV show of Peanuts, you'd hear the adults talking, and the adults would always be like "mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa mwa", or soft, or loud. You can tell if they're mad, or angry, or what, but you wouldn't hear what they were saying. You'd have to read that into it.
I think this is the area where we sidestep the issue, just because as a commercial company we have to ship a game, we're not doing a research project. So that's a long winded answer, sorry. Yeah?