This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - terrorbite
61
« on: October 20, 2015, 05:08:08 PM »
>allow
>as if you have a choice
>"lol guise cmon democracy is real and it works lol xD"
whats the better option?
we've been over this
i'll gladly read up on a thread if you have one handy
62
« on: October 20, 2015, 05:07:19 PM »
Reminder that there is no reason for a turn-based game to be 60fps outside of preference.
but if the hardware is capable and it costs the same to develop it, why pick 30 over 60?
Because there is absolutely no reason for it. It just doesn't matter in terms of gameplay unless it's a game that requires fast reaction times.
Besides, higher quality content and more content on screen at once > 60fps
But you can have both. you can have better content on your screen at 60fps, so why not?
63
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:45:03 PM »
Reminder that there is no reason for a turn-based game to be 60fps outside of preference.
but if the hardware is capable and it costs the same to develop it, why pick 30 over 60?
64
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:39:59 PM »
well if the goal is to make more realistic, immersive games, then yes the higher fps is better Now you're speaking my language.
If you think 60fps will make your game more immersive, then that's good--60fps is better.
But if some crazy developer came up with some idea (and you've been given a bunch of ideas already) to have 30fps instead, then 30fps is better, because it's more suited for that purpose.
Really, the fact that you prefer 60fps is absolutely fine. I have no problem with that.
What I don't like is when you try to imply that your opinion is a fact, and that 60fps is always objectively better.
but why in the world would you make a game to look less realistic when we have easy access to the technology to make it look more realisitic?
65
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:29:55 PM »
An example of where changing framerate can produce a desired artistic effect: Mad Max's opening scene.
30fps is fine, 60 fps can look better though.
A more salient remark would've been "30fps can look better", because it can.
Everyone already knows 60fps "can" look better--but is it, objectively? of course not
well if the goal is to make more realistic, immersive games, then yes the higher fps is better
66
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:16:58 PM »
but what artistic value is there in making it look bad? things look better and movements are more fluid at 60 or even higher
Why do they look "better"? What if they don't look better? Why does "higher number" automatically mean "better"?
Is getting 60th place in a race better than getting 1st place?
you want the movements in your game to look janky and stuttering? what artistic value is that? higher fps = more realistic movements
67
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:10:55 PM »
you get a point for continuity, but what artistic value is it to have it capped at 30fps? To have that continuity. He wants the game to be the ultimate tribute to the number thirty. Why? I don't fucking know--it's his favorite number, or something.
The point is, I'm right.
but what artistic value is there in making it look bad? things look better and movements are more fluid at 60 or even higher
68
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:58:39 PM »
angering people at how bad your art is isn't art. Says who?
I didn't know you were the arbiter of what it and isn't art.
beacuse "shit i cant believe i wasted my money on this" isnt the emotion that art is supposed to evoke
LOL
LOOK AT THIS KID WHO THINKS HE CAN TELL ARTISTS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE
How about a game called "Thirty"--an action game where you go through thirty rooms, fight thirty enemies in each room, and a boss for a grand total of thirty bosses. You have thirty HP, thirty different kinds of attacks to use, thirty weapons and items/pickups, and everything about the game revolves around the number thirty in some way.
Even the frame rate.
you get a point for continuity, but what artistic value is it to have it capped at 30fps?
69
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:54:47 PM »
angering people at how bad your art is isn't art. Says who?
I didn't know you were the arbiter of what it and isn't art.
beacuse "shit i cant believe i wasted my money on this" isnt the emotion that art is supposed to evoke
70
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:48:27 PM »
what artistic purpose is there to make something run at a low fps? what desired effect does that accomplish?
I just GAVE you one, guy. You want me to repeat myself?
For example, if I made a game dedicated to you, I'd make the game 30fps specifically to piss you off, because you apparently detest 30fps so much. So for that specific purpose--creating that irrational sense of anger within you, 30fps would be a superior choice over anything higher, because nothing else would have achieved that desired effect.
Either way, it doesn't matter--just because you might not be able to come up with an artistic purpose yourself, doesn't mean that there aren't any.
angering people at how bad your art is isn't art.
71
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:43:32 PM »
what artistic purpose is there to make something run at a low fps? what desired effect does that accomplish?
72
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:42:43 PM »
but making something in b&w vs color doesn't make it look worse. To you. A lot of people can't stand black and white. having a VIDEO be 1 fps vs 120fps does look worse.
Not to me. Especially not if the video was designed to run at 1fps, or 10fps, or 30fps.
1fps is a slide show, not a video.
73
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:36:03 PM »
the fewer fps the shittier it looks. fact. Doesn't matter. Even 1fps can be better than 120fps, if that's your artistic vision.
Martin Scorsese directed Raging Bull in 1980. Even though color video was available for twenty-seven years at this point, Scorsese still made the artistic decision to shoot that film in black-and-white.
Are you gonna tell me that Martin Scorsese is a bad artist, because he opted not to use color for that Academy Award-winning film?
but making something in b&w vs color doesn't make it look worse. having a VIDEO be 1 fps vs 120fps does look worse.
74
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:31:40 PM »
If you care about frame rate for any reason outside of stability, you're stupid.
30 is not only acceptable--it's also better in some circumstances.
more fps is always better
Not if it isn't in the artist's vision.
an artists who wants his game to look shitty isnt a good artist.
1. It doesn't even look shitty.
2. It's not that he wants his game to look shitty. He wants to produce some desired effect.
For example, if I made a game dedicated to you, I'd make the game 30fps specifically to piss you off, because you apparently detest 30fps so much. So for that specific purpose--creating that irrational sense of anger within you, 30fps would be a superior choice over anything higher, because nothing else would have achieved that desired effect.
No amount of frames is better than any other amount of frames, objectively.
It's just a matter of what your vision is, and what you plan to do and express in your game.
the fewer fps the shittier it looks. fact.
75
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:25:44 PM »
If you care about frame rate for any reason outside of stability, you're stupid.
30 is not only acceptable--it's also better in some circumstances.
more fps is always better
Not if it isn't in the artist's vision.
an artists who wants his game to look shitty isnt a good artist.
76
« on: October 20, 2015, 03:21:29 PM »
If you care about frame rate for any reason outside of stability, you're stupid.
30 is not only acceptable--it's also better in some circumstances.
more fps is always better
77
« on: October 20, 2015, 02:50:24 PM »
i think its odd that current generation consoles are really only stable at 30fps. these are an investment that are going to be around for another 3-5 years, and they can't even play today's games well? that's pretty messed up.
78
« on: October 20, 2015, 02:38:42 PM »
>allow
>as if you have a choice
>"lol guise cmon democracy is real and it works lol xD"
whats the better option?
79
« on: October 20, 2015, 02:19:57 PM »
isnt it a bunch of dudes here? why do you want us to look at your butt?
gay.
80
« on: October 20, 2015, 11:30:08 AM »
i wonder what will come of it
81
« on: October 20, 2015, 11:27:17 AM »
Clinton isn't responsible for Benghazi, though.
plenty of people think she is, as demonstrated by the investigations
The investigations proved she wasn't you fuckin retard.
and yet people still blame her for it
82
« on: October 20, 2015, 11:24:33 AM »
i think it's also because of our voting system.  the left image doesn't really allow for anything more robust than the two party system
83
« on: October 20, 2015, 11:18:57 AM »
Clinton isn't responsible for Benghazi, though.
plenty of people think she is, as demonstrated by the investigations
84
« on: October 20, 2015, 10:24:29 AM »
wait, i thought i posed this in the serious section
oops
85
« on: October 20, 2015, 10:15:59 AM »
?
86
« on: October 20, 2015, 09:52:19 AM »
i died.
87
« on: October 20, 2015, 09:51:04 AM »
because we aren't smart enough to weigh multiple different options. we just want to pick a or b and get on with our day.
88
« on: October 19, 2015, 10:01:30 PM »
cant say im too surprised 
dear god why
because most of my answers were "no, and private sector it"
89
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:58:50 PM »
cant say im too surprised
90
« on: October 19, 2015, 09:48:25 PM »
i'm assuming that's bad?
|
Show Posts