Why don't we ever take into consideration the actual graphics?

You know, whenever people talk about graphics, they pretty much talk about one of two things, textures and scope.

Now, you do understand that you could make a field of 1 billion highly detailed cubes with insanely high resolution textures.  That being said, you could also do the same with really elaborate designs.

Basically, to simplify it, just look at Final Fantasy 13- it's more than detail, it looks, well, good.  I can make a 12k golden turd, but how about and 11k gold cat?

Or Halo works as well (they put so many details, not details in a sense like the static detail of gears 2- generic vines all around, but true details)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eCC10U7PBk




Crysis is the king of detailing the environment.  That being said, it's all flat details.  Make a bush, place it 1000 times over. 



--- This all came to mind when playing Lost Odyssey.  I saw that effect when you get healed (the magic aurora type thing) and I thought, graphics aren't all technical.  And that means far more than having art style.  
---- And I can't stress the whole this is not an art style thread.  TO be hoenst, I think Eternal Sonata looks like crap graphically.  I'm talking about straight up how good a model looks. So I guess you could say the actual formation of the polygons and how the textures dress them combined with the lighting.

Another way to put this:

This is much more superior to most other paintings. 


 

That being said, which would you rather have a copy of?

Dunno. In just the graphics department, I think MadWorld dominates everything else out there due to its style, crispness and sheer beauty. I don't care if it's low-res. It's incredible looking.

"Dunno. In just the graphics department, I think MadWorld dominates everything else out there due to its style, crispness and sheer beauty. I don't care if it's low-res. It's incredible looking."

I don't get your complaint. Are you mad people aren't superficial enough when it comes to game? I mean, people talk in depth about the actual graphical quality specifically but you want people to... what? Talk about the fact that the game looks good in general?

The picture with the dogs looks better.

I understand what you mean, but graphics don't mean hell of a lot to me anyway.

Hmm... how to put it.  While there is the technical world, and the artistic world, what about detail world?  

So not art style, not textures.   How about the world the actual game creates?


For example, I'm a (hobbiest) modeler myself.  I spend quite a bit of time working on the actual shape of things.  Yea, I could leave it the way it is.  It's pushing the same amount of polygons, it has the same art style, but there's something about making the world actually well.


To make it simple: Mario- THe hub worlds- the castle versus the observatory. 

"The picture with the dogs looks better.

I understand what you mean, but graphics don't mean hell of a lot to me anyway."

"Hmm... how to put it.  While there is the technical world, and the artistic world, what about detail world?  

So not art style, not textures.   How about the world the actual game creates?

• The technical and the artistic make sense. They are separate concepts that contribute to the game but detail? The detail is subject to the art and technical style so how can it be it's own concept?

• The world created is the combination of art style and textures, taken as a whole. That is the extent of what is presented.

Pretty pictures =  good graphics as far as almost everyone is concerned.

I don't bother to worry about the technical side of  graphics, and probably wouldn't understand them all that well anyway.  At the end of the day, a great looking game is a great looking game.  We all know them when we them.

Remember the first time you fired up the original Gears of War on the Xbox 360, and marveled at how stunning it looked? I'm sure there's all sorts of great ways to describe the graphics on the technical level, but I believe it was the non-technical ones that said it best:  H*ly Sh*t!

Sounds like your just talking about art style vs. textures and geometry.  For me it really comes down to the goals a game is trying to achieve aesthetically.  If they want that super immersive tons of polygons and millions of repeated textures - fine, if it fits the context of the experience.  But you can stylize a game with low-res everything and still convey the sense of environment or emotion you are striving for effectively.

When you look at the geometry of a game in a technical sense then it all comes down to poly count and all that, and when you look at it in terms of the way all the polygons come together to form a design then that's its art style. I'm pretty sure what you are trying to describe is actually art style. The design of the game world contributes to the games overall art style just as much as textures and effects.

The world is created by a mix of technical power and art design and nothing more.....there isn't some hidden third branch that is beyond that. Everyone today either seems to go for the photo realistic design, or the destinct art style design that they choose. Everyone has different opinions of the way game graphics look also, and I myself take plenty into consideration of different games, especially by genre. Fallout 3 , having a huge world(sorta like a gta game environment) obviously isn't going to be the absolute best looking game in terms fo technical perspective, but the huge draw distances and vistas considered, you have to take it for what it is.

You just have a different opinion on your favoring of what graphics you like than others is what it comes down to, just by your halo to gears comparison. I think Halo looks like ass, the second I saw Halo 3, I was nearly sure it was just an up ressed halo 2....it looks like shit to me visually, and especially after seeing Gears 1, a year before halo 3 even was released, I expected it to look far better, and it could of.(Hell it wasn't even in 720) We, like you and almost anyone else just have a difference in preference I guess, but the main part of any games graphics is just a combination of technical power and art design, it just differs from what direction they choose to go in with the game.

I choose the dogs. But... but I like dogs, not lame looking "heroes".

You're talking about the art assets not the "graphics"

..................................sort of. so ok gears 1 was all grey and how you say but it was like a punch in the face with graphical awesomeness when you first laid eyes on it.

best graphics evAR right here kidz

"I would much rather have the dog painting. I don't want some crappily drawn emo anime garbage on my wall."

Where do I get that sweet painting of some dogs?