Graphics Are Not Aesthetics

[SpAc3man]

Realistic graphics are sometimes used as a tool to create a personal connection to make something seem more "real". In other cases it is not used in this way. Developers might find it easier if they have access to technology that allows people playing their games to have photorealism. That is pretty much the idea behind all this.

We can also acknowledge that realism isn't always necessary (although very nice in some situations) but graphical detail adds a huge amount to a game in most cases.

 

[Sande45]

I agree with OP, but I hate it when 'aesthetics/visual style over graphics' is used as an excuse to not have good graphics. It's not an either-or decision. You can have both and they're both important in making the game pleasant to look at and play.

 

[Denamic]

So, I was watching old episodes of the Jimquisition tonight (because I've been in work all day and need to watch a fat countryman ranting to unwind) and the 'Photorealistic Sociopathy' episode got me thinking. 2K's assertion that we need photorealistic graphics to create emotional connection with games struck me as really dumb, and Crytek's claim about graphics being the key to further advance video games struck me as even dumber.

For me, games can be truly emotional as they are, and beautiful aesthetics can be achieved without thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards.

As an example, Shadow of the Colossus, with its PS2 graphics, is one of the most emotional games I've ever experienced, and Okami is probably the most beautiful game I've ever played from an aesthetic standpoint.

Crysis has amazing graphical fidelity, but for me the game is rather uninteresting aesthetically. I actually think Skyrim is a better looking game.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's thoughts on graphics/emotion and graphics/aesthetics.

While true, that graphics and aesthetics are not the same thing, you can't really have aesthetics without graphics. Yes, Okami is beautiful, but its HD remake is even more beautiful because it has the same aesthetics but with better graphics. Also, SotC was one of the most graphically impressive game on the PS2, considering its hardware, so I'm not sure about you using it as an argument against graphics being all-important.

 

[leeprice133]

So, I was watching old episodes of the Jimquisition tonight (because I've been in work all day and need to watch a fat countryman ranting to unwind) and the 'Photorealistic Sociopathy' episode got me thinking. 2K's assertion that we need photorealistic graphics to create emotional connection with games struck me as really dumb, and Crytek's claim about graphics being the key to further advance video games struck me as even dumber.

For me, games can be truly emotional as they are, and beautiful aesthetics can be achieved without thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards.

As an example, Shadow of the Colossus, with its PS2 graphics, is one of the most emotional games I've ever experienced, and Okami is probably the most beautiful game I've ever played from an aesthetic standpoint.

Crysis has amazing graphical fidelity, but for me the game is rather uninteresting aesthetically. I actually think Skyrim is a better looking game.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's thoughts on graphics/emotion and graphics/aesthetics.

While true, that graphics and aesthetics are not the same thing, you can't really have aesthetics without graphics. Yes, Okami is beautiful, but its HD remake is even more beautiful because it has the same aesthetics but with better graphics. Also, SotC was one of the most graphically impressive game on the PS2, considering its hardware, so I'm not sure about you using it as an argument against graphics being all-important.

So, I was watching old episodes of the Jimquisition tonight (because I've been in work all day and need to watch a fat countryman ranting to unwind) and the 'Photorealistic Sociopathy' episode got me thinking. 2K's assertion that we need photorealistic graphics to create emotional connection with games struck me as really dumb, and Crytek's claim about graphics being the key to further advance video games struck me as even dumber.

For me, games can be truly emotional as they are, and beautiful aesthetics can be achieved without thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards.

As an example, Shadow of the Colossus, with its PS2 graphics, is one of the most emotional games I've ever experienced, and Okami is probably the most beautiful game I've ever played from an aesthetic standpoint.

Crysis has amazing graphical fidelity, but for me the game is rather uninteresting aesthetically. I actually think Skyrim is a better looking game.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's thoughts on graphics/emotion and graphics/aesthetics.

While true, that graphics and aesthetics are not the same thing, you can't really have aesthetics without graphics. Yes, Okami is beautiful, but its HD remake is even more beautiful because it has the same aesthetics but with better graphics. Also, SotC was one of the most graphically impressive game on the PS2, considering its hardware, so I'm not sure about you using it as an argument against graphics being all-important.

Yeah, what I'm saying is that beautiful games were possible before the near-ridiculous levels of graphical fidelity you can get with thousands of dollars worth of graphics cards. I grant you that really beautiful aesthetics weren't really possible in the 16-bit era, or even the early era of 3D graphics, but I think we're at a point in graphics technology where we can create great aesthetics without needing to keep pushing for more.

Not saying I don't think graphics should stop improving, just saying it shouldn't be the end-game for videogame design.

As for 'no emotional connection without photorealistic graphics', well f*** that noise.

 

[nexus]

Graphics isn't just "prettier".

It is way more than that. More computing power means "more stuff in game". Some examples followed by their gameplay potential:

-Leaving realistic footprints & mud/water trails = Unrivaled stealth tracking in finding your enemies and covering your own tracks, body drag marks.

-Disturbed foliage, broken branches, trampled grass = The same as above, plus AI (such as in Bethesda games) will reveal their popular "trade routes". Hunting animals via tracking their historically accurate pathing territory.

-Debris, more & better = same as above really, except "debris" moves out of "eye candy" realm and into realistic ballistics/physics models. Suddenly every piece of a building you just destroyed becomes a projectile that can damage you and everything in it's surroundings, leaving permanent marks.

That is just a quick summary of some basic damage models games could have. Aside from looking fucking awesome, it has much more potential in changing your gameplay, instead of just being pretty.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Now I certainly could be wrong...do you know of any examples of powerfully emotional works that don't look incredible?

To The Moon looks like SNES RPG and had me both laughing my ass off and nearly in tears. Planescape: Torment was on the low end of graphical fidelity at the time and affected me in so many different ways it's impossible to list. Gemini Rue provided my avatar and had me questioning the nature of identity.

Still I see your point and agree with it for the most part. It's much easier to make an emotional connection with characters when their representations are more expressive and better animation and higher fidelity make this much easier.

 

[sanquin]

--snip--

Heh, go listen to that extra credits video. In all of the examples I've given it was the aesthetics that made you feel emotion, not the graphics. As said in the video things like sound, movement, colour, music, design of character. Those are all aesthetics. And it's those things that you need to convey emotion.

 

[sanquin]

They spend 1/3 of the movie showing wall-e to let people make the connection themselves. There wasn't an instant emotional connection. They spend so many minuts of "this is him lonely" to hammer it through.

Which is the aesthetics of the movie. Look a bit up, I posted a link to an extra credits video where they talk about graphics vs aesthetics. They explain it a lot better than me.

 

[Vegosiux]

Now I certainly could be wrong...do you know of any examples of powerfully emotional works that don't look incredible?

Books can be powerfully emotional and they don't exactly have shiny graphics. Music can be powerfully emotional, yet it's only sound, it doesn't have graphics at all!

Ever played A Mind Forever Voyaging? An old infocom text adventure thing, also emotionally engaging.

To The Moon looks like SNES RPG and had me both laughing my ass off and nearly in tears. Planescape: Torment was on the low end of graphical fidelity at the time and affected me in so many different ways it's impossible to list. Gemini Rue provided my avatar and had me questioning the nature of identity.

Heh, go listen to that extra credits video. In all of the examples I've given it was the aesthetics that made you feel emotion, not the graphics. As said in the video things like sound, movement, colour, music, design of character. Those are all aesthetics. And it's those things that you need to convey emotion.

And there's this too.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Art direction > graphics. Always.

Putting the best shaders, AA, textures, lighting and whatnot on a pile of shit doesn't make it anything other than a pile of shit. I'm not saying that graphical fidelity can't make a good game (from an aesthetic standpoint) present itself better, but it doesn't turn a badly designed game into a good looking one.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The thing that 2K guy nails down though is that a good visual aspect helps build mood and emotional connection. If a game lacks the ability to visibly impart emotional cues on us, it is pretty much left to do so via narrative. I don't think it is a coincidence that many games that affect gamers emotionally also happen to be games that are either heavily dependent on character building and narrative (Planescape Torment and many indie titles showcase this) or off-set lack of visual cues by really strong voice actors and dialogue.

 

[sanquin]

No you are missing my point here.

You need a certain amount of graphical fidelity in order to translate picture into emotion. Some things will do instantaneously. Some will need a bit of build up and supplements from its surroundings. Some things will need a complete secondary science in order to be able to translate.

It is the concept of "Thomas was alone". You can apply a emotion to a square, however doing so is a longer process.

Yes you need a certain amount of graphical fidelity. But we've already long reached that fidelity we need. However instead of focusing on aesthetics more now, they still focus on graphics for the most part. CoD and BF are good examples of very good graphics but poor aesthetics. And then look at the Crysis 3 overgrown new york map. Which has really good graphics, but at the same time also very good aesthetics. We need more crysis 3-like design, and less CoD/BF-like design.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Oh look, this thread again. I'll do what I always end up doing and just leave this here, shall I? -

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

Oh... someone posted that already? Well whatever. I'm getting bored of threads where people seem like they're trying to make a point that 95% of people already agree with. "Hey guys, I just noticed this obvious thing about gaming, and now I'm going to share that obvious thing with you".

Damn I'm in a snarky mood today. Fah -.-

 

[leeprice133]

To clarify something here: an 'aesthetic' means (basically) a visual style, so OP your title doesn't make sense really.

It's like saying 'sound is not music'... yes, we know, and no one ever said otherwise(not even, might i add, the people who you are 'arguing against'... I'm going to take a guess that mentioning 'aesthetics' came from you, not the quotes you are referring too). Graphics are(/can be) used to form an aesthetic, for instance a photorealistic aesthetic, or a cartoony aesthetic, etc. Like how sounds are(/can be) used to form music such as rock music, or classical music, etc.

Aesthetics are an overarching concept, of some thing's visual 'style' or 'vibe'.


---

But yes photorealism is not required for strong emotional response, good writing and design, just as with books and movies, are what dictate that.

Hmm, I should probably have chosen a better title. I'm using aesthetics here to mean the overall visuals of a game, rather than graphical resolution.

What I reject is the implication that photorealism is what visual design in videogames should always be aiming for.

 

[Trollhoffer]

In a practical sense, though, that's not what is advertised as the appeal of advanced graphics. The push for higher graphical fidelity has also pushed game budgets way, way up and reduced the practicality of publishing riskier, more creative games.

While some games certainly do use advanced graphical capabilities to support the gameplay, those are generally the exception. A great example is Aliens vs. Predator 1999, which was among the first games (or even the first?) to have environmental lighting that could be manipulated by the player. If you were playing as an Alien, the human NPC AI couldn't detect you in darkness, and you could break many of the lights in game to impose that on the environment. Likewise, as a marine, you were blind in the dark and had no flashlight, but instead had a limited (but regenerating) supply of flares and night vision goggles. While using the goggles, however, your motion tracker was disabled. So the darkness forced you to make a choice between clear vision (night vision goggles) without the tactical support of your motion tracker or the more limited flares.

But, again, that's an exceptional case. Such games are far, far outnumbered by games that use recent graphical advances to no particular gameplay effect. RPGs are particularly notorious for this, and while additional graphical detail has helped precise aiming in FPS games in the past, I don't think we'll be seeing additional graphical quality aid that any further. Strategy games don't really need additional graphical quality for their core gameplay, either, as cool as it is to see things play out in such detail these days. And the more abstract you go, the less graphical quality really matters. I can't think of a single graphical advancement this generation that has contributed to fundamental gameplay.

I'm all for the progression of technology, but the best graphical power is going to do will be to eventually plateau. At that stage, advances in graphics technology won't be about providing more power, but increasing the efficiency of producing those graphics. This will ultimately have the effect of reducing development time and increasing the content of a game, and we might one day make it back to the amount of content we got in games from the late 90s and early 2000s.