GameTavern - View Single Post

KillerGremlin · 05-25-2010, 03:50 PM

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.

05-25-2010, 03:50 PM	#5
KillerGremlin No Pants KillerGremlin is offline Location: Friggin In The Riggin Now Playing: my ding-a-ling Posts: 4,566	Re: Graphical Fidelity vs Visual Style 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.