Graphics Vs. Aesthetics

So I've been seeing a lot of UDK vs UNITY lately, and it's mostly been to do with the graphical capabilities of each engine.

So I thought I'd share this video.
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

It basically tells you the main difference between graphics and aesthetics and how graphics don't mean that a game looks good. It's a very well thought out video and well worth a watch.

 

You know I have a hard time using that nomenclature. I usually just say, the actual art vs the art style used.

 

You guys talking about polishing a turd?

 

Yeah, something like that

 

Mythbusters!

It just takes a lot of time and effort and you have to remove all the chunky bits first!

 

Generally, polish means everything to me. I first make some graphics to just throw in there and make whatever it is im doing, then at the last hurdle ill go back, and make everything shine. Just like poo.

 

I'm not gonna watch the video now but I'm going to assume it's similar to Graphics vs Art argument.
Art is more important than graphics
people think graphics are more important than art.

 

I love that presentation, it's so true.
Sadly...I'm a coder with little artistic talent

 

But graphics is art. There is no graphics if there is no art.

 

NOP. Graphics are tools to deliver art. There can be plenty of graphics without art. I would go deeper it BUT the guys in the video say it better. Watch the video in the OP, its very educative.

 

Not a valid argument ;-)

 

Man, I like to think of myself as a creative/artistic person. I've been using SLR cameras for over a decade and initially was chasing the artistic side of web design.

But now I despise design and art because I honestly have no preference so I can spend forever tweaking things a few pixels over here, over there, and not have a single preference to either way, and it just turns into time waste and frustration.

 

Thanks for sharing this video. Good stuff!

 

Perfectionism is indeed one hell of a demon

 

Aesthetics > Graphics, here is the proof :

http://zombo.com/

 

Lol thanks for the encouragement...or kick in the rear

 

Encouragement

 

But having graphics without art is itself a form of art that is the reason all "anti art" has been a fail.

 

NOP. Tool would be the rendering engine to deliver your graphics using your art. Having a bunch of cubes and sun shafts is not good graphics, it's good rendering feature. Graphics is something that combines tech and art into final image. Just because that video says it doesn't mean it's right. Though it doesn't mean it's wrong since there is no proper definition for graphics. Aesthetics is a way to arrange your art and style into a pleasant image. Final graphics quality depends on your aesthetics and art. You can't have good graphics without good art.
That's what I think and is purely a subjective opinion.

 

I think this is the future of graphics:
_ ^ ^
_(0.0)
_ /[]\
_--/\

 

Bunny men are the future? Indeed, overgrowth is looking amazing.

 

OK this is going to be a bit disective(?), don’t really like doing this kind of point by point replies but given my educative background and your statement, I just can’t help it. There is a lot of errors in your post that hit a nerve. So nothing personal, but this is honest objective and pragmatic information on the topic coming from years of studies. With that out of the way, here is the post I wrote:

Let's say it this way:
Screen/Display = Canvas
Game Engine = paint brush
Graphics = Oil Paint
Art = The painting you put together with the above tools.
Aesthetics = your skills and philosophy on what is visually appealing.

[Having a bunch of cubes and sun shafts is not good graphics, its good rendering feature. Graphics is something that combines tech and art into final image.[/quote]

I am guessing your definition of "graphics" comes from years of exposure to console propaganda on how their graphics are superior to their competitors.

I had many years of visual arts studies in my youth (3 college plus off school studies all through my high school years) computers and this is basically what the word means:

(Taken from wikipedia, but actually accurate.)

Graphics in computer display, when used as a quantitative or evaluative term, are meant to measure the fidelity of said visual representation. Since you usually need superior hardware to deliver superior fidelity it is not a coincidence that game hardware and engine makers over the years have used the word to push their products over their competitors.

This is an example of graphics relative to art:



The two images are identical as far as artistic quality goes. They are equally tasteful from an art perspective. The one in the right, though, has far superior fidelity and can be defined to have superior graphics.

I was not using the video as proof, but instead directing you to it because they explain it well and I didn’t want to spend time writing all this.

There is.

Since I already dipped into the semantic arguments, it’s also time to define this:

Again, textbook definition.

Final graphics depend on software and hardware technological advancements that you use and apply (shaders, GPUs, high density displays, etc.) They are independent of your aesthetics (given the definition of the word saying “and art” is not proper.)

Given that graphics are just about fidelity, yes you can have amazing graphics without art. You can just toss a bunch of textured cubes with many high fidelity shadowing and lighting techniques and achieve some impressive graphical results.

It’s not subjective. It’s just a matter of education.

 

Oh okay. My fault. Sorry, point(s) taken.