Support NeoGAF

[Count Dookkake]

Except Battlefield Earth was horrible in every facet of its execution, stylistically.

Except not really. The visuals were intentionally ugly to evoke a sense of a degraded mankind.

The movie is a steaming loaf for the most part, but there are a few kernels.

 

[HK-47]

N'Gai seems to think video games are art and because of this he has a tendency to use colorful and seldom used words, in the context of video games, to illustrate his point. The problem is, video games aren't art, but rather entertainment. His analysis of Killzone has more in common with Killzone, the painting rather than the game. I wish him well on the contract circuit. I'm sure his fellow employers will enjoy incorporating his idea's into their art masterpieces.

Movies and books are considered entertainment and also artistic...

 

[zaidr]

N'Gai seems to think video games are art and because of this he has a tendency to use colorful and seldom used words, in the context of video games, to illustrate his point. The problem is, video games aren't art, but rather entertainment. His analysis of Killzone has more in common with Killzone, the painting rather than the game. I wish him well on the contract circuit. I'm sure his fellow employers will enjoy incorporating his idea's into their art masterpieces.

...le sigh...

 

[Dead Man]

Article was somewhat interesting, but not nearly as much as the ingnorami losing their minds over a fucking word. VERISIMILITUDE - Sound it out, what does it it sound like? Very Similar To? There you go. Done.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

N'Gai seems to think video games are art and because of this he has a tendency to use colorful and seldom used words, in the context of video games, to illustrate his point. The problem is, video games aren't art, but rather entertainment. His analysis of Killzone has more in common with Killzone, the painting rather than the game. I wish him well on the contract circuit. I'm sure his fellow employers will enjoy incorporating his idea's into their art masterpieces.

entertainment: an activity that is diverting and that holds the attention

Isn't every form of media both art and entertainment?

 

[Awntawn]

But film isn't rendered... it's transposed directly from reality. He could make that point if SPR were done entirely in CG, and I doubt too many people would laugh at him.

Mise-en-scene is constructed. The things you see on screen were actually put there in front of the camera the way they were. Costumes, lighting, post-processing, etc. Imagine that scene without the blood, without the camera shaking, without showing bodies all over the place. Imagine the soldiers aren't frantically scrambling for cover and instead are just waltzing up the beach high-fiving and winking at each other. These are all decisions that the director makes that determines the tone. It has nothing to do with whether it is rendered on a computer or shot on camera.

 

[half a moon]

To answer's N'Gai's realism question: Realism in games is relative. Every single thing in a game can be compared to our world. It doesn't matter if exists or doesn't. I'm sure everyone compares things with out with actually discussing it. "The rain looks realistic.", "That conversation isn't realistic. Too corny.", "That's how I'd picture a kamehameha in real life."

Verisimilitude is a valid literary and philosophical term when pondering realism.

If someone wants game with a pretty atmosphere, then that's their taste. I know people who don't like shooting things with guns in general. They could care less if they were under the northern lights with cute bunnies hopping around. If the goal was to kill the bunnies or men in armor, they wouldn't want to. This is just an extreme example.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Mise-en-scene

Judging by the response to 'verisimilitude,' this word will be a problem.

 

[Nafai1123]

You've picked the wrong movie. Saving Private Ryan has some very nice "destroyed beauty" moments - the easiest that comes to mind is the field the party is walking through when they get their mission to retrieve Private Ryan, and they are all joking with each other. Not to mention you have Diesel and Damon to ogle while you watch.

Well, thats kinda my point. What is "destroyed beauty?" Personally, I think KZ2 nails "destroyed beauty" better than most games, and I honestly don't know how N'Gai can think that KZ2 is lacking in these types of moment. He's describing things that happen in the DEMO level of the game (waves lapping, sunlight shining through clouds) which are without a doubt the LEAST visually impressive parts of the game. Granted, he admits that he has only played 40-50% of the game. All I have to say to that is....wait until you've finished the game to claim it's lacking beauty. A film critic would not be taken seriously if he/she did this, so why should N'Gai? If he finished the game and then had these same complaints, fine. But doing it without even seeing all the set pieces seems back-handed.

 

[Awntawn]

Well, thats kinda my point. What is "destroyed beauty?" Personally, I think KZ2 nails "destroyed beauty" better than most games, and I honestly don't know how N'Gai can think that KZ2 is lacking in these types of moment. He's describing things that happen in the DEMO level of the game (waves lapping, sunlight shining through clouds) which are without a doubt the LEAST visually impressive parts of the game. Granted, he admits that he has only played 40-50% of the game. All I have to say to that is....wait until you've finished the game to claim it's lacking beauty. A film critic would not be taken seriously if he/she did this, so why should N'Gai? If he finished the game and then had these same complaints, fine. But doing it without even seeing all the set pieces seems back-handed.

An analogy for dummies, Gears of War "destroyed beauty" = Tom Cruise covered in dirt wearing tattered clothes. Killzone 2 "too realistic" = some sickly ugly bum. To an extreme, that's what he's trying to say. He would rather see the former and questions whether or not that is the right thing to do, though he respects Killzone 2's ability to replicated the sickly ugly bum.

 

[HK-47]

Judging by the response to 'verisimilitude,' this word will be a problem.

They should take a fucking film class then.

 

[Count Dookkake]

They should take a fucking film class then.

Or just use one of them thar search engines.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

An analogy for dummies, Gears of War "destroyed beauty" = Tom Cruise covered in dirt wearing tattered clothes. Killzone 2 "too realistic" = some sickly ugly bum. To an extreme, that's what he's trying to say. He would rather see the former and questions whether or not that is the right thing to do, though he respects Killzone 2's ability to replicated the sickly ugly bum.

Great way of putting it!

Maybe I am wrong here but its like Hollywood Style vs. Reality

 

[Awntawn]

They should take a fucking film class then.

So they can hang themselves when they read shit like:

"This correspondent and objective materiality of both human subjects and worldly objects not only suggests some commensurability and possibilities of exchange between them, but also suggests that any phenomenological analysis of the existential relation between human subjects and technologies of representation must be semiological and historical even at the microperceptual level."

Let's face it, theorists may have a point, but sometimes they try too hard to make themselves look smarter than they really are. It's really the only way to try to distinguish themselves from the thousands of other voices out there, and make their very basic opinions seem more complex and therefore more valid than other people's opinions. It's not to say that they're spewing bullshit, but sometimes they try too hard to make a point seem more important than it really is, and the tell-tale signs are usually when they start throwing in unnecessarily complex terms that they know people are going have difficulty understanding in attempts to intimidate lesser minds into believing them. The problem is that very often this backfires and you get the response like is seen in this thread.

Great way of putting it!

Maybe I am wrong here but its like Hollywood Style vs. Reality

Well, classical Hollywood style would be even more romanticized and Utopian in nature. The video game equivalent would be say Zelda or Nomura's designs for FF, something that strives less for authenticity and more for aesthetic pleasure. The so-called verisimilitude that N'Gai is talking about is more of the illusion of pushing for reality without actually losing the beauty aspect. Hence throwing dirt and tattered clothes on Tom Cruise.

 

[HK-47]

So they can hang themselves when they read shit like:

"This correspondent and objective materiality of both human subjects and worldly objects not only suggests some commensurability and possibilities of exchange between them, but also suggests that any phenomenological analysis of the existential relation between human subjects and technologies of representation must be semiological and historical even at the microperceptual level."

Let's face it, theorists may have a point, but sometimes they try too hard to make themselves look smarter than they really are. It's really the only way to try to distinguish themselves from the thousands of other voices out there, and make their very basic opinions seem more complex and therefore more valid than other people's opinions. It's not to say that they're spewing bullshit, but sometimes they try too hard to make a point seem more important than it really is, and the tell-tale signs are usually when they start throwing in unnecessarily complex terms that they know people are going have difficulty understanding in attempts to intimidate lesser minds into believing them. The problem is that very often this backfires and you get the response like is seen in this thread.

Not all theory or theorists are like that. And most critics definitely arent.

 

[Regulus Tera]

I'm apalled at the drastic change in direction this thread took due to the word "verisimilitude".

 

[HK-47]

Or just use one of them thar search engines.

That would work, too.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Well, thats kinda my point. What is "destroyed beauty?" Personally, I think KZ2 nails "destroyed beauty" better than most games, and I honestly don't know how N'Gai can think that KZ2 is lacking in these types of moment. He's describing things that happen in the DEMO level of the game (waves lapping, sunlight shining through clouds) which are without a doubt the LEAST visually impressive parts of the game. Granted, he admits that he has only played 40-50% of the game. All I have to say to that is....wait until you've finished the game to claim it's lacking beauty. A film critic would not be taken seriously if he/she did this, so why should N'Gai? If he finished the game and then had these same complaints, fine. But doing it without even seeing all the set pieces seems back-handed.

There's nothing in the game that seems to have ever served the purpose of being, simply, beautiful. Using his example of Gears 2, this can be found everywhere. Sera is clearly a society rich with art and symbolism. Helghan on the other hand is a world of basic functionality, an already oppressive atmosphere transformed into a warzone. Even the ISA environments are based on industrial functionality and simplicity. Guerrilla excelled at crafting a hostile atmosphere, but it is never anything but hostile. It's not a bad thing, but it's not going to appeal to everyone.

 

[Nafai1123]

An analogy for dummies, Gears of War "destroyed beauty" = Tom Cruise covered in dirt wearing tattered clothes. Killzone 2 "too realistic" = some sickly ugly bum. To an extreme, that's what he's trying to say. He would rather see the former and questions whether or not that is the right thing to do, though he respects Killzone 2's ability to replicated the sickly ugly bum.

I don't see a big difference between this

and this

Both are beautiful. Generalizing one as Tom Cruise and the other as a sickly bum seems a bit oversimplified.

edit: note that one of these shots is designed as a single player set piece, while the other is not (MP screenshot).

 

[Awntawn]

Not all theory or theorists are like that. And most critics definitely arent.

Definitely, just saying I can understand why a lot of people can be turned off of an argument once the level of vocabulary starts being upped. Verisimilitude isn't a word I would know if not for film studies, and even after finishing the program I still can't quite agree that it is a very necessary one.

 

[Awntawn]

I don't see a big difference between this

http://metavideogame.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gears-of-war-2-20080714001316563.jpg[/IMG

and this
[IMG]http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/935/935547/killzone-2-20081203111746978.jpg[/IMG

Both are beautiful. Generalizing one as Tom Cruise and the other as a sickly bum seems a bit oversimplified.

edit: note that one of these shots is designed as a single player set piece, while the other is not (MP screenshot).[/QUOTE]
How about the difference between a gun that has a chainsaw attached to it versus a gun that looks like it might actually be used in the military?

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

edit: never mind, I give up

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I said I never heard the word in conversation, which is why it is fancy. I have a vague idea of what it means and I'm sure I've seen it before. Its the only word in the entire thing that sounds really latin and ends with a -tude. If something sounds really latin and ends with -tude chances are it sounds pretentious in something like this. Its not like he's writing philosophy here.

Just man up and expand your vocabulary. Maybe verisimilitude wouldn't be used in drafting a legal document or in a conversation, but it definitely wouldn't be out of place in any literary analysis, and isn't that what we want? More insightful games journalism... when it actually turns up?

The whole thing sounds pretentious really, so I guess it does fit in in that way. Like I said in my edit to my previous post, n'gai doesn't really have a point here aside from "Oh, I think Killzone 2's visuals are too harsh." He isn't saying anything intellectual at all and there is no depth there. He even contradicts himself by saying that CoD4 is somehow visually attractive when it is even more bland than Killzone 2. Not as harsh, but certainly less interesting. If he wants Killzone 2 to look more like CoD4 than I really don't appreciate his tastes for visuals.

Now this is decent criticism of the article, except I have the suspicion that you haven't entirely understood or read through the article.

edit: Just reread the beginning, and he is trying to say something intellectual about games before he goes off talking about Killzone 2. I agree, game-realism does seem to go about its ways until something sort of challenges it. Its sort of like movie-realism in that way. Neither are very realistic, but its interesting to watch how it evolves.

There you go, he does ask some interesting questions in his first paragraph or two, doesn't he? It's unfortunate, and says a lot about the type of approach many take to articles here, that you only discovered this on the second read.

I think he was pursuing an interesting line of thought there, too, which he utilized in making a subjective point on the visual style of Killzone 2 and how it influenced his perspective on the game. He probably shouldn't have stopped there if he wanted to open up the impact of his initial questions about video games "realism". I would have preferred he used the game's style in a broader argument or discussion on the shaping of "realism" in the context of video games, but that could simply be brought about by the level of significance I view Killzone 2 with.

 

[nib95]

Isn't it obvious? One has some sunshine in it lol. Honestly though, I kind of get what he's saying. Basically Killzone 2 is TOO oppressive. I disagree though. The opening beach level, Suljeva Village (the desert), the gunship cloud segment and the final fiery red level (with the mushroom cloud). All rather beautiful (in a more typical sense).

Killzone 2 has me "wow"ing more than any other console game I've played to date. So while it may have been showing off a primarily harsh world, it still did so with tremendous visual and artistic potency.

It did so many segments better than any video game before it imo. For example, imo it does...

Space station
War torn city/buildings
Post apocalyptic city
Cloud battle
Baron wasteland
Desert
Warehouse
Refinery
Train

Better than any other video game I've played. It's not as bleak as people are making out.

And even when it is...It does it so damn well.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

I don't really have a problem with the idea of N'Gai using "verisimilitude" but rather the fact that he uses it incorrectly, in my opinion.

I would pull out the word only in the situation of describing a game-world that's verisimilitudinous in how it depicts a living, breathing world that uncannily resembles ours (hence it being very verisimilitudinous, or in simpler terms, authentic and true, i.e. GTA). Just having realistic detail in a game does not justify the use of the word "verisimilitude." Or, N'Gai could have talked about how the Killzone 2 world was very verisimilitudinous. However, he focuses on there being too much detail it seems, which does not solicit the use of the word.

 

[Nafai1123]

How about the difference between a gun that has a chainsaw attached to it versus a gun that looks like it might actually be used in the military?

So....chainsaws are beautiful?


j/k. I get what N'Gai is trying to say, I just think that he is judging a book by its cover. He needs to play the game through to its entirety before I can take his opinion seriously.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I get what N'Gai is trying to say

I really don't think you do. And it doesn't matter if he plays it to the end, because it doesn't change. Helghan remains a hostile habitat, with industry and architecture based on values of simplicity over beauty. Whether or not you think his lack of experience makes him less credible is irrelevant, as the argument is still perfectly valid.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't really have a problem with the idea of N'Gai using "verisimilitude" but rather the fact that he uses it incorrectly, in my opinion.

I would pull out the word only in the situation of describing a game-world that's verisimilitudinous in how it depicts a living, breathing world that uncannily resembles ours (hence it being very verisimilitudinous, or in simpler terms, authentic and true, i.e. GTA). Just having realistic detail in a game does not justify the use of the word "verisimilitude." Or, N'Gai could have talked about how the Killzone 2 world was very verisimilitudinous. However, he focuses on there being too much detail it seems, which does not solicit the use of the word.

Dude, he uses it twice. Once in a list of possible meaning for video game realism, then to refer to the current conventions of realism within video games.

He does not say verisimilitude = detail.

 

[nib95]

I really don't think you do. And it doesn't matter if he plays it to the end, because it doesn't change. Helghan remains a hostile habitat, with industry and architecture based on values of simplicity over beauty. Whether or not you think his lack of experience makes him less credible is irrelevant, as the argument is still perfectly valid.

I disagree. As evidenced (I hope) by the screens I've posted above. I think with the simplicity argument you murdered the point I initially agreed with you on. The angle you're coming from now I disagree with. Essentially Gears 1, 2, COD4, Rainbow Six Vegas etc would also all fall under the same category (with the exception of the mine level in Gears, similar to Suljeva village in KZ2), they all still portray hostile environments. No more or less simple than Killzone 2. In-fact, (as again evidenced in my shots above), if anything KZ2's architecture is far more complex. Not as you put it "simplistic".

 

[Sibylus]

About time the screenies showed up.

I can see what he's driving at, as it does look "oppressive" in a lot of the screens. At the same time, though, there's a lot of detail and strong sources of colour and warmth. Definitely a more varied and pleasing look overall than the one E3 segment would lead you to believe.

Still, I have to say I prefer worlds with a lot of vibrant sections. Not rainbows, mind you, but a heavy use of bold colour. It helps make the world a bit more hospitable, and the right palette of colour can help set the right atmosphere. It also enhances the more oppressive environments, as they stand "fresher" against the other areas.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I disagree. As evidenced (I hope) by the screens I've posted above. I think with the simplicity argument you murdered the point I initially agreed with you on. The angle you're coming from now I disagree with. Essentially Gears 1, 3, COD4 etc would also all fall under the same category (with the exception of the mine level in Gears, similar to Suljeva village in KZ2), they all still portray hostile environments. No more or less simple than Killzone 2. In-fact, (as again evidenced in my shots above), if anything KZ2's architecture is far more complex. Not as you put it "simplistic".

I'm not referring to complexity, but maybe I should have used different terms. I'm referencing aspects like decor, the fact that even ordinary buildings in Gears carry ornaments, cast symbols and classic architecture. In contrast, Helghan is a mesh of shacks and flat concrete lines. There is, to use a genuinely tired expression, an artistic quality to everything from environments to armor, which does not exist on Helghan. Even decorative objects are hardlined and sharply cut, all to further the sense of a totalitarian state. This consistency is an incredible achievement in itself, and as far as hostile, threatening environments go, it's unmatched. But there is not a single object that seems to have ever served the purpose of beauty over, or even simply in addition to function.

 

[creativity]

I think N'Gai's criticism is somewhat true of Fallout 3. That game is a little too uniformly bleak; there isn't quite enough traditional beauty in most of its environments to contrast with. It's still a very attractive game overall, however.

Killzone 2 is not "too bleak." Quite the opposite---it's overwhelmingly gorgeous throughout. I'm astonished that it's used an example of insipid, "brown" art design in games. Is this just system wars nonsense or what? Killzone 2 is undoubtedly the best artistic achievement in graphics this generation. If you aren't thrown into aesthetic shock by the interplay of light and color and dust and smoke and wind in that game, fuck you. Since half of this thread is devoted to the word "verisimilitude," an unremarkable word that every educated person knows, it's clear that debating this is going to be a waste of time.

 

[BeeDog]

I'm not referring to complexity, but maybe I should have used different terms. I'm referencing aspects like decor, the fact that even ordinary buildings in Gears carry ornaments, cast symbols and classic architecture. In contrast, Helghan is a mesh of shacks and flat concrete lines. There is, to use a genuinely tired expression, an artistic quality to everything from environments to armor, which does not exist on Helghan. Even decorative objects are hardlined and sharply cut, all to further the sense of a totalitarian state. This consistency is an incredible achievement in itself, and as far as hostile, threatening environments go, it's unmatched. But there is not a single object that seems to have ever served the purpose of beauty over, or even simply in addition to function.

You're a sharp writer, wrote exactly what I'm thinking. The artistic direction Gears takes uses reliefs throughout, much like classical buildings in old European cities, while KZ2 goes with the much more simple "commie"-style flat lines and pure functionality over looks.

 

[DeBurgo]

N'Gai seems to think video games are art and because of this he has a tendency to use colorful and seldom used words, in the context of video games, to illustrate his point. The problem is, video games aren't art, but rather entertainment. His analysis of Killzone has more in common with Killzone, the painting rather than the game. I wish him well on the contract circuit. I'm sure his fellow employers will enjoy incorporating his idea's into their art masterpieces.

I have to ask you (or anyone), and it may seem a bit out of left field: Do you think sale of mature-rated videogames should be restricted by the government, at least in the US (where it isn't)?

Because the idea that games are a form of expression is literally the only compelling reason to keep videogames from being censored or restricted. Otherwise, there isn't a reason for them to not be generally regulated, like forms of pornography.

 

[nib95]

I'm not referring to complexity, but maybe I should have used different terms. I'm referencing aspects like decor, the fact that even ordinary buildings in Gears carry ornaments, cast symbols and classic architecture. In contrast, Helghan is a mesh of shacks and flat concrete lines. There is, to use a genuinely tired expression, an artistic quality to everything from environments to armor, which does not exist on Helghan. Even decorative objects are hardlined and sharply cut, all to further the sense of a totalitarian state. This consistency is an incredible achievement in itself, and as far as hostile, threatening environments go, it's unmatched. But there is not a single object that seems to have ever served the purpose of beauty over, or even simply in addition to function.

Again, I completely disagree.

I'd say the Radec Academy style levels were more Gears esque. As in, classical. Baroque like. Just not as organic. It's the rest of the "poorer" areas that are incredibly intricate and more layered. But to say this doesn't evoke artistic prowess despite being bleak in colour (these screens are from the BETA, they added more colour in the final versions), is imo criminal. Imo the art is so much more superior to that of the architecture in Gears (which imo felt like a continuation of architecture I'd seen before in other Unreal engine games).

I was always waiting for a game to do Midgar/Tekkonkreet style architecture and city scapes, and I think Killzone 2 is the only game that's successfully managed it. I think previously, the tech required to produce such intricate geometry just wasn't as evolved.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Again, I completely disagree.

I'd say the Radec Academy style levels were more Gears esque. As in, classical. Baroque like. Just not as organic. It's the rest of the "poorer" areas that are incredibly intricate and more layered. But to say this doesn't evoke artistic prowess despite being bleak in colour (these screens are from the BETA, they added more colour in the final versions), is imo criminal. Imo the art is so much more superior to that of the architecture in Gears (which imo felt like a continuation of architecture I'd seen before in other Unreal engine games).

You plainly don't get it. I'm not talking about Guerrilla's abilities, or any supposed lack of artistic value in KZ2. Guerrilla is awesome, and its artists are second to none, as is evident by how well they have crafted this world. But I have never experienced a culture that considers shantytowns to be works of art. And that is the point here, that KZ2 is a masterful presentation of an oppressive, hostile world with all the expected artistic flair. Which is to say none.

 

[nib95]

You plainly don't get it. I'm not talking about Guerrilla's abilities, or any supposed lack of artistic value in KZ2. Guerrilla is awesome, and its artists are second to none, as is evident by how well they have crafted this world. But I have never experienced a culture that considers shantytowns to be works of art. And that is the point here, that KZ2 is a masterful presentation of an oppressive, hostile world with all the expected artistic flair. Which is to say none.

Can you please post screens of what you think the city scapes do in Gears that is so different and separate them from the same failings/positives (depending on how you look at it) found in Killzone 2? So far, all I can gather is that you think Gears's cities are more "artistic" because they are more organic (less straight lines) and have more ornaments?

I'm referring to this quote.

"I'm referencing aspects like decor, the fact that even ordinary buildings in Gears carry ornaments, cast symbols and classic architecture. In contrast, Helghan is a mesh of shacks and flat concrete lines. There is, to use a genuinely tired expression, an artistic quality to everything from environments to armor, which does not exist on Helghan"

I'm a touch confused to tell the truth. Since I don't remember Gears's cities having any markedly different characteristics (enough to make such a difference of opinion) except perhaps having a little more colour or sunshine, and as I previously said, having a few more organic shapes and what not.

 

[chriskun]

I think its funny that games journalists who want games to be "art" so bad, criticize a game for having a concurrent theme. I should expect this from the guy who wondered why the first village in RE5 didnt have any smiling children in it.

 

[Esch]

If you aren't thrown into aesthetic shock by the interplay of light and color and dust and smoke and wind in that game, fuck you.

:lol

Spoiler

I agree.

 

[Darkpen]

<tons of screenshots>

Okay, so basically, N'Gai's "opinion" on KZ2's form of "videogame realism" is full of shit. Really. He's taking an old thought he had + a sound bite and forming an opinion based on playing half of what the game has to offer. Its like some sort of GAF thread where the guy is LTTP, but is bitching and moaning about the first 10 minutes into Twilight Princess, and then showing pictures of how he threw the dvd and box into the garbage bin.

Really.

What I want to know is what N'Gai's thoughts are after a week's worth of meditation on what the complete campaign experience was like.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Can you please post screens of what you think the city scapes do in Gears that is so different and separate them from the same failings/positives (depending on how you look at it) found in Killzone 2?

No, because it would be a jackhammer approach to explaining things, and would inevitably do absolutely nothing to affect the course of this debate. I'm confused too, because I can not for the life of me understand what is so difficult about this argument. No one is ripping on Guerrilla, let alone its artists and designers. They did a great job crafting a hostile environment, an industrial nightmare landscape, whatever the hell you want to call a world devoid of decoration and artistic efforts in excess of any object's specific purpose. But if that is somehow not appealing, then nothing in the game will be appealing. That's the cost and reward of an accomplished mission.

 

[Kitschkraft]

I always thought of it like this : John McClane gets shot, he dies -> Realism ; John McClane gets shot at but never gets hit -> Verisimilitude

It's a pretty damn useful word.

 

[HK-47]

AA's argument is that entire planet of Helgann is function over form. Which it is, and thats the whole angle the artists were trying to convey. Its lack of beauty shows they nailed the setting perfectly.

 

[HK-47]

I always thought of it like this : John McClane gets shot, he dies -> Realism ; John McClane gets shot at but never gets hit -> Verisimilitude

It's a pretty damn useful word.

Damn good movie.

 

[pswii60]

Yay, Ngai is onboard the blue skies in games campaign I see. For the record, this is what games should look like, the more Sega blue skies the better:

/beautiful screenshots/

Whilst not every game needs to be nice and colourful, its really hard to have enough Sega blue skies, screw the brown.

I agree 100%

More blue skies ftw!

 

[chase]

WTF is this shit? Is this what happens when game-writers try to be real ones? No more! Please!

 

[Spoo]

Hmm, I guess I just don't get what N'Gai is trying to say, or wants to say but can't despite his impressive diction.

The thing is, "realism" isn't always beautiful, and to depict something meant to be realistic (in the case of GG's "Killzone" series, just 'war perfected', yes?) with blue skies or out-of-place colors cheapens or perhaps in some cases completely ruins the immersion of the game and, further, the intention of developers to show what they clearly want to show.

Consider, I guess, the film "Aliens" -- perhaps one of the most depressing films I've seen (Ebert shares a similar feeling, check out his review), and is almost physically draining in the same way that, perhaps, Silent Hill 2 is -- while sharing nothing in the way of content. I got a similar feeling with Killzone 2; it evokes an absolutely dreadful feeling, and realism simply seeps out of it. Is N'Gai trying to say that he doesn't like that absolutely spot-on rendering of a futile and depressing future war? If so, okay, but accept that it is an absolutely spot-on rendering, and that it's simply not to your liking. There are plenty of colorful games out there; certainly happier ones, that maintain some realism.

As for "beauty" -- well, Killzone 2 is a beautiful game, but only insofar as it nails the theme of war. I'm not alone in the world when I say terrible, terrible things can evoke a bizarre sense of beauty; a spider eating another spider, for example, is both disgusting but evokes a strange, intangible sense of order in nature which in and of itself is beautiful in a very primal sense. Killzone 2 is that kind of beautiful; it's ugly in every other sense, but in it's rendering of ugliness, it is no less than almost perfect -- for that, I can say, I do not understand N'Gai's point one bit.

But I like him. He's a cool cat.

 

[gofreak]

Snnoooorrree.

I could understand the lament if there was an absence of games offering colourful prettiness of the style N'Gai would prefer.

But there's not. It's not like KZ is sucking that out of every game it sits next to on your shelf.

It's like asking for a movie to replace oppressive realism with a glossier, less gritty interpretation. There's room for all these kinds of styles in movies, and there's room for them in games too.

 

[Darkpen]

AA's argument is that entire planet of Helgann is function over form. Which it is, and thats the whole angle the artists were trying to convey. Its lack of beauty shows they nailed the setting perfectly.

I shouldn’t have been surprised when Killzone 2 elicited a similar sense of visual disorientation. After all, when I went hands-on with the game’s opening mission at E3 2007, I distinctly remember feeling as though there were something oddly unnerving about the texture of Killzone 2’s imagery, only to have Guerilla’s leads explain how each of their post-processing techniques could help take what looked like a sunny mid-afternoon and transform it into an environment that looks as though all of the hope has been leached out of it. But at the events leading up to E3 as well as E3 itself, I all but ignored Killzone 2 to focus on other titles that were making their debut at the show. So it wasn’t until late last autumn and early this year, while playing the first 30-40 per cent of the game, that I had the chance to reflect on the various ways in which it calls into question our notions of what constitutes videogame realism.

Cliff Bleszinski described one of Gears Of War’s aesthetic premises as ‘destroyed beauty,’ the way that the environments combine the splendour of Seran architecture with the detritus of the planet’s ruins. Gears 1 and 2 have their share of slimy surfaces and gruesome killings, but the images themselves are by and large appealing to the eye. That’s because for all of the additional graphical details that Gears may have when compared to last generation’s titles, people still expect to derive a certain amount of visual pleasure from the games that they play, whether it’s Halo 3’s gleaming green-purple-chrome colour palette or the saturated deep blues and nightvision greens of COD4.

Killzone 2, by contrast, consistently denies us those pleasures.

:|

This is the problem of the blog post right here.

 

[K.Jack]

Hmm, I guess I just don't get what N'Gai is trying to say, or wants to say but can't despite his impressive diction.

The thing is, "realism" isn't always beautiful, and to depict something meant to be realistic (in the case of GG's "Killzone" series, just 'war perfected', yes?) with blue skies or out-of-place colors cheapens or perhaps in some cases completely ruins the immersion of the game and, further, the intention of developers to show what they clearly want to show.

Consider, I guess, the film "Aliens" -- perhaps one of the most depressing films I've seen (Ebert shares a similar feeling, check out his review), and is almost physically draining in the same way that, perhaps, Silent Hill 2 is -- while sharing nothing in the way of content. I got a similar feeling with Killzone 2; it evokes an absolutely dreadful feeling, and realism simply seeps out of it. Is N'Gai trying to say that he doesn't like that absolutely spot-on rendering of a futile and depressing future war? If so, okay, but accept that it is an absolutely spot-on rendering, and that it's simply not to your liking. There are plenty of colorful games out there; certainly happier ones, that maintain some realism.

As for "beauty" -- well, Killzone 2 is a beautiful game, but only insofar as it nails the theme of war. I'm not alone in the world when I say terrible, terrible things can evoke a bizarre sense of beauty; a spider eating another spider, for example, is both disgusting but evokes a strange, intangible sense of order in nature which in and of itself is beautiful in a very primal sense. Killzone 2 is that kind of beautiful; it's ugly in every other sense, but in it's rendering of ugliness, it is no less than almost perfect -- for that, I can say, I do not understand N'Gai's point one bit.

But I like him. He's a cool cat.

Your perspective nails the issue imo. Well done.

His whole post can be summed with one sentence: "It's well designed, but I'm emotionally incompatible with Killzone 2."