2w ago

Whenever I bring up the pros and cons of technical formats, there’s always that one guy who sighs and says, “Why can’t we just enjoy things?”

Well, here’s the twist: I’m not stopping you from enjoying anything—I’m showing you how to enjoy it more.

An NES sings on a CRT. A Game Boy shines on an LCD. Developers weren’t designing these games in a vacuum—they tuned them for the quirks of the hardware, the glow of the screen, the way phosphors or pixels reacted. Strip that context away, and sure, the game still runs—but some of its intended texture vanishes.

I’m not here to spoil your fun. I’m here to say: if you think the magic’s gone, maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s just lost in translation—and you’ll be floored once you see it the way it was meant to be seen.

@videogames@piefed.social

2 comments

You remind me of this quote from Richard Feynman, flawed human, brilliant physicist and gifted communicator:
I have a friend who’s an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. Then he says “I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing,” and I think that he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe…
I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there’s also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
- https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeasuringTheMarigolds also shares this perspective!
  I think for some people, learning all the science of it feels overwhelming or they just aren't interested and just want to appreciate the visuals and scent of a flower. Stack on stereotypes and false dichotomy where scientists are cold and dispassionate with no appreciation of the humanities, and of passionate sensitive artists, and we have the idea that getting more technical equals missing out or not really appreciating something.
  I think this is what is happening with OP's "can't we just enjoy?" guy. For people like OP and many on Lemmy, all this technical stuff adds to enjoyment and is part of appreciating beauty. For the guy, it's something they are just not interested in and would remove enjoyment for them (+ gain from the things OP lists yes, but - all the effort spent learning about something they are disinterested in. In short, the guy thinks the juice is not worth the squeeze). Now maybe the guy really would appreciate more with all the details, but it is also possible he's right and it would sap him of his enjoyment.