Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

All discussions regarding Board, Card, and RPG Gaming, including industry discussion, that don't belong in one of the other gaming forums.

Moderators: The Preacher, $iljanus, Zaxxon

Post Reply
User avatar
ChrisGrenard
Posts: 10587
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:19 pm

Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by ChrisGrenard »

Certainly there are countless threads on how people debate what game has the best graphics, or even debates about how you don't need good graphics to have a good game. This thread is a bit different. This thread is about how some types of graphics have reached their peak, and probably will not get much better in the coming years.

Part 1: Graphics wars

Certainly there will always be games that vie for the best graphics ever. The Doom 3's and Half-Life 2's. Those type of games will get more and more realistic, up to photorealism in the next 5 to 10 years. Bump mapping improves, textures improve, models get more detailed, etc. Even now, the cutting edge are getting ready to be replaced by tomorrows even more cutting edge.

This is natural progression, and people will always want to purchase these type of games, if for little more reason than to show off how powerful their computer is.

However, there are even today (even 3 years ago) types of games that are at the peak of how good they will look. These games are what I would call stylized games.

Part 2: Early stylized graphics

The earliest example of excellent stylized graphics I can find is Worms 2. Look at the screenshot, and try say it doesn't still look good today.

Worms was an early example of a game that didn't need what is commonly known as "cutting-edge graphics" to look good. It had a style to it, and that style has not improved through any of the sequels (and in fact, I'd argue that Worms3D was a major step down for the graphics)

Much later, a few more games began to show up that, while never really recognised as cutting-edge, have held up in a way that no bleeding edge games at the time could even hope to achieve.

One of the easiest examples of a genre that is looking about as good as it can look is 2D fighting games. These types of games have mostly reached the climax of how good they can look. And, they do indeed look good. A person can easily go back and play the original Street Fighter and have relatively few complaints about the graphics.

Then, about the time that the Dreamcast was ending its life, a few new games truly locked in places as the first 3D games to have such a style as to transcend time.

The first was Rez. Rez did indeed push the system pretty hard, but what made it different was that made the world it wanted to make. Even if it were to be remade today, it would look the same as it did then. You could not improve upon the look, because they had gotten exactly the look they wanted.

The next was Ico. I did not play Ico until 3 years after it was released, and upon playing it I was amazed at its simple sense of style, and the soft, washed out look that it used. Rarely has a game left me in such awe. Sure, you could make the models more detailed, but that is not what made the game look so great. What made it great was the soft style that the game was completely soaked in.

Part 3: Modern stylized games

This game leads us up to modern games. There are very few games right now that truly have a style of their own, but there are a few. Unfortunately, much of the current styles of games is resulting from cel-shading, which does have a look which lasts longer than realistic games, but it does not guarantee that it truly breaks into a perfect style of its own. Games like Tales of Symponia or Jet Set Radio Future will continue to look better, because they still have room to cram things onto the screen.

One cel-shaded game, however, has perfected its look. Viewtiful Joe. This game provides a stunning use of cel-shading, and by placing it against the movie backdrop has made a very unique style. This game will continue to look great even 10 years from now, and that is something special.

Of modern games, only one 3D game has gotten very close to being able to transcent time with its artwork, and that game is Beyond Good and Evil. What sets this game apart is its truly interesting character designs which clearly are not meant to be realistic. The game has a very smooth look, and by not attempting to give many of the settings and creatures realism, it has helped define itself. Granted, this game would look better with better technology, but it still has enough elements of style to help prolong its life as a "Good looking game."

Part 4: What is the point of this?

In the modern gaming world, it is easy to get caught up in waiting for the next big graphics game to come out. But there will always be the next Doom 3, or Far Cry. To make a cutting edge engine does help move the industry foward, but at the same time that game sets itself up to become obsolete. Only when game developers (and the public) stop focusing on "how realistic" the graphics are will we begin to see more developers taking chances and begining to make their games unique. In my opinion, these are the type of games that define what gaming is all about. Not cookie-cutter "photorealism" tests.
I'm special!
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by Kraken »

ChrisGrenard wrote:Only when game developers (and the public) stop focusing on "how realistic" the graphics are will we begin to see more developers taking chances and begining to make their games unique. In my opinion, these are the type of games that define what gaming is all about. Not cookie-cutter "photorealism" tests.
Right on Chris.

I play strategy games, and they are also on the level of Good Enough. They're abstractions. Civ3 has attractive, clearly representative graphics that look fine to me still. I don't need Civ to look any better. I don't need a swooping camera and infinte zoom levels. These things are more important in other genres.

I wish that developer emphasis would tip more toward AI programming and story development. But we're visual creatures. We value these incremental improvements in appearances and we like our photorealism, and that is the standard by which game graphics are always weighed.
User avatar
bluefugue
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by bluefugue »

I think you might be able to go back even further to find games that are their own "personal best" in terms of graphics. Pac Man and Asteroids (arcade versions) are both graphically quite simple, but from a design standpoint I think they are pretty much perfect.
kathode
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:57 am

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by kathode »

ChrisGrenard wrote:Only when game developers (and the public) stop focusing on "how realistic" the graphics are will we begin to see more developers taking chances and begining to make their games unique. In my opinion, these are the type of games that define what gaming is all about. Not cookie-cutter "photorealism" tests.
I agree to a point, though if you want to convince anyone that the Unreal 3 stuff doesn't look holy fucking amazing, you're going to have a tough sell. The fact is that as the technological fidelity of graphics increases, so to do the artistic possibilities. For instance, plenty of your stylized games, particular recent cel-shaded entries, utilize specially created shaders to achieve their look. You may claim not to like the more "generic" entries like Doom 3 that exist primarily as a visual showcase, but in regards to creating new opportunities for developers to explore new visual frontiers, they are absolutely vital.
User avatar
warning
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by warning »

Ironrod wrote: I wish that developer emphasis would tip more toward AI programming and story development. But we're visual creatures. We value these incremental improvements in appearances and we like our photorealism, and that is the standard by which game graphics are always weighed.
And we are able to make regular improvements in graphics due to advancing technology. In some ways it's much easier to wow somebody with pretty graphics rather than wowing them with a story.
User avatar
bluefugue
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by bluefugue »

I'd rather be wowed with gameplay than wowed with story or graphics. :wink:

But I am a Proud Graphics Whore and have been ever since I ogled Pitfall on the Atari 2600. For me, shiny visuals is part of the appeal of videogames -- always has been.
User avatar
Giles Habibula
Posts: 6612
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota USA

Post by Giles Habibula »

I have a very big fondness for older computer games, and play a lot of them pretty regularly. I guess you could call me a retro gamer, as I've never had the slightest problem enjoying an old game just as much today as I did yesterday. And the appeal of the dated graphics is a big part of it.

But I can and do still enjoy being awed by the overpowering visuals in today's games. And if those graphics are tied to a great game, well I'm sold.

But if technological innovation in graphics suddenly came to a halt, it wouldn't hurt my feelings in the slightest.
"I've been fighting with reality for over thirty-five years, and I'm happy to say that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
User avatar
Napoleon
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:07 am
Location: The Low Countries
Contact:

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by Napoleon »

Ironrod wrote:
ChrisGrenard wrote:Only when game developers (and the public) stop focusing on "how realistic" the graphics are will we begin to see more developers taking chances and begining to make their games unique. In my opinion, these are the type of games that define what gaming is all about. Not cookie-cutter "photorealism" tests.
Right on Chris.

I play strategy games, and they are also on the level of Good Enough. They're abstractions. Civ3 has attractive, clearly representative graphics that look fine to me still. I don't need Civ to look any better. I don't need a swooping camera and infinte zoom levels. These things are more important in other genres.

Hell, I think Civ 2 still looks fine.
Basically the only gametype in which I'm a graphics whore is in FPS games. The others, I couldn't care less about graphics.
Where Cows Congregate - The Bovine Conspiracy
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by Kraken »

Napoleon wrote: Basically the only gametype in which I'm a graphics whore is in FPS games. The others, I couldn't care less about graphics.
I think photorealism helps RPGs, too -- especially in the ubiquitous swords & sorcery setting -- because of their story orientation. Realistic graphics help you suspend your disbelief.
User avatar
Napoleon
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:07 am
Location: The Low Countries
Contact:

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by Napoleon »

Ironrod wrote:
Napoleon wrote: Basically the only gametype in which I'm a graphics whore is in FPS games. The others, I couldn't care less about graphics.
I think photorealism helps RPGs, too -- especially in the ubiquitous swords & sorcery setting -- because of their story orientation. Realistic graphics help you suspend your disbelief.
True. But I still think Fallout 2 looks really cool, so I might be an idiot :D
Where Cows Congregate - The Bovine Conspiracy
User avatar
Ripstar
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:51 pm

Post by Ripstar »

Great thread Chris. I was just thinking some similar thoughts the other day.
Playing Rome Total War the other day I was thinking the graphics are not really cutting edge but who cares the game is so good.

System Shock 2, the graphics are dated now but the game is so good who cares, it still drips with atmosphere and feels right.

SO, if a game is really good how good do the graphics need to be?
I think that they need to be good enough to carry the game and noy allow the played to lose the sense of immersion.

That said,I still think a game designer should put their best efforts into all levels of game play but that dosen't neccessarily mean you have to have cutting edge graphics all the time.
You can run, but you'll just die tired.
User avatar
bluefugue
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by bluefugue »

That's funny -- RTW actually gives me exactly the opposite impression. I think the graphics are amazing, when you consider what it has to render simultaneously in real time etc. I've never seen battles rendered in this epic way before, and it makes a huge impact on gameplay. RTW is one of the most cinematic games I have ever seen. And that actually makes it more fun to play; it makes the tactical battles more exciting.

Of course each individual dude looks like he walked out of Quake 1, but the overall visual impact is quite simply unique in my videogaming experience.

So I have thought of RTW as an example of "graphics really *can* make a game better."
User avatar
Napoleon
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:07 am
Location: The Low Countries
Contact:

Post by Napoleon »

And I agree very much with bluefugue. I think RTW looks breathtaking.

Watching your little maggo...err, men fight for you is just fantastic. In fact, I genuinely feel bad when I drive an entire unit of peasants and /or townwatch into an upcoming cavalry charge ;)
Where Cows Congregate - The Bovine Conspiracy
User avatar
Ripstar
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:51 pm

Post by Ripstar »

RTW is a cutting edge game. When you zoom down to follow your army or look at some of the cities they are not cutting edge,graphics. I know that to allow movement of hundreds of figures on screen requires massive amounts of cpu power and you can't have everything.

and

Yes the game is a cinematic masterpiece and I agree with what both of you have said. My point was that you don't need cutting edge graphics when games are as good as RTW.
You can run, but you'll just die tired.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43492
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by Blackhawk »

I was thinking about this the other day. What are the other forms of media that compare to games, what about their graphics and their immersion?

First, the buzzword - Immersion. 'Suspension of disbelief', the 'immersion', the ability to lose track of the world outside of the fiction, of time, and be completely lost in the fiction, almost as if it were a real event.

On one end we have books. Books don't have graphics. Very rarely does a novel go into more detail than 'rough features and a beard' when describing a character. When you read, say, a sci-fi novel and have a nasty character designed to be hated, then that character's look, his mannerisms are entirely a function of the reader's imagination. His features might, subconsciously, take on the cast of some problematic person in your own life. The descritpion of an idylic setting might remind you of a peaceful moment you had as a child, and suddenly your imagination lends elements of your own experience to your mental image of the written description.

Since the visual life that comes from a novel is a part of your own experience, of your own subconscious, it takes on a special kind of reality, a special kind of suspension of disbelief. When you find a novel that really 'fits' you, you can sit down and have several hours disappear in a flash, losing all track of the mundane world around you.

At the other extreme is film. Film is, literally, photorealism, the penultima that games strive for. Film can have the same suspension of disbelief, the same immersion as a novel, but it comes from the fact that all of the details are filled in for you. Detail takes the place of imagination.

As a plus, this means that immersion comes easier. You don't have to put any of yourself into a movie - the director/producer/actors have done that for you, putting their own mental imagery into place. The downside of that is that a movie is much less personal than a good novel. The imagery is that which evokes emotion in the filmmakers, not necessarily in you. What they may think is scary, I may just find humorous.

It is a trade off - easy immersion for imagination.
Ironrod wrote:
Napoleon wrote: Basically the only gametype in which I'm a graphics whore is in FPS games. The others, I couldn't care less about graphics.
I think photorealism helps RPGs, too -- especially in the ubiquitous swords & sorcery setting -- because of their story orientation. Realistic graphics help you suspend your disbelief.
Back when games were done in 16 colors and blocky pixels, things were no different. Playing some vertex-only RPG on my NES in 1990 immersed me every bit as much as Morrowind. It didn't have character portraits, just names. It didn't have textures, just glowing lines. Still, I got so wrapped up in it that I forgot to sleep on more than one night. I knew the characters, portraits or not, from my imagination. Playing that game was like reading a novel. It was immersive, and it was personal.

Playing Morrowind, on the other hand, was just as immersive. Every detail was fleshed out for me. I knew what the characters looked like, I knew what kind of carvings the ancient Dunmer used for decoration, I knew what style of clothing the Imperials favored. I knew what the freaking silverware in a Telvanni wizard's tower looked like! I have gotten lost in Morrowind, and spent a few sleepless nights there as well. It is that immersive, and it is a snap to get into that immersion, just like watching a movie. It was, however, much less personal than that long-forgotten NES game.

I have a feeling that other people could make similar comparisons - perhaps between Doom and Doom 3, or between Star Wars Galaxies and the old lines-and-black Star Wars arcade game. Maybe between the original Battlezone and the remake. When you were playing them, which felt more real?

What's my point? I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps I am mourning the demise of imagination in favor of the lazy habit of being fed our fantasies. Perhaps I am saying that 'the willing suspension of disbelief' so often touted by filmmakers can come from more than one source - that photorealistic graphics are only one path to that destination. Maybe I am just revelling in some favorite gaming experiences.

I think I'll go play a game now.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Stylized Graphics - The War Against the Graphics War

Post by Kraken »

Blackhawk wrote: What's my point? I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps I am mourning the demise of imagination in favor of the lazy habit of being fed our fantasies. Perhaps I am saying that 'the willing suspension of disbelief' so often touted by filmmakers can come from more than one source - that photorealistic graphics are only one path to that destination.
I like to say that people forget that graphics represent something else. They are not the thing itself. But the more photoreal they become, the more this distinction gets lost. We are no longer content to let game graphics symbolize something; they have to BECOME that thing.

When I wrote about RPG realism, I meant that story games already ask us to suspend disbelief on the level of the story itself, and its setting and characters as well if they are fantastical in nature. Abstract or stylistic graphics ask us to suspend another layer -- think about the first time you ever saw Grim Fandango, for example. It took a little while to enter that world. Sometimes players are willing to make that leap with you. Other times, not. As games become more and more mainstream, the audience's tolerance for creative approaches drops...using the movie analogy, think of the different audience sizes for action/adventure dramas versus arty character explorations. The former are completely formulaic, the latter can be quite creative...which one is going to sell better?

That's mass culture for you. The consolation is that, in every creative area from movies to books to music to games to museum exhibits, a robust mass market can afford to indulge and subsidize niches. I have been a niche market my entire life, and that's fine with me. It may get lost in the glare of popular culture, but there is still more quality entertainment in the world than I can possibly make time to enjoy.
User avatar
SuperHiro
Posts: 6877
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by SuperHiro »

I've always thought Blizzard has GREAT art direction. They do really cool stuff that can be appreciated on a wide range of rigs.
Ax
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:10 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Post by Ax »

Call me crazy but I want to be the WOW all the way around gameplay, graphics, and with the story!! :) I am just greedy
Ax
Warfran
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C. Canada

Post by Warfran »

SuperHiro wrote:I've always thought Blizzard has GREAT art direction. They do really cool stuff that can be appreciated on a wide range of rigs.
I agree,half of the attraction of the Warcraft games for me has always been the graphics.

I know when I show non-gamers(like my wife) the graphics from EQ2,they say for the most part,nice but something looks phony,puppet like.When I show them WoW the reaction is usually,really pretty,nice artwork,looks like a fantasy novel come to life.

So good graphics in a game can come from cutting edge technology or great art direction,or in the best case scenario a lot of both.

Warfran
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Post by LordMortis »

Realism is very much a "meh" thing for me. Gaming has always been an abstraction. I guess it comes from the fact that I am a board, card, dice, etc... player as much as I am a PC gamer. What is nice in contemporary graphics is that games get to get to a point where they can show exactly what you want to show in the manner in which you want to show it. Realism means very little to me. The graphics in a video game should be similar to what they are in any other game. What is necessary needs to be there. Add more touches to make it enticing as necessary, but be careful not to clutter it up too much with distracting details.

HoMMIII was a perfect example of stylized game. It hit the level pretty eaasy of presenting the art that it wanted to present and allowed for a wonderful abstract gaming experience. They shot for "a more realistic" look in HoMMIV and it actually distracted from game play. Aside from the many other atrocities that were HoMMIV, the isometric and cluttered board changed the nature of the game and the feeling of the fantastic almost novel like experience.

I also fear the more reality to you feed me, the more my imagination atrophies. It's already in pretty sad shape. I hope not to lose it altogether.

All this said, and I still think there are time where better and better graphics are very meaningful to a game. I would think FPS generally gain an enhanced feel of "being there" from better and better graphics and any game that should play like watching a movie can appreciate and utilize better an better graphics.
Post Reply