George Washington > All

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.

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.

Stop making fun of Sep7agon's #1 Anti-Natalist, you fuck!

Quote from: Turcuck on April 26, 2017, 10:12:48 PM

Verb, 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.

Custer's Revenge 2: Electric Boogaloo pls

Quote from: Yang on April 26, 2017, 10:07:44 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on April 26, 2017, 10:06:09 PM

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.

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 too like to play Commodore 64 games! 

Quote from: Yang on April 26, 2017, 08:30:31 PM

Quote from: Big Boss on April 26, 2017, 04:20:25 PM

Fight me en

challenge accepted

What they need to do in order to make the multiplayer great:

- Get rid of Specialists from the previous games or revamp the way they work entirely so bad players don't get rewarded with weapons that don't take skill to use and that can one-shot you. Go back to the way your soldier looks like depending on what primary weapon you have equipped for that class.

- Bring back Pro Perks. Perks in the recent games just feel useless and don't offer rather anything unique anymore, and bringing back pro perks will give players more challenges and more things to unlock in multiplayer.

- Killstreaks/Scorestreaks should keep the same system they have been going for since Blops 2 so people are encouraged to go after objectives rather than just going for kills. Just don't make a UAV or whatever they're going to call it in this game worth 550 score cause that's ridiculous.

- Speaking of killstreaks, let the player set which ones they want for each individual class like in MW3 rather than having the same 3 for every class.

- Ship with at least 13-15 maps on launch. Having some classic maps from WaW or even earlier CoDs would be pretty cool.

- Put some effort into make a decent spawn system please. I shouldn't have to constantly watch my back and worry about what's in front of me when my team is in control of the map like these past few games.

- And we all know this isn't going to happen, but having dedicated servers would be nice. P2P needs to stay in the past and not still be in use in 20-fucking-17.

Or they could just...you know...just make it play like CoD 2.

aohw

Quote from: Yang on April 25, 2017, 06:06:18 PM

Spoiler

My main man Magnus

my special magny magic

well fuck

whoa what