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.

People buy NES games all the time, by the way.

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.

"looking cool" is art bro. Art can be anything, you said it yourself.

Art CAN be anything, but that doesn't mean every single car is a work of art.

Even if you were right, what's the point? It doesn't change anything else that I'm saying.

Old technology can still be used to greater artistic effect than modern technology.

No you haven't.

Yes I have. Games have literal teams of artists working on them.

Cars don't.

le hipster meme

Okay?

I'd still do that for the sake of authenticity.

If I want to make an NES game, I'm working with NES technology. FUCK new technology.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 27, 2017, 12:45:11 PM

Quote from: audrey on April 27, 2017, 12:27:26 PM

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.

Yeah, that's it. Thank you, it was hard to write into words.

I don't recall Wind Waker being that demanding. No more than any of the other Zeldas. Twilight Princess pushed it further a few years later, even. But I'll admit it's a little out of my wheelhouse to talk about the technicalities.

I guess another video game-themed example I could use was in Rocksteady's Arkham Knight reveal presentation a few years ago at E3. The game's major theme is fear, and what is more scary for a developer at an expo than your game crashing in front of millions of people, live? So they intentionally made the demo drop frames, screen tear, and eventually crash. It performed graphically worse, but was artistically superior because it played to the developer's theme and vision.

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.

1080p good enough for me.

My frames better stay at or above 60, however.

Are you two STILL going on about this? Jesus...

Better hardware is better hardware.

Not when it comes to art.

Your entire point of view is retarded. There is no "sometimes". A 1070 is better than a 970. Fact. That's why it costs more. Because the people that made it, made it better than the last one.

Sometimes, a 970 is better than a 1070. It doesn't matter if it costs more.

You're disrespecting them by saying their older inferior product is better than the new one they spent time developing.

Except I never said that the older product is better. They're just the same from an artistic standpoint.