yeah, a good looking game = real or stylized, what matters is that it’s all Coherent.
You like it but is it impossible for you to imagine it looking better? If you find it hard to imagine it looking better maybe you’re not the best person to comment on what makes a good looking game. 
Nostalgia lenses have to be removed when one judges games.
That’s the thing, I don’t associate better with graphic fidelity, like you evidently do. I’m sure a lot of the world doesn’t either, if they did, there wouldn’t be painters - just photographers. What’s the point of painting a landscape if I can just take a picture of it? Or if the landscape doesn’t exist, I should just model it out and render it as realistic as possible, right?
For Shovel Knight, sure, I can imagine it looking better, but that doesn’t mean I imagine it closer to realism. I like the way Shovel Knight looks now, it doesn’t need to be realistic for it to look better. It’s pushing a style, the nostalgia, is part of what makes the game look good. They are almost one and the same. fyi, I’m too young to experience nostalgia for Shovel Knight’s art, I still like the style regardless, and I don’t think it’d look better if it was realistic.
Braid is a perfect example of a game that gives up graphic fidelity for beauty and magic:
I can’t imagine Braid looking “better”. The mood it tries to push is not one that can be done with realism.
Do you think you’ll find that particular game beautiful when you grow older? I’m a strong believer in that some people are better equipped at certain tasks than others. Some are better runners, others are better painters or composers. For example I might like a certain type of music but I think that a great composer’s favorite music probably is better even though I am too stupid to recognize it to be better. Likewise if you look at Braid’s graphics and the first thing that comes to your mind is BEAUTIFUL as opposed to hmm how could we improve this. You’re probably not equipped yet to distinguish good graphics from bad graphics.
You missed the point.
My point is that making Braid with full graphic fidelity would not only not make the game look better, but it would also diminish the style it has tried to build. Sure, like I said with Shovel Knight, maybe it could be improved, but at a certain point more real would make the game look worse.
Edit:
Chill, dude. Anyone can judge how a good game looks; art is subjective.
I don’t think art is subjective, because there is a standard by which all people judge something to be beautiful or not. If you think a rotting human face is beautiful you’re sick. You might associate a rotting face with something that genuinly is beautiful but don’t confuse that with thinking the rotting face is actually beautiful. Take a painting of an awesome monster for example, what you think is beautiful isn’t the monster itself, it’s a nasty looking creature but you might associate his awesome strength or fierce temper with health or freedom. Traits you wish you posessed yourself.
Beauty without exception benefits us physically or mentally, if you think something is beautiful that is actually just some silly cartoon you’re thinking that is beautiful by associating it with stuff that is actually beautiful. Whatever it is that you’re reminded of when you look at braid’s graphics is more beautiful than braid’s graphics. If you’re unable to imagine braid to remind you even better of that thing you associates braid’s graphics with, you’re probably not equipped enough to distinguish good graphics from bad graphics.
Hope you’re not confused. :evilgrin:
You have just made a very good point why beauty is not dependant on graphics. Ergo: graphics is not important in how beautiful a game looks, as it is not the graphics that beauty comes from.
Art, whether in painting, music or video games, is designed to convey an idea, and beauty comes from those ideas.
Should the aim of all games be photorealistic? I don’t think so. To do so would miss 99.9% of the point of art. In one article, an artist states: “Beauty never lies in the details.” That artist is a professional game artist working on AAA games. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
In a talk on the art of Firewatch, they say that they intentionally limited the detail in the environment (and they had some clever tricks to do so). And if you look, it is one of the most beautiful games because of a strong sense of colour and lighting.
Adding more detail does not make graphics better.
The ideas can be expressed better and when they are expressed better they’re more pleasant. What do we mean when we say they can be expressed better? Less accurate anatomy on that statue, even smudgier brush strokes on that landscape painting, no. Realism is the standard, then you just need a pleasant motive and talent.
I see. I’m having a difficult time arguing with you because you have a very one dimensional way of looking at beauty (fidelity to realism = better), which is fine, but it’s definitely not the standard by any means.
I don’t think art is subjective, because there is a standard by which all people judge something to be beautiful or not.
This is just wrong and self defeating, we are literally arguing about it right now. You’ll see people everywhere arguing about what constitutes as good art; clearly, there isn’t a perfect standard like you claim. Even if art was only good by consensus, you’d still be wrong. Most amazing artists would disagree with you.
@Lucrecious - Hey, thanks for linking a picture of Gearend, but that’s a super old pic, haha.
So I guess this is a discussion of “What Makes a Game Look Good?” (the first post doesn’t contain information regarding that topic, so it’s a bit of a “read-through-context” kinda thing…
Anyway, generally, art direction is what makes a game look good. Doesn’t matter whether it’s realistic or not, or what console it was developed on or what engine it uses - it’s about art direction.
EDIT: Oh, and working along with the technological constraints of the systems at the time.
haha, I’m aware - I was trying to find different types of art used with BGE to make the point that the BGE was made with artists in mind. The latest Gearend is technically LibGDX.
As i said before, its not about graphics, you can go either way, there are same waypoints obviously (Mechanics, Good Texturing, Good Lighting, Optimization, between other), but graphics is not what makes a game looks good.
If youre developing a game you have to know who your target is, you can not make a game intended for the whole universe of gamers, and when you got your idea and your target you can go either way, super realistic, low poly, toonish. The thing is going for what your end user will find apeling, will find intreresting, im a RTS type of gamer, love and still playing AoC on Voobly, my share of SC2 in Battle.net, some Cossacks for the sake of ever lasting games jaja, so, for me, isometric look, 3rd person more than one unit to use is what gets me motivated, i dont get motivated by the CoD series and their high end graphics, im not saying its bad, but its not my type of game, so i dont mind in there comes an lowpoly stilized RTS game, such as Empires Apart, yet to be released, you can google the game, its a LowPoly, modern age of empires type of game, and im really exited about it, such a here in the forum, i cant wait for the release of Build More Cubes by Hadime.
What makes a game look good, your audience, get around that and you will know what will make your game look cool, if not you can end up with something that is not sellable for your target and all your work will be in vain. I wouldnt like a Age of Empires series with the graphics details of CoD, and CoD players wouldnt like a 1rst person shooter with the grpahic line of RTS games.
Plain and simple!
These are 3 indie games which successfully become famous and got their games on Steam. Do you see any realism?
No need to create a beautiful game. Remember, GOALS, CHALLENGES and RULES.
I find the realism sub-topic very interesting. Let’s start by saying that by realism I intend photorealism. We know, because we have games that prove it, that a game can look good without being realistic.
I think though that this odd statement can be made: that all games aiming at photorealism are also considered to be good looking (at the time they came out).
The oddness is this, that reality doesn’t always look good, we can have a real pile of garbage and that will look like a pile of garbage, but when you reproduce that reality in a game, the closer the representation is to reality, the better it is judged to look.
I find that amusing.