←back to thread

MacPaint Art from the Mid-80s Still Looks Great Today

(blog.decryption.net.au)
1033 points decryption | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 08:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
seabombs ◴[12 Jul 25 10:57 UTC] No.44541090[source]▶
There's a term I read about a long time ago, I think it was "aesthetic completeness" or something like that. It was used in the context of video games whose art direction was fully realized in the game, i.e. increases in graphics hardware or capabilities wouldn't add anything to the game in an artistic sense. The original Homeworld games were held up as examples.

Anyway, this reminded me of that. Making these pictures in anything but the tools of the time wouldn't just change them, they'd be totally different artworks. The medium is part of the artwork itself.

replies(13): >>44541180 #>>44541815 #>>44541851 #>>44542274 #>>44542699 #>>44542899 #>>44542992 #>>44543278 #>>44543418 #>>44545440 #>>44547629 #>>44553341 #>>44557614 #
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 13:08 UTC] No.44541815[source]▶
I have to imagine that fully realizing a vision can only truly take place when the artists are not working at the limits of the present day tools. I’m thinking of something like games today that choose an art style and run with it, rather than trying to push the hardware as hard as possible.

Was this the artist’s vision, or were they simply making the best of the tools they had?

replies(2): >>44541862 #>>44542835 #
zozbot234 ◴[12 Jul 25 13:14 UTC] No.44541862[source]▶
Pixel art is very much still around today, even though it's far from "pushing" the limits of current hardware. It's pursuing a rather consistent "vision" of maximizing quality while staying within the bounds of a predefined level of detail (i.e. resolution) and color depth.
replies(2): >>44541892 #>>44542752 #
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 13:21 UTC] No.44541892[source]▶
Right. This is kind of what I’m talking about. Someone choosing pixel art today is making a choice; they have a vision. 40 years ago, they were limited by the system. The choice was largely made for them.

Old video games come to mind. The box art would be drastically different than the look of the game. The box art was the vision, the game was what they ended up with after compromises due to the hardware of the day. I think it’s only been in the last decade or so that some game makers have truly been able to realize the visions they had 40 years ago.

replies(1): >>44542519 #
1. rchaud ◴[12 Jul 25 14:58 UTC] No.44542519[source]▶
I think of the box art and physical manual of a video game like Diablo from 1996, compared to the game itself. The manual had several detailed drawings of monsters and otherworldly creatures with a very "evil" look, but the game itself they were represented as blocky sprites with fairly comical movement, as characters moved on a isometric chessboard-style grid, with abrupt turns and limited speed. Ultimately the gameplay is what mattered, the box art, in-game music and sound effects all created an atmosphere that wouldn't have been as immersive with just graphics.

A point of comparison would be to the game Quake, which came out the same year, and whose graphics felt light years ahead . But Quake mostly became a multiplayer hit, as the single-player story and overall atmosphere weren't very compelling.