Graphics vs Aesthetics

[Physic]

Cutscenes in FFXIV very rarely use the flycam trick. They're normally quite zoomed in into the scene, and definitely don't try to hide flaws. Try again.



Too bad that it's a fact, gameplay videos are there for everyone to see, as much as the fact that they look no more impressive than any game developed in korea years ago, and lose most if not all of the "omg!" value of the flycam scenes. Expectedly so.
I'm sure GW2 fans coming here to promote it don't like to hear it, but that doesn't make it less of a fact.

Mind you, I fully plan to play GW2 at release, this doesn't mean i can be blinded by simple promotional tricks that have been used in the industry for years. I won't play it for the graphics/art, anyway.

I think his point was using dramatic angles and what not to hide flaws, and make something more entertaining and believable is the primary tenant of good storytelling, and it is true. Movie makers use various props, and techniques to draw you in to the game.

Your opinion on aesthetics is heavily influenced by graphical power from what you have said, you are apparently a person who prefers high graphics to artistic direction, This is fine, you represent the opposite side, but your opinion is just an opinion, one of many dont assume that your opinion is fact.

Imo guild wars2 has pretty varied and engaging backgrounds, though, the overall direction isnt perfect to me, and sometimes over the top, however, it certainly looks intriguing.
FFXIV also has some pretty good designs really, the main problem is lack of variety, it looks nice in small doses, but the variety is not there, there are points here and there that are interesting and different, but way too much of reusing the same exact layouts, not just the building blocks. This may change as they add to the game though, coerthas for example is amuch better design than black shroud

[Abriael]

Your opinion on aesthetics is heavily influenced by graphical power from what you have said, you are apparently a person who prefers high graphics to artistic direction, This is fine, you represent the opposite side, but your opinion is just an opinion, one of many dont assume that your opinion is fact.

Nope. I'm stating that graphical power needs to be balanced and coherent with art direction. That's not really an opinion, as that' what's conductive to actual quality in a game.

The ones advocating that art direction can stand on it's own without caring crap about the graphics supporting it, normally do so just to look "artsy", but that standpoint is hardly conductive to quality. Quite the contrary.

I am proberly as a disadvantage, be cause the only thing of Killzone 2 I playied was the Demo. I didn't go for the game, because I felt like I had seen it before. The armor designs and art direction reminded me a lot of Fallout.
To me it didn't feel orginal. With a lot of games conforming to the gray/metalic world, perhaps I got too used to it and missed something.

Fallout 1&2 != Fallout 3, especially in art direction and graphics. Fallout 3 was released way, way after Killzone. So, if you see a similarity (that I don't see, by the way, Fallout 3's art direction isn't nearly as dark, gloomy and oppressive as Killzone's. Fallout's armors aren't designed to be nearly as terrifying as the Helghast's) then you might wonder if Fallout 3 copied from Killzone, not the other way around.

Mind you, Originality is by no means a necessary factor for a good or even exceptional art direction, even because at this point complete originality in videogame art is pretty much impossible. Influences are inevitable.

Original != Good
Not original != Bad.