I am amazed after looking at FFXII on the PS2 last night. That game is gorgeous, it rivals most 360 games in beauty, it's almost next-gen. But it's not a game I'd call ultra-realisitc. Art design and graphics-wise.
BTW, RE4 was fucking fantastic.
How Detailed Should Games Be Graphically?
Wow -- you two always find something to quarrel about.
I feel like I need to play referee in a boxing match and push you apart when things get too heated
Anyway -- why is it that all the media is so big into RE4?
I feel like I need to play referee in a boxing match and push you apart when things get too heated
Anyway -- why is it that all the media is so big into RE4?
Support Racketboy on Patreon
Follow Racketboy on Social: Instagram / Twitter / Facebook
Subscribe to Email Newsletter (Blog / Guide Updates Every Week or Two)
Follow Racketboy on Social: Instagram / Twitter / Facebook
Subscribe to Email Newsletter (Blog / Guide Updates Every Week or Two)
It is, isn't it? That girl at GameSpot is on drugs. She said the visuals were the weakest aspect. I really don't know why she has a job there.Indy_aka_Rex wrote:I am amazed after looking at FFXII on the PS2 last night. That game is gorgeous, it rivals most 360 games in beauty, it's almost next-gen.
Technology should give the artist as much detail as they need. I would love to see more 2D sprite based games jump to 640x480 or higher. Imagine if all the great Castlevania games that have come out in the past 10 years were of that detail level? Or what if the 3D and anti-aliasing capabilities of consoles were good enough to make a Final Fantasy that looked exactly like an Amano painting come to life?
Theres so much art direction that is hidden in the confines of console games. It's amazing how PS2 and Xbox games look when running at 2x the resolution on emulators. I'm feeling the same way about FF12 right now. I bet the artists aren't thrilled at how the game looks pixel for pixel compared to the original models they developed when designing the worlds and peoples. There is a Windows 3D model viewer for FFX that really blew me away if you want to see exactly what I'm talking about.
Theres so much art direction that is hidden in the confines of console games. It's amazing how PS2 and Xbox games look when running at 2x the resolution on emulators. I'm feeling the same way about FF12 right now. I bet the artists aren't thrilled at how the game looks pixel for pixel compared to the original models they developed when designing the worlds and peoples. There is a Windows 3D model viewer for FFX that really blew me away if you want to see exactly what I'm talking about.
I think I prefer cartoony to anything else.
As far as CG vs. Realtime, I'm gonna have to agree with SegaVega in that nice realtime feels a lot realer to me than nice CG. Perhaps I'm biased though, cause I'm always thinking about the techniques used as I'm a programmer. I used to spend a lot of time breaking down the graphical techniques in games and all that, but it's mostly gotten beyond me anymore.
I understand Mozgus's point of view though. I have friends that say the same thing. Like, I was just talking to a friend and they were saying that the graphics in Donkey Kong Country were awesome when it came out. Of course, I knew it was pre-rendered, so I felt like it was cheating. It *does* look nice, but the programming underneath is basically your standard Super Mario clone. Hmm. I am biased. I'm just thinking of the amount of work the PROGRAMMER is doing, and not the amount of work the artist has to do.
On that same line of thought, though, that's why I appreciate the artistic renderings in games like Okami and Zelda: Wind Waker. That takes a lot of work from the artist's perspective, as well as the programming perspective.
As far as CG vs. Realtime, I'm gonna have to agree with SegaVega in that nice realtime feels a lot realer to me than nice CG. Perhaps I'm biased though, cause I'm always thinking about the techniques used as I'm a programmer. I used to spend a lot of time breaking down the graphical techniques in games and all that, but it's mostly gotten beyond me anymore.
I understand Mozgus's point of view though. I have friends that say the same thing. Like, I was just talking to a friend and they were saying that the graphics in Donkey Kong Country were awesome when it came out. Of course, I knew it was pre-rendered, so I felt like it was cheating. It *does* look nice, but the programming underneath is basically your standard Super Mario clone. Hmm. I am biased. I'm just thinking of the amount of work the PROGRAMMER is doing, and not the amount of work the artist has to do.
On that same line of thought, though, that's why I appreciate the artistic renderings in games like Okami and Zelda: Wind Waker. That takes a lot of work from the artist's perspective, as well as the programming perspective.
Each game should have a cohesive aestethetic and that aesthetic should compliment the gameplay. The question, more rightfully, seems to be : are incongruous portions -- those between form and function -- ever warranted? I think the answer is yes, with a caveat.
A highly detailed and beautiful game will rarely save a game without satisfactory gameplay.
Inversely, a game with good gameplay can compensate for lack of form.
When the two reach harmony, its gaming nirvana. For instance, to bring many SHMUPs into play, having detailed 3d rendered backgrounds helps to create and sustain an atmosphere. These backgrounds are often superfluous to the gameplay itself, but help to lend a sense of scale and and ambiance. The game would still be playable without, but the form -- 3d rendered backgrounds -- surely elevate the gameplay.
Some of the things in the article strike me as absurd. The semi-realistic Dr Robotnic argument is interesting, except the fact that it compliments the stylistic leanings to the game -- all this would be moot, if the game itself, rocked. The latest slew of Sonic games have not rocked -- they have been dull since the Dreamcast. Whether this realistic styling is symtomatic of a lack of imagination, or engenders a lack of imaginative gameplay, I do not know.
The focus on Mario was equally silly. Nintendo, at least, has a more unified vision of what their intellectual property should be -- even at its most lifelike, it still looks like a cartoon. But in this case, it seems like a cowardly stance -- an inability to deviate from the norm, to try something new. One of the most frustraiting things for me, regarding Nintendo, is how they can have a unique game on their hands, but insist on dressing it up in the usual Mario garb. Instead of inventing a new aesthetic, with new characters, we are served a graphically superior rehash.
I will say this, however: regarding XBOX 360, I was impressed by the graphics of Kameo. The sky filled with dragons was impressive. It leant atmosphere, but was completely trivial.
What intersts me more, is how this argument can be brought to other topics. Literature, for instance, since the days of Hemmingway, has grown increasingly sparse and anemic. Where once prose was infused with poetry to lend depth to the story, to establish atmosphere and to compliment the essential idea, now we have a slew of writers which craft their tales with all the flare of a screenplay. What I want from literature, is what I like from games -- a marriage between style and substance -- an immersive, drug-like experience.
A highly detailed and beautiful game will rarely save a game without satisfactory gameplay.
Inversely, a game with good gameplay can compensate for lack of form.
When the two reach harmony, its gaming nirvana. For instance, to bring many SHMUPs into play, having detailed 3d rendered backgrounds helps to create and sustain an atmosphere. These backgrounds are often superfluous to the gameplay itself, but help to lend a sense of scale and and ambiance. The game would still be playable without, but the form -- 3d rendered backgrounds -- surely elevate the gameplay.
Some of the things in the article strike me as absurd. The semi-realistic Dr Robotnic argument is interesting, except the fact that it compliments the stylistic leanings to the game -- all this would be moot, if the game itself, rocked. The latest slew of Sonic games have not rocked -- they have been dull since the Dreamcast. Whether this realistic styling is symtomatic of a lack of imagination, or engenders a lack of imaginative gameplay, I do not know.
The focus on Mario was equally silly. Nintendo, at least, has a more unified vision of what their intellectual property should be -- even at its most lifelike, it still looks like a cartoon. But in this case, it seems like a cowardly stance -- an inability to deviate from the norm, to try something new. One of the most frustraiting things for me, regarding Nintendo, is how they can have a unique game on their hands, but insist on dressing it up in the usual Mario garb. Instead of inventing a new aesthetic, with new characters, we are served a graphically superior rehash.
I will say this, however: regarding XBOX 360, I was impressed by the graphics of Kameo. The sky filled with dragons was impressive. It leant atmosphere, but was completely trivial.
What intersts me more, is how this argument can be brought to other topics. Literature, for instance, since the days of Hemmingway, has grown increasingly sparse and anemic. Where once prose was infused with poetry to lend depth to the story, to establish atmosphere and to compliment the essential idea, now we have a slew of writers which craft their tales with all the flare of a screenplay. What I want from literature, is what I like from games -- a marriage between style and substance -- an immersive, drug-like experience.
Agreed on most counts. Certainly your remarks regarding the N64 mirror my own thoughts. What was most sad was how atrocious those textures looked on a normal TV -- still using component or rc interfaces, and the N64 still looked like shit compared to PSX or Saturn.Mozgus wrote:I dont require much. I have no need for all the fancy new-age graphical techniques. None of them add realism. Human flesh is NOT made of saran wrap! You can NOT see your reflection in mountains. Water does NOT move like jello. I have yet to see a single game which looks realistic on any of the next gen systems.
Having said that, all I ever ask for is sharp textures. Textures are the primary source for artistry in gaming. Whether it's 2D or 3D, sharp textures (with no noticeable repetitive patterns) make a world of difference. I hate blurry textures. Maybe that's one reason why I hated N64 so much.
But anyway, I will say that I am impressed by the amount of individual 3D entities that populate the latest games. I think Wreckless for the XBOX was the first game to throw an insane amount of background life into the game, which did make it slightly realistic in appearance. But in Wreckless, most of this was simply for show -- a throng of 3d rendered pedestrians which could not be squashed under tires, may look pretty, but has no practical use to the game. Going back to a favorite modern title -- despite its flaws -- Kameo succeeds in many respects becasue the screen depth equal to its width, and is populated by a slew of realisticly 3D rendered entities, each one of which has the potential to influcence the course of the game. The real kicker, the thing that makes me like the latest next-gen games, is the fact that those little details -- in this case, a single soldier in a vast army -- can influence the game.
-
metaleggman
- 128-bit
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:21 pm
You gotta be shittin me. While the best on the PS2 for sure, but with a component connection on a Gamecube or XBOX and you will get much better graphics. And it does not go anywhere near next gen titles. Not even the launch 360 titles look like it. Then again thats me opinion, so don't take offense towards itIndy_aka_Rex wrote:I am amazed after looking at FFXII on the PS2 last night. That game is gorgeous, it rivals most 360 games in beauty, it's almost next-gen. But it's not a game I'd call ultra-realisitc. Art design and graphics-wise.
I don't think "detailed" graphics really do anything for a game, except attract those who don't really buy for gameplay. If someone made a game that had atari 2600 graphics, long as the game was good, I would play it. Granted I wouldn't spend 50 dollars on it, but then again, I wouldn't spend 50 dollars on really any game. Fancy graphics are just an extra for me.
-
lordofduct
- Next-Gen
- Posts: 2907
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:57 pm
- Location: West Palm Beach
-
metaleggman
- 128-bit
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:21 pm