thetonestarr said:
nitekrawler1285 said:
Chrizum said:
I understand the point of the video and I agree with it, but that guy (and everyone in this thread so far) is still wrong.
There is no difference between graphics and aesthetics. Gamers have made up this distinction when number of polygons and texture resolutions became a big deal. Truth is, define the word "graphics". Simply put, it means "visual representation". Sure, polygons and textures are part of that, namely the technical part. The other side is the art direction. Technical capabilities art direction = graphics = aesthetics = visuals. It's all the same. And yes, art direction has a bigger influence on a game's graphics than its technical specifications. That's the point of the video and it's all true. But stop mixing up these semantics. Graphics = technical capabilities art direction, period.
|
I totally concur with you. How the hell are we even supposed to have aesthetics if nothing is being displayed to the screen. The graphics are the aesthetic. They can design those graphics to be more or less aesthetically pleasing but it's still just graphics.
|
Are trees and rivers the same thing? Just because you can't have a tree without the water to feed it doesn't mean the two are one and the same. Aesthetics require a degree of graphical ability in order to happen, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever in which the two are the same.
|
It's the same way framed art is just a bunch of lines or paint or oil. Some arrangements people like better and consider them art. The "aesthetic" of any game is just how you percieve the graphics. Some can be planned and arranged better than others but it's still just your opinion of the graphics.
