racketboy.com

It seems to me that neither aesthetic nor technical detail are the true meat of graphics. When a reviewer says "good graphics" they typically mean simply that they like how it looks, and often how it animates and moves as well. That's it. Just like with any other visual art or medium opinions win the day.

isiolia wrote: Still, to me, the greater techology gets, the more the look/feel of a game is based on the designer's intentions, not simply what they could manage to do with the hardware.

That is true when you look at how limited the hardware used to be. But first we had "3D for the sake of 3D", like Rayman 1 -> Rayman 2 and now everything has to be "realistic", like Naughty Dog ignoring Crash Bandicoot&Jak and Daxter franchises so they could make Uncharted games and there are less arcadey games around (even though "realistic" games like SKATE and modern warfare are far from being true to life or realistic, the trend among games like that seems to be to make things to seem more like real life when compared to Tony Hawk's Pro Skater or Crazy Taxi for example). There really havent been much of mainstream games like Psychonauts or Okami during this console generation.

Menegrothx wrote:There really havent been much of mainstream games like Psychonauts or Okami during this console generation.

Eh, they were sort of the exception at the time too, and you still have the occasional release like that now. El Shaddai, Kameo, Rachet & Clank, Majin and the Forsaken Kingdom, etc.

In general, I tend to see things a lot more as being comic-book "realistic" than actually trying for photorealism. Stuff like Enslaved, Alice: Madness Returns, Gears of War, Darksiders, or God of War that's bigger and bolder than life.

They can do more detail, so they're doing more detail. Some previous styles were likely done because they were conducive to technical limitations at the time. Abstract, cartoony styles are great when you want to keep polygon count low and reduce texture sizes (or use garoud shading).

Well I guess everyone is confused just as much as I am

Personally I would rate graphics based on aesthetics and art direction, if its eye candy or not. Why would I care how many polygons or colors on screen , if I don't like to look at it?
I am pretty sure I have seen SNES games that looked more beautiful to me than some 360 games.

But then , that brings us to another question, do we all agree on the same aesthetics or do we have different tastes? Can some one look at Diablo and say "man those are awesome graphics" and another would say "those graphics suck big time!!"

When I rate graphics, I go by how the game looks overall, considering the art quality, technical quality, and the system's limitations.

kingmohd84 wrote:But then , that brings us to another question, do we all agree on the same aesthetics or do we have different tastes? Can some one look at Diablo and say "man those are awesome graphics" and another would say "those graphics suck big time!!"

Aesthetics are subjective, at least to a point.

Much like any art, there exists the possibility of objectively bad work. Games, at least in part, contain elements of graphic design as well, since their visuals exist in order to convey information to the player. So I'd also say they can be judged, for good or bad, on that level as well. For example, electing to hide interface elements might make for a nice, clean look, but also serve to make the game more annoying to play.

People are usually refering to color, which is kind've stupid because there are a lot of other important graphical aspects that people take for granted, such as animation. I'm tired of seeing dead looking games getting 10/10 for graphics, just because of color palette.

marurun wrote:It seems to me that neither aesthetic nor technical detail are the true meat of graphics. When a reviewer says "good graphics" they typically mean simply that they like how it looks, and often how it animates and moves as well. That's it. Just like with any other visual art or medium opinions win the day.

Fully agree here. The question really being asked is "is this visually pleasing?" There are a lot of things that can be unpleasing. For example, if the animation are jerky or textures look terrible (and I'm talking layperson terrible) that would be considered bad graphics even if the polygon density is extreme. On the flip side a well executed 2D throwback game that uses highly pixelated images can have good graphics because the whole thing is still visually appealing.

MrPopo wrote:

marurun wrote:It seems to me that neither aesthetic nor technical detail are the true meat of graphics. When a reviewer says "good graphics" they typically mean simply that they like how it looks, and often how it animates and moves as well. That's it. Just like with any other visual art or medium opinions win the day.

Fully agree here. The question really being asked is "is this visually pleasing?" There are a lot of things that can be unpleasing. For example, if the animation are jerky or textures look terrible (and I'm talking layperson terrible) that would be considered bad graphics even if the polygon density is extreme. On the flip side a well executed 2D throwback game that uses highly pixelated images can have good graphics because the whole thing is still visually appealing.

Then why do I see a lot of annoyingly jerky games get 10/10 when it comes to graphics?

Aaendi wrote:

MrPopo wrote:

marurun wrote:It seems to me that neither aesthetic nor technical detail are the true meat of graphics. When a reviewer says "good graphics" they typically mean simply that they like how it looks, and often how it animates and moves as well. That's it. Just like with any other visual art or medium opinions win the day.

Fully agree here. The question really being asked is "is this visually pleasing?" There are a lot of things that can be unpleasing. For example, if the animation are jerky or textures look terrible (and I'm talking layperson terrible) that would be considered bad graphics even if the polygon density is extreme. On the flip side a well executed 2D throwback game that uses highly pixelated images can have good graphics because the whole thing is still visually appealing.

Then why do I see a lot of annoyingly jerky games get 10/10 when it comes to graphics?

Examples, please.