Quote from: Turcuck on April 27, 2017, 03:18:20 PM

tbh Chally I don't even know why you're arguing whether every single person should enjoy higher graphical quality. There will obviously be contrarians or true art aficionados such as Verb that will disagree, because enjoyment and art truly are subjective.

I don't care if you enjoy it or like it or not.

Just admit it's superior, because it objectively is. Nier looks better on PC than it does on PS4 or Xbox.

Not how it works.

Why?

Because there is nothing artful about a car. If anything, some of them are just designed to look "cool." Art goes far beyond simply looking cool.

Videogames aren't art. I don't have to explain why, either.

They are art, and I have explained why.

Why?

Authenticity.

No it isn't. They're just a business making a product for money.

There's no reason why they can't be both.

There's every reason why a car manufacturer can't be both.

Nobody's gonna buy a game on the NES. There are newer and, dare I say, better consoles.

Why should I give a single cunt what people are going to buy? That's not what art is about. I would make it for myself.

But you'd still be using modern technology.

If I had the option to downgrade, I would.

You sure?

Positive.

In that case games aren't art either because developers design games because they're a business and that's it.

Yet they have writers, illustrators, and musicians all working together to create it. It's art.

Except we live in the real world where Nintendo makes games on the Wii U and Switch.

And?

Also, you wouldn't make games with NES hardware, you'd make it on a computer and adapt it to play on a NES. Either way you'd be using improved modern technology.

In order to adapt it to play on an NES, I obviously have to limit myself severely with 30+ year old technology.

They absolutely contradict each other. Making cars is absolutely art. You sound just like the people who say video games aren't art.

Making cars isn't art in any way unless the manufacturer genuinely believes that it is, which they don't.

Quote

Create something and declare it to be art. It is now art.

Quote

That's not what I said at all

Which one is it Slurbatim?

Both, because they don't contradict each other at all.

No car manufacturer would say that car manufacturing is an art form, and if they would, they're bullshitting.

>anything can be art
>except cars fuck the people who design exotic looking cars there's no art involved there at all

Again, not what I said. I'm not gonna have an actual conversation with somebody who twists my words as badly as you do.

It literally always is. A GTX 1070 is better than a 970.

Nope, not always.

Quote from: Luciana on April 27, 2017, 11:00:06 AM

Quote from: audrey on April 27, 2017, 10:51:47 AM

No, it wasn't a result of the technology at the time. You yourself said they pushed "realism" in TP which utilised the same hardware.

The visual style and graphical simplicity of WW was an artistic choice made by the development team to a) allow the team to make Link more emotive, and b) allow their story to stand the test of time. Wind Waker has aged like a fine wine because of that choice. Far better than any other Zelda game has or will.

Of course, they sort of botched that message with WWHD, which compromised some of the original artistic merit that style had in favour of "graphical fidelity" or whatever other technical buzzwords nerds use now. But that's neither here nor there.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying artstyle = technology they're limited by. I was ask, didn't they use the hardware to the best they could at the time they made WW, but obviously went with an artistic visual effect with it. The technology being the things allowed with the engine and handling of it, such as stable frames, pixels, etc.

I guess to make it sound simplier. I'm saying didn't they make WW look the way it did because they wanted to express it differently, not because they were limited. And while also expressing it differently, they still utilized the power of what the gamecube offered.

It's sort of hard to explain.

Yeah, sorry, you're going to have to explain yourself better. I don't really understand your argument here.

I think she's just trying to argue that Wind Waker, despite having a distinct style that doesn't seem very graphically demanding, still utilizes much of the GameCube's processing power in other aspects, such as animation or what have you. Less realistic graphics does not necessarily mean less demanding when the game is taken as a whole.

This whole point was brought up because I suggested that I could make a game with shitty/dated graphics just to prove the point that not all developers are interested in state-of-the-art technology.

Wind Waker is kind of a fuzzy example because the game is likely demanding in other ways beyond just the visuals. That's what I gathered from Luci's post.

Exactly

That pretty much rules out the motor industry.

You might find some yuppie faggot in the industry who thinks that automobiles are a form of art, but he's just a posturing yuppie dumbass. He doesn't genuinely believe that.

You're a big guy

Stronger is better than weaker graphics cards ;^)

If that's what you prefer.

I can think of several artistic purposes for weaker graphics.

>This fucking thread

I still like art.

I don't see what's so "this fucking thread" about it.

Most games are designed for commercial purposes.

I would argue that they're largely made for the dual purpose. Writers, illustrators, graphic designers, musicians, and directors--artists--all have a hand in the creation of this commercial product.

Cars simply aren't made with the same caliber of artisticism.

Most art is also made to be consumed, even if freely (though I'd go so far as to say that most artists demand compensation for the consumption of their work, and that doesn't diminish artistic quality at all). You've got this very condescending view of art, as if you understand it better than anyone.

I mean... is it wrong for me to believe so?

A lot of you seem to be struggling with basic concepts like "artistic freedom," which not only brings into question how well you understand the subject, but has me believing that I have a better grasp of it.

If I didn't think I had a better grasp of it, I wouldn't be trying to persuade people into my thinking.

Though if there's one thing that WWHD did right, it was the ability to take selfies with the pictograph.

Says who? Cars are definitely art. Hahaha, you can't even be consistent on your own bullshit.

Cars aren't art unless you design a car for an artistic purpose.

Few cars are made for artistic purposes. Like, less than 0.0001%.

Most cars are designed for commercial purposes exclusively. That's anti-art.

ad·vanced
ədˈvanst/
adjective
far on or ahead in development or progress.
"negotiations are at an advanced stage"
synonyms:   state-of-the-art, new, modern, developed, cutting-edge, leading-edge, up-to-date, up-to-the-minute, the newest, the latest; More
new and not yet generally accepted.
"his advanced views made him unpopular"

bet·ter1
ˈbedər/
adjective
1.
of a more excellent or effective type or quality.
"hoping for better weather"
synonyms:   superior, finer, of higher quality; More
2.
partly or fully recovered from illness, injury, or mental stress; less unwell.
"she's much better today"
synonyms:   healthier, fitter, stronger; More

Thanks for proving me right?

It doesn't matter what I think. My preferences are irrelevant.

Your preferences are all there is.

Ok Deci

Okay Loaf

After reviewing some of the stuff posted, I suppose I can concede my argument if we're talking about it from an artistic perspective. From the technological and capable perspective, I still hold fast that what I say is correct.

But I guess art and technology and its progress are just two separate things entirely since one is only going on one trend, where as art is simply all over the place and diverse as hell.

That being said, I sure as hell won't sit here and believe Miyazaki intended for Blighttown to be 10 fps because it fit his artistic vision. It didn't. I'm going on what the creator intends, not what the consumer perceives.

That wasn't really what I was trying to argue with the Blighttown thing. I'm not saying Miyazaki intended for Blighttown to run shitty--just that it's notorious for running shitty, and some might argue it's an essential part of the experience despite not being intended. If someone were to experience a lagless Blighttown, a Dark Souls purist might say that he didn't get the "true" experience. I'm not gonna lie--I might even be one of those people, if only ironically. It's just a thing.

And I'm glad you can concede my point from an artistic perspective, and that's the only perspective I intended to argue from.

Now I can't wait for this subject to crop up three or so months from now, only for you to forget we've ever come to this agreement.

Hardware isn't subjective.

Yes. But whether certain hardware is "better" than other hardware is completely subjective when it comes to art.

Advanced = improved = better

Come on English scholar

The fact that I'm an English scholar gives me the right to draw distinctions between terms like "advanced" and "better."

Because they're different words that are used for different things. "Advanced" in no way shape or form means the same thing as "improved."

Stupid people who aren't good with words will use them interchangeably, but that doesn't make it correct to do so.

No it means I prefer the Dreamcast like I literally just told you. But the GameCube version and playing it on PC it has better graphics.

You don't even understand your own opinions, that's pretty funny.

You don't prefer the Dreamcast version if you think something is superior to it. Or maybe you don't think the improved graphics (in your eyes) outweigh other aspects of the original version. Either way, you PREFER the graphics on the GameCube and PC editions. You think the Dreamcast version looks worse. That means you don't prefer it.

The mental gymnastics you're pulling here lmao

"Mental gymnastics" sounds more like a compliment. Thank you.

It's not even mental gymnastics. I'm just doing mental pull-ups. You can't even do a single pull-up.

Definition =/= specs

XDDDD

GOT ME

I don't care. Do you think that's the point?

I don't give a shit about anybody's preferences. That's completely irrelevant to the subject.

They're relevant to the subject in the sense that everything you're talking about it is a matter of opinion. Whether you like """good""" graphics that utilize state-of-the-art technology is up to you, but it's possible to dislike it and favor dated graphics instead.

The hardware on a gaming PC is better than a console. That's a fact. Get over it.

Nope, it's not a fact in any way whatsoever, unless you're the kind of person who prefers PC hardware.

Not everybody does.