Graphics vs Aesthetics

[Doobie_wop]

MaxwellGT2000 said:

Very VERY good video and it is informative to those that don't seem to realize a game like NSMB Wii looks better than Terminator Salvation...

I don't think a lot of people would think Terminator Salvation looked better than NSMB. 

 

OT: The video was poorly presented, I can't think of a single time when someone brought up a game like Golden Axe, compared it to Ico and called it a better looking game. If they said it was better graphically, then yes they are right, but I think everyone is in agreement that Ico is a better looking game.

His biggest mistake was assuming that just because a game was graphically demanding, then it couldn't be aesthetically pleasing. Games like Killzone 2 look amazing because of what they use the graphical power for, the way they capture the lighting, the way they spread the smoke across the battlefield, the way that they use a gray palette and match it against the red of the Helghast. It didn't all just happen because they wanted it to look the most realistic, it was made that way because the developers wanted a certain look and it was best achieved by having a high graphical performance. If Killzone 2 was made to look like Medal of Honour, then he would have a point, but I think his assuming that dark games can't be good looking games aesthetically.

It'd be like comparing the 'Massacre of the Innocents' to the 'Portrait of Dr. Gratch', one is an extremely detailed and darker toned piece of work and the other is more colourful and simple, both offer different methods of portrayal, but neither are objectively better than the other.

I also think a lot of people in this thread have this idea that colour means better, but the day anyone tells me that Ninja Bread Man looks better than Call of Duty is the day my glare will burn holes into my monitor.