Graphics vs Aesthetics

[MaxwellGT2000]

Doobie_wop said:

MaxwellGT2000 said:

Doobie_wop said:

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.

Most likely much like myself he didn't mention a popular title to keep the fanatics from going crazy, as he already made a point about Killzone 2, if he had said Parappa looked aesthetically better than Killzone 2, people would be shitting bricks to tell him he's wrong on that point instead of focusing on the actual point of the video which is 100% right.

And you complaining he said Killzone 2 doesn't have a good aesthetic proves that point  

Meh, he should have used something that supported his argument more, like Medal of Honour or something. I like that he made the video, I just wish he could have made his point clearer. The only reason I used Killzone 2 in my argument because that is what he used, had he said Crysis or Dead Space, I would have made the same argument.

This thread died quickly after my post... hate being late to thread discussions.

Uh but Crysis/Crysis 2 has a wide color range and so does Dead Space, he was talking about Killzone 2 because it really is just intense graphics without making an impression, I mean if you really want to have this discussion, in Killzone 2 things just simply blend in together because of the color palette and artistic design they chose.  

I watched my friend as he was looking for a path in Killzone 3 when piloting the mech but didn't see it for a second cause of the colors blending in and it all looked like rubble, not to mention all the motion blur they threw in gave him motion sickness and hurt his eyes. 

That simply is not good aesthetics but careful attention to detail like the video said you can avoid issues like that and have a style that not only leaves an impression but it's also something you can call your own, you don't look at Uncharted 2 and go wow that looks like a lot of shades of brown and too much bloom lighting... no it has it's own artistic flair and pieced together carefully even when it's going for a realistic design.  

You sound more like you're just offended he picked on Killzone and for whatever reason trying to say he could call out these games that have their own style which would be going against his point.