Quote from: Verbatim on April 30, 2017, 10:39:55 AM

yeah, officially dropping this

i never thought i'd be this disappointed, but here we are

Wait what happened?

nothing in particular, it just didn't stop being bad

Quote from: Verbatim on April 29, 2017, 05:22:34 PM

.

authenticity is something you wont notice with different hardware unless that specific hardware has something others dont, if for the sake of authenticity you choose a new card over an old one, you can bet the newer one can do everything the old one can do and more

lets say you were a filmmaker and you had camera x and y, they both had same picture quality, they compatibility with lens a, but camera y also has compatibility with lens b

everything else about the camera is the same, except camera y is the newer model with no discernable difference other than extended compatibility with another lens, would there be a reason to go with camera x over camera y if you just needed to use lens a and camera y was cheaper

I already went over this--whether the player notices anything is not the point. In this case, it's not about what you notice--it's about what's actually being used. The price argument is still there, too. Perhaps the artist doesn't want to give the consumer a price burden to enjoy his art, or something. It's safe to assume that cameras A and B are going to be cheaper than Y, yes? So a weaker graphics card is going to be cheaper too, I would then assume.

Fun fact: there was a short film made in 1964 by Andy Warhol called Blow Job. It's basically just a 30-minute closeup of a man's face as he receives oral sex from another man off-camera. Pure kino.

The film was shot in 24fps, but Warhol himself specifies that the film should be projected in 16fps.

Why? I have no fucking idea. "Isn't that worse?" Presumably. That's what he wanted, though.

The 14 pilots stuff that gets played forever on the radio has forever turned me off the band forever.

SNES is superior to whatever came before it. You can play your little hipster bullshit all you want. The calculator is superior to the abacus.

Technologically.

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on April 29, 2017, 08:50:22 PM

I mean... Buchanan, Grant,  Hoover, Reagan, FDR, and  Andrew Johnson were presidents.

You forgot LBJ

the one he forgot was jackson, shitheads

Would Quiet look as cute though?

she's not

at all

Quote from: FatherlyNick on April 28, 2017, 11:09:13 AM

Can't blame lag when I game, I guess...

holy cow, homie. you're litterally over 100x times faster than me

it's fake, he posted his real one shortly after

>Six months later and Verb is still salty

LIKE
FINE
WINE

I mean, I promised maximum salt for the next four years.

I demand a groveling apology from all Trump supporters within those next few years. While licking my feet.

I don't understand Verb, superior hardware is indeed better than whatever previous hardware it's replacing. I mean, a TI-84 Silver Edition is much better than a TI-83 calculator, you can like the 83 as much as you want but that won't make it better than the TI-84. Same reason how a state of the art PC is much better and advanced than an Apple II. Or how the Super Nintendo is obviously superior to the NES, its much, much better as it's tech can make for better games in several aways aside from graphics, like sound and memory space.

I'm not saying graphics matter, but games are the sum of its parts. You can have the prettiest game ever but if the other categories suck then the game will suck. You can also have the ugliest game ever but have the specs good it will still not sell well. And I'm not talking about deliberately art style choices like Minecraft or indie games.

I get what you're saying, and I realize that what I'm saying seems kinda weird, but you have to understand that the conversation we're having is primarily about art, and not necessarily technological progression.

Taking your calculator example, you're right: a TI-84 SE is technologically superior to a regular TI-84. You'd also be right to say that a modern PC is technologically superior to an Apple II.

But when you say that they're objectively superior, that's when things get iffy in my eyes. We're thinking on two different standpoints. Objectivity is a much loftier concept than I think most people care to think about. If you take the term literally, you're basically saying that a PC is better than an Apple II in every conceivable way--not just technologically, but artistically too.

And we know that's not entirely true, because if you wanted to make a documentary about the history of Apple products, it wouldn't make any sense if you only talked about the iPhone 7, right? Especially if your reasoning is, "the iPhone 7 is objectively better than the other iPhones, so that's all we're going to show."

That would be kinda silly, wouldn't it? So, on some level, you would have to concede that there is no objectivity here in the literal sense. It's simply a matter of what you need at the time; "superiority" is merely relative.

Think about it. There are times when having an old Macintosh computer would be incredibly handy, and indeed superior to having a new computer--like, if you wanted to show your kids how primitive computers used to be, or if you're making a movie set in a specific time period where new-fangled computers didn't even exist. Seriously, when directors forget to make sure that everything in the movie actually makes sense for the time period, does that not degrade the quality of the movie for you, even slightly?

I mean, obviously, not everyone cares, but it's definitely a big deal for me. It shows that the director gave a shit.

It's an easy thing to overlook, because when we compare and evaluate technology, we don't ever think about it in an artistic sense. We only tend to think about it in a practical sense, because practicality is relevant--so I guess can't really blame anyone for not thinking beyond that. I am thinking beyond that, though, and that's what the thread is about: The use of limited or outdated technology for the sake of art, and how it has the potential to create more beautiful and meaningful art than new technology--so long as people use their imaginations a little bit. It's a very, very pro-art sentiment, and a simple acknowledgement that not everything has to be state-of-the-art all the time.

Hopefully that made sense.

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 08:47:07 PM

He's not the worst we've had (yet), but you're comparing 100 days to 4/8 year terms of others. Give him time.

He is kinda stupid though.

just kinda?

luci is basically a trump supporter, just hasn't admitted it yet

MY

Quote from: Verbatim on April 29, 2017, 05:42:35 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 29, 2017, 05:37:09 PM

Quote

So we left them in if they didn’t cause any trouble and were beneficial.

The game was improved.

Not objectively.

It's probably more autistic to think as simplistically about art as you do.

art is an ongoing process, would you disagree with the creator if they wanted it to work as well as they could make it work

Of course not--but I would only argue that art is an "ongoing process" nowadays, not necessarily back then. Now, we have things like updates, patches, and DLC--things that older games such as Ocarina of Time didn't really have.

When Ocarina first came out, it was essentially "finished." The art was done. It may not have been "complete," but it was done. You could point out that international releases of the game have various differences and updates that set them apart from the original Japanese version, but the fact remains that the NTSC version (or PAL in your case, I suppose) of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time for the Nintendo 64 is the same exact game you first played in 1998. It hasn't been patched once, and it is what it is.

That means whatever imperfections are present in that version of the game have now become part of the game's identity over time. To improve upon those imperfections now would be changing the game's identity. If the artist wasn't able to capture his vision with the technology available at the time, that's just how the cookie crumbles--though thankfully, this isn't really the case anymore. Ocarina of Time is on the 3DS now, and it's the best version of the game available.

Still, no game is perfect, and no artist is going to successfully capture their perfect vision--but that's kind of okay. Games can be ported and patched and re-released in HD now, and those of us who actually have an appreciation for older technology can go back and play the older versions if they choose.

That's what I prefer to do, because I've always lived by a "first go" ethos. Get it right on your first go, because most consumers are only going to give you one chance anyway. Embrace your mistakes and let them add to the appeal of your game. Perfection when it comes to art is overrated. It's the humanity that makes it worthwhile.

if someone were to draw a picture and spot many small imperfections, they would try and fix as many of them as much as possible, they want the version of the work they show to other people as good as they can make it, and as close as they can make it to their vision

in the case of game development, now that creators have the ability to, they will patch the game themselves and keep fixing bugs (or at least do as much as they can) because they can, and it's the best version of their game they want you to play, it's the small imperfections and changes they don't like, so would you agree with those

Absolutely, I think patches are great. Like I said, though--your game is never going to be perfect, even when the final update is installed. And when that final update installs, the game is "finished." Whatever flaws remain are now part of the game forever, and that's not something I'd ever want to change.

A major part of the appeal of games to me is that a team of people, or sometimes just one person, was able to create the entire thing from scratch. It's impressive. It's not impressive for me to patch the game myself, and make it play more like how I believe the developers wanted it to be played, because the developers didn't do that--I did. I'm not trying to impress myself--I'm trying to enjoy something that somebody else created.

If you look at games as a test of programming skill, the imperfections are absolutely essential. How can you honestly evaluate something if you're willing to overlook mistakes? You can't, so they should stay untouched.

I could see anybody disagreeing with my perspective, because most people only play games for fun and that's it, but I simply don't. Games are an experience, and I'm not always looking to entertain myself with things I like. That's why I find it more compelling to scrutinize an unaltered work of art without any third party enhancements, because that's what I find entertaining--not just jerking myself off.

if there were a game that is designed to run slowly all you need to do is hardcode an fps lock

again you wouldnt notice the difference either if you simply had the more powerful card and downclocked it to run as slow as the previous

That's what I'd call an artificial, inauthentic solution. Whether you're able to notice the difference isn't the point, because regardless, there still is a difference.

It won't matter to you unless you have severe autism, but I'm just arguing principle and technicality here. It wouldn't be the same if you just downclocked your graphics card--the point is, they want you to use the weaker one. You're also paying less money for the weaker card, presumably, so that would be another advantage to doing that.

Once again, need I remind you that stranger artistic decisions have been made. There is an interesting song out there written by a Japanese composer called Takehisa Kosugi, and it's called "Music for a Revolution." This is the song.

No, those aren't lyrics--those are instructions. The "music" is meant to be your screams of agony as you perform it.

Art has no limits. I know you're not disputing that, but I think it bears repeating.

game developers themselves are always talking about how they want more powerful hardware to work with so they have more room to work in, namely console developers who are often saying things like "with the power of the PS4"

of course its still your opinion if you prefer playing the original versions, even if the remakes where made by the same developers with the same team and art direction who want a second chance to try and create a version of the game more in-line with their vision, because suddenly, "they have the technology" or such

you can still say you prefer one over the other, however you can't disagree with the creator's intent

Yeah, and I'm not. Technology just isn't the be-all-end-all, and artist intent can still be achieved with lesser tech.

It just behooves artists to actually be artists for once. Be creative.

were it possible, I'm sure the developers would've wanted to have made ocarina of time run at a billion fps with breath of the wild graphics, and for the most part I'm also pretty sure the developer would have wanted players to have as smooth and unhindered experience as possible, not to mention, performance and lack of bugs are the pride of software developers - they will (usually) strive to achieve the best possible results within a deadline

Actually...

Verb is a hipster. This thread is proof.

you never needed proof because i openly embrace the label