Crytek: Graphics Are “60% Of The Game”

[luc0s]

I think a lot of us here are confusing or lumping together graphics with art direction.

It'd help if the discussion of people distinguish between the two.

What is the difference though? There is no definite difference between "graphics" and art directon". Art-direction is a part of the graphics.


So what is the distinction you draw between graphics and art direction? Is is style (art direction) versus complexity (graphics)?


Please do enlighten me, because I've been studying Game Development $ Design for 3 years, and 3d Visual Art for 1 year, bot at university level, and I don't know a definite distinction between "graphics" and "art direction", other than that the term "graphics" is a bit more broad than the term "art direction".

To my knowledge: Graphics = all the visual art of the game,
art direction = the style of the all the visual art of the game.

 

[PlanetDestroyer]

A little old thread but what the hell.. I think graphics are an important part of the first impressions of the game. Good graphics help you to immerse in the game world really well. The gameplay is also a big factor there. After playing a good game for a while, the graphics don't really matter a lot anymore. That said, I sometimes play TW2 just to admire the beautiful world or to stability/max temps after overclocking GPU

About the article.. Yes, graphics are 60% of a Crytek game, but usually story and gameplay are more important (to me)

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Graphics are important as long as they don't get in the way of the gameplay. If game looks like absolute shit or just poor quality product, it's bad. If the game is 5 hours of ultra realistic movie it's also bad. Developer should care about graphics but shouldn't be constrained by it.

Truth. Graphics are important for a medium which is visually consumed, but "graphics" doesn't mean photorealism or whatever. People play video games by observing visual information, people appreciate the themes or atmosphere of a game by appreciating its visuals. So, graphics are integral to conveying the essential and thematic information of a game.

That said, I love games which have photorealistic graphics, and this is just my preference. I don't like the cartoon aesthetics of some games, and I feel silly being a grown-up and playing cartoons. I hope what I am saying isn't taken as a slight, this is just how I feel.

Edit: Congrats to all the Swedes, your hockey team annihilated the Swiss today. Good for you!

 

[volsung]

What is the difference though? There is no definite difference between "graphics" and art directon". Art-direction is a part of the graphics.


So what is the distinction you draw between graphics and art direction? Is is style (art direction) versus complexity (graphics)?


Please do enlighten me, because I've been studying Game Development $ Design for 3 years, and 3d Visual Art for 1 year, bot at university level, and I don't know a definite distinction between "graphics" and "art direction", other than that the term "graphics" is a bit more broad than the term "art direction".

To my knowledge: Graphics = all the visual art of the game,
art direction = the style of the all the visual art of the game.

By "graphics" we mean technical aspects: realism of shadows and lighting, textures, tessellation, caustic effects, yada yada. You could have a very realistic, computer generated rock sitting on dirty water. Boring.

By "art direction" we mean the aesthetic value of the visual images. How things fit with each other, shapes and forms, color, composition, techniques, and the unique qualities of art: evoking rather than transmitting. For example, the picture below represents a movement (Cubism) that does not look realistic but does look artistic. For these things you do not need super-powerful, state of the art graphical engines. You need artistic talent.

In the past we had very limited graphical capabilities, and game developers worked hard to create beautiful and inspiring images that managed to evoke things despite the lack of fidelity. Nowadays, it's the opposite generally. It's easy to make cool, realistic graphics, but that is not enough.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

I prefer the term "aesthetics" and not "art-direction" since a game provides a multi-dimensional experience. But what do people usually use?

Regardless, this is a good time to stress that aesthetics are complimented by graphical fidelity. Imagine viewing the Picasso above in 8-bit.

 

[Pangaea666]

That is the "Game". Additional bits will come as DLC on Day 1.

 

[SystemShock7]

What is the difference though? There is no definite difference between "graphics" and art directon". Art-direction is a part of the graphics.


So what is the distinction you draw between graphics and art direction? Is is style (art direction) versus complexity (graphics)?


Please do enlighten me, because I've been studying Game Development $ Design for 3 years, and 3d Visual Art for 1 year, bot at university level, and I don't know a definite distinction between "graphics" and "art direction", other than that the term "graphics" is a bit more broad than the term "art direction".

To my knowledge: Graphics = all the visual art of the game,
art direction = the style of the all the visual art of the game.

I was going to put it this way: The graphics go where the art direction tells them to go

 

[Mataresa]

Anther possible distinction: Aesthetics and Graphical Fidelity.

 

[luc0s]

By "graphics" we mean technical aspects: realism of shadows and lighting, textures, tessellation, caustic effects, yada yada. You could have a very realistic, computer generated rock sitting on dirty water. Boring.

By "art direction" we mean the aesthetic value of the visual images. How things fit with each other, shapes and forms, color, composition, techniques, and the unique qualities of art: evoking rather than transmitting. For example, the picture below represents a movement (Cubism) that does not look realistic but does look artistic. For these things you do not need super-powerful, state of the art graphical engines. You need artistic talent.

And with "we" you mean you and your friends? Or you and some folks here on the forum? Or just you?


Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that there is no clear definition of "graphics", as we can clearly see here in this thread, where pretty much everyone has their own definition of "graphics". Your definition of the word "graphics" is just one of the many different definitions I've seen.

The most broad and probably the most accurate definition of "graphics" is simply: everything you see on your screen when you're playing a video-game.

And so, if we agree that graphics is everything you see on your screen when playing a video-game, than we can conclude that yes, graphics indeed are pretty damn important.

In the past we had very limited graphical capabilities, and game developers worked hard to create beautiful and inspiring images that managed to evoke things despite the lack of fidelity. Nowadays, it's the opposite generally. It's easy to make cool, realistic graphics, but that is not enough.

While what you're saying is right, I do want to point out though that it's most certainly not easy to create cool, realistic graphics these days. But I get what you mean though and I do agree. I much prefer this:

over this:

 

[volsung]

by we I meant the gamers. There's a general consensus whether you realize it or not, and we sort of understand what others mean when they say graphics. It's not a proper term so I also understand your itch about it. The point is there are two distinctive concepts we're talking about here, and we need to call them something. The fact that your school is undecided about what to call them means it's up to us.

And a word of advice: teachers are not always right

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

@ Luc0s: no, Volsung is pretty solid on this distinction between graphics and art-direction. Graphics are image data, so everything he listed, realism of shadows and lighting, textures, tessellation etc., is a way to deal with that image data. Art-direction is the sort of contentious issue- I think I confused everyone by saying "aesthetics".

 

[Demut]

But I get what you mean though and I do agree. I much prefer this:
[...]
over this:
[...]

Apples, oranges.

 

[luc0s]

Apples, oranges.

And I prefer apples over oranges.

 

[luc0s]

@ Luc0s: no, Volsung is pretty solid on this distinction between graphics and art-direction. Graphics are image data, so everything he listed, realism of shadows and lighting, textures, tessellation etc., is a way to deal with that image data. Art-direction is the sort of contentious issue- I think I confused everyone by saying "aesthetics".

Well he certainly comes close, he's not spot on. As I said, graphics are EVERYTHING you see on your screen. EVERYTHING that is visual, is graphics.

Art-direction simply is the chosen STYLE of EVERYTHING you see on your screen. Even the HUD, the GUI and the typography, even the cutscenes are all graphics and part of the art-direction.

 

[cmdr_silverbolt]

Okay, that's a good distinction, I guess. I'll take your word for it

 

[volsung]

I know this is your area of interest Luc0s, but you have to also make a distinction between a less ambiguous, sometimes formal approach to objects (that you need to study) and their practical usage in common language. Common language is intrinsically ambiguous, that's why formal models use mathematics.

You are right: computer graphics are anything and everything we see on screen, period. But we need to establish a difference for practical purposes so we can separate some concepts involved in computer graphics: the "technical" aspects of displaying them correctly (for example rotation, deformation and projection, all mathematical) and the aesthetic value of these graphics.

Regardless of their correctness in the game design industry, it is known that people normally use the word "graphics" to refer to the first (the technical) dimension, and "art direction" to refer to the second (aesthetic dimension). That's why I said "we mean", it was in no way a definition.

When we say a game has good graphics we usually start by referring to everything that is on screen. But sometimes we need to make distinctions, as is the case with, particularly, the Crysis series. Or any other game that follows the principle of very realistic yet uninspiring computer graphics.

I have previously commented on how wrong it is to refer to robots or intelligent computers as "an AI" (as a noun), and suggested we call them differently: sentient computers, for example. What do you propose we call these two dimensions of computer graphics?