Does Art Direction Matter? | Exploring Graphics in Gaming
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 чер 2024
- Lets have that difficult conversation in the world gaming. Do graphics matter? YES!
Edited by: @Bloops
Additional Art from: @OfficiallyTCK
Twitter? Instagram? Main Channel? Twitch? PATREON?! - linktr.ee/boundarybreak
Discord! discord.gg/boundarybreak
#nintendo #art #graphics
Commenting corrections, constructive criticism, and even rude comments of the content is accepted. However posting incorrect corrections or generally promoting misinformation will be removed.
When people say “graphics don't matter”, most of the time they refer to the ultra realism that drives modern AAA games. Like, we don't need a game that renders every single arm hair and drop of sweat from a character.
However, that doesn't mean we don't appreciate advancements in game graphics. For example, Super Mario 3D World is an amazing game. If you compare it to Super Mario 64, you can see it has better controls, better level design, but also better graphics. It has metallic surfaces and reflections and realistic lighting.
Graphics do matter. What doesn't matter is sacrificing gameplay for ultra realism.
Beautifully said.
For me story, gameplay, atmosphere of the game, vibes, and ost are far more important than graphics. However graphics still have lots of significance for me at least as a bonus feature to the foundations I mentioned earlier.
Please don't be afraid to have opinions on this channel. I watch to hear your perspectives specifically.
you really hit the nail on the head. esthetics > graphics
I agree with your points in this video, but more so I just wanted to throw some support your way. You've had a lot of interesting insights since starting this side channel. I think there's real potential for this channel to grow, but you just need that one video to take off first you know.
OMG! Thank you!!
I feel the same way about Gears of War. I'm sure it's a good game with interesting characters & story, but whenever I see a gameplay trailer it just looks bland and unfun.
I think the exaggerated features in older games like FF7 helped the player identify characters easier on lower resolution CRT screens of their day. Some scenes in there have gorgeous background art with teensy-weensy, far-away characters you can barely see.
I'm not going to say "graphics don't matter", because they do, but gameplay matters more. Without good gameplay, the game with the fanciest graphics is garbage. Good story can make up for crap graphics too.
Loved to see Mario Tennis for GC make an appearance! Loved the intro video for that game with Waluigi and Wario.
Usually when I see a trailer for a game and go "ew no" is because its yet another online only multiplayer shooter
I love that people can look past aesthetics because an entire Indie game culture has grown around games that don't necessarily have great graphics and the games themselves are genuinely special and in many cases award winners. HOWEVER I'm not one of those people. I don't need flashy graphics (up until this year I was still using a 10yo PC) but I do primarily take into account the look of a game before the gameplay. I'm just put off at the initial trailer stage and by and large don't look further into them.
Nostalgia is a powerful thing though. I play Guild Wars 2 and that's not necessarily a game held in high regard when looks are involved but veteran players wont hear any of that. They just see an art style.
I feel like it depends on what the game is going for. There are some people who play almost entirely text based games for the story or mechanics of the game (something like the universal paperclip game). But there’s also people who want to turn on a movie they can interact with (like the telltale games) and that would kind of suck if it wasn’t visually appealing or interesting in some way. But most games probably try and balance the mechanics and aesthetics more than those examples though
Graphics don't matter, just play games you like. Limit your exposure to online gaming. I recommend against it because it gets addictive.
There's graphics, and there's choices though. But your games are what you want to play, of course.
Bubsy 3D
@@Shift_Salt exactly, look at all those platforms to developers were Nice enough to provide for you.
I think graphics can add to a game for sure, be it realism, charm, or just plain fun. I played Monster Hunter World almost entirely for the exploration aspect for example, those beautiful environments.
I do think it's important for a game to have it's own distinct "look", else they all blend together.
Thank you for another wonderful video!
Thank YOU for watching! Means a ton!
I'm just a huge fan of games that focus on hyper-realism, that and first-person shooters...It's why I'm sticking with Nintendo, their games can still look nice without being realistic, like the 3D Mario games, or Kirby.
True! Realism is nice but I’ll pick a game for its aesthetics. I think I definetely missed out on some good stuff by looking at the trailer and thinking ‘this isn’t for me’.
When people say "graphics don't matter" I think (or hope) they mean things like resolution and polygon count, the art direction does matter a whole lot in my opinion, back then to make the game look better in the long run, and today to make the game distinct from every other ultra realistic shlock that comes out every week
i didnt give a try for saints row series for a long while just because i thought it looked weird (the newer games of the original series has really weird cartoony style that kinda just clashes with everything, and the older games look kinda bland and washed out, and on surface level does not really have visually anything interesting or unique going on). when my friend told me what the games are actually about, and what the gameplay is like, i gave it a try and i fell in love with the series. over the years the style has grown a bit on me, but i still can definitely see someone looking at it and going "ew" and not bothering to give it a try.
Yeah aesthetics can be a big influence on getting games. It's the reason why I was into something like Going Under because I found corporate artsyle they had to be really pleasing. There has been times where I got a game that I liked where they weren't exactly pleasing like the Epic Dumpster Bear series or Killblood, but I feel like that happens less often.
The biggest thing to keep in mind about this topic is stylized vs realistic art style. If you're gonna go for a realistic art style, you kind of have to go all in. If you release a game with a PS3 level of graphics in 2024 you'll get laughed out of the room. I think the reason a lot of indie studios go more stylized is they don't have the budget to create realistic graphics up to modern standards and stylized can look good with a much lower budget.
It's a similar story to "the Pixar style" in the animation world. If Pixar released a film that looks like the original Toy Story no one would watch it. But something like Spider-Verse with its comic book art style and intentionally low frame rate acts as an alternative.
Of course, there is a funny thing about time passing. PS1 games were genuinely trying to look realistic but flailed so hard that today PS1 graphics are considered to be more stylized and you see indie games do PS1 style all the time.
Unless one want a specific reaction from the audience, do not make something outright ugly (like Conker in the thumbnail). I find most of Klasky Csupo's cartoons really ugly, but I personally also find them boring, so there's no point in watching something like that for me. I find much of the sprite work in Virtual Boy really good, but the red makes me not track one down as they'll hurt my eyes. Quentin Blake doesn't have the best art style in the world, and there's probably many technically better artists out there. But there's just something so charming about his art style I like it anyway, and appears others do too as he has illustrated over 300 books! But some are technically very realistic and beautiful, but there's no soul so I don't like them. Sometimes sprites are better than models or hand drawn, but other times it just doesn't work. So it's interesting how differently different styles are for different people. Some probably like Klasky Csupo's but find Quentin Blake's unbearable. I can see all the different styles in anime and manga, but some find all anime and manga identical. I. Think everyone has their own distinctive style so even if you see a little bit of a character you'll know who'll draw it, and the person's history, where they grew up, etc. All of it works together to make it what it is. And I find that really interesting.
I've personally been burned out on games that shoot for ultra-realism from as early-on as 2014ish, but it feels the general gaming populace is finally starting to catch on en-masse as mainstream AAA games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce are dead-on-arrival.
Part of the problem with ultra-realism is how stylization is almost not even possible anymore once a certain level of adherence to our real world is reached.
But stylized games can also go wrong too (especially if the style in question is a bit too generic). Pokemon has been a graphical embarrassment for Nintendo ever since the Switch came out (except Let's Go was decent), and there are morons who will claim that Scarlet & Violet only ran poorly *because* of the Switch (despite the Switch having gorgeous showcases that rival PS4 visuals like Zelda BotW/TotK, the Xenoblade trilogy, and ports of actual PS4/XB1 games like The Witcher and Warframe) when I believe that Scarlet/Violet would still look visually disappointing and generic if they were developed for PC (which would be unoptimized anyways and require an RTX 3060 for PS3/360 graphics)
Really, I feel like most of Nintendo's franchises have been getting it right and striking the most appropriate balances this whole time, such as Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Metroid, Animal Crossing, Fire Emblem, and Smash Bros. But it does make me miss when Sony had franchises that hit those same balances like Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper. I'm glad we still have Ratchet & Clank, but it really feels Pixar-level games such as Rift Apart are becoming a dying art as companies continue to pursue photorealistic games that are increasingly failing to resonate with audiences.
when it comes to character design, i think it's always important for a character to be "big picture simple", i suppose would be the right way to put it. i'm a xenoblade fan, and of course i'm sure most of us are aware of how ridiculously overcomplicated many xenoblade character designs can be, but i'd say some designs can still end up working out so i enjoy them as long as the details don't distract from the big picture. shulk is the easiest example off the top of my head. if you look at him, there's absolutely a ton of complex details that serve no purpose. but looking at the big picture, he's a dude with a red vest and black undershirt with basketball shorts and sneakers. plus, his default outfit's red fits well with the Monado. i think there's a fair bit that could be simplified to create an even better design, but especially as jrpg characters go, i'd say shulk makes for a great example of how to focus on making the big picture attractive.
as for graphics and aesthetics across an entire game, i generally don't even notice too awful much while i'm playing so long as it's cohesive and consistent. not that i can't see it of course lol, just that it doesn't cross my mind a lot. twilight princess is a solid example of this. people say its visuals age poorly, and sure i can get that to an extent, but i really can't imagine looking at typical gameplay of that game and saying it looks *bad* just cause it has gamecube grade visuals (though let's also take a moment to appreciate just how far beyond just about anything else on the gamecube TP was in terms of complex visuals).
when graphics become important to me is specifically when you can just look at them and tell there wasn't a lot of love given to them. there's always gonna be exceptions of course, some of the best games out there had trash graphics for their time, and especially with indies it's not like you can expect everyone to have top grade skills in both game design and art, but if we're talking a big name game, having things just look kinda ugly and inconsistent and rough indicates to me a lack of care and attention, or possibly (honestly more likely) a lack of time afforded to graphics artists who could've really delivered if given the time. either possibility then has deeper implications for the rest of the game. i figure if you can't make something look at least kinda pretty on ps360 grade hardware, you were never gonna make something that looks good anyway, so when on ps4 or even ps5 grade hardware we get games that just look kinda... ugly, i suppose, that tells me that the rest of the game is likely to follow suit. that whole final fantasy strangers of paradise game is a good example in this case. it's not like the game looks atrocious or anything, but especially when you watch gameplay in motion you can tell there just wasn't much time or care put into making the game actually look good. it's inconsistent, it looks messy, at times it looks like a particularly advanced (but not particularly inspired) xbox 360 title, and that just doesn't bode well for anything that comes after. again there's always gonna be exceptions, but i've found this tends to hold true.
This was a big issue to me in the Xbox showcase so I can't narrow down which you're talking about
Graphics absolutely matter
But graphics shouldn't be the number 1 priority
This video feels like it would work well if it was a Masahiro Sakura video, telling artists if you want your characters to stand out, make the designs models simple and easy to remember. I do use Blender I do tend to go cartoony making things.
This doesn't apply to just games. This video unlocked a core memory, something I haven't thought about in years, but I actually avoided certain cartoons growing up because child me thought they looked so ugly.
-Code Lyoko
-Ed, Edd, and Eddy
-Cow and Chicken
-Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Island
-Butt Ugly Martians
-Anything Klasky Csupo (Rugrats, Thornberries, Ginger)
-Fanboy and Chumchum
-Mike Lou and Ugg
And these are just off the top of my head, I know for a fact that there were others. I never gave these shows (and more) a chance because I looked at the commercials and thought "eww." Some of these do suck, but a lot of these are great and it's sad that I never gave them a chance because of their looks. So yeah, we humans, as much as we hate to admit it, can base our decisions to engage with certain media on nothing but aesthetics.
I love the aesthetics of the intricately colorful frilled up characters though so I disagree there. I personally love the way the early FF males looked. I love the colorful fantasy outfits, unique hairstyles, the beads and jewels in the hair plus the purple lipstick and eye makeup early FF males wore. I'm also partial to Tina Brandford's character design.
I think a Short Hike might be fun to play but it look so ugly to me, I find it uncomfortable to even look at.
I still play N64 and DS games and i don't care how old they look... They are still fun.
Tree words:
Mario Kart DS
Graphics absolutely do matter. If you are going for that super-realistic art style, then bad graphics would be a detriment to your goal. People like to say the art style is more important, but in reality you can’t have one without the other. Art style and graphics go hand in hand, you can have an amazing style, but if you don’t have the power you need to back up the vision, it simply can’t be as good.
As one of your audience members I give you permission to upset me.
Usually when I shrug my shoulders and go, "meh," it's because it's a clone of a game or series that I'm already into. For example, there are tons of Metroidvania games out there that people say are fantastic, but they're not Metroid or Castlevania, so I'm less intrigued by them. Not to say I didn't try a couple, but they just don't feel the same.
Then there's a game I like playing that a lot of others like to trash-talk, Final Fantasy X-2. Although, I will admit that peoples' attire does tend to get a bit odd, at times (for FFX as well).
I think graphics matter, but not in the sense that games have to look ultra realistic and detailed as the standard. But rather, how it looks - which is what you mentioned. The aesthetic of the game. The color palette. The world design. The character design.
I don't think this is shallow to ask of a video game because your main interaction with it is visual. You are always seeing the game. Therefore, the place you're at in the game world has to be somewhere that interests you, along with the characters that inhabit it.
It could be low-poly graphics but still look simple good, yet unique and interesting. (Sometimes the higher the graphics, the harder it actually is to look so.)
My take is that *Fidelity* doesn't matter, whether something is 1080p 30fps or 4k 8million fps isn't going to make or break most games, barring some Reaction time dependant games like Fighting Games or FPSs. Having good art direction is what's important. If something is styled well and is cohesive, it will usually stand the test of time and be much more captial A "Appealing"
Is that game Tombi/a?
I like how when he's describing character designs that are too busy, he's describing Tetsuya Nomura, worst video game director/producer ever's art style.
So, great video, but I think you missed the point of the argument that graphics don't matter.
When we say that graphics don't matter, we're saying that every video game doesn't have God of War. Not every game needs top tier graphics to be good.
For example, a game like Undertale is not bad because it uses sprite graphics. Nor is a game like Bloodborne bad because it runs at 30 fps.
Art style is important to a good video game. Games can be graphically inferior, but due to a good art style can easily make it amazing.