Jimquisition: The Best Looking Game of This Generation

[Blood Brain Barrier]

]

Jim: blablablablabla. But
blablablabla. And
blablablabla. But
blablablabla. So
blablablabla.
Thank god for me

He could be saying anything and people would still lap it up

What he says resonates with gamers whilst a lot of other commentators are condescending idiots, eg moviebob, or massive industry apologists, eg extra credits. He makes good, well thought out points with evidence as well as a concern for gamers and their exploitation/mis-treatment by devs/publishers as well as devs exploitation by publishers which other commentators do not. They prefer to tell us to shut up and accept whatever bullshit is being thrown at us for the good of the industry.

What evidence does he put that high color games look better than low color ones? He just says they do, so we accept it and that's the end of it. I haven't seen anyone in this thread questioning WHY hi-color games like Viva Pinata look better. If Jim says they do, then apparently that's enough. If he said the opposite I doubt it would be any different.

It's the structure of Jim's rants and the way he presents himself that is appealing to us, which is why if Jim says it, it's gotta be right. Like he says himself.

 

[ms_sunlight]

Why do people think I am in some sort of arms race with Extra Credits?

We cover similar topics. Overlap is inevitable, and I don't really watch their show regularly so I don't know what they cover. In any case, just because one series may have touched on a topic that doesn't automatically disqualify every other series in the world from covering it too.

Seriously, this whole, "oh mah gawd Extra Credits did this" thing is just ... weird.

You actually made quite a different point to Extra Credits, so I really don't know where the hell it's coming from.

One of the few recent HD "gritty" releases with a saturated colour palette was The Witcher 2. Full of brilliant colour, bloom effects and contrast, it just looked absolutely stunning, especially on a good PC. It sort of proved you can do grimdark and photorealistic without having to look like someone's shat all over your rendering, if you really want to.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I think Jim should have drawn a distinction between graphics and aesthetics. I'll agree that colourful and bold are better looking than gritty and dark but we're kind of talking aesthetics as much as graphics with that. Graphics wise Viva Piñata is good, but not great, it's the aesthetic which brings it up to make it look good (and the same can be said for similar games). Other games are graphically superior but make poor use of the graphics or attempt photo-realism, I'm with Jim on defending that but I agree that it is worse looking than other ideas.

I don't think you quite got the whole point.

Modern HD monitors and tellys have significantly improved colour rendition to older tech. Bright colours just look better on HD. They certainly look brighter and "pop" more than they did on old CRT screens. Why have that capacity and not use it?

 

[GonzoGamer]

Why do people think I am in some sort of arms race with Extra Credits?

They are intellectuals speaking on the gaming industry. So are you. Comparison is natural and inevitable, whether you like it or not. Ditto for Yahtzee.

Comparison, sure, but this idea that I'm in some sort of race with them makes no sense. You do realize this topic has no deadline, right? It's not like I entered into some Phineas Fogg style wager with Extra Credits to see who could do a graphics episode first. You're acting like I'm "late" to a discussion as if there was a sell-by date on it, which is relatively demented.

Personally, I'd like to have seen you do this video at the end of this generation...when all the cards are in. However, the way game trends die, you'd probably pick the same game.

I think the problem is that publishers aren't trying to make games that "stand the test of time" but games that follow trends and might sell more copies by doing so. They see the money a game like GoW rakes in when compared to VP and they probably make their decisions on what to fund purely on that and not so much the legacy.

My favorite looking game from this gen is definitely Child of Eden. Each level felt like it was created by a completely different graffiti artist who decided to turn to digital art. I only did acid once a long time ago but that game triggered flashbacks better than walking by any cyclone fence.

 

[Stripes]

]

Jim: blablablablabla. But
blablablabla. And
blablablabla. But
blablablabla. So
blablablabla.
Thank god for me

He could be saying anything and people would still lap it up

What he says resonates with gamers whilst a lot of other commentators are condescending idiots, eg moviebob, or massive industry apologists, eg extra credits. He makes good, well thought out points with evidence as well as a concern for gamers and their exploitation/mis-treatment by devs/publishers as well as devs exploitation by publishers which other commentators do not. They prefer to tell us to shut up and accept whatever bullshit is being thrown at us for the good of the industry.

What evidence does he put that high color games look better than low color ones? He just says they do, so we accept it and that's the end of it. I haven't seen anyone in this thread questioning WHY hi-color games like Viva Pinata look better. If Jim says they do, then apparently that's enough. If he said the opposite I doubt it would be any different.

It's the structure of Jim's rants and the way he presents himself that is appealing to us, which is why if Jim says it, it's gotta be right. Like he says himself.

What I said earlier is still true, whilst its always an opinion piece this one hasnt got an argument behind it because its very subjective. How can you present evidence that one is better than the other? what looks good is completely subjective, its stupid to demand evidence for such a thing. He has an opinion and people agree with him, why is that not acceptable to you? Why is impossible to agree with him? If you want evidence he did infact give some in the way of saying stylised games age better than photo-realistic ones, his evidence being that the origanal halo and killzone were held high praise for their capability at the time but now that things have improved they dont look appealing whilst stylised games from the same time have aged much better. Thats not opinion though, its fact, you cant prove something subjective is objectively correct.

 

[Chadling]

Jim: "Viva Pinata is awesome!"
Viva Pinata: "Hey, you picked me up at free comic book day, remember? Me and the Banjo-Kazooie game?"
Me: "But... but.... Mass Effect. I haven't even gotten halfway through two, and I've somehow managed to avoid most of the spoilers for three...."
Viva Pinata: *looks up at me with huge, technicolor, puppy-dog eyes.
Me: "Ah, screw it. Sorry, Femshep, you're going to have to wait."

 

[geizr]

Honestly, I don't find the "realistic" brown and gray shooters to be all that realistic in appearance. I don't know about anyone else, but I do not have the eyesight of a dog. When I look outside my window, I see a hella lot of different colors that are all nice and bright, with high contrasting. even. Even the grimmest looking places I've seen are well illuminated with much color and contrasting, as opposed to muted monotone. Even if I go into a dark cave, there is more color than I usually see in these so called "realistic" games. They just never look that realistic to me.

Now, I will give them that they succeed in creating games that look "dark and edgy"; that's certainly the mode that they pull off. But, if one's perception of the realistic world is that it is all "dark and edgy" all the time, one may want to seek help for depression (or at least get your eyes checked for cataracts).

 

[Twinmill5000]

Myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyst
Uru: Live.


That is all.

Tera looks even better. I'm not just saying this becau... actually, I am just saying this because I'm a 19 year old male whose extremely sexually frustrated. Long distance relationships.

EDIT:
On a more serious note, Kingdoms of Amular might have lasting graphics, for the sole reason that the models are rather stylized, and they DID have some of the best 3d artists working on it.

 

[geizr]

Why do people think I am in some sort of arms race with Extra Credits?

We cover similar topics. Overlap is inevitable, and I don't really watch their show regularly so I don't know what they cover. In any case, just because one series may have touched on a topic that doesn't automatically disqualify every other series in the world from covering it too.

Seriously, this whole, "oh mah gawd Extra Credits did this" thing is just ... weird.

I will offer my opinion that the reason is the same as why people choose particular football teams or a favorite football player, and then argue endlessly over petty rivalries. There's no rationality or reasoning behind it other than people like to think their particular choice in things is, objectively, the absolute best, and it is their duty to proselytize everyone into thinking the same in order to satisfy their need for self-validation and self-importance. It's just human psychology at work.

 

[Rastrelly]

There are some this gen games that are still bright but are not Viva Pinata. This, for example: http://cache.g4tv.com/images/ImageDb3/245850_l/Alice-Madness-Returns-Screenshots.jpg

Or this: http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Oblivion_2.jpg (it's a game for 360, remember?)

Or this: http://ii.alatest.com/product/full/d/9/Kingdoms-of-Amalur-Reckoning-PS3-0.jpg

Viva Pinata hurts my eyes. These titles are both bright and appealing for the eye.

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

I once posted a thread in which I stated that Disneyland Kinect Advertures was one of the best looking games of this generation.

I got warned for "trolling"

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

So... seven minutes of Jim dry humping contrast over and over. I've never heard so many synonyms for the word bright said by one man before.

The entire video: "Bright colours are pretty. In ten years, bright colours will be pretty."

 

[shiajun]

I'd say we have to distinguish between the 2d and full 3d games to compare graphics quality.Also, 2d games like Rayman Origins (or basically 2d presented games) like Bastion or Starcraft 2 will age much better than their up close polygon brethren, as long as we're not over the uncanny valley phase. Hell, even Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light looks MUCH better than Tomb Raider Underworld, and, as far as I know, it's based on the same engine, just zoomed way out. For up close and personal games, I'd say bright colors or firm aesthetics will always triumph. I've only seen one post on this thread mentioning Alice: Madness Returns. That game's art direction will probably make it age better that it would have otherwise because of the engine's "real life" limitations. I'll place that game as runner up, though Mirror's Edge, El Shaddai, Journey and Prince of Persia 2008 will kick a lot of ass when years from now compared to the grimy, color desatured games all over the place. Even Deus Ex: HR, for all its gold filter effects will not age that well, mostly because of how things look way up close.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What evidence does he put that high color games look better than low color ones? He just says they do, so we accept it and that's the end of it. I haven't seen anyone in this thread questioning WHY hi-color games like Viva Pinata look better. If Jim says they do, then apparently that's enough. If he said the opposite I doubt it would be any different.

It's the structure of Jim's rants and the way he presents himself that is appealing to us, which is why if Jim says it, it's gotta be right. Like he says himself.

What I said earlier is still true, whilst its always an opinion piece this one hasnt got an argument behind it because its very subjective. How can you present evidence that one is better than the other? what looks good is completely subjective, its stupid to demand evidence for such a thing. He has an opinion and people agree with him, why is that not acceptable to you? Why is impossible to agree with him? If you want evidence he did infact give some in the way of saying stylised games age better than photo-realistic ones, his evidence being that the origanal halo and killzone were held high praise for their capability at the time but now that things have improved they dont look appealing whilst stylised games from the same time have aged much better. Thats not opinion though, its fact, you cant prove something subjective is objectively correct.

No arguments there. So if you can't prove that certain games look better then why make an episode on the best looking game of this generation? If I swapped out all the games he cited as looking good for all the ones he thought looked bad, the reasoning of the episode would still remain intact. That can't be right.

 

[Moeez]

Great choice! I'll go with Rayman Origins:

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Why do people think I am in some sort of arms race with Extra Credits?

We cover similar topics. Overlap is inevitable, and I don't really watch their show regularly so I don't know what they cover. In any case, just because one series may have touched on a topic that doesn't automatically disqualify every other series in the world from covering it too.

Seriously, this whole, "oh mah gawd Extra Credits did this" thing is just ... weird.

Because your videos are infinitely lesser in quality and boil down to poorly regurgitated information that's either been covered to death or covered much better by other, more skilled talent. In fact, most of your videos read word for word the same as threads started and ended here weeks before you got in front of the camera. It's like you'd rather be late to the party and arrive just in time for everyone to nod in agreement, than actually break any ground at all.

My advice: give up on the facade, stop stating the obvious--you've gone beyond preaching to the choir and seem more like a parrot than a priest at this point--and offer something that's actually unique. You awkwardly standing in front of a camera and vomiting out rehashed forum posts in a painfully inane facade lost any charm it may have had long, long ago.

Being a snark smartass who likes to pretend they're important has been done. A lot. It's time for some originality. When you aren't offering anything that can't be found just as easily by searching the front page in any gaming forum, it's time to take a step back.

So ... you're saying you don't like the show, right? Sorry, I can't believe that for a second. That's like, logistically impossible.

 

[Namehere]

See this is what happens when you post in the wrong forum... Sorry, I was answering another forum...

Oh but hey, great oportunity to say... I have no opinion on the subject but animated things do hold out better then 'real life' style things over time. After all people still watch old Loony Tunes cartoons, how many people still watch I Love Lucy or the Honeymooners? Cartoons/toonish animation holds better over time then real world types. Especially when you consider a cartoon just gets more colours, real world stuff is improved in countless ways over the span of years.

Umm... Yea, Thank Gozer for Jim.

 

[Mikipoo]

I agree with the article completely. When i got my first HD TV, the first shows that truly set the oooooo factor was the BBC nature documentaries.

My wife did not understand the point of HD at all until she watched CSI:Miami. Ever see that show? Bright vivid colours and great contrasts.

 

[Mahoshonen]

I must respectfully disagree with Jim on this one. Modern 1st/3rd person shooters with a photorealistic aesthetic can look gorgeous, and I submit Just Cause 2 as the best example of this. The island is jaw-dropping beautiful no matter what angle you look at it from, but I guess that's what sells it: since the game is free-roaming you're allowed to look at the scenery at whatever angle you want. And I always find the level of detail given to structures to amaze me.