The only people I've heard describe more than a handful of old games as "beautiful" have been those old enough to have experienced them before newer games came along. The original article doesn't seem to have examples of what the author considers beautiful, but let's talk about Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, a Lucasarts game from 1992 (since this is one I played in the early 90s). The art is ... fine. It has a lot of constraints (low resolution, not a ton of colors available in its palette) and it's well executed within those constraints, but it's not beautiful. I also played Myst around the same time. I didn't then, and still don't, see any way in which the 2d pixel art was "more beautiful."
The cross-genre comparisons to shooters are also unfair. Compare something like Madden 95 on SNES to Madden 64 on N64. They both have jagged edges and visual crudity; the "pixel art" nature of the former does it no favors.
Don't know why your comment is in gray, but I think you are 100% correct. "Beautiful" in games is inherently relative to the context. Space Quest 1 was so damn gorgeous compared to what I've seen before it, I still love it to this day in all its 4-color glory. Does it look beautiful to random strangers who don't know what CGA was? Heck, no.
Beauty is always relative to the context, even outside videogames. That's why I disagree with the parent post you're replying to. Indy and the Fate of Atlantis is beautiful to me. Space Quest also is.
The other day I saw a comment on YouTube mentioning that the EGA (16 color) version of The Curse of Monkey Island looks better than the VGA (256 color) version, and I agree! Beauty to me is mastery of the art form within its limitations. The limitations often make better art (the quintessential example to me is how the original Star Wars looks better, for example in its minimalistic depiction of a barren Tatooine, than the remixes or the prequels; once George Lucas was free of technical and budget limitations, his "boundless" imagination turned out to be disappointing).
I even think some games look better in pixelated monochrome glory. Is it because I am an old fart? Maybe. But I'm not wrong, either.
The only people I've heard describe more than a handful of old games as "beautiful" have been those old enough to have experienced them before newer games came along. The original article doesn't seem to have examples of what the author considers beautiful, but let's talk about Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, a Lucasarts game from 1992 (since this is one I played in the early 90s). The art is ... fine. It has a lot of constraints (low resolution, not a ton of colors available in its palette) and it's well executed within those constraints, but it's not beautiful. I also played Myst around the same time. I didn't then, and still don't, see any way in which the 2d pixel art was "more beautiful."
The cross-genre comparisons to shooters are also unfair. Compare something like Madden 95 on SNES to Madden 64 on N64. They both have jagged edges and visual crudity; the "pixel art" nature of the former does it no favors.