"Moldy bread tastes better than fresh bread"

No it doesn't. There's something seriously wrong with you if you think it does.

Bread isn't comparable to art.

Is this hypothetical guy blind?

This has nothing to do with art. I'm talking about hardware and software. A gaming PC has better specs than a console, thus games look better.

It looks better to somebody who prefers better specs, yes.

But not everybody prefers better specs. Some people don't like them. Some people don't care.

eh, lost interest. Who cares.

I've never met someone who doesn't like music.

Is it fallacious to point out that there very well could be someone out there who dislikes music?

And therefore makes the statement "everybody likes music" incorrect, because liking music is purely subjective?

If we're talking about the progression of technology and what it allows, then yes it is better from that perspective.

If you want to stagnate, and not advance, then sure, it doesn't? But you're always arguing that progression is the key to a lot of things in life and that stagnation is a cancer. Something I completely agree with.

Art is the exception to that rule. An artist can choose to stagnate--or even regress--if that's what he wants to do.

Likewise, a consumer has every right to appreciate art in any way that he wants. He's allowed to think that Super Mario 64 has the best graphics ever and that Nier: Automata looks ugly as sin. That's his right.

You would also have to concede though that video games at their very definition are created due to technology, and focus around it. It's not a board game. There is nothing subjective about technology progressing for more particles, stable frame rate, and other various things being fit on the screen. It's even apparent for your wet dream of a game Breath of the Wild from the new system to the Wii U.

It doesn't even matter if it's not going for a hyper realistic look. Some things apply across all spectrums of games.

"More particles"
"Stable frame rate"

These are good terms to use because you're not using the word "better" to describe them.

You think they're better, and I think they tend to be better too, but I don't see how that makes them objectively better.

Verb, that's some kind of fallacy I can't think of.

"I didn't say that but the POTENTIAL someone doesn't care suddenly means it's not valid."

Maybe base rate fallacy? Something.

I don't think so, you'd have to find the exact fallacy, but I'm pretty sure that's not a fallacious argument.

The argument doesn't regard validity--it regards subjectivity. If everybody in the world enjoyed the movie Suicide Squad, does that mean Suicide Squad is objectively good?

How are the graphics more realistic?

I'm saying that PC graphics tend to be more realistic.

That doesn't mean they're better.

You don't like nice colors? What are you, a bat?

I never said I didn't. I said that somebody may not. So what if somebody's a bat? That's not an argument.

So you admit the graphics are a higher quality on PC.

No, I said that they're more realistic. That says absolutely nothing of their quality, and it certainly doesn't mean their "better."

For a game like Nier though, I don't understand why you'd get it on console when it looks so much better on PC. It doesn't look more realistic, it just has better color, frame rate, and just looks smoother overall. I'm not knocking consoles, but let's be realistic here.

Maybe somebody doesn't fucking like that. It's not that complicated.

You don't HAVE to understand it.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 08:35:50 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 06:17:46 PM

There are good and bad graphics. Graphics we consider bad now were good at one point. However, if a developer charges me $60 for a game and I get 90's graphics, I'm gonna have a problem with that.

Yeah, that's you. And a lot of other people, sure, but that's still you.

Quote

Better specs allow you to play the game with a higher definition.

And?

If you asked me if I'd rather play the original release of a game or its HD remake, I'd pick the original every single time.

Put Skyrim on a console and on a PC on ultra settings. Tell me which one looks better.

Definitely Skyrim on console.

Specs matter regardless of graphic fidelity. Graphics really only matter if the developer makes a point of how great they are. If a dev claimed "lifelike hyper realistic graphics" today and you got something ala Project IGI, you'd be reasonably pissed off.

I wouldn't, though. I don't listen to anything that the devs say prior to the game's release.

Minecraft runs on fucking 16-bit textures as standard, but it doesn't run well on potato computers because it's horribly optimised and requires mods-up-the-arse to make it playable (i.e. smooth 20 fps) on lower end PC's and laptops. ArmA is similar in that it demands more to run well, however it also focuses on realistic graphics and simulation which puts some serious taxing on even high-end systems. And surprise surprise, neither of these are available on consoles in their standard form because of the limitations of consoles and the demands of what the developers consider "standard" are not for those games. ArmA has too many keybinds to run on a controller, let alone the hardware needed to run it on normal settings smoothly, whilst console Minecraft has a limited border with restrictions on available items, environment, etc, and is generally lackluster. I'm not even going to go into Minecraft Pi.

So because the developers have an idea of what's objectively better for their game, that means they're right?

Because I don't completely disagree with that, but it's not exactly hitting the point of the discussion.

Because if a developer wanted a game to run at 10fps and have shitty graphics for an artistic purpose, then you'd have nothing to do but concede that those specs are the best possible for that game. Anything else would be a violation of the game's artistic integrity. Meaning that, once again, specs don't matter, and they only matter insofar as what the developers think is right for their game.

Even then, I'm still allowed to think that "good" graphics suck. That doesn't mean you have to agree. It just means that you have to stop pretending that it's an objective fact.

Savage af

i like when corporate twitters have some fun, but

couldn't that lead to potential bad PR

someone's gonna end up saying the wrong thing

i mean, it's tangentially related to nier so i don't really think it's that much of a "derailment" but whatever

Why do you like bad graphics?

So you like rubbery steak and cheap wine while they charge you $100? You think that's acceptable?

you're not being charged $100 for a game, and i almost never pay full price for games anyway

it's not like i like "bad graphics"--it's that i don't buy into the concept of "bad graphics" to begin with

there are just graphics

whether the graphics are pretty or ugly to you is a matter of personal opinion, and that's all it is

just because the majority of people tend to agree on what's "good" and "bad" when it comes to graphics doesn't somehow magically turn that opinion into a fact

I'm not great with the jargon but anti aliasing and shit is better on PC. The colors pop, more frames per second on certain games.

yeah

but why is that better

maybe i like aliasing

maybe i don't like it when colors pop

maybe i like low frame rates

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 02:06:29 PM

Quote from: Töqi on April 26, 2017, 02:01:21 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 01:53:43 PM

Quote from: Töqi on April 26, 2017, 12:00:27 PM

So are the settings menus supposed to be fucked up? They're total gibberish. How do I fix this?

pic

PC or console?

PS4



Not my pic, but it's the exact same issue. Supposedly it's due to a bad patch. I thought it was some gimmick at first.

that's pretty quality

Looks way better on PC.

i doubt it