Vector vs Raster Exhibition Interview
Pixels vs. Lines: Chicago Gamespace Presents the Battle that Shaped Gaming’s Golden Age
by Vasia Rigou for Newcity Magazine
Discover the evolution of video-game graphics, from pixelated raster images to sleek vector lines, tracing the iconic styles that defined gaming’s visual history at “Vector vs. Raster“—an exhibition that brings to life the historic rivalry between the two kinds of graphics, showcasing how this technological duel shaped the early years of arcade gaming. From sharp asteroids hurtling through space to iconic ghosts chasing Pac-Man, “Vector vs. Raster” brings vibrant arcade history to life. Co-curators Jonathan Kinkley and Ethan Johnson offer a behind-the-scenes look at the art and science of preserving these digital classics, the design battles that shaped the arcade era, and the lasting impact on video-game aesthetics and innovation. Get ready to be transported back in time and see the future of gaming through its most pivotal rivalry.
In the rivalry between vector and raster graphics, what distinct qualities and gaming experiences do each of these formats offer to players, as highlighted in the Chicago Gamespace exhibition?
Jonathan Kinkley: Think of Taito and Midway’s Space Invaders (1978) and Atari’s Asteroids (1979): both are black-and-white, both have space themes, both were blood-pumping massive hits in arcades and [are] stars of our exhibition, but Space Invaders utilizes raster graphics and Asteroids is vector. Raster graphics are comprised of a grid of pixels and vector graphics are made using lines and shapes from mathematical equations. There is this captivating electronic radiance effect and fluidity and precision of animation to vector graphics in games like Asteroids. There is a lovely halo around your laser beams you fire at asteroids. This is in contrast to the jerkier, blockier Space Invaders, where the pixels all have the same luminosity. Raster graphics have an endearing blocky pixel aesthetic all of their own, but it’s easy to see why some companies thought vector was the winning horse worth betting on in these early, contested days.
How does the experience of playing preserved emulations compare to the original arcade machines, particularly in terms of gameplay fidelity and visual authenticity?
Ethan Johnson: As Seamus Blackley [head engineer of the first Xbox in 2001] told me, in seeking to preserve these games we’ve often destroyed the experience. Not only is there a physical aspect to handling the controls and feeling the sound, there are physical aspects to the experience too. Space Invaders has a reflected painting to display the planet. Duck Hunt has the light gun that can’t be recaptured on modern televisions. And of course, vector games have a glowing light that seems unreal. Several people have asked me what makes Asteroids look the way it does. These are things you can only experience in person.
Jonathan Kinkley: Wherever possible Gamespace tries to exhibit original games in their original formats. In the case of “Vector vs. Raster,” the exhibition does have one emulation on an iPad and that is Jack Burness’ 1973 Moonlander. It was a game originally made for the Digital Equipment Corporation’s GT40 computer and vector graphic terminal. The game is incredibly hard, and it’s difficult to stick a smooth landing, much like real life, but it’s remarkably timely to include with the recent Japanese and American lunar landing efforts in recent weeks. For the exhibition narrative, it’s important because Atari employees saw it and later created the vector game Lunar Lander that started Atari’s foray into vector graphics. Developer Rick Naro originally adapted Moonlander for the iPad in 2013 before Apple eliminated all 32-bit apps. Developer and friend of Gamespace Patrick McCarron was able to get it running for the public to enjoy on our iPad.
How does the exhibition address the cultural and technological significance of the transition from vector to raster graphics in shaping the future of video game design and player interaction?
Jonathan Kinkley: Arms races in technology formats like vector and raster graphics are extremely important to study and look back on. We’re seeing a multibillion dollar technology battle of the titans in the virtual reality and augmented reality space between Meta and Apple and the outcome has everything to do with public opinion. George Bernard Shaw is all too often correct when he said “We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” People and companies today can learn from vector’s demise. The death knell for vector was its graphical limits. In the arcade as the 1980s kicked off, full color became essential and rendering color is much more graphically complex and costly in vector graphics. And while vector graphics with their facile ability to scale shapes was more conducive to the illusion of three dimensions, as seen in the show with games like Battlezone and Star Wars, these were only wireframe outlines of three dimensions rather than full color representation that raster eventually made possible. Ultimately, the public voted with their quarters in favor of raster graphics. But looking back, what remains are these curious game artifacts from a forgotten time with unique aesthetics that look and feel very different from other games in the arcade and remain a thrill to experience.
“Vector vs. Raster” is at Chicago Gamespace through May 12.
