I'm the same way in fact--I just didn't do a good job of making my point clear.

There are many tasks that I find almost intolerable if I were only performing them for standard wages. But, although I've never been in a position to prove it, if I were to be paid $1,000 an hour I'm fairly certain my tolerance would rise significantly. Yet, I can tolerate the same menial labor--for no pay--if I'm doing it for myself, in service of my own interests. If I were to get paid as well, the experience would be that much more enjoyable.

The analogy may not be as fitting as I had hoped, but I was trying to equate it to the way that technological impressiveness (pay) can alter one's tolerance for and enjoyment of core gameplay (labor).

I misunderstood. I never thought of it like that, but I suppose it's true if the original version is no longer sold. I just paid what I felt the original game was worth, during a sale, utterly disregarding the "Special Edition".

This is just incorrect, though, and I think you might be mistaking design principles, and expectations of (most) gamers, with your own perception. As I said, I am assuming that you are telling the truth about yourself, but the notion that the type of tree placed in a game "pretty much never matters" is poppycock. Crysis would look pretty funny if every tree in the game was a Douglas Fir. For most people, the experience would be very different. The suspension of disbelief would be far harder to achieve, if even possible. It's hard to "get into" a game if one is constantly confronted with something he finds ridiculous.

But this forces me to ask: Doesn't your aversion to the "Special Edition" of Monkey Island contradict your claim that only the object matters, and not the appearance? If I understand you at all, as long as the gameplay is the same, you should be equally at peace with either version.

Thought of another (after watching a Pool of Radiance speedrun):

Weak healing in RPGs, particularly when it's the *only* healing option (at least until higher levels). Some offenders include:
* Wizardry 1-5 (except 4): Until you get MADI, your healing magic is extremely weak, and resting for healing is slow and expensive (to the point where I consider it to be a trap option). This is, of course, a real pain if enemies hit for double digit damage or if enemies hit the whole party at once (compounded by the lack of multi-target healing). Wizardry 6 and 7 have similar issues later on (and there's no MADI); Wizardry 8 finally fixed the issue by making healing magic *much* stronger.
* Pool of Radiance: The only healing spell is Cure Light Wounds, which heals at most 8 and can heal as little as 1; the only other reasonable alternative (and the fastest healing method in real-time) is to rest for literally weeks of in-game time, healing 1 HP per day. (Fortunately, the situation improves in later Gold Box games, thanks to the Fix command and higher level healing spells that heal more (especially Heal).)
* Ultima 3: Unless you go into a dungeon and find a healing fountain, your healing magic is really weak (so you have to use a lot of it), and your natural health regen is slow it might as well not be in the game.
* Bard's Tale 1-3: Until you get Restoration, healing is weak unless you go to a temple, which costs money and (in some versions) is slow. The game does give you a bard song that heals the party, so you actually do get multi-target healing early, but it's weak (but useful if an early BT3 enemy breathes on your party for single-digit damage).

Partial offenders include:
* Dragon Quest. The Heal spell is really weak, and Healmore is not obtained until late. However, towns have inns where you can pay for an instant full HP/MP heal. The sequels and remakes are better in this respect.
* Final Fantasy: A lot like Dragon Quest, with CUR4 being the powerful late-game healing option (if you have a White Wizard). Again, there are inns where you can pay for an instant full HP/MP heal (and they're the only way to save other than using up an expensive item). Notably, you later get a free multi-target heal, though it is weak and only usable during combat. Again, the sequels and remakes (starting with the GBA version) are better.
* Might and Magic series: Power Cure helps mitigate the problem significantly, and there's Divine Intervention and a rest option that fully restores your party. (I hear that MM6 Power Cure is weak, but it at least now affects the entire party.)

Oh No.... Mwa hahahahahahaha

Oh Noes....

(Gah, lost everything I had written because I accidentally clicked on reply on another post...damn forum.)

How many people would actually pay attention to the type of trees in the game? As long as the trees fit with the climate present, there shouldn't be an issue. And it is not like there can be so many things which would make the player encounter something which he finds ridiculous.

Nope, if you remember, I said earlier that aesthetic design choices are a different matter. Considering the state of technical limitations these days, there are a lot of possibilities when it comes to aesthetic design/the style. In this case, the specific implementation isn't for me (mainly the characters).

Watched letsplays of 80s games. Zorro and sorceror of claymore castle. What a pain. Glad I gave up, would never figure out unless I'm brain dead. Similar experiences with indiana jones fate of atlantis and serpent isle 7. Really hate it that you can't progress unless you read the walkthrough.

Sid meiers colonization, computer was too slow so I'd just create a map with one island and play through on that, game turns were slow.

Memory leak on star trek birth of the federation. Turn 500 took 10 minutes. Glad they fixed it in recent incarnations of that game.

See--now either you are moving the goal posts, or I did not understand your point. I was only responding to what you said:

That's what I meant--the Douglas Fir would be an anomaly on Lingshan, and thus the type of tree matters. But my point also stands in the sense that every tree in the game was literally the exact same Douglas Fir.

To avoid your issue, we can switch back to palms (which aren't actually trees, lol). If every one was an exact copy, I'm positive most people would find it ridiculous, and it would impact atmosphere and immersion.

The fact of the matter is that aesthetic choices are fundamentally decided by technological factors (what I now take you to mean by 'graphics'). In fact, you appear to agree.

As such, even according to your view, the claim that "graphics doesn't matter" is illegitimate, as 'graphics' determines what can even be achieved aesthetically. Just as does the choice between acrylic and chalk, canvas and velvet, brush and knife.

The games of the 80's don't look as they do because they match the artists' visions, or because the artists were incompetent; they look as they do only because of 'graphics'. Thus, I hold that 'graphics' matters.

One may simply not prefer Adventure games, but I would point out that Adventure games are not designed to be "played through" like a modern campaign. You will get stuck. You're supposed to. That's not a flaw--it's a result of the presence of puzzles, which usually require serious thought--much like chess.

Solitaire can be quickly learned and easily enjoyed solo. Chess not so much. This doesn't mean that chess is a bad game, or flawed; it's simply a different type of game. Certainly Adventure games sometimes had puzzles that were frustrating, but there are people who illegitimately characterize the Adventure genre as defined by ridiculous, illogical puzzles.

First, let me get this out of the way: Obviously smarter people will have less trouble than others, just as a five foot tall man can be expected to be at a disadvantage on the basketball court. But speaking for myself, on the rare times that I have given up and searched for hints, it is usually the case that I end up kicking myself--often for making invalid assumptions. It is the minority of times that a hint has produced an exclamation like "WHAT THE %#&@!!! I NEVER would have assumed that!!!"

I can offer this advice regarding Adventure games: When you come to a point at which you just can't figure out how to progress, and you've given it a good-faith effort--checking, rechecking, backtracking, talking, talking again, etc.--just save, quit, and move on to something else. Wait until the next day, and preferably a couple days, before playing again. I've lost track of the number of times in which, after doing this, I suddenly figure out what to do almost immediately after loading up the game.

Whether it has more to do with unconscious processing, or with a fresh new perspective unclouded by the baggage of the previous gaming session, or other factors, I don't know, but the phenomenon is real.

Like I said, they serve the function of being a tree. If they would serve the function of it being a hazel, the game would have to do something with its seed or otherwise have something in the game that points to the specific type of tree. A good example would be Pokemon Silver/Gold which has trees but also relevant trees which drop berries. That's the difference. And the non-relevant trees in the game probably all look the same (I obviously never paid attention to that, like pretty much everbody else).

I budged a bit on this one because some people would probably notice if there was a palm tree in an area not suited to it. Though, this does apply more to 3D games and at least in these cases, paying attention to the climate is a minimum.

That is what I said and I don't see how it contradicts anything. Of course back then developers didn't have too many choices when it came to the aesthetics (and of course it depends on the technological limitations of the visuals/graphics). Still, a lot of things were possible, especially starting with the fourth console generation in the late 80s (computers were an exception and arcades obviously were still far ahead at the time).
Also, as you just said yourself: The options were limited so people who make blanket statements that that stuff looks awful is referring to the graphics/visuals rather than the aesthetics. In comparison to that I said, I'm fine with 2D, 3D etc etc. But the aesthetics they went with in the Monkey Island SE are nothing for me. If someone said that they hate the characters in Dead of Alive (newest iteration) because of their design, that would be an aesthetics thing as well. It's not because of the visuals that they say that (otherwise they wouldn't be able to play a lot of things).

They're not only complaining about the 'graphics', though. The aesthetic is determined by the 'graphics'--they're linked. What you are arguing is analogous to discovering that a portrait you commissioned was done in crayons rather than oils, and insisting that you're not complaining about the portrait, you're only complaining about the crayons.

At any rate, we both agree on the aesthetic of the "SE" Monkey Island--and the fact that it was not the result of technological limitations but simply poor taste!

I guessed that you meant large pixels, but what you wrote was by no means unambiguous, and in fact a plain reading of your post strongly suggests that you are referring to pixel quantity.

I don't think it at all impossible that dtgreene was responding sincerely.

That's because the pixels are small, but they're stil there.

If you can specify the resolution of a display, then the display is composed of pixels; there's no way around that. (The resolution is, in fact, measured in pixels.)

Here we go again. I hate modern games with not so small pixels. Ok? I fed up with 320x200 games (yes, all the sadden game screen has resolution and pixels too) on 640x480 display back in the days (no idea why you bring up display pixel which obviously no one can see without special efforts). It has nothing to do with a display and a resolution in modern games. Take for example https://www.gog.com/game/kynseed . No resolution can fix that. Game made "retro". And that "retro looks" part I never miss.
So, lets troll more?

I would need a bridge for that.

The "favorite gimmick" thread reminded me of this. It's a feature that is present in almost all RPGs yet, so I dislike its lack in older games :

When I change the equipment on my char, I like it to be reflected on its image. When old games have one pre-defined image of your character, with one costume and weapon, that contradicts your inventory or equipment screen, I get a bit annoyed. Sometimes the image changes to some generic representation of the type of item you equipped (shirt vs armour, etc), but it's seldom enough.

So, nope, I don't miss discrepancy between on-screen character looks and equipment list.

Things I do not miss:

Unplayable, badly programmed games. Very different than today's badly programmed, unplayable games and had the added sting of there being few gaming magazines, demos or reviews so you had to buy it to find out it was unplayable.