Art Design > Technical Specs

[Kamalot]

Thanks to 4ColorRebellion (http://www.4colorrebellion.com/archives/2007/04/09/art-design-vs-graphical-power/) for posting about MTV.com's latest Multiplayer article (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1556338/20070404/id_0.jhtml), in which they examine how the visual style of Super Paper Mario completely neutralizes technical strengths/weaknesses in graphics processing.

The new game looks like it was assembled by a well-meaning robot. How else to explain the mushroom and fire-flower math problems that float through the bright blue sky? How else to explain the moments when magic bridges and giant versions of Mario are drawn into the game in smooth, thin lines, as if Photoshop had developed a mind of its own, decided to try to cheer players up, and drew stuff with the speed of a flower budding in time-lapse photography? Plenty of video games are fun to play. This one is fun to look at.How much can the style of a game trump the graphical prowess of others? Does Okami look better than more 'realistic' titles? Does South Park need realism to be enjoyable?

[captainspankypants]

I've always preferred style over technical prowess. For example, Gungrave looks fantastic, even though it sports such crappy textures and low-poly models.

[Camel]

I absolutely love the look of games like Okami and Paper Mario, but I also appreciate a game that just makes you say "WOW!" because of how realistic it looks or because of the effects or whatever else.

I never understood the whole realistic vs cartoony/art graphics thing. It's definitely a situation where you can have your cake and eat it too. Despite how up in arms some people get about this "argument," it's not illegal to like many styles of games.

Besides...in the end it's all about the gameplay anyways! :D

[Kamalot]

What are the five most appealing games that utilize style over realism or graphical prowess?

Mine are: Full Throttle
Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Viewtiful Joe
Okami
Guitar Hero

[Camel]

Okami, Wind Waker (I LOVED the graphics in this game)...I also like the look of Grim Fandango, DQVIII, Dark Cloud II, and Rogue Galaxy, among others.

[DangerousDaze]

I don't see it as a competition between artistic style and technical superiority as that would imply an inverse relationship between the two, when the truth is exactly the opposite; one facilitates the other.

You don't need a supercomputer to pull off a fantasticly stylish game (as Kam's list ably demonstrates), but it's also true that the more powerful the hardware the more potential there is for skilled developers to produce more stylish and artistic works.

flOw is probably a good example of how powerful hardware can be used to produce a stylish looking game and I'm sure there will be many more to come.

[agentgray]

What are the five most appealing games that utilize style over realism or graphical prowess?

Hotel Dusk
Warning Forever
Geometry Wars
Viva Pinata
Paper Mario (all of them)

Honorable mention:
Elecktroplankton

[TheFlyingOrc]

I have to agree - style is what makes it look good - Gears of War actually isn't very REALISTIC looking when you really look at it - real people don't look like that.

[51|RandoM]

Guess what? They're not mutually exclusive. I'll go with the games that feature both.

If Nintendo gets away with being the low-power player this generation, it'll be because they make really fun games, not because they make games with great artistic style, btw.

[jeffbax]

What are the five most appealing games that utilize style over realism or graphical prowess?

Jet Grind Mother Fucking Radio, though it also pushed graphical prowess (IE Yes, not mutually exclusive)

Also Rez, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Jet Set Radio Future... basically insert Smilebit Xbox game or Dreamcast Era Sega game here... Samba!

[Watership]

I listen to all these arguments, hear all the talking points, and agree that great game art design does look better than poor art design in high def games....

Then I think. WOULDN'T THIS GAME LOOK 10x BETTER IF IT WAS 720P!?

And every argument about the Wii goes out the door.

[agentgray]

I listen to all these arguments, hear all the talking points, and agree that great game art design does look better than poor art design in high def games....

Then I think. WOULDN'T THIS GAME LOOK 10x BETTER IF IT WAS 720P!?

And every argument about the Wii goes out the door.
Not so. A line is a line. a cel is a cel in HD no matter what. ow can something like that look sharper?

But what you say does make sense for some games.

[Watership]

Not so. A line is a line. a cel is a cel in HD no matter what. ow can something like that look sharper?

But what you say does make sense for some games.

If the art and assets for Super Paper Mario were made to 720p specifications, the game would certainly look better.

[TheFlyingOrc]

If the art and assets for Super Paper Mario were made to 720p specifications, the game would certainly look better.
Depends. Resolution is not terribly important to video quality - it helps, but not much. Switching from 480i to 480p is going to be a much bigger difference than between 480p and 720p. Your TV itself is more important than your resolution.

Also, Paper Mario has no reason to use the excess power of the other 2 systems for physics, high polygon count, etc. I would guess that it's not limited by tech specs at all.

[UnderHero5]

I think SPM looks great graphically. I love the art style of the Paper Mario series.

I'm not even going to get involved the argument that's about to go down in this topic though. I'll just sit back and watch, this time around.

[51|RandoM]

Depends. Resolution is not terribly important to video quality - it helps, but not much.

Actually, it doesn't depend. A 720p screen would have that many more pixels for onscreen elements. You'd see a larger field of play. This is a platformer, so don't think more pixels=more detail, think more pixels=more of the playfield.

This isn't a video. It is a videogame. We're not talking about video quality.

I'm starting to think Nintendo put a subliminal messaging system into the Wii.

[Orphiuchus]

Grim fandango STILL looks better than most games that come out.

good art always trumps flashy tech

[DoubleUranium]

Depends. Resolution is not terribly important to video quality - it helps, but not much. Switching from 480i to 480p is going to be a much bigger difference than between 480p and 720p. Your TV itself is more important than your resolution.

Also, Paper Mario has no reason to use the excess power of the other 2 systems for physics, high polygon count, etc. I would guess that it's not limited by tech specs at all.

I think you're really grasping here. More resolution is always better. I have a Wii and I wish every time I started it that it was in 720p. I really think you're grasping in defense of the Wii if you really don't wish it was in 720p, all cost/etc considerations aside.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Actually, it doesn't depend. A 720p screen would have that many more pixels for onscreen elements. You'd see a larger field of play. This is a platformer, so don't think more pixels=more detail, think more pixels=more of the playfield.

This isn't a video. It is a videogame. We're not talking about video quality.

I'm starting to think Nintendo put a subliminal messaging system into the Wii.

2 points - why is seeing more of the playfield necessarily better? In actuality, the previous paper marios (which I know were radically different) used things you COULDN'T see out of the top of the screen to impact gameplay.

Secondly, this is a conversation ABOUT resolution impacting visual quality.

[UnderHero5]

Actually, it doesn't depend. A 720p screen would have that many more pixels for onscreen elements. You'd see a larger field of play. This is a platformer, so don't think more pixels=more detail, think more pixels=more of the playfield.

This isn't a video. It is a videogame. We're not talking about video quality.

I'm starting to think Nintendo put a subliminal messaging system into the Wii.
Umm... changing resolution doesn't automatically make the play field bigger. It would allow for that if devs wanted, but it's usually not the case with most games.

When I up the resolution on the PC version of Oblivion, it still has the same aspect ratio, and still shows the same 90 degree field of view. Same goes for the 360 version (unless you're playing in widescreen, but that's a different story and if you mean that you should say widescreen).

Ah crap, I got involved just like I said I wouldn't : (

[Gorvi]

I feel that they complement eachother. A bad art design is a bad art design, no matter how many polygons you can push. On the other hand, good art design can only help a game so much when the system isn't powerful enough.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think you're really grasping here. More resolution is always better. I have a Wii and I wish every time I started it that it was in 720p. I really think you're grasping in defense of the Wii if you really don't wish it was in 720p, all cost/etc considerations aside.

Yes, but resolution is not the most important thing to graphical quality by a long shot. After a point it's effect goes down rapidly. The increased lighting, texture, phyics, and particle stuff of the PS3 and 360 is more important than the resolution.

EDIT: I did not say I was putting everything else aside. Were it the same cost as the other systems without the power, I would be mega-pissed.

[Gorvi]

Guys, resolution only helps what's already there look better. That's it. It helps, but resolution alone does not make a game look good.

[51|RandoM]

Umm... changing resolution doesn't automatically make the play field bigger. It would allow for that if devs wanted, but it's usually not the case with most games.

When I up the resolution on the PC version of Oblivion, it still has the same aspect ratio, and still shows the same 90 degree field of view. Same goes for the 360 version (unless you're playing in widescreen, but that's a different story and if you mean that you should say widescreen).


720 is widescreen. If the devs had a 720p baseline resolution instead of 480something, odds are pretty damned good you'd see more of the playing field in a mario platforming game.

Whether or not that would make the game better? Probably subjective. If I have a choice, I'm picking the 720p version over the 480 version every single time... even if it ends up same field, higher resolution. It will still be better, even if marginally so.

You're trying to argue that the benefit is marginal... and all we're saying is that it is there and that is enough.

[the soUL TRAder]

And IMO, they both are pimp-slapped by gameplay.

But I'll forgive a game for being ugly anyday, and I will really like a game with great art direction, even if I fight with controls (Mafia Xbox).

I think, for me, the only thing that can't sustain a game on it's own is graphics.

[UnderHero5]

720 is widescreen. If the devs had a 720p baseline resolution instead of 480something, odds are pretty damned good you'd see more of the playing field in a mario platforming game.

Whether or not that would make the game better? Probably subjective. If I have a choice, I'm picking the 720p version over the 480 version every single time... even if it ends up same field, higher resolution. It will still be better, even if marginally so.

You're trying to argue that the benefit is marginal... and all we're saying is that it is there and that is enough.
I'm not arguing about the benefits. I'm saying that you're wrong about the field size changing with resolution.

You're talking about going from 4:3 to 16:9. It's the ratio change that gives the larger field of view, not the resolution itself.

I'm basing this mostly on many years of PC gaming, where changing from one 4:3 resolution to a higher 4:3 resolution does NOT give you a larger field of view in any games. The only ones I can think of that gave a larger field of view with a resolution change are the old Diablo and Starcraft games, but that's because of their lack of 3D acceleration, so it wouldn't apply to today's games.

I'm not saying things don't look better at a higher resolution... they usually do. I'm just saying that you're not making an argument for resolution, you're making one for aspect ratio.

[DjinniMan]

World of Warcraft is one game that comes to mind when you think of art style over technical specs. In five years, WoW will still be attractive, while contemporaries who wernt for realism will look like crap (see Everquest 2).

[Kamalot]

720 is widescreen. If the devs had a 720p baseline resolution instead of 480something, odds are pretty damned good you'd see more of the playing field in a mario platforming game.
My Wii is set up to output widescreen. Wouldn't that have the same effect?

Interesting story: A friend brought over an Intelevision collection recently, and we spent HOURS playing the various games. Retro games sell quite well, and my daughter and spouse appreciate them. There is somthing to be said for gameplay and abstract graphics over the drive for photorealism in games.

Hell, who plays board games or pen&paper RPGs for the graphics?

[Gorvi]

World of Warcraft is one game that comes to mind when you think of art style over technical specs. In five years, WoW will still be attractive, while contemporaries who wernt for realism will look like crap (see Everquest 2).
WoW was one of those games that I always thought had great graphics, but I absolutely hated the art style.

[Kamalot]

WoW was one of those games that I always thought had great graphics, but I absolutely hated the art style.
? :confused: ?
Really? The character models are primitive. The textures are low-resolution. The environment is sparse.

World of Warcraft looks worse than a good number of PS2 games. What is there to like about it other than the style?

Everquest 2 has a MUCH more advanced technical engine behind the game. Much higher polygon character models. Great effects for bump-mapping and reflections. Much higher texture resolution. There is a LOT to like in the engine that runs Everquest 2, but the artistic style feels generic and disjointed.

[Gorvi]

? :confused: ?
Really? The character models are primitive. The textures are low-resolution. The environment is sparse.

World of Warcraft looks worse than a good number of PS2 games. What is there to like about it other than the style?

Everquest 2 has a MUCH more advanced technical engine behind the game. Much higher polygon character models. Great effects for bump-mapping and reflections. Much higher texture resolution. There is a LOT to like in the engine that runs Everquest 2, but the artistic style feels generic and disjointed.
I'm not disputing you there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the tech was all I thought it really had going for it. Yeah, EQ2 did have it beat from that point, but from everything I saw of the art style of EQ2, it had no personality either.

[Kamalot]

I'm not disputing you there. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the tech was all I thought it really had going for it. Yeah, EQ2 did have it beat from that point, but from everything I saw of the art style of EQ2, it had no personality either.
So, what did you LIKE about World of Warcraft's graphics? How could it have the tech going for it if EverQuest II had it beat? I'm still more than a little confused.

[Disgustipated]

Not so. A line is a line. a cel is a cel in HD no matter what. ow can something like that look sharper?

But what you say does make sense for some games.

Apparently you've never compared Alien Hominid HD on Xbox 360 against the PS2 or GameCube versions. HD makes a HUGE difference and the game is absolutely gorgeous in HD.

[Gorvi]

So, what did you LIKE about World of Warcraft's graphics? How could it have the tech going for it if EverQuest II had it beat? I'm still more than a little confused.
I didn't actually care for anything about it. I was just saying that decent tech was all I thought it really had.

[Kamalot]

I didn't actually care for anything about it. I was just saying that decent tech was all I thought it really had.

WoW was one of those games that I always thought had great graphics, but I absolutely hated the art style.

One of these things is not like the other.

[Gorvi]

One of these things is not like the other.
My god, man. For the time that it came out 3 years ago, it did have pretty great graphics. The art style has never been something I cared for. I didn't like it, but I could see that it at least looked good for those that did like the style.

[Kamalot]

My god, man. For the time that it came out 3 years ago, it did have pretty great graphics. The art style has never been something I cared for. I didn't like it, but I could see that it at least looked good for those that did like the style.
I am sorry. You are wrong.

Everquest 2 came out around the same time as World of Warcraft, and had a MUCH better engine, which you yourself admitted. World of Warcraft is, and has always had been a primitive graphic engine, designed to play on a large number of machines and NOT be taxing to a system. Hell, Far Cry came out the same year as WOW.

I can understand if you don't like the artistic style of World of Warcraft, but to say that the game has an impressive technical engine, even for its time, is so completely off base that it isn't even funny, it is sad.

[Gorvi]

I am sorry. You are wrong.

Everquest 2 came out around the same time as World of Warcraft, and had a MUCH better engine, which you yourself admitted. World of Warcraft is, and has always had been a primitive graphic engine, designed to play on a large number of machines and NOT be taxing to a system. Hell, Far Cry came out the same year as WOW.

I can understand if you don't like the artistic style of World of Warcraft, but to say that the game has an impressive technical engine, even for its time, is so completely off base that it isn't even funny, it is sad.
Thanks. Last time I checked, an opinion on graphics is an OPINION, right or wrong doesn't enter into it. From what I saw of the game, I thought it had good graphics. I didn't like the art style. End of story. No reason to be a holier than thou ass about it.

[Kamalot]

Thanks. Last time I checked, an opinion on graphics is an OPINION, right or wrong doesn't enter into it. From what I saw of the game, I thought it had good graphics. I didn't like the art style. End of story. No reason to be a holier than thou ass about it.
I completely respect your opinion, which is why I very clearly stated, "I can understand if you don't like the artistic style of World of Warcraft".

But to state that WOW has "great graphics" sans artistic style is downright ludicrous, and is no longer in the realm of opinion, as the technology in the engine can be measured, counted and compared. You've already admitted that Everquest 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eq2_level_60_mount.jpg) had a better graphics engine, even at the time the games were released in 2004 (Half Life 2 | Halo 2 | Burnout 3 | Rome Total War). So when you say, "I was just saying that decent tech was all I thought it really had" I'm informing you that the engine wasn't decent. It is completely primitive. The only thing that keeps the game looking like complete ass is the artistic style, which (again) I completely understand does not jive with you.

The artistic style of WOW (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/746/mount28nz.jpg) carries its primitive graphics engine through years of time and millions of players. The artistic style overcomes the limitations of the engine. It does not require special effects, bump-mapping or powerful hardware to deliver a fun interactive experience to hordes of players around the world.

World of Warcraft is a perfect example of how art design and direction overcomes technical limitations.

[Disgustipated]

Can you guys shut the hell up about this?You're just feeding the WoW demons!!

[Gorvi]

I completely respect your opinion, which is why I very clearly stated, "I can understand if you don't like the artistic style of World of Warcraft".

But to state that WOW has "great graphics" sans artistic style is downright ludicrous, and is no longer in the realm of opinion, as the technology in the engine can be measured, counted and compared. You've already admitted that Everquest 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Eq2_level_60_mount.jpg) had a better graphics engine, even at the time the games were released in 2004 (Half Life 2 | Halo 2 | Burnout 3 | Rome Total War). So when you say, "I was just saying that decent tech was all I thought it really had" I'm informing you that the engine wasn't decent. It is completely primitive. The only thing that keeps the game looking like complete ass is the artistic style, which (again) I completely understand does not jive with you.

The artistic style of WOW (http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/746/mount28nz.jpg) carries its primitive graphics engine through years of time and millions of players. The artistic style overcomes the limitations of the engine. It does not require special effects, bump-mapping or powerful hardware to deliver a fun interactive experience to hordes of players around the world.

World of Warcraft is a perfect example of how art design and direction overcomes technical limitations.
We're looking at this from two completely different sides. Is it impossible for a Wii game to have great graphics because it's so much weaker than the PS3 or 360? Of course it can. You're looking at it purely by the numbers. I could care less about the engine and I stand by what I said. If you have any further problems with me having an opinion that you don't agree with, take it to PM's, this thread has been clogged enough.