Quote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 10:02:26 PM"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.
"Moldy bread tastes better than fresh bread"No it doesn't. There's something seriously wrong with you if you think it does.
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.
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:06:09 PMQuote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 10:02:26 PM"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.That's where you're wrong kiddo.
Quote from: Yang on April 26, 2017, 10:07:44 PMQuote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:06:09 PMQuote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 10:02:26 PM"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.That's where you're wrong kiddo.Bread made specifically for the purpose of consumption is not art.Obviously bread made for the purpose of art is art, but most bread is made to be eaten, and thus isn't art. Not in my opinion, anyway.
We have to disagree, because every other form of art I can think of isn't inherently rooted in technology. Video games (and movies I suppose) are the exception for that rule (as in they didn't exist until the technology allowed it. Something quite different to say, painting), because technology has stagnated creativity countless times in the past, and developers and directors have expressed that. Look at George Lucas of all people, one of the pioneers of technology in movies. Arguing if he ruined things is one story, but he's said that technology has held back things he wishes he could have done, which he later did do, both in the older movies and in the prequels. Video game developers have expressed this too, having to sacrifice things because the technology isn't there to express things.
When it's rooted in technology, creativity and progression go hand in hand. One could argue that further progression allows people to regress in looks/sounds (think Undertale) more effectively because they can do it far easier, and far more creatively, while still maintaining something of an old look and feel. The window widens and allows them to be more creative with their ambitions and creativity, not constrain them and suck it away.Now you could argue they should think more creatively if the tech doesn't allow it, but I believe from an artistic standpoint, that forcing someone to do something they can't quite achieve, hinders that creativity at its roots.
A WW2 veteran (let's say we're speaking from 15 years ago) can like a gun from the 1900's during his time of service. That doesn't sudden mean it's better than its modern counterpart. It means he has an emotional attachment to it. Emotional attachments don't suddenly mean the product in question is better or worse from a factual standpoint in the field it is in.Cars are another prime example I can think of with this. It's why antique cars still have value in money. That doesn't mean they're faster, safer, or more fuel efficient.
Woah woah woah.Who is forcing anybody to do anything here?
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:10:54 PMQuote from: Yang on April 26, 2017, 10:07:44 PMQuote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:06:09 PMQuote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 10:02:26 PM"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.That's where you're wrong kiddo.Bread made specifically for the purpose of consumption is not art.Obviously bread made for the purpose of art is art, but most bread is made to be eaten, and thus isn't art. Not in my opinion, anyway.Anything can be art in some way.
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:13:38 PMWoah woah woah.Who is forcing anybody to do anything here?I'm more so speaking from a figurative standpoint. Not quite literal.As for your first bit, I explained why it would, but you're either ignoring it or completely discounting it by restating the same thing again (you just keep saying "some may believe it, but some may not, so it doesn't matter"), so I won't go further with it.
Quote from: Yang on April 26, 2017, 10:13:06 PMQuote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:10:54 PMQuote from: Yang on April 26, 2017, 10:07:44 PMQuote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:06:09 PMQuote from: challengerX on April 26, 2017, 10:02:26 PM"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.That's where you're wrong kiddo.Bread made specifically for the purpose of consumption is not art.Obviously bread made for the purpose of art is art, but most bread is made to be eaten, and thus isn't art. Not in my opinion, anyway.Anything can be art in some way.I don't disagree. But at the very least, I think there has to be artistic intentions in mind.Is this thread art? No, primarily because I didn't make it with that intention.
A WW2 veteran (let's say we're speaking from 15 years ago) can like a gun from the 1900's during his time of service. That doesn't sudden mean it's better than its modern counterpart.
Cars are another prime example I can think of with this. It's why antique cars still have value in money. That doesn't mean they're faster, safer, or more fuel efficient.
"Better" at what?Combat? Sure, you're absolutely correct. It's not better than a modern weapon.
Verb, would you disagree that developers -- the artists -- want their art to be experienced at the highest possible graphical quality?
Cars that are faster, safer, and more fuel efficient are better for those highly specific purposes.But those purposes aren't relevant to everybody.
I would make a game with shitty graphics just to prove the point.
I'm not saying, nor did I ever say that you can or cannot do that. I'm saying it's simply more difficult and doesn't allow as much creativity.And I'm more than certain no developers do that now a days, even with games that are going for the 8bit feel/look. Because that's the progress of technology allowing them to do more.By all means, if you want to go into developing, you can be the first to do it, but to my knowledge, it's not happening, because you can't stop the progress of machines, like my Ottoman bro said.Once again, you're appealing to the "what if?" factor, without even taking into account it never happens.https://youtu.be/kq3JjNzd3gY?t=352
Quote from: Turcuck on April 26, 2017, 10:12:48 PMVerb, would you disagree that developers -- the artists -- want their art to be experienced at the highest possible graphical quality?No, I wouldn't, but your proposition is missing the word "most."Most artists want their art to be experienced at the highest possible graphical fidelity--but not all of them.Ask who, and I'll tell you myself. I would make a game with shitty graphics just to prove the point.
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:23:13 PM"Better" at what?Combat? Sure, you're absolutely correct. It's not better than a modern weapon.That's what those types of guns are invented for.
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:23:13 PMCars that are faster, safer, and more fuel efficient are better for those highly specific purposes.But those purposes aren't relevant to everybody.Kinda are, especially from either a money saving or professional racing standpoint. Otherwise you're just gonna keep appealing to a variable that doesn't seem to exist.but you do you
and it just proves the point that a movie doesn't need color, voices, or anything considered essential by modern standards to be considered quality art.
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:25:32 PMI would make a game with shitty graphics just to prove the point.Then please do it already and prove us all wrong. Otherwise your argument has no footing aside from the one you're crafting.
Quote from: Luciana on April 26, 2017, 10:25:11 PMQuote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:23:13 PM"Better" at what?Combat? Sure, you're absolutely correct. It's not better than a modern weapon.That's what those types of guns are invented for.Why does that matter?Why is he only allowed to enjoy weapons if they're good for combat? Do you know how stupid that is?
Not everybody is concerned with saving money, and even fewer people are professional racers.
Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:31:29 PMand it just proves the point that a movie doesn't need color, voices, or anything considered essential by modern standards to be considered quality art.Okay, I suppose you've got me in the movie department, but find me one for video games and I suppose I could concede. My entire argument was the further technology progresses, the wider the window that allows someone to be creative. It provides them more options and higher limits if they want to go that far. Or if they don't want to (due to budget or whatever else), they don't have to. The window is wider, rather than all of them being forced to make some muddy looking 10 frame a second game.And as for what I quoted, I never said anything contrary to that. Just that technology in that field allows artists to take bigger or wider steps.
No, I wouldn't, but your proposition is missing the word "most."
And completely missed it again. You narrowed it down to 3 things, I provided reasons for those 3 things, and you restate the same thing again in a different way.Either way, I'm done arguing with you from this fallacy tier standpoint
specs don't matter you silly bitch LMAO
