1. It's a technical aspect so yes.

2. If used correctly.

3. things should be added, but its fine now.

The most realistic human model would be the ugliest, and widely regarded as the worst graphics. The two are deeply interconnected and there is little point in trying to seperate them. One without the other is as good as having neither. While there are two different awards given, both are taken into consideration when giving the awards out. Wii Sports has amazing art direction, but gets no credit for not being technically advanced enough. Vanguard had super detailed models, but everything looked like shit because there was no art direction.

If you didn't see this coming then you might be blind. The arguement will not magically end at the end of page 1 either. If you want to have the arguements seperate from each other you will need to make different topics.

I think art direction must be considered part of graphics but i think that it's less common that art direction has such an impact on the graphically package compared to a simply technically stunning game. Okami and Metroid 3 are two recent examples that do come to mind. I also believe art direction is going to become more and more important as we head into an era where there will be less and less technical distinction between games.

For what it's worth I think the point of having three topics in one thread is a good idea as there have been quite a few threads recently that go on an on. If one of the topics really strikes a chord then people are free to start a thread to specifically to cover that topic.

I understand what you are saying fully but I think you are missing my point. It is impossible to seperate art direction from graphics. Technical prowess alone will make a game hideous and no one will say it has the best graphics despite being the most technically advanced.

For emphasis: It is impossible to seperate graphics from art direction.

Think again. I've seen lots of people saying that the Gamecube couldn't produce graphics like those on FFXII... yet we have Resident Evil 4, with a massive difference in polygon count, textures, effects and even resolution.

Yeah, I think they shouldn't have them separated. 

You shouldn't compare Okami and KZ2 directly because they have different art direction. One goes for super realistic and the other goes for creating a world that looks like it was painted on. The fact that one is less technically demanding than the other is mostly irrelevant.

As an example of what I am talking about in a more general sense I will refer to one of the Ratchet and Clank games (for those that don't get what I mean or disagree). No, I can't tell you which one exactly because I don't play them. Anyways, there was some extra trophy room like thing where they show off ideas they had that didn't make it in the game proper. One of them was super realistic water. If they devoted the everything the PS2 had they could make one square of realistic water. They had to disable everything though and that includes all the gadgets you normally collect. Was that one square of water the best graphics in the game? It was clearly the most demanding, but not really that much to see.

It depends on what you consider good looking. If you think Ratchet sitting in a pool of water that is only waist deep and is just wide enough to contain him beautiful then yeah it wins. But that is all you see. Everything else is a black background with barren walls and barren floor. It is like Ratchet was standing in an ultra realistic puddle.

Awards are always going to be subjective and are not worth considering. The awards should be given to those that make the worlds that best flow together or pay enough cash to the judges.

You said if it was the best looking part of the game it would have the best graphics so I was trying to paint you a picture, but it is very hard. If you really think the pinnacle of the games graphics was a simple puddle on the ground I feel bad for you.

You wouldn't stop the arguements at all. Which one is more realistic, which has better shader effects, which has better bloom, which has bettter anti-aliasing, and which has more polygons? People argue because it is natural to think your opinion is the correct one. Seperating artistic direction from power needed to produce the image will do nothing to reolve the conflict you want to. It will create a new arguement over which one is better though.

Well, maybe it shouldn't be since that has nothing to do with the actual technical portion of the visuals, but art direction is so influencial in what you see that it's impossible to separate it. Really, I keep wondering why there is so much praise for the new Sonic game (for those that aren't somehow amazed that those are actual Wii graphics) while I think it look like crap. I'm willing to admit it's because the art style sucks so bad and shows that they put no attempt into making the world actually seem alive, but the graphics aren't stunning to me in anyway because they look so lazy outside of a coupe of nice lighting techniques. On the otherhand, in terms of actual processing Ookami takes very little yet it looks absolutely fantastic.