Graphical Fidelity vs Visual Style

[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]

Originally Posted by manasecret

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]

Originally Posted by Xantar

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.

[playa_playa]

Originally Posted by manasecret

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]

Video Games | Best of E3 2010 Awards | Best Graphics

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

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?