Recently I got some older Zelda-games. As I give them short time to try, I noticed how great the graphics of Windwaker is (in my opinioin). I know, that the graphic style is more simple than in Zelda:Twighlight princess, but I personally prefer the graphics in Windwaker. So I start thinking, that makes me like or dislike graphics of a game. It's not that simpler graphic is better. No, I don't think that simpler graphic is generally better. The old 2D-Zeldas look not as good as Zelda:TP. Or early 3D-games like the first 'Alone in the dark' are simply ugly and definitely not as good looking, as modern 3D-games. But why can a much simpler graphic, be an eyecatcher? Same thing for cinema. We had all the time realistic looking movies. But at some point unrealistic movies, like 'toy story' began to be very successful. Renaissance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386741/) is another example. The graphic in the movie is very simplicistic (only black and white and few shades of grey) but it looks great. So I came up with the following theory, that makes graphic 'great' or not: * It should be as realistic as possible to look good. * There should be then broken with realism in some well-chosen (in art-style) and interesting way. Except from that, keep on with maximum reality, but stick to your chosen way. This combination creates great graphics. What do you think? Is my theory totally bullshit or is something true about it? What do you think makes the difference between good graphics and great graphics? Discuss!

I forget who it was, I think he was some game developer with Sega, recently mentioned how it's possible to make prettier graphics with 16 colors than someone using 1,000 colors (I paraphrase). 

I don't think you can pin down what makes great graphics since everyone is different in what they like.  I personally think great graphics are an even mix of realism and art style.  Some would prefer pure realism (like Crysis) and some pure art style (such as Wind Waker and Okami).  I think the best looking upcoming game is Super Mario Galaxy.  It looks realistic while not losing its bright, colorful, and artsy presentation.  Others would obviously disagree but that's why I think it's impossible to definitively say what constitutes great graphics.

I think art style is everything. Diffrent styles work better in diffrent ways. If you want it to look like a classic game, yet have all the beautiful 3d frills and such. WindWaker is a great example of how to make a new game look classic, yet look new.

Some games, a prime example RedSteel. I feel that game would look 4x better if it had a more cartoony style. The Wii does not have enough power to push that style graphics and look good. However if it was cartoony styled, I feel it would have looked MUCH better. (and possibly not given me killer migranes)

I think diffrent styles work better at diffrent power levels. 2d games like FF1-6 will always look the best on a SNES. Polygon style, with little/no textures will always look bet on low power systems. N64-GameCube. Cell shaded graphics will look more like the classic style games, but you can add textures, but still make it look classic, and give it a unique twist, and it is GameCube/Wii power. Realism graphics are PS3/360+ power.

The PS3/360 can do everything the others can. However the SNES can not do any type of 3D, and be really, better looking than a 2d style game.

This applies to all generations. Past, Present and Future. This is not me attacking the Wii's power. This is just putting it where it is. 

Art style has a big effect on it. Its not about processor power necessarily, but a game that doesn't have good art ages quite horribly. This is why a game like Starcraft still looks good-- its not necessarily graphical horsepower, but rather the art style ages gracefully

 Exactly. Same reason FF6 looks great today.
Same reason Mario64 looks great today...
And the same reason GodFather looks bad. (too low quality to simulate realism so it looks bad)

There should be a certin 'level' for certin types of art. Like Okami, is pure art. It is a beautiful game, and will remain that way for a very VERY long time. Will games look better? yes. more beautiful? No. 

Very good points made here, and this is why I'm a bit of a graphics whore.  I personally LOVE to see what the creation capabilities of hardware rendering in real time are... i love pushing the boundaries and seeing the little things that they can start to do.  That is why when HDR lighting came around it made games look SOOO much different that it was so refreshing, and why it is the new lens flare.

I think Motorstorm has that nice high res pixel look too it but it's not that overly impressive to me, technically it's okay but it doesn't feel or look right... i dunno what it is about that but it's just OKAY to me.

But there is something i'm seeing lately that I think makes games look incredible... namely take a look at Lego Star Wars on 360.  I think that game looks amazing, yet the textures and the graphics are very simple (and it's a shit game) but there is some sort of blur effect on the areas of the screen that aren't in focus, I haven't seen a lot of games doing this (or maybe i'm just blind) I think GRAW2 has it too. (Wii Sports Boxing has it).

I personaly prefer the graphics in Wind Waker to Twilight Princess (infact I like that game better as a whole than TP).  I LOVE cel shaded and anime stylised graphics, that's why Grandia II dispite it not being graphically MASSIVE is one of my favourite looking games EVER.  Not from a technical point but from the way it looks.

It's all art style.  Before recent a lot of graphics have been looking like shiney plastic which i hated, i hated that sector of that age of graphics (think Doom 3).

All a bit of ramblings, but for me it all comes down to style and art direction rather than pure technical wow... however when I see things done on hardware (like RE4 on the GCN hardware) that makes me go WOW they are pushing THAT out of the POS then that is impressive to me.

So far the only thing on the Next Gen consoles that have given me that techincal WOW they are doing that on that hardware spec is Gears of War, nothing else has caught it yet.  I'm looking forward to seeing Ratchet and Clank running on PS3 cause I think that might be the next one :)

Lair -- MEH to me.

(begin biased part of post) Lair looks good, it looks like I feel a PS3 game should look, divided by 2. I am more intrested in Heavenly Sword for graphics. However the cnimematic on Lair looks amazing. If there is little/no loading on Lair, I think I can give it ALOT more credit.

I am kinda reserve when it comes to games that wow me graphically. I havent r ealy been to impressed this generation, and I agree with Origin, that motorstorm has the high res pixel, but the textures look great... but they dont look real... yet that is what it is meant to be. So even though it looks 75% better than a PS2 game. I dont feel it looks amazing, as it is meant to look real. It dont. Guess what. If it's meant to look real and it dont, it dont matter if it looks like moving blobs, or 'something is not quite right' real. It failed it's art goal. To look real.

My love for motorstorm is the gameplay.

 (end biased part of post)

Great post you got there OriGin. I agree with everything you have to say 100% 

Definitely good post again Kwaad, there are the type of posts that I enjoy debating or talking about with you (which i have enjoyed much in the past, and this is what makes this forum good).

I agree with Heavenly Sword, but I don't think that will come for my eyes sooner than Ratchet and Clank, Ratchet has that wow amazing how is that possible look.  Crysis is also like that, but I don't know it might need super mega beast of computer to get those graphics.  If when I upgrade my cpu mobo and ram with the 8800 it doesn't run on my computer i'll be hella disappointed, if it needs sli 8800 GTX to run like the videos then I'll be disappointed, i like it when devs take advantage over hardware.

Lair, the cut scenes look OK to me, I did think it looked good, but not astronomical and not anything special, there is too much that doesn't look real or 'right' the fireballs have fire trails that appear out of no where, the grass looks the same as motorstorm which is a disappointment to me.

Kwaad have you played Excite Truck?? Personally I hate that game (i hate using Wii controls like that, just like Sonic SUCKS BALLS) - I'm sure you don't play Motorstorm with the tilt AMIRIGHT?  If I could play Excite Truck with a joystick (I haven't seen if you can but I doubt it) then I would like that game way more than Motorstorm, as an offroad racer that's what I would prefer, but because I hate the controls of Excite Truck (yep I like the Wii some of the Wii direction but steering with a bar in thin air is NOT one of them) then I actually prefer Motorstorm, it's just to slow and boring for me... so I'd prefer Excite Truck - does that make sense?  Overall I'm not a fan of racing games that aren't all about drifting so in the end neither of them really appeal to me that much.

But yeah, you know what I mean about the hi res pixel look so that's good, it's hard to explain that one.

Super Paper Mario in 2D I think will suit me very well, it's not pushing the hardware, but there are no jaggies no shimmer just a clean cartoon screen.

Eternal Sonata / Rusty Bell for 360 will look foogin fantastic, Blue Dragon I believe will use the blur effect I'm talking about as well.

You make a good point about the aging of graphics I think. Tech demos may be amazing at the time they come out, then it loks new compared with everything already out (although I didn't liked the graphics of doom back then). But some games look great later too, and that happens with good art style.

You said here something what I meant with my original post, but didn't find the right words: art goal. For good graphics you have to find a art goal and stick to it, no matter what happens. Thanks for giving me the right words.