art direction has nothing to do with creativity.

it has to do with conveying the feeling and setting you want to convey....many people here say that games arent artistic (Crysis, Uncharted...Etc) because they are graphiclly realistic....this is completly absurd....most paintings are realistic...does that mean they arent artistic? no not at all...they are artistic, because they convey the emotion and setting the painter wanted them to convey..nothing more and nothing else....games like crysis and uncharted are indeed artistic, because their devlopers put in a lot of detail into their worlds, to make them look and feel just like intended. I am also amazed by the hypocrosy of many people...they claim games like STALKER, Half Life 2, and Bioshock are artistic because they are creative...that simply isnt true at all....they are artistic because of the huge amount of detail put into them in the first place....

STALKER: the area sorounding chyrrnoble really does look like it does in the game...its a run down area, that was abandoned years ago, and since than has been falling apart every day....the town in STALKER, is even based on a real one...and looks very similar to the one in the game.

Half Life 2: I will let you in on a little secret here....Valve's vision of City 17 isnt really that original...much of the way the city looks...was modled after the run down towns in Eastern Europe. The crouded appartments are actually a staple of soviet building design...and if you have seen pictures of places like st. Pettersburg or even been there...you will notice a large resemblence to city 17, just a lot cleaner, and a nicer place to live.

Bioshock: Is this really that creative? at its core, its an underwater city with a 30's and 40's culture theme to it....its a beutifull looking world...because its able to convey that 30's and 40s theme so well....

my point is simple...artistic value has nothing to do with creativy...its about making a world, that gives the player the experience the developers want him to feel....if thats a jungle paradise like in crysis and uncharted...than so be it...if its a Mario type scene...then thats okay to.

Bioshock: Is this really that creative? at its core, its an underwater city with a 30's and 40's culture theme to it....its a beutifull looking world...because its able to convey that 30's and 40s theme so well....

cobrax25

there aren't really that many games that have that theme, so that's why it's called creative.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

Bioshock: Is this really that creative? at its core, its an underwater city with a 30's and 40's culture theme to it....its a beutifull looking world...because its able to convey that 30's and 40s theme so well....

Hewkii

there aren't really that many games that have that theme, so that's why it's called creative.

so its creative even though such a setting exsisted in real life?

so its creative even though such a setting exsisted in real life?

cobrax25

creative in a game sense, yes. there really isn't that much that hasn't been done whether in real life, books, movies, or other games.

Do you not understand that art direction is fueled by SOMEBODY's creativity?

I think you should say that Art direction and creativity are irrelevent to the actual game.

To me a game consists of 3 things: the code (physics and control), the graphics (art and style) and the game design (everything else).

A beautiful game can still be uninspired.

omg this again,

OK one last time let me explain, there is photo realism and then there is representational art, photo realism is just realism without an aesthetic, in other word games that try to be photo realistic without imagery gain from the mind is just realism, representational art on the other hand is art that represent realism with imagination, with out being real, ala gears (the world in gears isnt in realife but it seems to be). it is as simple as that, but then again art is opinionated noreal person could be right.

it is as simple as that, but then again art is opinionated noreal person could be right.

amorbis1001

That's why I have a soft spot for stylized graphics, if I wanted photo-realism that bad, I would stop playing games.

Just look at games like Wind Waker, Killer7 and Okami, all were phenominal games and the art style/direction contributed to their greatness.

[QUOTE="cobrax25"]

so its creative even though such a setting exsisted in real life?

Hewkii

creative in a game sense, yes. there really isn't that much that hasn't been done whether in real life, books, movies, or other games.

thats exacly my whole point...no matter what you look at....it will almost certainly have some insperation from real life.....

its how it uses that insperation to convey the game that determines the value of the art design of any game.

Explain games like Okami, Otogi, Jet Set Radio Future, and Killer 7? Those games had amazing art direction and till this day are some of the most original creative games I've played.bc1391

Im not saying they arent...Im saying a game can have excellent art direction even if its takes place in the real world.

ya but creativity is just as much about putting pieces together as it is about inventing those pieces

Bioshock is creative because it marries 30's & 40's noir with the fiction of a 100 years prior (stuff like 20,000 leagues under the sea), even though the 2 themes were there already, they weren't married in a video game, and to put the icing on the cake - executed so well

Explain games like Okami, Otogi, Jet Set Radio Future, and Killer 7? Those games had amazing art direction and till this day are some of the most original creative games I've played.bc1391

He's simply saying that art and creativity are not mutually exclusive, which is very true.

I think you're confused...


Crysis...doesn't have any artistic direction... It represents the real world. Exactly like the real world... Sure, it may be art, (like the realistic painting example you brought up) but it doesn't have a strong artistic direction. This would be the exact reason why modern intellectuals prefer the contemporary, abstract ****of art, as opposed to the realism that was so popular before the invention of snap-shot photography.


The whole point of art is offering your take on the world, but making an exact duplicate of the real world is not art. Even realistic paintings have artistic direction, because the wuthor chooses the angle of the painting, the color pallet, the lighting. But in super realistic games, the devs do no such thing, they just show it as it is, which is why something like Okami will always be much more artistically advanced than Crysis: because Okami has perspective, and Crysis doesn't.


*Breathes out* hamstergeddon

crysis has an artistic direction, all games have artistic direction otherwise a game would be totally random, what you're getting at is crysis doesn't have an art direction that stands out or is interesting, but it does have a convincing art direction with regards to the environments, which should be recognized, there aren't too many games out there with beautiful visuals like crysis, so it deserves as much attention as any other game

I think you're confused...


Crysis...doesn't have any artistic direction... It represents the real world. Exactly like the real world... Sure, it may be art, (like the realistic painting example you brought up) but it doesn't have a strong artistic direction. This would be the exact reason why modern intellectuals prefer the contemporary, abstract ****of art, as opposed to the realism that was so popular before the invention of snap-shot photography.


The whole point of art is offering your take on the world, but making an exact duplicate of the real world is not art. Even realistic paintings have artistic direction, because the wuthor chooses the angle of the painting, the color pallet, the lighting. But in super realistic games, the devs do no such thing, they just show it as it is, which is why something like Okami will always be much more artistically advanced than Crysis: because Okami has perspective, and Crysis doesn't.


*Breathes out* hamstergeddon

omg at last someone that sees what I was saying, crysis doesnt have an art**** atleast not until the alien ship parts :D

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]I think you're confused...


Crysis...doesn't have any artistic direction... It represents the real world. Exactly like the real world... Sure, it may be art, (like the realistic painting example you brought up) but it doesn't have a strong artistic direction. This would be the exact reason why modern intellectuals prefer the contemporary, abstract ****of art, as opposed to the realism that was so popular before the invention of snap-shot photography.


The whole point of art is offering your take on the world, but making an exact duplicate of the real world is not art. Even realistic paintings have artistic direction, because the wuthor chooses the angle of the painting, the color pallet, the lighting. But in super realistic games, the devs do no such thing, they just show it as it is, which is why something like Okami will always be much more artistically advanced than Crysis: because Okami has perspective, and Crysis doesn't.


*Breathes out* amorbis1001

omg at last someone that sees what I was saying, crysis doesnt have an art**** atleast not until the alien ship parts :D

As a artist, I will tell you that it doesn't take much to replicate things in front of you and things that you can generally see in the real world. However, it takes a lot of skills to take designs you see within your mind and put them on paper, with no use of references.Ramadear

I agree. Art is being able to appreciate both the simplicity and complexity of something at the same time.

Art

According to the dictionary, Crysis is art. Look at the first definition.

You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.IndianaJosh

But everybody knows what realism looks like. That's why style is so important, it lets you see the world from a different perspective.

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"]You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.Boba_Fett_3710

But everybody knows what realism looks like. That's why style is so important, it lets you see the world from a different perspective.

The juxtaposition of elements in a realistic setting is s_tyle.

You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.IndianaJosh

People do seem confused about this concept. "Photorealism" is, in fact, a specific art style.

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"]You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.Zeliard9

People do seem confused about this concept. "Photorealism" is, in fact, a specific art style.

Its a very bland one. One of the great thing about art is that it has the ability to immerse the viewer into another world. Realistic art does not do this, since you are looking at what you see around you everyday.

This thread is just RIDICULOUS.

so its creative even though such a setting exsisted in real life?

cobrax25

Whoa, there were underwater cities in the 40's? Impressive.

You seem to miss an important thing: Creativity does not involve being fully new or that none of it's aspects have ever been seen. You can creatively twist existing concepts to form new, fresh settings.

I don't think it's possible to diminish the creativity involved in Bioshock's setting and atmosphere, despite it being "realistic" or at least moderately plausible (in the setting, I mean).

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"]You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.Ramadear

People do seem confused about this concept. "Photorealism" is, in fact, a specific art style.

Its a very bland one. One of the great thing about art is that it has the ability to immerse the viewer into another world. Realistic art does not do this, since you are looking at what you see around you everyday.

except it works completly differently when you are in fact playing in that world...thats not something you have the ability to simply do in real life....

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"]You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.Ramadear

People do seem confused about this concept. "Photorealism" is, in fact, a specific art style.

Its a very bland one. One of the great thing about art is that it has the ability to immerse the viewer into another world. Realistic art does not do this, since you are looking at what you see around you everyday.

This:

= Artistic.

[QUOTE="Ramadear"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"]You guys seem to fail to understand that realism is an art direction itself. The hardest one to master.IndianaJosh

People do seem confused about this concept. "Photorealism" is, in fact, a specific art style.

Its a very bland one. One of the great thing about art is that it has the ability to immerse the viewer into another world. Realistic art does not do this, since you are looking at what you see around you everyday.

You seem to misunderstand. I don't find the world bland, I find photo realistic art bland. Why? Because I find it depressing that someones self expression in the world of art is limited to only what they can perceive with their eyes and not with their mind. Realism doesn't not apply to perspective, depth and any other would be rule of art. Why? Because art rules don't exist, they are subjective. And when you follow them you will only limit your creative flow.

Realism is artistic.

That said, saying art direction has nothing to do with creativity has got to be one of the lamest comments I've ever seen on this subject matter. :|

The word you're looking for is motif. For something to be considered art, it needs a motif. flOw is considered art, because it focuses on evolution. Bioshock is considered art, because it focuses on American culture. Yadda Yaddakiruyama

Everything about Bioshock is just "Art Deco" early industry designs , except the underwater aspects ofcourse :P , though I really like Art Deco, its not creativly new, just inspired by an old Style back in the 1920s-1960s.

Realism is artistic.

That said, saying art direction has nothing to do with creativity has got to be one of the lamest comments I've ever seen on this subject matter. :|

-RPGamer-

You seem to misunderstand. I don't find the world bland, I find photo realistic art bland. Why? Because I find it depressing that someones self expression in the world of art is limited to only what they can perceive with their eyes and not with their mind. Realism doesn't not apply to perspective, depth and any other would be rule of art. Why? Because art rules don't exist, they are subjective. And when you follow them you will only limit your creative flow.Ramadear

*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectivehamstergeddon

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectiveIndianaJosh

[QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectiveIndianaJosh

Exactly, your last post was really good aswell.... couldnt of said it better myself.

*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectivehamstergeddon

The problem with this train of thought is that (aside from the odd art definition) perspective is subjective to the user. Or in other words "art is in the eye of the beholder". The saying doesn't exist for nothing.

Your "unique" does not encompass all views on what's "unique".

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectivehamstergeddon

Interesting and here I thought developers controlled the camera angle, the lighting and well everything. To "set up a picture", is part of what a developer must do to make a game. The game doesn't just copy life insta-magically without any thought of the aforementioned qualities.:|

Realism is artistic.

That said, saying art direction has nothing to do with creativity has got to be one of the lamest comments I've ever seen on this subject matter. :|

-RPGamer-

I'm pretty sure he just meant to say that they aren't mutually exclusive, in defense of realism being art. Something can be artistic without necessarily being creative.

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectivehamstergeddon

thats not true at all....all of those can be changed and alltered by game designrs as well.

[QUOTE="IndianaJosh"][QUOTE="hamstergeddon"]*sigh* Go look at my first post. Art cannot be art unless it offers a unique perspective on something. That is exactly why Photorealistic games are not art, because they show life exactly how it is--hardly a unique perspectivehamstergeddon

saying art direction has nothing to do with creativity has got to be one of the lamest comments I've ever seen on this subject matter. :|

-RPGamer-