Graphical Fidelity vs Visual Style

[BreakABone]

This is a pretty minor debate, but I'm curious what is more important in a game.

A game that pushes the best state of the art visuals. Clean, crisp and nice looking.

Or a game that has a nice, unique visual style.

I'm not saying that these two facets are mutually exclusive (you can have a great looking and visually stunning game), but if you had to choose, what would it be?

[Schadenfreude]

Not sure what you're saying. Examples? Killzone 2 vs Wind Waker?

[BreakABone]

Not sure what you're saying. Examples? Killzone 2 vs Wind Waker?

That would be a bit tough to compare.

But since on same console, something like Twilight Princess vs Wind Waker.

Or, Borderlands vs Red Dead Redemption.

[manasecret]

It's hard to make them mutually exclusive. Even super realistic games have some art style to them, by the simple fact the game designers choose what items and colors are in the game. But, if we're to try putting them at two opposite extremes:

1. Super realistic graphics, but with no art style. Imagine bland colors and objects -- like an office building, but hyper-realistic.

2. Artistically stunning graphics -- but no realism. Imagine Picasso cubism, where you have a very difficult time figuring out what's going on, but the art of it is amazing.

No, there's just no way to figure out the two extremes that are completely mutually exclusive from each other. Either way, you're begging the question. With realistic graphics, you have to assume something bad about it (in my case, "bland colors" etc.). Of course no one is going to vote for bland colors. But on the other hand, a perfectly rendered sunset mountain scene would be impossible to be bland. The same thing with artistically stunning graphics. In my case, I assume the lack of realism makes it hard to know what's happening. Who wants to play a game like that? But what makes perfectly artistic graphics have to lack realism and be hard to tell what's going on? In all cases, extremely realistic games have some art direction, and extremely artistic looking games have some realism to them.

So how do you choose one over the other, when you can't separate the two?

EDIT: Or I guess you can go with concrete examples, which are fair game. But again, to take your example of Twilight Princess vs. Wind Waker. Twilight Princess does have art direction, and a very good one (IMO) at that. And Wind Waker has very good realism on top of its artistic style. The boat is rendered realistically, it moves realistically, the water is rendered and moves realistically, etc.

[KillerGremlin]

I just assume this is a "the Wii can be good even if it has shit graphics" thread and so the answer is NO you need graphic power and style will come from that. Wind Waker pushed the envelope in terms of graphics, AND it was a stylistic masterpiece. My understanding is the cel-shaded games required a good amount of umphhh to run.

This debate emerged this generation when it was announced that the Wii was packing the power of a slightly improved Gamecube.

You also have good graphics...good style...and mediocre or repetitious level design. I see games like Halo or Doom 3 which had great graphics and were stylistically AWESOME but had mediocre and repetitious level design. So I think you really have 3 categories: Graphics, Style, Design/Execution.

Too me, this whole discussion smacks of veiled retarded-ism. Of course better graphics are desired, how could they not be? Why put any limitations on the artist? Better graphics or more powerful graphics = better. Period. Having better graphics won't hinder art direction, and I don't buy into the argument that you get better art direction to compensate from lack of graphics.

[Typhoid]

Realistic Graphics will always be better, that is why it's ridiculous to even compare 'unique' graphic styles to games like Red Dead Redemption.

Wind Waker looks nice, sure. It looks like a comic book on my TV. But in no way is it as good as "realistic" graphic-games.

[BreakABone]

Okay, one this isn't a veiled Wii appreciation thread.

The idea actually spawns from playing Red Dead Redemption in comparison to Borderlands, which both kind of have a deserted town look going for it, but for some reason I think Borderlands' look is more I guess lively, even though Red Dead looks a hell of a lot better.

I guess what asking, isn't so much horsepower over visual style, but more going outside the box with visuals.

Modern Warfare 2 is a much better looking game, but I think Halo's visuals creates a more engrossing world. (Bad examples but generally point stands)

But this will turn into what it needs to turn into to fit whatever agenda it is people have

[Teuthida]

Not a gamer of this generation (currently playing Tetris on my Game Boy Pocket) and I really haven't played many games that would fall under the realism category but I'll offer my views since the same ideas can be equated to comics.

Firstly I'd suggest you folks watch the 10 min documentary I posted in Happy Hour about Pixel art and the appeal to style and simplification.

I think manasecret has got it backwards. Games with simpler more abstracted graphics are usually much clearer when it comes to what you can interact with. Whereas in a more realistic game who knows what items you character can pick up or alter rather than just being part of the scenery.

The graphics of a game or comic influence the mood and what can be done in that visual form. I think horror is a genre where for it to be truly scary you need as much realism as possible. Everything else...well...

Take Everquest 2 with it's superior graphics and realism

http://static2.videogamer.com/videogamer/images/pc/everquest_ii/screens/everquest_ii_41.jpg

and compare it the blockier and more stylized WoW

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/117157_f520.jpg

Which is more appealing?


Stylized games age much better than realistic games.

Medal of Honor on PSX:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/ps/MedalofHonorUnderground/mohu_b3_screen009.jpg

Crash Bandicoot on PSX:
http://membres.multimania.fr/crashtheworld/Crash%20Bandicoot%202%20Sewer%20Level.jpg

Next generation this is going to look outdated (that shrubbery is going to be laughable):
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/982/982182/red-dead-redemption-20090512040227580_640w.jpg

while a game like Super Mario Galaxy (not shilling for the Wii, just don't know many current other games) or Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts will still look fresh.

Flash (and most superheroes) look utterly ridiculous when fully realistic.
http://www.dccomics.com/media/product/7/6/7642_400x600.jpg

Being able to exaggerate is key to making things interesting
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs22/f/2009/254/c/9/The_Flash_by_TXcrew.jpg


And then there's the whole issue of the uncanny valley.


So is realistic really always better?

[Professor S]

I think stylized graphics help to account for graphical inadequacies. The best move WoW made was understanding that it wouldn't be able to compete for long if they went for realism. They also wanted to be accessible on as many PCs as possible. Win for stylized.

But, it also depends on the type of game. Mass Effect 2 needed realism. The game carries such gravitas that to go with a stylized version of reality would have been a disservice.

[BreakABone]

I think stylized graphics help to account for graphical inadequacies. The best move WoW made was understanding that it wouldn't be able to compete for long if they went for realism. They also wanted to be accessible on as many PCs as possible. Win for stylized.

But, it also depends on the type of game. Mass Effect 2 needed realism. The game carries such gravitas that to go with a stylized version of reality would have been a disservice.

I actually don't agree with Mass Effect 2.

But I guess "realism" is subjective in this matter. I mean you start off the game, or at least I did with glowing scars which gets better or worse depending on if you are good or bad in the game.

From that point on, realism is kind of out the door.

But I guess you mean they went for more humane proportions.

[Professor S]

I actually don't agree with Mass Effect 2.

But I guess "realism" is subjective in this matter. I mean you start off the game, or at least I did with glowing scars which gets better or worse depending on if you are good or bad in the game.

From that point on, realism is kind of out the door.

BaB... They rendered Sherperd's stubble and skin blemishes. That is realism regardless of whether or not the scars glowed due to powerful implants/reconstruction. The subject matter may have been fantasy, but the art style definitely was not.

[BreakABone]

BaB... They rendered Sherperd's stubble and skin blemishes. That is realism regardless of whether or not the scars glowed due to powerful implants/reconstruction. The subject matter may have been fantasy, but the art style definitely was not.

But to use "realism" in reference to a game that has imaginary alien races and planets and weapons and gears and powers.

And claiming the game needed it, seems odd to me.

Mass Effect doesn't scream realism and could have worked with a stylized graphical style as well.

[Typhoid]

But to use "realism" in reference to a game that has imaginary alien races and planets and weapons and gears and powers.

And claiming the game needed it, seems odd to me.

Mass Effect doesn't scream realism and could have worked with a stylized graphical style as well.

Nobody said the games plot was real.
Just that the game looked as real as a game can arguably look for now.

[Professor S]

But to use "realism" in reference to a game that has imaginary alien races and planets and weapons and gears and powers.

And claiming the game needed it, seems odd to me.

A story of political intrigue, genocide, sex and hard moral choices with life and death consequences doesn't need realism?

To me the setting is irrelevant. The themes are what dictated the style.

Do you believe any game needs realism in graphics, or should they all look stylized regardless of the game's content?

[Xantar]

A story of political intrigue, genocide, sex and hard moral choices with life and death consequences doesn't need realism?


I've seen anime which deal with all these subjects, and they aren't the most accurate looking representations of life.

I'm not trying to knock your point which I actually agree with. I'm just trying to get you to be more careful in your terms. And I don't mean to pick on you because I don't think anybody in this thread has been very good about defining what they mean. The subject of this thread is "graphical fidelity vs visual style." Graphical fidelity is not the same thing as realism although they overlap. Something can be realistic while not looking anything like the real world. The Lord of the Rings movies look realistic most of the time, but they also break several laws of physics.

To me, realism does not imply fidelity to the actual world. It simply means that whatever is depicted is something I can recognize and can imagine it relating to my personal experience. A character does not have to have fully rendered beard stubble to be realistic to me. He just has to be depicted with the kind of traits and details that place him within my experience so that I think of him as a "real" person instead of as a cartoon character. On the other hand, you could render him so well that he looks completely indistinguishable from an actual human being, but I could imagine doing it in such a way that he comes off as unrealistic (if we can say that some characters depicted by human actors seem unrealistic, we can certainly say that about CGI too). What we then have is graphical fidelity.

So with that said and leaving aside realism, however we define that word, how important is graphical fidelity versus visual style? I come down on the visual style side of the debate, but that's because I fundamentally don't care if videogames resemble real life anyhow. As far as I am concerned, Mass Effect could have been rendered to look like a flat shaded anime and I would have been fine with it (as long as there were no schoolgirls shooting stars out of wands at people). That's just my personal preference and I'm not saying anybody else should think the same way. Besides, it's not an either/or proposition. It's just that if I had to make the choice, I would prefer that developers spend their time on something other than making their game look as much like what I've seen with my own eyes in real life.

[Professor S]

I've seen anime which deal with all these subjects, and they aren't the most accurate looking representations of life.

I'm not trying to knock your point which I actually agree with. I'm just trying to get you to be more careful in your terms. And I don't mean to pick on you because I don't think anybody in this thread has been very good about defining what they mean. The subject of this thread is "graphical fidelity vs visual style." Graphical fidelity is not the same thing as realism although they overlap. Something can be realistic while not looking anything like the real world. The Lord of the Rings movies look realistic most of the time, but they also break several laws of physics.

To me, realism does not imply fidelity to the actual world. It simply means that whatever is depicted is something I can recognize and can imagine it relating to my personal experience. A character does not have to have fully rendered beard stubble to be realistic to me. He just has to be depicted with the kind of traits and details that place him within my experience so that I think of him as a "real" person instead of as a cartoon character. On the other hand, you could render him so well that he looks completely indistinguishable from an actual human being, but I could imagine doing it in such a way that he comes off as unrealistic (if we can say that some characters depicted by human actors seem unrealistic, we can certainly say that about CGI too). What we then have is graphical fidelity.

So with that said and leaving aside realism, however we define that word, how important is graphical fidelity versus visual style? I come down on the visual style side of the debate, but that's because I fundamentally don't care if videogames resemble real life anyhow. As far as I am concerned, Mass Effect could have been rendered to look like a flat shaded anime and I would have been fine with it (as long as there were no schoolgirls shooting stars out of wands at people). That's just my personal preference and I'm not saying anybody else should think the same way. Besides, it's not an either/or proposition. It's just that if I had to make the choice, I would prefer that developers spend their time on something other than making their game look as much like what I've seen with my own eyes in real life.

Let me clarify: I believe that stories with such social and moral heft benefit greatly from realistic graphics. It is not necessaary, but I am hard pressed to believe that ME2 would have impacted me as much if it had the grphical design and fidelity of World of Warcraft.

As Marchall McLuhan once said: "The medium is the message". Video games are a very visual art-form, and I believe the visuals (and sound) impact the story and experience almost as much as the writing and overall design.

[TheGame]

Eh I kinda know what BaB means, but it's also hard to clearly define. I personally prefer games that aim for their own art style opposed to trying to be "realistic". You can, and will almost always fail at being realistic, but you can't lose when you're just aiming for your own personal art style. Plus when you're going for your own thing, the game is more likely to be timeless.

The games that come to mind for me are Final Fantasy XI and World of Warcraf. FFXI was an extremely beautiful game when it was first released, but if you play it nowadays it's limitations are very clear, and it looks aweful compared to newer games. While a game like WoW just aimed for the cartoonish look to start, and they chose freedom of movement over trying to make the game photo-realistic.. which helps it withstand the test of time more.

Yes Wind Waker did push the limitations of graphics in it's Gen, but because it has it's own art style, you can play that game next to any Wii, Ps3, or 360 game and it doesn't look out dated at all. While you can take some of those "realistic" games from last gen and they'll look laughably bad by comparision to current gen games (GTA games, MGS games, etc)

I've just found that todays "realistic" will be tomorrow's "unplayabe ugly".. while today's games that don't even attempt to be realistic are timeless.

I'll go whip out my streetfighter 2 sometime... but don't expect me to play Tekken 2, Mortal Kombat 2, or Virtual fighter 2.

[Angrist]

A story of political intrigue, genocide, sex and hard moral choices with life and death consequences doesn't need realism?

To me the setting is irrelevant. The themes are what dictated the style. I guess they call that quasi-realism.

[manasecret]

So with that said and leaving aside realism, however we define that word, how important is graphical fidelity versus visual style? I come down on the visual style side of the debate, but that's because I fundamentally don't care if videogames resemble real life anyhow. As far as I am concerned, Mass Effect could have been rendered to look like a flat shaded anime and I would have been fine with it (as long as there were no schoolgirls shooting stars out of wands at people). That's just my personal preference and I'm not saying anybody else should think the same way. Besides, it's not an either/or proposition. It's just that if I had to make the choice, I would prefer that developers spend their time on something other than making their game look as much like what I've seen with my own eyes in real life.Good separation of "realism" and "graphical fidelity", I'll accept those definitions, though I will note that one does not exist without the other on some level.

Even with your definition of "graphical fidelity", however, I still think the question as stated is moot. A game with graphical fidelity will always have a visual style, because the developers must always choose their color palette and what actual items and environments they render and so on. Take the example of Mass Effect 2, apparently considered to have high graphical fidelity with beard stubble and such, yet also has high visual style with glowing scars and so on. The two are just inseparable.

So... the question as stated (or as I assumed it was stated) of "graphical fidelity and _NO_visual style" vs. "visual style and _NO_ graphical fidelity" is moot, because you can't separate the two.

However, a valid question then is:

"fantastic graphical fidelity and _POOR_ visual style vs. "fantastic visual style and _POOR_ graphical fidelity"

I can imagine a game with great graphical fidelity and poor visual style, but I'm having trouble imagining a game with great visual style and truly poor graphical fidelity. What would be an example of that? I guess World of Goo and WoW and Wind Waker count?

In that case, if I had to live in a world of only one or the other from now on, I would have to choose visual style. A game with great graphical fidelity but poor visual style has something noticeably bad about it (see Everquest 2 and Medal of Honor below), but a game with great visual style and poor graphical fidelity has nothing noticeably bad about it. So the choice seems obvious -- one with something bad, and the other with nothing bad. Uhh... the one with nothing bad, please?

[Xantar]

Even with your definition of "graphical fidelity", however, I still think the question as stated is moot. A game with graphical fidelity will always have a visual style, because the developers must always choose their color palette and what actual items and environments they render and so on. Take the example of Mass Effect 2, apparently considered to have high graphical fidelity with beard stubble and such, yet also has high visual style with glowing scars and so on. The two are just inseparable.


Well here's a thought experiment: I'm sure that if Infinity Ward had the technical ability to do so, they would have made Modern Warfare 2 completely photorealistic in every way so that the game looks just like it would appear to you if you were a soldier running around shooting people. Would that game have visual style?

[manasecret]

Well here's a thought experiment: I'm sure that if Infinity Ward had the technical ability to do so, they would have made Modern Warfare 2 completely photorealistic in every way so that the game looks just like it would appear to you if you were a soldier running around shooting people. Would that game have visual style?

It's an interesting question and one I'm grappling with. My answer is yes, because in reality, there is a choice of what goes into that scene, and what the weather is like at that moment which changes the color palette, and so on.

Put another way, would such a scene not created in a video game, but filmed _not_ have a visual style? There are plenty of movies to choose from like this, I guess one example being Hurt Locker, though I haven't seen it.

[incredibledave]

@Teuthida: The Spider-man movies look alright considering Spidey wears a spandex costume. But I do agree that most of those Alex Ross Golden Age pin ups look kinda ridiculous.

Now for my own (delightfully uniformed) opinions:
I that a game should have a strong visual style regardless of whether they use a realistic or stylized graphics. Though I don't play many games nowadays, all my experience with world war 2 shoots blends together but I still have vivid memories of GTA: Vice City

[playa_playa]

My answer is yes, because in reality, there is a choice of what goes into that scene, and what the weather is like at that moment which changes the color palette, and so on.

Put another way, would such a scene not created in a video game, but filmed _not_ have a visual style? There are plenty of movies to choose from like this, I guess one example being Hurt Locker, though I haven't seen it.

this post brings up a point worth touching on: even when the medium seems bare, it is a product of a visual style. the example with movies are telling; where different direction of cinematography results in different visual experiences. take The Shawshank Redmeption, for example: the subject matter in the first act painted a gloomy picture, contrasted by the bright, well-lit cinematography - highlighting Andy's dogged hope and foreshadowing the redemption to be realized in the final act.

but I think what's being lost in this discussion is the distinction between having a style and being stylized. I think TS meant more the latter. it is one thing to say lighting, camera angle and editing denotes a visual style, but entirely another to say that videogames like Viewtiful Joe merely has a different visual style.

[BreakABone]

<div style="width: 480px;"><object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="gtembed" width="480" height="392"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /> <param name="movie" value="http://www.gametrailers.com/remote_wrap.php?mid=701096"/><param name="quality" value="high" /> <embed src="http://www.gametrailers.com/remote_wrap.php?mid=701096" swLiveConnect="true" name="gtembed" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" allowFullScreen="true" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="392"></embed> </object><div style="font-size: 10px; font-family: Verdana; text-align: center; width: 480px; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px; background-color: black; height: 32px;"><div><a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://www.gametrailers.com" title="GameTrailers.com">Video Games</a> | <a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://www.gametrailers.com/game/best-of-e3-2010-awards/13215" title="Best of E3 2010 Awards">Best of E3 2010 Awards</a> | <a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://www.gametrailers.com/video/best-graphics-best-of-e3/701096" title="Best Graphics">Best Graphics</a></div><div style="padding-top: 3px;"><a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://xbox360.gametrailers.com/" title="XBox 360">XBox 360</a> | <a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://ps3.gametrailers.com/" title="PS3">Playstation 3</a> | <a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://wii.gametrailers.com/" title="Wii">Nintendo Wii</a></div></div></div>

I think this is somewhat important to the debate.
I think the reactions explain the point better, but in a category dubbed best graphics, Kirby: Epic Yarn beat out Rage, Crysis 2, Gears of War 3 and Killzone 3. So the comments break down into fact that graphics mean a more technical prowess and Kirby has art style.

Curious, do folks see graphics separate from art/presentation/style?

[v1zzy]

as a game designers point of view I think "high end extreme graphics" like killzone 2 is not always a good thing....Too be honest the reason why I havn't been playing killzone 2 ever since I bought it (look at my trophies lol) is because I can't freekin stand that game...

Everyone praises it for its "graphics" But am I the only one who finds that the graphics are waaay too overwhelming? It's hard to find your way to the next room / stage, the escalation sucks too. Everything is all guns / crazy structure / firefight / buildings / large doors, all of a sudden you're forced to go through a small entrance in order to get to the next "stage"

Also the graphics makes it very hard for me to spot ammo / guns lying around, because of the contrast and "fireworks" As an fps game Killzone 2 lacks a lot on direction....

Somtimes you have to rely on your AI team members to tell you where to go, I think that's a flaw, because in a crazy constant firefight game such as killzone 2, you need clear vision in where to go with or without the AI's hints

But that's just me...different strokes for different folks