Graphics - tech or art?

So it's no secret that, with time, games have evolved tremendously, not only in terms of gameplay, but in terms of graphics as well. Mainly we've seen an amazing progress that PC gaming has been making over the last few years, pretty much starting in 2004 with games like Far Cry, Doom 3 & Half-Life 2 hitting the market.

Greg Kasavin said in his Doom 3 review that some people do think that graphics can help the experience. I'm one to agree with that, but good graphics, to me, do not necessarily make a great game. It all lies in the gameplay, but some of the recent games have shown us that the technology powering the game's graphics can, indeed, be a very big part of the experience (Crysis' lavish jungles making for awesome games of superhero hide and seek and Doom 3's stretching shadows making a sense of eerie discomfort).

My question is - since we all love incredible graphics - we can also say that graphics can be measured in two criteria - one of them being the technical detail of the world, and the artistic direction - the way the game draws a world, not necessarily realistic (and preferably not so in many cases), to draw a player in.

Discussion:

So I ask - what is more important to you - that games show an incredible amount of detail and be technically proficient (Crysis, Hitman 4, Call of Duty 4 and 5, Medal of Honor Airborne), or a very unique, spectacular artistic direction (BioShock, Prince of Persia [2008], Psychonauts, Fable: The Lost Chapters, Team Fortress 2, Unreal Tournament 3 and many, many older adventure games)?

I, for one, find a combination of the two a real winner, but if you ask me, I'd rather have a game that's a bit less technically adhieved and more of an artistic vision.

Please feel free to give examples of what you mean (:

Noticed you put Prince of Persia ( 2008 ) in there just bought it yesterday for PC that is a stunner of a game. When you first start the game and are chasing Elika towards the temple just stopped are stared at the game havent done that in awhile.

But onto your question i agree abit of both worlds is the sweet spot, but i can appreciate technical graphics over artistic graphics alot more! Not saying i dont like artistic graphics as PoP ( 2008 ) would fall into that category, but stuff like playing Doom 3, Far Cry or Crysis for the first time blew me away more then the like of Zelda: Wind Waker which would easily be in my top ten games.

Considering how good games can look now technically, I'm looking forward to more games with a unique ART style on top of decent tech. I personally think Team Fortress 2 is the best looking game hands down. My $0.02 :)

Noticed you put Prince of Persia ( 2008 ) in there just bought it yesterday for PC that is a stunner of a game. When you first start the game and are chasing Elika towards the temple just stopped are stared at the game havent done that in awhile.

But onto your question i agree abit of both worlds is the sweet spot, but i can appreciate technical graphics over artistic graphics alot more! Not saying i dont like artistic graphics as PoP ( 2008 ) would fall into that category, but stuff like playing Doom 3, Far Cry or Crysis for the first time blew me away more then the like of Zelda: Wind Waker which would easily be in my top ten games.

Timbury

Also - did you see how well POP runs? If I remember correctly it's on the Assassin's Creed engine - well if that's so then let me tell you - they've managed to optimize the schizz out of it.

[QUOTE="Timbury"]

Noticed you put Prince of Persia ( 2008 ) in there just bought it yesterday for PC that is a stunner of a game. When you first start the game and are chasing Elika towards the temple just stopped are stared at the game havent done that in awhile.

But onto your question i agree abit of both worlds is the sweet spot, but i can appreciate technical graphics over artistic graphics alot more! Not saying i dont like artistic graphics as PoP ( 2008 ) would fall into that category, but stuff like playing Doom 3, Far Cry or Crysis for the first time blew me away more then the like of Zelda: Wind Waker which would easily be in my top ten games.

NoAssKicker47

Also - did you see how well POP runs? If I remember correctly it's on the Assassin's Creed engine - well if that's so then let me tell you - they've managed to optimize the schizz out of it.

Think about last generation, I'm going to talk about PS2 games for a second here though, so forgive me as I know this is a PC forum but I'm trying to make a point.

Anyways, try going back to GTA: San Andreas, that game looks pretty meh right now because I think the art style is very boring if you ask me. Now go back to the Jak and Daxter series. I personally think that game still looks fantastic. Even the FIRST one which was a launch game I believe, or a little after (correct me if I'm wrong pelase) This proves that tech will always get outdated but art style is ageless.

When I think about it, games with bright vivid colors never seem to go sour. Remember Super Mario World? Yea that games was bright and I can still play it to this day without complaints. Super Mario 3 on the other hand.. :P

Bright colors FTW! :D

Both are important.

[QUOTE="NoAssKicker47"]

[QUOTE="Timbury"]

Noticed you put Prince of Persia ( 2008 ) in there just bought it yesterday for PC that is a stunner of a game. When you first start the game and are chasing Elika towards the temple just stopped are stared at the game havent done that in awhile.

But onto your question i agree abit of both worlds is the sweet spot, but i can appreciate technical graphics over artistic graphics alot more! Not saying i dont like artistic graphics as PoP ( 2008 ) would fall into that category, but stuff like playing Doom 3, Far Cry or Crysis for the first time blew me away more then the like of Zelda: Wind Waker which would easily be in my top ten games.

osan0

Also - did you see how well POP runs? If I remember correctly it's on the Assassin's Creed engine - well if that's so then let me tell you - they've managed to optimize the schizz out of it.

Well,about POP...i'm not in the cartoony stuff but it had a great artistic value!I as a (amateur) artist remained stuned on stalker's prypiat and post apocaliptic ruins!and even now i still like the grey and green shades of gothic1 i never look at the technical part but i can't stand crapy graphics.

I prefer games that have better art styles like TF2, UT3, blizzard games, they are easier to run and more realiable but I still enjoy games that have amazing graphics like Empire total war. Also the graphics in COD 4 and WaW are not that great beyond the character models and explosions. I think games with older engines like l4d and half life 2 + episodes look way better than Cod game or crysis. Im glad that starcraft 2 and diablo 3 and sup com 2 are supposed to have optimized graphics with better art styles.

I prefer games that have better art styles like TF2, UT3, blizzard games, they are easier to run and more realiable but I still enjoy games that have amazing graphics like Empire total war. Also the graphics in COD 4 and WaW are not that great beyond the character models and explosions. I think games with older engines like l4d and half life 2 + episodes look way better than Cod game or crysis. Im glad that starcraft 2 and diablo 3 and sup com 2 are supposed to have optimized graphics with better art styles.

duxter1

I thought everything abuot World at War looked pretty fantastic. The environments, the effects, the animations - just everything. It also ran incredibly well!

[QUOTE="duxter1"]

I prefer games that have better art styles like TF2, UT3, blizzard games, they are easier to run and more realiable but I still enjoy games that have amazing graphics like Empire total war. Also the graphics in COD 4 and WaW are not that great beyond the character models and explosions. I think games with older engines like l4d and half life 2 + episodes look way better than Cod game or crysis. Im glad that starcraft 2 and diablo 3 and sup com 2 are supposed to have optimized graphics with better art styles.

NoAssKicker47

I thought everything abuot World at War looked pretty fantastic. The environments, the effects, the animations - just everything. It also ran incredibly well!

I just feel the textures and terrain is kind of ugly and bland, games like far cry 2 look way better becuase everything is so detailed i have been playing a lot of tf2 lately so i am shocked by the differences i guess

Both are important.

cu_be_cie

I also agree that a balance is good, but for me the art style/technique/proficiency is what counts. I really miss games like Baldur's Gate, Diablo, Fallout, and many of the old adventure games like King's Quest, etc. that weren't really technically amazing (well, at the time, they were pretty good, but especially now they aren't) butstill graphically beautiful. If you know what you're doing, you can make a low-tech game look amazing. But good technology doesn't make a game look better - it still requires good artists, directors, etc. to use the techonology well.

I have to go with art. I think a creative, very imaginative world draws me in the best. I am sooo happy with your choices for the art perspective Noasskicker. I just beat Bioshock last week. (for the 2nd time but 1st time on PC). The world is AMAZING. Almost every single room had me gasping. I really can't praise the world of rapture enough in my mind, it is truly a work of art and a masterpiece.

I'm also so glad you mentioned psychonauts, it must be one of the most underrated games ever, it's ironic because I actually bought it off of steam about 30 mins ago and currently downloading it.:D I played it on my gimped computer back in the day, but I still remember the creative, amazing worlds the game was set in. A game where you go into individual's mind's, all whom think completely different from the other opens practically limitless world's, and I thought they did an amazing job with the art in these enviroments, truly makes me wonder who can think of this kind of stuff. (Although I must say, Crysis is still very hot, but I find a lot more satisfaction in a company that can alter and twist the imagination rather than making a tree look as real as it can.)

[QUOTE="cu_be_cie"]

Both are important.

DarkFadi

It happens all the time.

Are we talking about just PC games or consoles too, because Final Fantasy always has a high degree of both.

Both. I think Crysis is an excellent example of both in action, it take skill and artistry to create such nice visuals, anatomically correct looking people, and all the other things that go along with it. I always like to compare how Far Cry 2 has as high a maximum ground texture resolution as Crysis, but in Crysis the texture is alot better designed and implemented, and looks better because of it. Also helps that Crytek used extensive parrallax occlusion mapping with the ground to give it a nice pop. Far Cry 2's ground textures just look very flat.

I'd say art, by little.

Art for me by far,i prefer looking at hand drawn planescape or baldurs gate 2 backgrounds than hardware hungry graphics in crysis,and the art direction in VTMB also.

Yeah I totally forgot about some of the older isometric RPGs. Some of these games are still beautiful today.

[QUOTE="-Feath-"]I would lean towards original art style really. Games like Planescape : Torment and World of Warcraft are so technically bad, but the world design is so unreal, they are almost magical. So I would prefer those really. That being said, I do love a technical powerhouse - especially STALKER SoC/CS, gorgeous graphics dripping in atmosphere.NoAssKicker47

Sorry, but;

While in some areas it may be a bit rough around the edges - there is very impressive rendering quality within the X-Ray Engine.

art. you dont need creativity to make technologically powerful game , but to make it atmospheric you need talent .

in RPG's and RTS i like 2d paintings Diablo 2 , cossacks 2 ,american conquest.

I remember when this debate first started when Myst came out. That was a serious debate.

Yeah!STALKER is the proof that you don't need high end machine to do something good.

I remember One moment in call of duty 4 on the beggining when the ship was about to be blown out and u need to run to the helicopter quick, first time I saw that part, that took my breath away. What Im trying to say is games that made u felt what u are really going to feel in that situation in real life is amazing for me. Those are the games i choose to finish. because some games, u just sit on the couch laid back, playing it but not feeling it and it's only your mind that works so it makes u lazy. As long as the graphics is LIVE, that game is the winner

I'm definitely down for good graphics and good artwork. Like the OP said, a game looking good certainly adds to the prowess of a game, but does not necessarily make it fun. On the other hand, if a game looks terrible, I'm not going to be too fond of it either even if it does have great gameplay...

I'm not too crazy about graphics as long as the game looks good, so I guess I would lean towards artwork. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, I think WoW looks awesome. When I was playing that game, there were constantly moments where I just looked around to admire the view. It is certainly a dated engine, but still is one of the best looking games imo.

[QUOTE="-Feath-"]I would lean towards original art style really. Games like Planescape : Torment and World of Warcraft are so technically bad, but the world design is so unreal, they are almost magical. So I would prefer those really. That being said, I do love a technical powerhouse - especially STALKER SoC/CS, gorgeous graphics dripping in atmosphere.NoAssKicker47

You should watch this video on the DX10 features in Clear Sky. The first game still looks amazing in terms of atmosphere, better than CS IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxg9rK086SU

STALKER was pretty bipolar from a technical standpoint. It had some amazing lighting and effects but the textures and models were something that I found pretty lacking.

Yeah you're right, it's better with mods. I would recommend Stalker 2009 Complete mod that is available over at Stalker Files for anyone playing it for the first time. It does a nice graphical overhaul.

Yeah you're right, it's better with mods. I would recommend Stalker 2009 Complete mod that is available over at Stalker Files for anyone playing it for the first time. It does a nice graphical overhaul.

Gooeykat