Graphics Are Not Aesthetics

[thesilentman]

Can we just say that graphics are important as they allow art direction to be realized? I'm not sure I would have liked games such as Dark Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, or Journey if it wasn't the advances in graphics.

Okay, all of them did have other things going for them other than graphics. Dark Souls had gameplay, while Journey and Shadow of the Colossus had the epic, epic music going on with a really well realized color palette.

 

[Monster_user]

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.

Photorealism is not graphics, photorealism is a subset of asthetics.

Asthetics = What you see on the screen, and how it intereacts. Asthetics is how well everything blends together, and creates a "style" for the game. It is how the images make you feel.
[cartoony, photorealism, 2D sprites, retro, colors, patterns, styles of wardrobe, setting, character/object animations, physics, effects and filtering, style of on-screen menus, HUD layout and design, etc.]

Graphics = Digital combination of textures and polygons, or sprites. Anti-aliasing, and other image enhancements. While asthetics is the artistic definition of what is on screen, graphics is the technical definition of what is on screen in any given still. Thus it does not include how objects interact.
[texturing, polygons, 2D sprites, colors, resolution, effects and filtering, etc.]

Photorealism = A specific subset of "asthetics" which refers to making things appear real. This realism generally requires a higher level of graphical detail to achieve than most other asthetics.

 

[Christopher Fisher]

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.

Have you actually played Crysis 3, because I have, and it's fucking amazing. And I mean, it IS FUCKING AMAZING LOOKING. Everything about the game looks utterly fucking gorgeous--the art style, the graphics themselves, EVERYTHING. It may not be the best game in the world (I am actually really enjoying due to the emphasis on stealthplay--I loves me the stealth games), but one thing I can most certainly say: this is easily the most amazing looking game I've ever played--EASILY.

 

[chikusho]

Graphics are not Aesthetics

Well, actually, graphics = the visual representation of something.
Good visual representation of something is key to all gaming experience. Good graphics =/= technically impressive or realistic graphics.
Aesthetics = "A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, esp. in art.", a philosophy around art appreciation, which includes technically impressive and/or realistic visual representations of things.

Also, aside from presentation, you need sophisticated hardware in order to create the physics, world and mechanics of games such as SOTC, which is a result of technological advancement.

But, yes, both of those statements are insultingly stupid.

Would the scenes of Ethan and his kids playing have felt so...good if they were pixelated boxes?

Andy playing with his toys in Toy Story felt a lot better than seeing Ethan playing with his kids, with worse graphics.

Would the chopping scene had felt as powerful if it was a pixelated box being attacked?

The chopping scene(s) in The Walking Dead was equally if not more horrifying than the Heavy Rain scene, with worse graphics.

Would the club scene felt as dirty if it was a pixelated box being victimized?

Boning a prostitute in Leisure Suit Larry felt plenty dirty, and that was a pixelated comedy Adventure game.

Point is, it's not about graphics. It's about presentation. And you can set up pixelated boxes to be relatable in almost any way if you're good at creating the circumstances in which you care about them.

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

Oh I certainly agree (and I used The Walking Dead as my own counter-example later in this thread.)

With that said though, the push for better graphics is going to be what gets a game like Heavy Rain to work. Right now, HR kind of worked but could have worked much better if everyone didn't look like...well....

Spoiler

Your soul....it shall be MINE!!! WHA HA HAAAA!

Now imagine HR and the impact it could have conveyed if it looked...well, real. That's the thing that I'm trying to hammer home during these discussions. Graphics are a tool; nothing more. Bad graphics are a hammer and good graphics are a cord-less power hammer. You can build a house using a hammer but there are some houses that are just not possible for you to try to build with that tool that you will be able to build if you use better equipment. A shitty engineer is going to build a shitty house no matter what tools you give him but someone that knows what they're doing can make some beautiful things if they have the tools.

There are some games that just are not possible without great graphics and so it's fairly reasonable to believe that if we continue pushing the graphics-envelope, another genre could possibly spring from that.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Graphics don't mean shit. I've felt more of an emotional connection to 2D sprites than I have with most of the uncanny valley-esque nonsense of the current era.
You know what really helps with establishing an emotional connection with a character? Good characterization. If you have that, then the character could be a stick figure and I would still feel an emotional connection to it.

 

[spartan231490]

How about books? They create one of the most powerful emotional connections in all of artistic expression and they don't even have images. Graphics are irrelevant to emotional power of a story. No one ever cried because of how real a piece of art looked.

 

[sanquin]

I dont think anyone is arguing that we need less good aesthetic.

Like tippy already Argued. Bigger toolbox = more opotunities.

And like I said our graphics toolbox is good enough at the moment. While our aesthetics toolbox is severely lacking in a lot of games. Sure there are advantages to researching better graphics as well. But that's not what is most needed in games at the moment. They should focus on aesthetics first, and put graphics in the back for a little bit. Just a year or two could already do wonders. Heck it would also allow commercial computer hardware to catch up to current graphical compatibilities a little. Since Crysis 3's graphics will push the limits of even the highest current hardware when set to max.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

To make a statement that I've made hundreds of times: improvements in graphical technology may not, by themselves, produce games that look better. It gives an artist better tools to realize their vision. To put it another way, technology doesn't make an ugly game look good but it can make a game that looks good look better.

 

[snekadid]

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.

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.

This is extremely flawed. You dismiss the wall-e example because it required time to build him as a character but no matter how amazing the graphics get, you could have photo realistic people come on screen and then suddenly get misted by a bus in the most graphic detail possible and all you would get is a combination of WTF and laughing because there is no emotional connection. You just made a really pretty crash test dummy that has no connection to us.

There is no point where graphics allow a closer, faster emotional connection than other elements, infact the "uncanny valley" effect can actually hinder the other elements.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

I think there are two sides to this.

On the one hand, graphics definitely are no replacement for a good aesthetic.

On the other, a lot of people realize that, then jump in the other, equally silly, direction and say that graphics don't matter, ever, under any circumstances.

To illustrate why they do, let's look at Far Cry 3 and Okami.

Far Cry 3 has pretty good graphics supporting a solid aesthetic. But since the game is about realistic jungle survival, lesser graphics would make the game worse. And I think they would even lessen emotional investment to an extent. I'm not claiming that they're the primary source of said emotional investment, but I feel that in this particular game, they are beneficial, as they allow for good emoting from NPCs. Certainly not the be-all-end-all of investment, but a nice plus.

On the other hand, Okami is not a graphically-driven game at all. Reducing the graphics to the point that they could not support the aesthetic would of course damage the game, but no amount of graphical improvement would improve the game even slightly, emotionally, artistically, or in any other way.

So essentially what I'm saying is that graphics are a tool, like anything else. A developer who just throws them at every problem hoping it will work isn't doing a very good job, but they can be useful when used properly.

 

[Remaiki]

I just want to say that best results are garnered from a combination of good graphics + good aesthetics.

There's a point where bad graphical fidelity undermines graphical syle. Equally, there's a point where bad graphical style undermines graphical fidelity.

 

[Olas]

I guess graphics are like the toolbox that an artist has to work with. A truly great artist can create art with just the basics, and all the tools in the world won't make a bad artist produce something good, but given more tools to work with a good artist can at least theoretically create better art than he could have without them.

I'd also caution that better graphics can be hindrance as well though. Artists usually thrive when working within tight boundaries because when forced to work within limitations they have to be creative to try and try to find ways to push the envelope and overcome them. However, when given total power and freedom artists often set their aspirations too high, far above what they're realistically capable of creating, and the project turns into a huge burdensome mess that doesn't go as planned.

I think for some developers higher end graphical capability starts to seem less like an opportunity and more like a responsibility and ultimately a burden. A burden that can make games take longer to develop than they should, make creators scared to take risks because of how much money is being spent, and ultimately stifle the creativity that it's supposed to encourage.

Developers need to understand that just because their hardware has a certain advanced feature, that doesn't mean they have to, or even should try to find some way of implementing it into the game if it's unnecessary. However, companies need to advertise whatever sexy new features their systems come with to justify asking you to buy it, so they'll cram this new hardware into every launch game and pretend like it'll completely change your experience and in the end a valid tool starts to look like a tagged on gimmick.

So basically as always the problem is marketing.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Aesthetic, in other words we're considering games as visual art, and when we do this we make a mistake IMO.
Photo realism doesn't make a good game anymore than a good story makes a good game.

It's very frustrating to see this push of an entertainment medium into the whole art sphere because gameplay and design is being lost.

 

[cerebreturns]

graphics can be aesthetics, they can also not be.

As far as requiring specific graphics to elect emotion? No...just no.

That's about as dumb a argument as people in america who argue cartoons can't be serious or elect emotion.

It's just blind ignorance, and if it's not ignorance then it is the person trying to push something...

 

[loa]

I think graphics are a huge part of the aesthetics since those are nothing but never to be fully realized concept art if you lack the graphical fidelity to convey the vision.