No normal map, stencil shadow, reflection, or HD, etc = Best graphics

Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

If you don't use any of those things thats the best you can do? Cuz pong looks pretty sweet in comparison.
 
Art

hongcho said:
Not sure about that... One of the best artistic directions, maybe...

Hong.

I always ask what is technology without art. It is just some specifications no? I feel good graphics makes us feel from what we see, not just have pointless intellectual discussion about technology which only thing specifications is good for. So art is what makes graphics not technology.
 
ihamoitc2005 said:
Realism is very "old fashioned" in art world. Maybe this is what is called minimalist style? Very "avant garde".

Pong is good in its simplicity but as far as visuals, Okami trounces alot of games that have released up to now. Looks like a painting with swirling colors. It truely is a beautiful game.
 
Imagination

BlueTsunami said:
Pong is good in its simplicity but as far as visuals, Okami trounces alot of games that have released up to now. Looks like a painting with swirling colors. It truely is a beautiful game.

Yes it looks like a "painting with swirling colors" ... only admiration for the imagination of Okami creators is possible for me.
 
I'm participing in this thread just to say that this GIF of Pong is inaccurate. The "ball" was a cube, not a circle. The other old timers will confirm.

And to add something somewhat on topic, I'd say that Okami has clearly a style, and it's even technically impressive.
But I for one don't know if I can put up with the graphics for hours.
 
Vysez said:
I'm participing in this thread just to say that this GIF of Pong is inaccurate. The "ball" was a cube, not a circle. The other old timers will confirm.

And to add something somewhat on topic, I'd say that Okami has clearly a style, and it's even technically impressive.
But I for one don't know if I can put up with the graphics for hours.

Yes in it was a sqaure
 
ART >>> TECHNOLOGY

Game with great art and/or style are much more impressive/immersive to me than "tech demos" games.

Technology try to achieve photorealism, that's nice, for some stories, not for everything, after all we have a lot of arts form, and little are those trying to reproduce reality without interpretation (I could go as far as saying than without interpretation, that's no art at all.)

I think it's pretty cool that games, at last, become real pieces of art, instead of generic reality simulators...
 
Actually the supposedly clear, smooth calligraphy strokes in Okami suffer from horrible aliasing, and would benefit greatly from HD. Ditto for the "subtle" paper base of the images - you can't make it subtle in 640x240. Art direction trumps rendering techniques, but art direction on powerful hardware trumps art direction on PS2.
 
assen said:
Actually the supposedly clear, smooth calligraphy strokes in Okami suffer from horrible aliasing, and would benefit greatly from HD. Ditto for the "subtle" paper base of the images - you can't make it subtle in 640x240. Art direction trumps rendering techniques, but art direction on powerful hardware trumps art direction on PS2.

Most likely it's in 640x480 like almost every other game on PS2 since 2001.

But i agree, this game would benefit a LOT from HD and some AA. Seeing how this doesn't seem to be the toughest game to run, it would be nice to run the sequel or whatever on PS3 at 720p with lots of AA.
 
Ingenu said:
ART >>> TECHNOLOGY

Game with great art and/or style are much more impressive/immersive to me than "tech demos" games.

So you'd rather play Rise of the Robots than Elite? (I'm showing my age a bit there I suppose - if someone insists I could update the analogy).

I'd argue that in terms of games, the interaction (i.e. the gameplay) matters more than either of these two aspects. I don't want to play a tech-demo, but I don't want to play a movie either.

If you factor out the gamplay, then I think you need both of the above to be in balance - good art is just better at masking a poor game in other aspects, but it's superficial if it's the only redeeming factor the game has. But I also feel that being technically sound is just a way of given the artists/designers more freedom to express themselves - it shouldn't be an excercise for the programmer to look clever.

A good artist can certainly have a positive impact on a game with a bad engine, but likewise as a programmer I could improve the look of a game with crappy art, by putting in programmatic effects that impove the look. (So is graphics programming strictly programming, or is it part of the art-design?)

But them I'm a programmer and badly coded games make my ears bleed.
 
london-boy said:
Most likely it's in 640x480 like almost every other game on PS2 since 2001.

Before or after 2001, the only game that springs to mind that ran in low-res (except when accidentally frameing out) was ICO...

Though a lot run in 640 or 512 by 448, rather than 640x480. (and a few probably run in other strange combinations - the PS2 is kind of flexible in that regard).
 
MrWibble said:
Before or after 2001, the only game that springs to mind that ran in low-res (except when accidentally frameing out) was ICO...

Though a lot run in 640 or 512 by 448, rather than 640x480. (and a few probably run in other strange combinations - the PS2 is kind of flexible in that regard).
Wow... There's still games being released today that use field rendering? Outrageous...
 
london-boy said:
Wow... There's still games being released today that use field rendering? Outrageous...

Nobody mentioned field rendering - I was talking about games that ran 640x240.

For field rendering, yeah, most games probably don't do that anymore but I'd bet there are some that do.
 
Back
Top