Why are 90s graphics so much more pleasing to look at than modern slop?
>>993685Limiting color palettes to make images more harmonious is the oldest trick. Technical limitations where the perfect excuse for that.Nowadays artists enter trades without knowing the basics.Now please stop posting the same question every week.
>>99368599% the zeitgeist of the era. All artists are influenced by arts around them. You should compare the popular arts of the 90s to now. >>9936883D modelers today are more skilled than they were back in the day. They just have shit taste.
>>993688>Now please stop posting the same question every week.There's multiple of us.No, we won't stop.>>993704That explanation makes a lot of sense. When I was younger I was quite a contrarian about realism and stuff like that, but then I started looking at a artwork from the 90s, 80s and beyond and wondered why people don't make stuff that feels like that anymore.>>Do you live in Brazil? I have a hunch that the first time you saw any computer graphics was in 2012. It's unfortunate you're not able to appreciate artwork that actually looks good, in spite of all its flaws.
>>993736Last one was quoting >>993728
>>993747>>993748Anything can be art. Not in a sense that someone can splatter paint on a canvas with their dick and call it art, but that anything can be used to make art if the artist has the technical abilities and the sensibilities to make art. One can make art with pigments on a canvas, one can make art by chiseling away at a rock, and one can even make a pretty sculpture out of feces if they have what it takes to make it work. Art can be made with a primitive 3d program just as it can with a more sophisticated one. It all comes down to things like color choices, lighting choices, shape and form choices, composition, etc. I can only imagine how lame your art must be if you can’t understand this concept.You’re not an artist just because you use a fancy program that makes everything pretty and shiny for you, and I can assure you that whoever made that render back in 1997 had infinitely more artistic ability than you do, and that is evident by the fact that their artistic decisions shine through the low quality of the render, or that it’s not just a bunch of simple shapes with simple textures on them.I don’t know what makes you think I’m from Africa, especially considering that gaming consoles and PCs would have been exceptionally rare in a non-white country back in the 90s, but I do think it’s unusual that you would go straight to Africa instead of India or South America like most other people do. Maybe my assumption that you’re from Brazil was correct and you felt like you had to move one step down on the racial totem pole to feel comfortable and honest with your insult. Not that I have a problem with you being brown, I just think you should have used a more relevant insult.
>>993753>I can assure you that whoever made that render back in 1997 had infinitely more artistic ability than you doI'm of the mind that the people doing this shit back in the day were decently skilled at what they were doing in an equivalent fashion as today.But 90% of the people doing these things really were throwing shit at the wall, they're mostly mid 20's dudes who just got a hold of an SGI machine and just went for it. They probably didn't have much technical knowledge and kind of found a look and stuck to it.Case in fucking point, the CG in the old Jurassic Park (which came out a year before). Look at that, something made by artists with the technical know-how, and then look at the cobbled together DK in DKC, or the environments. They were using sprites, so they had carte blanche to go ham with the models and backgrounds, but the OP image is the best they could do.My point is that both the program and the artist had the potential to do better, but they lacked the technical skill to pull it off. The art of the time from games that look like this isn't the result of a purposeful art style, it's them doing what they can with the limited skills they had and pretending that "3d" in of itself is a style. Which to be fair, back then, that was enough.It's fumbling through the dark and arriving at "A" solution, and settling for that since it looks acceptable enough.
>>993781it isn't fumbling though. it's understanding your limitations so that they don't affect your final result negatively.
>>993685Found this video it's a good insight into ops questionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a5c8p4Pt0Y
>>993685>this fucking thread againThey aren't. Now fuck off.
>>993685It's PBR, PBR is literally the reason why everything looks flat, toylike, and samey now.
>>994468Does the chair nerd paint?
>>993685Nowadays everything blends together because waging at any sort of known a company has been put on a pedestal,so the general aim of art has funnelled into the same handful of styles being executed in the same handful of ways.Notice how critique always ends at some sort of 'follow the art science' type of nit-picks because artists have been programmed into following said science too hard.Also notice how people can post low skilled 'slop' on twitter or wherever and gets trillions of likes. Filling skilled artists with anger and jealousy behind closed doors. Why? because the slop actually makes regular people feel something.Say you were to go to Artstation and stay on the front page, what would you do? scroll scroll scroll past dozens & dozens of high quality art while picking out the few you are actually interested in.Raw fidelity is ZZZ unless it's by someone you personally have contact with or have a parasocial relationship with. Without that connection, you'd have to be intrigued by the artwork in some way other than how high quality it is to engage with it, even as an artist.But hey, making the same things as everyone else is the tried and trusted way of being able to make money doing this
>>993781This isn't about doing the best they could in a skill sense as much as it is that not everyone had Supercomputer render farms like on Jurassic Park. Hardware was a significant limiting factor on how CG and games were designed.It's kind of impressive how, with all this new power we have today, most of it is being wasted on extremely awful lighting algorithms and TAA that hide how spotty things are, with a SIGNIFICANT performance cost across the board.>>994527This is 100% true, but also not. You can do amazing things with PBR if you're willing to look at the full gamut of texture maps you can use (specular can wildly change reflectance color for instance) but most issues are Post Processing Volumes with wildly blown out HDR.By the way, wanna know how to fix this in your blender renders? Turn this setting to 'Standard'. The AGX setting washes out everything really bad.
>>994468They used Softimage 3d for modeling in Riven but not sure which renderer it think it didn't yet have Mental Ray back then.
>>995034Lmao
>>994585I've done some stuff on canvas yes but I prefer ink and pixels.
Nostalgia hits different.
I don't like the 90s
>>998651Because you have bad taste
>>998662Please be nice to him he was sexually abused as a child during the 90s and seeing images like that brings up bad memories
