Words are very sunjective, and thy mean different things to different ppl, but within the media, or the medium of writing, some have more distinct meanings than others.

Many games these days are given the tag as being beautiful, but are they really, or are they simply outstanding pieces of art? Slip over to OXCGN for another one of its Gamer's Debates on how some call Killzone "beautiful" . . . is it really 'beautiful'?

We’ve had the ‘is Killzone 3 a game 360 owners would want to steal” discussion, but now we debate if the Killzone games can be considered truly ‘beautiful’ in the true sense of the word.

Can you see both sides?

So, let’s get started shall we….
David Hilton:

assassin's creed 2 screenshot oxcgn #2I know this will be controversial, but for the most part I wouldn’t characterise the last two Killzone’s visuals as beautiful. Polished, yes. Good games? Sure. But beautiful, using the truest sense of the word? No.

I see and hear words like ‘beautiful’ or ‘gorgeous’ in reviews but to me it looks like yet more empty destroyed non-descript buildings. How you can call that sort of post-apocalyptic environment ‘beautiful’ is beyond me. It fits the game, but isn’t attractive.

Nichols Laborde:

bioshock 2 screenshot oxcgn #2I think the term “beautiful” really is relative.

I define “beautiful” by how realistic or stylized the overall visuals are. I find Battlefield 3 beautiful, but I also find Okami beautiful. Battlefield 3 looks nearly photo-realistic and as a result made my draw drop a little bit. It also manages to capture what Middle Eastern locations look like.

XboxOZ360 via oxcgn.com »