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]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

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



and compare it the blockier and more stylized WoW



Which is more appealing?


Stylized games age much better than realistic games.

Medal of Honor on PSX:


Crash Bandicoot on PSX:


Next generation this is going to look outdated (that shrubbery is going to be laughable):


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.


Being able to exaggerate is key to making things interesting



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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

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.