# Do Old Visuals Still Impress You?



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

I've been playing two games...well four recently. Galaxy Force 2 and the Raiden Fighters trilogy. And for old primitive games, I still find them very impressive visually. Galaxy Force uses no 3D technology at all. Not even wire frames, but the sprites are arranged in a manner to make a the illusion of three dimensional shapes...
(holy shit, I just learned that rubbing the bottom of my track pad moves the cursor through the characters, that's so cool)
And Raiden Fighters just boasts a massive amount of detail for something pixelated. All the cloud effects, the bosses catching more fire and losing pieces as they're being destroyed, how well everything is layered, the near photo realistic landscapes. It's all pretty cool. 

I tend to shift into the mindset of people playing these old games at that time. I remember playing the Starfox 1 for the first time back in '07 when I got another Super Nintendo for Christmas and was actually very impressed that it was outputting something like this even with it's primitive tech. 

How about you?


----------



## Imperial Impact (Apr 1, 2013)

Only games like SotN or Mega Man X4 and Sonic 3.

so maybe?

Also, If someone mention Super Metroid. I'll cut a bitch.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 1, 2013)

The backgrounds in games like Resident Evil 2-3, Dino Crisis 2, and Parasite Eve 2 impress me still, but not so much other games.

Though what I do feel impressed by is the overall art styles and aesthetics for some of those games. Not so much the graphical quality.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 1, 2013)

Most of old games have style and lot of real art in them, new games have lots of computer generated graphics in them and less real art. So yes, many old games still impress me too.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Most of old games have style and lot of real art in them, *new games have lots of computer generated graphics in them and less real art*. So yes, many old games still impress me too.



...wut? ;-;


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 1, 2013)

Rasly said:


> lots of computer generated graphics in them and less real art.



It has always been that way and they are no less art.

*smack*


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

3D rendering...IS an artform. Just like pixel art.


----------



## Ozriel (Apr 1, 2013)

Personally, I don't care about the graphic quality as long as it has a good storytelling platform. I have some games that have shit graphics but are pretty good games both mechanically and storywise. 

I've been playing "I have no mouth and I must Scream" for awhile and it is a decent game with the pixelated art and such. Mechanics are kind of blegh though. :V


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

AM is hilarious to me.


----------



## lilyWhite (Apr 1, 2013)

Sometimes, but really only when the visuals are impressive for the time or it's more based on what's shown rather than how well it looks. For example, _Super Spy Hunter_ has some remarkable visual effects for an NES game.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 1, 2013)

I quite like the graphics of Dear Esther even though they are quite cheap and made with old tech.


----------



## Percy (Apr 1, 2013)

I do enjoy looking at 8-bit visuals. I just have a nice appreciation for them. Not sure exactly how impressive they are to me though.


----------



## chagen (Apr 1, 2013)

the burnout games on the PS2.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> It has always been that way and they are no less art.
> 
> *smack*


Then you don't know what art is. If i take a bruch and draw a tree, it is art, if i write a command "draw a tree" and pc gererates a tree for me, it is not art.


----------



## MicheleFancy (Apr 1, 2013)

Gibby said:


> Though what I do feel impressed by is the overall art styles and aesthetics for some of those games. Not so much the graphical quality.



This is what I get impressed over as well.

Shadow of the Colossus anyone?  Though I don't know if I would consider it OLD old, since it game out in 2005.  There was an HD remake recently for the PS3, but even playing the PS2 version I can't help but go "Aw man that's so cool looking."

Or the style of visuals in Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee.  I think they're pretty cool looking as well.


----------



## Rheumatism (Apr 1, 2013)

Yes, bought me a Nintendo 64 a while back and I find myself being impressed by it quite often.  It's really old hardware sure but you got to look at it from a kind of historic view point.  Look at it compared to what came out before it, like the Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis.  

Super Nintendo.  Could barely even render 3D shapes on 2D backgrounds (aka Star Fox).

Nintendo 64.  Render entire 3D worlds.  

Some of these games ended up doing really impressive things with the limited abilities of the Nintendo 64.  Perfect Dark is an excellent showcase of the system's power.  Plenty of character animations, voice work, destructible enviroments, shading, reflections and even bloom.  Yeah... apparently there was bloom on the 64.


----------



## chagen (Apr 1, 2013)

Rheumatism said:


> Nintendo 64.  Render entire 3D worlds. .



so could the PSone.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Apr 1, 2013)

Outside of video games, in the medium of music, old visuals still impress me. I love '80s music videos, the more abstract, the better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x9mfgUsIis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI53G_D5Dbw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_rhnHpRSXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPuXvpkOLmM

It's miles away from what people are doing in music videos today, which don't make you ask questions like "What the hell are they really trying to say?". So I love old music videos with abstract messages, maybe inspired by Andy Warhol's Pop Shop, which was very popular in the 1980's.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 1, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Then you don't know what art is. If i take a bruch and draw a tree, it is art, if i write a command "draw a tree" and pc gererates a tree for me, it is not art.


Eh, I don't think that's how it works. A digital artist/3d modeller had to create the tree first before it is put into the game, generally it's not the computer that's creating the tree all on its own.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 1, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Then you don't know what art is. If i take a bruch and draw a tree, it is art, if i write a command "draw a tree" and pc gererates a tree for me, it is not art.



That's total bullshit, your brush does all the work for you.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

Rasly said:


> *Then you don't know what art is*. If i take a bruch and draw a tree, it is art, if i write a command "draw a tree" and pc gererates a tree for me, it is not art.



Like you have the credentials and authority to tell someone they don't know art.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 1, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Like you have the credentials and authority to tell someone they don't know art.



ITT: Rasly doesn't know shit about 2 subjects in 1 post


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

Angry Video Game Nerd actually pointed stuff out in his Castlevania retrospective. I never noticed how there were bats flying out of that skull in the beginning of Castlevania 4. That game pushed the Super Nintendo to it's limit man... 
Then again all Konami games did. I guess that's why Gradius 3 had slow down. lol

Also, I got a question. At around the third installment, DoDonPachi started using this strange mix. All of Cave's games have it now actually.
And the animations are EXTREMELY smooth. More than anything 8 or 16 bit could be. But it's not exactly 3D either. What's that style called? It's k0ol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scc4lsYhF5U

I see other games like Blazing Star use it also.



Gibby said:


> ITT: Rasly doesn't know shit about 2 subjects in 1 post



Comments like his just irk me. But I'm gonna TRY not to argue.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 1, 2013)

Yeah they still impress me dawg. 80% of the games I play are old school. 

I know it's not very old, but I think the GBA had a lot of really great visuals.


----------



## chagen (Apr 1, 2013)

The doom 2 port on the PlayStation 1. it runs better than the N64 version even in the graphics department.


----------



## Tigercougar (Apr 1, 2013)

The Donkey Kong Country games' graphics still hold up IMO.


----------



## Heliophobic (Apr 1, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Most of old games have style and lot of real art in them, new games have lots of computer generated graphics in them and less real art.



Are you actually implying something isn't "real art" if it's CGI?

Is this an actual thing you're saying?

Holy shit.


----------



## CidCaldensfey (Apr 1, 2013)

I thought a lot of the level design in Quake 1 was actually pretty awesome.  Although a lot of the game was shades of brown, there were also a ton of different shades of dark blue, purple, etc.  And the architecture was still pretty gothic, but in a way reminded me some of HR Giger's work.  Still pretty impressive to go through and look at considering how simple, by today's standards, the technology is.


----------



## Umbra.Exe (Apr 1, 2013)

I remember playing through the first two Metal Gear games for the MSX. One of them had a sunset as part of the end graphics, and I was genuinely impressed.

And I guess this isn't really about graphics, but in Metal Gear Solid, I had forgotten the characters had no actual faces in cutscenes, until my brother reminded me. I think the voice acting allowed me to "fill in the blanks" on their expressions. I thought that was pretty interesting.

I'm sure there were other times I was impressed by an older game's graphics, but sadly I can't think of any more examples right now.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

Saliva said:


> You you actually implying something isn't "real art" if it's CGI?
> 
> Is this an actual thing you're saying?
> 
> Holy shit.



...
RANDOLPH! <(QwQ)>


----------



## DarrylWolf (Apr 1, 2013)

Umbra.Exe said:


> I remember playing through the first two Metal Gear games for the MSX. One of them had a sunset as part of the end graphics, and I was genuinely impressed.
> 
> And I guess this isn't really about graphics, but in Metal Gear Solid, I had forgotten the characters had no actual faces in cutscenes, until my brother reminded me. I think the voice acting allowed me to "fill in the blanks" on their expressions. I thought that was pretty interesting.
> 
> I'm sure there were other times I was impressed by an older game's graphics, but sadly I can't think of any more examples right now.



Good of you to have played the MS-X games rather than their NES counterparts. 

"I feel asleep."


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 1, 2013)

DarrylWolf said:


> Good of you to have played the MS-X games rather than their NES counterparts.
> 
> "I feel asleep."



Neither of you will play Space Manbow or Nemesis though!!!!


----------



## Golden (Apr 1, 2013)

Only old 2D games. I find even newer PS2 games bother my eyes sometimes.


----------



## Alastair Snowpaw (Apr 1, 2013)

depends on the game, some games age well while others look very dated.


----------



## Kaedal (Apr 1, 2013)

I'm rarely bothered by dated visuals, although in some cases they _can_ be unbearable. Games from the beginning of the 3D age have not all aged well, for example.

However, games such as Age of Empires, Crusader, Stronghold; all still great looking games, despite their (somewhat) old age. So yes, it varies.


----------



## TheGr8MC (Apr 1, 2013)

The Silent Hill series (the ones created by Team Silent) have some of the most impressive graphics in gaming history.  The graphics weren't just beautiful, they were part of the story and atmosphere.  That's because the developers spent a long time learning everything they could about the program and it's capabilities so they could use the maximum potential of the software.  Even today, Silent Hill 2 & 3 has better graphical style then many HD PS3/360 games.


----------



## Rheumatism (Apr 2, 2013)

nadja said:


> so could the PSone.


Indeed true.  But I was simply talking about the graphical improvements from one Nintendo console to the next.


----------



## chagen (Apr 2, 2013)

^but thats why i only qoute part of your comment.


----------



## Demensa (Apr 2, 2013)

I may not play many older games, but Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island still looks great.

Also, it's a hilarious exercise to switch from playing Skyrim, to Arena, in the same day. 
The graphics are by no means the worst I've seen, especially from games at the time, but it's hilarious to go back and play.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 2, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> 3D rendering...IS an artform. Just like pixel art.


3D rendering is the MIDI of graphics.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 2, 2013)

Saliva said:


> You you actually implying something isn't "real art" if it's CGI?
> 
> Is this an actual thing you're saying?
> 
> Holy shit.


It's not that simply, CGI is not only used to generate image, but to digitalize/display images aswell, so it is a wrong term to use.

I try again to explain, what i mean is: all graphical content, that is to its half or more, was generated by pc, is "not real art", or a very "low/lowest quality of art".

Lets take a look on the difference between Diablo 2 and Diablo 3, in Diablo 2 you will also see copy-paste places, but the amount of "real content" (content that was atually designed by a human being) is by far bigger. Now lets look at diablo 3, we see that only a very small part of it is actually a humans work, most of wisuals, maybe even 60-70% of it, is generated by the game engine.

This means, diablo 3 got tons of "micro-copy-paste content" (content that is generated entirely by game engine) that is covering about 70% or more of the screen and makes this game very boring and uninteresting to watch.


The problem with entirely computer generated image (lets call it ECGI) components, is the lack of details, people have not yet found a way to create details in ECGI that dosn't look like crap, and im not even sure if this is even possible.

Btw graphical films have same problem today, they want to use ECGI to save some money, but at same time they don't want their movie to look boring and uninteresting like a fake art, so they try to find the balance, and this usualy ends badly. That is the reason why i like old anime wisuals thaused times more then modern cheap ass wisuals.


There is one more test you can try, take a nice drawing, put it in photoshop, use some effects on it, now your image look a lot more ideal, but also a lot more boring and less like a real art.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 2, 2013)

Thank you for saying every drawing I spend no less than 8 hours on entirely in SAI and touched up in Photoshop with my Bamboo is not art.

Really appreciate tacitly being told I'm not a creator and that I'm lazy.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 2, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Thank you for saying every drawing I spend no less than 8 hours on entirely in SAI and touched up in Photoshop with my Bamboo is not art.
> 
> Really appreciate tacitly being told I'm not a creator and that I'm lazy.


I don't say you should not use photoshop, i say you should use it as a help, and not as a replacement for your work.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 2, 2013)

Photoshop is a tool like pencil and paper. Nothing supersedes it as a superior art utensil and vice versa. It's preference and understanding of your medium. If someone can use Photoshop or Sketchbook Designer or Illustrator and make damn good content (which I know plenty) then why should it be of lesser value? Because a computer was involved? That's purist talk and an elitist mentality.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 2, 2013)

I consider 3D rendering artwork. Maybe the person who brought it up was talking about pre-rendering art direction? IE: Just because a world is rendered beautifully doesn't mean it is very compelling to look at.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Apr 2, 2013)

Rasly said:


> I don't say you should not use photoshop, i say you should use it as a help, and not as a replacement for your work.


Photoshop is a tool. Nothing less, nothing more. It's like an eraser. Sometimes by erasing bits you create bits. Imagine a traditional cat drawing, you take a sharp eraser and draw white whiskers with it.
That is what photoshop is for digital art, more or less.


----------



## Fernin (Apr 2, 2013)

It never fails to amaze me that the people who say video games (visually) aren't art seem to forget the fact that every texture in the game has to be drawn by someone, that it has to be dreamed up in their head then given form in some kind of media, be it paper, canvas, stone, or computer program. Someone still has to DRAW it. Like in BF3, zoom in on somebodies face and consider this, that every pore, blemish, hair and scar was DRAWN by someone; that it was imagined, then created by them. Same with every tree, patch of grass, piece of clothing, weapon, item, or indeed ANYTHING else you see in a game. You can't just open an editing program and say 'tree' and have the program suddenly produce the tree. The program may have a tree IN it that you can use, but someone still had to CREATE that tree. Then consider that when it comes to games there's another element outside of just the painting element, but a sculpting one as well, as every dent, dimple, crevice, crease or protrusion you see didn't exist until someone on an art team came in and made it that way with the tools they have. Same as any wood carver might cut a bust from a lump of wood with more than just a nail file. To say those things aren't art is both factually incorrect, and as good as a direct insult to the person who spent hours sometimes days or weeks with a tablet drawing, coloring, and refining what you see on the screen every time you start a game. A process that has to be done for EVERY object you see within a game. It's alot of work, and it takes alot of imagination, even when recreating something you could see in real life. Just the same as sitting down and drawing it on paper or painting it on a canvas would be.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 2, 2013)

Some people would like to try to use the recycling argument. Oh, well the stuff in x game was just carried over to the sequels...and? It was still drawn originally.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 2, 2013)

Fernin said:


> It never fails to amaze me that the people who say video games (visually) aren't art seem to forget the fact that every texture in the game has to be drawn by someone.


And your ignorance amazes me, i never said games were no art.

If i would take your definition of art, then everything is art, and this is wrong. There are lots of things that can be fully generated without an artist input at all, also, even if there is about 10% of real drawing in something, and 90% generated content, this is the lowest quality possible, and i don't consider it to be real art.

Maybe you will understand if i use your example. Lets say you draw a forest, one way, there can be an animator, that will place lots of different prefab trees, he will try to create a nice looking forest and it will take him lots of imagenation and time to create. Now lets see another way, a program, like a speed-tree that is widely used today, in this program u can have ONE prefab tree, you enter the size of the forest u want, and it will create a forest of that size, and will even randomly change original tree prefab to make trees all different, and in the end you will have same forest, and it will take u only 10 min to create.

Now, which one is art and which one is not? As for me, i totaly notice this, and to me, as IMHO, fully generated forest look by far more boring and uninteresting, and i am not going to call it a real art, ever.

Also, player models can be fully generated today, even with clotches, and many companies do that to save money, because they don't have to hire an artist for it.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 2, 2013)

*Rasly;* You do realize that before a programmer can say "plant a tree", that tree first has to be created from scratch (or after a 2D artists' sketch) by a 3D artist and then labeled "tree" by the programmer? A computer does not randomly know what a tree looks like, nor does it pull that tree out of thin air and plant it into a game. It does not even understand the word "tree".

If you understand all that, what makes the creation of a tree by a 3D artist any less art than a sculptor who sculpts a physical tree in clay? Is it just the physical boundary? Does the virtual aspect mean it's "not art"? Because if you're thinking along those lines then I don't think this discussion will go anywhere, since that's simply something most of us will never agree on. For now though, I think you just don't really understand how game art is developed.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 2, 2013)

Lhune said:


> *Rasly;* You do realize that before a programmer can say "plant a tree", that tree first has to be created from scratch (or after a 2D artists' sketch) by a 3D artist and then labeled "tree" by the programmer? A computer does not randomly know what a tree looks like, nor does it pull that tree out of thin air and plant it into a game. It does not even understand the word "tree".
> 
> If you understand all that, what makes the creation of a tree by a 3D artist any less art than a sculptor who sculpts a physical tree in clay? Is it just the physical boundary? Does the virtual aspect mean it's "not art"? Because if you're thinking along those lines then I don't think this discussion will go anywhere, since that's simply something most of us will never agree on. For now though, I think you just don't really understand how game art is developed.


 
I don't know, how I can say it more clearly, I never said that those things, are not art. Wat, you fail to understand, is that I am talking about whole image, that you see in a game or a movie, and the amount of real art in it, compared to amount of copy-paste or fully computer generated objects.

To make it clear, if u see a green car with two red stripes on it, it is no red car. Same with game visuals, if the amount real art, that you see on the screen is less then 10% of all the graphic that is being displayed, is it still real visual art? I think it is not.

And I know well, how games are made.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 2, 2013)

The humble comma, you are killing it.

The thing is that it does take real artistic talent to create good 3D rendering, but not the same _kind_ of talent that it does to do it in 2D.  Like comparing live-action filming to by-hand cartooning.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 2, 2013)

Rasly said:


> and i don't consider it to be real art. and i don't consider it to be real art. and i don't consider it to be real art.
> 
> ...i don't...



Pay attention to your own writing. This shows that it's an opinion not a solid fact. And even if you claimed it as such, I'd still call BS.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 3, 2013)

Rasly said:


> I don't know, how I can say it more clearly, I never said that those things, are not art. Wat, you fail to understand, is that I am talking about whole image, that you see in a game or a movie, and the amount of real art in it, compared to amount of copy-paste or fully computer generated objects.



So if I paint a tree and I copy-paste that tree and alter it a little and re-use it in the same painting, it's not art anymore? I still painted it the first time, it's still my own creation even after I copied it. *Computers do not generate anything by themselves*.

Games in and of themselves are not "art" perhaps, no. They are not meant to be. But the visuals you see in the game are art. They are created by artists, always. Even a standard grass-texture provided by an engine by default first had to be photographed (or drawn), then processed and made into a texture. It's not as fancy as a traditional painting perhaps, but it's still art. Before a level is created, a group of artists still sat down to design the atmosphere, choose the appropriate colors and use the appropriate props, complete with concept sketches and illustrations. Sometimes it even goes as far as applying the traditional composition rules to enhance the feel and impact of the scenery within the game.

Have you worked in a game studio? Because if you know so well how games are made then I find it hard to imagine that you don't think of Game Art as art. Mind you you're talking to a Game Artist, lol, so I'm obviously going to be biased in favor of game art.


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 3, 2013)

There's a reason CGI is more comparable to filming than art.  You don't physically _produce_ the finished image (the computer does that) so much as you conceptually _direct_ it.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 3, 2013)

Even if Lhune wasn't a game artist and just a hobbyist, I wouldn't challenge him with a gallery like THAT.


----------



## Lhune (Apr 3, 2013)

Lol, thanks! I'm a "her" though and I wouldn't use my art as an argument , but I've worked in and for game studios with artists of all disciplines (2D, 3D, interface, special effects, audio) so when someone says that what they do isn't art I get a little ticked off, heh!


----------



## Rasly (Apr 3, 2013)

Lhune said:


> So if I paint a tree and I copy-paste that tree and alter it a little and re-use it in the same painting, it's not art anymore? I still painted it the first time, it's still my own creation even after I copied it. *Computers do not generate anything by themselves*.
> 
> Games in and of themselves are not "art" perhaps, no. They are not meant to be. But the visuals you see in the game are art. They are created by artists, always. Even a standard grass-texture provided by an engine by default first had to be photographed (or drawn), then processed and made into a texture. It's not as fancy as a traditional painting perhaps, but it's still art. Before a level is created, a group of artists still sat down to design the atmosphere, choose the appropriate colors and use the appropriate props, complete with concept sketches and illustrations. Sometimes it even goes as far as applying the traditional composition rules to enhance the feel and impact of the scenery within the game.
> 
> Have you worked in a game studio? Because if you know so well how games are made then I find it hard to imagine that you don't think of Game Art as art. Mind you you're talking to a Game Artist, lol, so I'm obviously going to be biased in favor of game art.


Do you even read what i write to you?


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 3, 2013)

I think what Rasly means is that the "copy+paste" nature of videogame visuals makes it "less/not art". I beg to differ. http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/crysis3_libertdome.png Oh god look at all of those copy and pasted trees and blades of grass! This is not art!!!! :V


----------



## Lhune (Apr 3, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Do you even read what i write to you?



Certainly. Do you?

Your analogy with the green car didn't even make sense, because it suggests that a lot of the visuals in a game are already "not art" with bits of "art" thrown in. Where does the green come from, then?

ALL the visuals you see in a game are art. The fact that it's copy-pasted doesn't mean that the original wasn't made by an artist, nor does it take away from the quality of the art. I just don't understand how you can say that only "10% of what you see in a game = real art", what do you define as "real art", then?


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 3, 2013)

I...I always mess up genders. ;-;


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Apr 3, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I think what Rasly means is that the "copy+paste" nature of videogame visuals makes it "less/not art". I beg to differ. http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/crysis3_libertdome.png Oh god look at all of those copy and pasted trees and blades of grass! This is not art!!!! :V



IKR? Arrangement of all these objects and elements is a form of art - see dioramas for example.


----------



## Rasly (Apr 13, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I think what Rasly means is that the "copy+paste" nature of videogame visuals makes it "less/not art". I beg to differ. http://cdn2.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/crysis3_libertdome.png Oh god look at all of those copy and pasted trees and blades of grass! This is not art!!!! :V


Well, this is very well made, it is definitely art, but still, it is by far lower quality art, then a drawing made by human artist, it lacks uniqueness, atmosphere, and loots of logical details, like that train parts that are trown away from explosion but their form is for some reason is not changed, and the trees around seems to be totaly ignoring this powerfull explosion, details like this are destroying the illusion.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 13, 2013)

He won't get it. -_-


----------



## Percy (Apr 13, 2013)

Rasly said:


> Well, this is very well made, it is definitely art, but still, it is by far lower quality art, then a drawing made by human artist, it lacks uniqueness, atmosphere, and loots of logical details, like that train parts that are trown away from explosion but their form is for some reason is not changed, and the trees around seems to be totaly ignoring this powerfull explosion, details like this are destroying the illusion.


It doesn't have to be absolutely flawless to true physics, you know.


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm still freaked out by some of the tombs in Serious Sam


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 14, 2013)

Tombs?


----------



## Rasly (Apr 14, 2013)

Percy said:


> It doesn't have to be absolutely flawless to true physics, you know.


I am not talking about being flawless, i am talking about being decent. I pointed ouf two cheap ass parts, however, i could point out a lot more.

In this screen, you see graphic that is mostly "made beautiful" by game engine effects, while the human part is cheaply made. You can impress some silly person with it, but not someone like me, who prefers real art.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 14, 2013)

In Rasly's.....logic, fractal art isn't "real art" whatever the FUCK that is.


----------



## Kalmor (Apr 14, 2013)

Rasly said:


> I am not talking about being flawless, i am talking about being decent. I pointed ouf two cheap ass parts, however, i could point out a lot more.
> 
> In this screen, you see graphic that is mostly "made beautiful" by game engine effects, while the human part is cheaply made. You can impress some silly person with it, but not someone like me, who prefers real art.


What else do you consider "not real art" that has atleast some artistic content? I'm well and truly interested.


----------



## benignBiotic (Apr 14, 2013)

So I'm playing a bunch of arcade games right now and they have some amazing graphics. 

I mean look at this! That is irresponsibly cool.


----------



## Kosdu (Apr 14, 2013)

@Pachi


Some ancient egyptian tombs in the game. When you get flying and/or invisible gnaars, stuff gets freaky.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 14, 2013)

Metal Slug pixel art too OP. That game had some smooth ass animations.


----------



## Rheumatism (Apr 14, 2013)

It had the smoothest ass animations in the business.


----------



## Judge Spear (Apr 14, 2013)

Ya know speaking of smooth animations, no one answered my question... :I


----------



## HereKittyKitty (Apr 24, 2013)

I finished playing Shadow of the Colossus and Ico; and am now working on finishing Okami.
All are PS2 games, but I still find them to be really pretty.


----------



## Saybin~Iacere (Apr 24, 2013)

For me they do. I care for gameplay and story. Not the best graphics...


----------



## Clancy (Apr 28, 2013)

bhfxgh fgh df hfgh


----------

