lol what do you have against Crysis ?

Fantastic realistic artstyle. Many effects, especially lighting effects, more beautiful than in real life.

So Graphics can be measured and there is a definitive best,  Aesthetics are opinion and no one can say what looks better than all else as a definitive as its on a person to person basis.  

You'd think something like this would be obvious.

Aesthetics >>>>>>>>>> graphics

If graphics can be measured, why do we have so many lengthy debates about which version of two identical pictures is better?

Aesthetics take creativity and that's not something everyone could just pull from their random hobbies.

Probably because they dont understand what they are talking about, like most people that get into arguements

I've been saying for years that there's a difference between polygon count and graphical output compared to art design and detail.  This is why I still think some games like Dragon Quest VIII, Resident Evil Remake and Muramasa are still some of the best looking games out there.  People can have their Crysis and cross-platform FPS with 1% degree of difference in processing power.  I'll look for the games with unique design, non-stock character movement and faces that don't look like they came off of an action figure.

Imo people are more impressed by hyperrealism because their eyes are used to the color paterns and geometries. It's easyer to recognise something when it's life like. That's a reason why artistic games sell less. When arts are pushed by hyperrealism the results are incredible. Games like Final Fantasy, God Of War, Halo to name a few are a good example. Games that mainly focus on art are less praised by the non loving artstyle public because they believe it's not as "good" looking. I have so many friends that still think that cell shading games are not good looking (JSRF/Okami) they'd rather play the better looking ones (COD). But it's their choice and different tasted for different people.

great vid!

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 plus 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 plus art direction, period.

EDIT: damn plus sign not working *shakes fist*