What is more imp for good IQ/graphics? Artwork or Coding?

[Deepak]

Or if there is any other factor, please mention it. Can a game look good with great Artwork but poor coding and vice versa?

 

[Bohdy]

Great artwork can make even a game with a mediocre engine look better than a great one with bad/generic art. IQ is probably more related to engine quality, though.

 

[blakjedi]

Art is supreme. Even when it comes to animation...

 

[Sonic]

Art is the more important factor. Take a look at Xenogears on the PS1. If the art wasn't nearly as good as it was then it would have been one ugly game. But the art has made it beautiful in its own right.

The best graphics come from those games that have art spot on and an engine that can keep everything flowing at a decent framerate with many different effects. One cannot forget that many different aspects of 3D rendering are manipulated by the artists to achieve an end result that is satisfying.

 

[see colon]

art always wins for image quality.

 

[MrWibble]

I would argue that the ultimate quality would be achieved by both working together.

As a programmer I can produce utterly convincing interactive simulations of very boring scenes.

I'm sure a good artist could produce much more interesting scenes, but without the help of software won't be able to make those interactive.

Until the two work together I don't think you get really great interactive scenes.

Artists can make detailed models, but it takes a good engine to manipulate them and apply LOD techniques to make them appear without aliasing. An artist could come up with the perfect look they want for a specific scene, but if it needs to be dynamically generated it might take a programmer to understand it and write an algorithm to generate it.

 

[3roxor]

I agree but why do the gamecoders get all the credit?

 

[Branduil]

Obviously you always need decent coding, but you can never underestimate the importance of artists who understand the rules of aesthetics.

 

[MrWibble]

I agree but why do the gamecoders get all the credit?

I'm not sure they do, except in a few stand-out cases.

Maybe it's becoming harder to single out specific artists just as it is hard to single out coders.

Back in the 8-bit days artists were just as well known as coders, and rightly so.

 

[Scott_Arm]

It's hard to say. A game engine provides artists with the tools to build whatever comes into their mind. So a good game engine will assist an artist in creating a fantastic looking game. A good engine can't create a fantastic looking game in itself. If you had a crappy artist and level design team, you're game is going to look like garbage, even if you had the greatest game engine to date.

 

[Magnum PI]

I vote for the art.

That reminds me of when metroid prime was released. The game was magnificient and it had to be because of the art direction, it had to have nothing to do with the inferior gamecube plateform.

So i guess it depends of the plateform, when a game is beautiful on the gamecube it's because of the art direction, on xbox it's because of the power of the plateform...

 

[phed]

Some times code lends more detail to the interactive scene; dynamic movements and interactions from the system. But there's this occasional extra detail of graphics, like in Startopia or Jazz Jackrabbit.