Graphics ARE design. Barring very few exceptions, games communicate themselves visually. What the graphics look like, how they are laid out and how they convey the rules are absolutely fundamental parts of the experience-as-designed on every game, regardless of how technically complex the visuals turn out to be.
These arguments always bum me out a little, because they start from the premise that, say the people at, say, Yacht Club care less about or put less effort into what their games look like than larger devs using photorreal visuals, which should not survive looking at a single frame of their work.
Same word, different meanings. It may not be the technically correct definition of the word, but typically when people talk about “good graphics,” they’re talking about photorealism. In MrMobius’s comment, “graphics” = high resolution, photorealism, the kind of thing the comic we’re commenting under is talking about, and “design” = art direction, aesthetic.
ETA: That said, higher resolution can make already strong art direction even better. I think a large part of what makes Clair Obscur look so pretty is the juxtaposition of the surreal elements with the photorealistic graphics. Esquie sticks out to me in particular, because he looks so physically real, and also so alien.
I’m not trained in media criticism, so I’m sure someone else can phrase that better than I can
ETA more: Also, games that are designed to look as real as possible also take a lot of effort and talent. Just because Bodycam doesn’t look like a comic book or a surreal painting doesn’t mean it doesn’t have strong art direction. It cannot be easy to make a game that looks so indistinguishable from actual body cam footage.
Design = graphics.
Or maybe Design(graphics).
Graphics ARE design. Barring very few exceptions, games communicate themselves visually. What the graphics look like, how they are laid out and how they convey the rules are absolutely fundamental parts of the experience-as-designed on every game, regardless of how technically complex the visuals turn out to be.
These arguments always bum me out a little, because they start from the premise that, say the people at, say, Yacht Club care less about or put less effort into what their games look like than larger devs using photorreal visuals, which should not survive looking at a single frame of their work.
Same word, different meanings. It may not be the technically correct definition of the word, but typically when people talk about “good graphics,” they’re talking about photorealism. In MrMobius’s comment, “graphics” = high resolution, photorealism, the kind of thing the comic we’re commenting under is talking about, and “design” = art direction, aesthetic.
ETA: That said, higher resolution can make already strong art direction even better. I think a large part of what makes Clair Obscur look so pretty is the juxtaposition of the surreal elements with the photorealistic graphics. Esquie sticks out to me in particular, because he looks so physically real, and also so alien.
I’m not trained in media criticism, so I’m sure someone else can phrase that better than I can
ETA more: Also, games that are designed to look as real as possible also take a lot of effort and talent. Just because Bodycam doesn’t look like a comic book or a surreal painting doesn’t mean it doesn’t have strong art direction. It cannot be easy to make a game that looks so indistinguishable from actual body cam footage.
Well, I assume most people splitting things this way typically think of design as gameplay design or systems design.
Either way I’d argue it’s a bit of a misunderstanding of both what goes into good non-photoreal visuals and of the concept of game design.