Do good graphics make a game good looking?

[FROGGEman2]

Assassins Creed in my opinion was a great game, and it had great graphics. But do good graphics make a game good-looking? I mean, take Rayman 2: Revolution. Made at the very beginning of the PS2's empire, it had pretty bad graphics. But the art direction, and how the graphics were used, made the game beautiful. Its bold use of colour, the explosive environments, all of this led to one of the best-looking games of its time.

 

[ConstantJoe]

You can have the best graphics in the world, but if you dont use it right you'll just have a high definition turd.

 

[Ronwue]

It really depends on what you call good graphics. Graphics is the one thing that always changes in computer games, as time advances. Good-looking games don't necessarily need good graphics, and in my opinion, it really doesn't matter that much in the long run. I disliked Assasin's Creed but the fact that I stood half an hour in the tallest church in Acre to look around doesn't mean that I disliked the game any less.

 

[Tolly]

High-end graphics rarely mean a pretty game, especially these days. The most beautiful games I've played over the last few years were the new Prince of Persia (which used a simpler graphic style that was downright beautiful on the PS3), Atelier Iris: Eternal Mana (which used very simple graphics, even for the PS2, but which used them to excellent effect), and Folklore (which is just outright gorgeous).

On the other end - Bioshock (which gave me seasickness, ugh!), Fallout 3 (there's a difference between devastation and just plain fugly) and Neverwinter Nights 2 (although MotB improved things a little, it's still nothing compared to the original).

 

[Ben Jamin]

You can have the best graphics in the world, but if you dont use it right you'll just have a high definition turd.

This in absolutely every way.

 

[Anachronism]

Not necessarily. The art design is at least as important, if not more so. Take Shadow of the Colossus, for instance. By today's standards, the graphics in that game are pretty dated; but because of the art design, the way the Colossi look, the way the world was put together, it still looks fantastic.

 

[Time Travelling Toaster]

Good graphics are secondary to me, if a game is good but suffers slightly in terms of graphics fair enough, if both are good then great. But if a developer would rather have good graphics at expense of gameplay then it's not worth it.

 

[suhlEap]

it does seem like a silly question in a way. cos generally good graphics make the game good looking. they dont necessarily make the game good, but good looking yes. i'm sure we can all admit that newer games with good graphics look much better than old games with shitty graphics yes?

 

[traceur_]

It depends on the environment, Assassins Creed had a beautiful world because they did everything right, light and shading, standing on the church steeple you can see the city clearly and still had the slight blurring in the distance that was realistic.

Devil may cry 4 had good graphics but it didn't use it to it's full potential, approaching the order of the sword's headquarters was done very well but the rest of it was mostly about the interiors of dark buildings and the alleys.

 

[Prower]

the question realy is what is a good looking game element?

The best way I can put this is if a gun is well textured and has lots of details, for example a scope that can still be seen through when firing from the hip are the details that make an item pleasing to the eye and thus is it not definably good looking?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I think animation is key. You can have nice shiny graphics, but if the movements aren't smooth and fluent then the game will still look crappy in motion.

 

[tk1989]

Its all to do with style and design. Look at Zelda: TP, the graphics weren't amazing by the standards set in place by consoles at the time but it was a beautifully designed game; the graphics weren't good per se, but its style was aesthetically beautiful.

 

[PureChaos]

Its all to do with style and design. Look at Zelda: TP, the graphics weren't amazing by the standards set in place by consoles at the time but it was a beautifully designed game; the graphics weren't good per se, but its style was aesthetically beautiful.

exactly, it's more attention to detail that makes things look good and the attention to detail in TP was amazing

 

[Samman]

Sound > art direction > pure graphics quality

 

[SmilingKitsune]

Art direction plays just as big a part in whether a game is good looking.
Pure graphical power is only part of it.

 

[massau]

it makes the game look good but it still needs a good gameplaye or the game will suck for exaple farcry2 it's a good game but the gameplay isn't so good .

 

[Vrex360]

I think good aesthetics are a better step in the right direction as opposed to straight detail. Like in say Otogi or Bioshock or any other game with visual style. That said good looks are amazing, like Mass Effect for example. I love it's use of bright blue light.

 

[NotAPie]

You can have the best graphics in the world, but if you dont use it right you'll just have a high definition turd.

This man took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Ultimathul]

The thing with graphics is that no matter what engine or whatever you use to make graphics for a game it has to fit the game. super mario with the cry engine and ultra realistic mario face features isnt mario, in the same way that crysis in 16 bit pixel graphics just dont work. the graphics must fit the game.