specs don't matter you silly bitch LMAO

Verbatim · April 28, 2017, 06:56:24 PM

Quote from: Jono on April 28, 2017, 06:53:20 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:48:19 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 06:44:35 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:27:07 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 06:26:50 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:20:39 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 06:19:58 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:07:29 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 05:52:48 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 05:44:59 PM
Probably because it's not an opinion and it's a fact?
If it were a fact, then I couldn't possibly disagree with it.
You disagree with a lot of facts.
give me one reason to believe that PC graphics are objectively better than anything else
Quote
having more detailed textures
i may like more detailed textures, but why is that objectively better
More detailed > less detailed
why
Because it looks better. Just like putting the settings on ultra instead of very low.
why does it look better
YouTube

You tell me
i already agree that more detail is better, because that's my personal taste

what i'm not understanding is how it's objectively better

which means that you believe that anyone who prefers less detail is wrong
If you prefer this over this then you have no right to talk about graphics and details.

i can totally see why someone would prefer the first one

personally, i prefer the second one, and most other people would

but objectively speaking, neither is "better" or "worse" than the other--the universe has no opinion

challengerX · April 28, 2017, 08:08:19 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 28, 2017, 08:10:48 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 08:08:19 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:56:24 PM
the universe has no opinion
put the tweed down

not an argument

challengerX · April 28, 2017, 08:13:30 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 28, 2017, 08:19:28 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 08:13:30 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:56:24 PM
the universe has no opinion
put the tweed down
not an argument
The universe isn't an argument, Stefan.

the argument is that there is no objective standard for what is better or worse when it comes to how human beings perceive things

it's all in our head

how the fuck could anything regarding anything possibly be objective

challengerX · April 28, 2017, 08:22:13 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 28, 2017, 08:25:57 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 08:22:13 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 08:19:28 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 08:13:30 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 08:10:48 PM
Quote from: challengerX on April 28, 2017, 08:08:19 PM
Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 06:56:24 PM
the universe has no opinion
put the tweed down
not an argument
The universe isn't an argument, Stefan.
the argument is that there is no objective standard for what is better or worse when it comes to how human beings perceive things

it's all in our head

how the fuck could anything regarding anything possibly be objective
So suffering isn't objectively bad?

we're talking about art

Elai · April 28, 2017, 08:46:33 PM

The Hån · April 28, 2017, 11:09:29 PM

I'm pretty sure this was already said, but graphics aren't all that. they matter but they dont make or break a game.

However. art style, animation, etc does matter. Playing a laggy blocky mess sucks.

snurch · April 29, 2017, 01:45:08 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 28, 2017, 02:27:54 PM

I want the imperfections. I want the fuck-ups. They add a touch of humanity to the experience.

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

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

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

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

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

FatherlyNick - fuck putin · April 29, 2017, 06:18:15 AM

Verb is a hipster. This thread is proof.

Verbatim · April 29, 2017, 09:30:42 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on April 29, 2017, 06:18:15 AM

Verb is a hipster. This thread is proof.

you never needed proof because i openly embrace the label

Verbatim · April 29, 2017, 05:22:34 PM

Quote from: Pepsi on April 29, 2017, 01:45:08 AM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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...

challengerX · April 29, 2017, 05:37:09 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · 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.

challengerX · April 29, 2017, 07:27:29 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · April 29, 2017, 07:33:03 PM

Quote from: challengerX on April 29, 2017, 07:27:29 PM

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.

Korra · April 29, 2017, 09:32:51 PM

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.

Verbatim · April 29, 2017, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: Yang on April 29, 2017, 09:32:51 PM

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.

Verbatim · April 29, 2017, 10:10:03 PM

Sorry, that ended up being way longer than I was shooting for.

Korra · April 30, 2017, 12:10:27 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 29, 2017, 10:09:17 PM

Quote from: Yang on April 29, 2017, 09:32:51 PM
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.

No worries, I get it.

Thing is with technology is that advancements are not really made with artistic vision in mind, for the most part there is an utilitarian need for them. Art comes after that, its what we can create from THOSE advancements. Kinda like how we can now print 3D objects because of the advancement of that type of tech.

I'm not disagreeing with you in how a person sees art and stuff, hell nostalgia is a hell of a drug (SNES > All other consoles imo), but I was taking a more, like I said, utilitarian stand on it.

challengerX · April 30, 2017, 05:12:11 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

snurch · April 30, 2017, 07:38:35 AM

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

—

if the bugs were left in because they were fun and the developer chose to leave them in then i would say theyre features, a side effect of roundabout programming which had unexpected but positive effects on the experience

usually the performance has no bearings on these bugs though

that said some games are designed to run with an fps lock since their logic is frame based and doesnt operate independently of that, which is generally bad programming practice unless the game has a mechanic based on frames; even consoles where hardware is all uniform, fps spikes and drops still happen

Verbatim · April 30, 2017, 10:33:09 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 30, 2017, 05:12:11 AM

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.

Turkey · April 30, 2017, 11:02:10 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 30, 2017, 10:33:09 AM

Quote from: challengerX on April 30, 2017, 05:12:11 AM
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.

I believe that is what he's been arguing the entire time.

Verbatim · April 30, 2017, 11:07:24 AM

Quote from: Sovereign Citizen Kane on April 30, 2017, 11:02:10 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 30, 2017, 10:33:09 AM
Quote from: challengerX on April 30, 2017, 05:12:11 AM
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.
I believe that is what he's been arguing the entire time.

Yeah, and I have no idea why, because that idea was never once disputed.

Verbatim · April 30, 2017, 11:17:43 AM

Quote from: Pepsi on April 30, 2017, 07:38:35 AM

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.

snurch · April 30, 2017, 01:33:53 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 30, 2017, 11:17:43 AM

Quote from: Pepsi on April 30, 2017, 07:38:35 AM
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.

you would notice that fps distinction for the sake of the art yes

were the camera the same you wouldnt notice it in the footage

weaker graphics cards could be more expensive if they were older but a higher end model at the time, just as there are newer releases of cameras that are improvements over the last, you could tell people it was the older camera and they would believe it, and you would believe it too, if they sold you the newer camera you wouldnt notice it either

if it doesnt change the result of the art, and both cameras shoot at exactly the same fps and have the same resolution and the same sensor, if the result of the art is the same, would there be any reason for getting the older, more expensive camera

lets say a film maker said he used the older camera when both were available, and the audience thinks he used the new one, what would it matter then if they don't believe he used the older one, and protest that he used the new one instead? and if he had to prove such, the footage would've been identical if taken from either camera

in film reviews, you would see that reviewers would have notice the difference in things like "the director chose this kind of film stock, because of the warmer colors" or "the director picked this camera because it has an inbuilt motion blur that he liked", or, like your example, "it was able to shoot at a different framerate", and these could all be very subtle things, but you would notice them

in software, these differences would be characteristic between the engine or the graphics libraries or the sound libraries they used to make the game, game developers won't be using specific hardware unless it was a games console, which has it's own advantages but I won't go into that now

the point is there are no distinguishable characteristics between any gpu where you would pick one over another to develop for, you may have a range of low to high end gpus if you were part of a large development team to test how it performs between different cards, and it's nothing the end user or the artist would notice. Plus, your game will reach a much much smaller audience were you to make it the "prime experience" for only one graphics card - in 1 or 2 years, many newer models will have come out, and as people buy new cards or their older cards break, they will be unable to play the game with it's "intended" hardware

speaking of which, there is actually be a reason you would pick one brand of graphics card over another, as opposed to an older card from the same brand. Nvidia and AMD sometimes have features exclusive to the hardware that take advantage of specific software designed for that GPU's process, e.g Nvidia Gameworks or TressFX. These will actually change how the game feels or looks, versus a counterpart that's basically a newer version of the older card

if you make a game specifically for one graphics card and designed to be played on that graphics card, I don't think people are going to buy a new graphics card just to play your game, there are so many other factors that affect game performance that just choosing the hardware that runs approximately "this" well wouldn't make a difference unless you were the only one who wanted to play the game

heck, other software or hardware on your computer would run differently from each other, say you had a particularly cpu-hungry antivirus installed or a lot of software on a hard drive, that could make the cpu run slower and make the game run slower than the card was supposed to - someone that simply had more things downloaded on their computer could affect the version of the game you wanted them to play, even if you had the same parts and everything for the entire PC

in effect, that would mean the only way to play your game how it was supposed to be played on a gpu of your choice would also be to have the exact same computer with the exact same parts and the exact same software installed, which, even on a console is not an achievable feat - but still the best chance at "uniform" performance. Someone who had a new xbox one, would probably run a game better than someone who had an older one with 50 or so games and apps installed

with all these variables, what would picking one gpu over another benefit in your creation, given the game will only run as intended if it's with your exact software and hardware setup? given the array of different options and the mount of different computers out there, differences in performance are a given for every single machine for anyone who wanted to play your game

I think I may have gone off on a tangent there, but the only reason a developer would pick one gpu over another (or rather, one brand) is for something like Nvidia gameworks, and even so, gameworks is designed to perform on any GTX video card