They played us like a damn fiddle

Quote from: Luciana on April 29, 2017, 12:39:52 AM

I'm playing P1 after 5. Emulated PSP cuz why not.

i can tell you exactly why not

i can tell you why i don't care

http://youtubedoubler.com/kVGk

We really are the Phantom Thieves

thirsty

Quote from: Dietrich Six on April 28, 2017, 03:51:47 PM

Simple to understand, sure.

and also the only correct way to think

Sounds like Trump logic

bigly

I love sports so much

If you love them so much why don't you fuck them already?

My theory is that the Bears and Browns are bad on purpose to get everyone to talk about them. No teams in any sport can be as stupid as they are on purpose.

The Bears are bad recently, but the Browns are in an entirely different class. Bears are usually mediocre, middle of the pack.

Browns are just as their name implies. Shit.

Any Pokemon game

Fire Emblem Awakening/Fates (Awakening is a better one to start with)

Persona Q

Quote from: Fishcakes on April 27, 2017, 10:34:20 AM

European isn't a nationality.

Neither is American.

B-But muh NORTH AMERICA REEEE

Mexicans and Canadians don't call themselves American, and those filthy southern americans sure as shit don't either

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.

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.

Quote from: Luciana on April 27, 2017, 10:14:29 AM

After reviewing some of the stuff posted, I suppose I can concede my argument if we're talking about it from an artistic perspective. From the technological and capable perspective, I still hold fast that what I say is correct.

But I guess art and technology and its progress are just two separate things entirely since one is only going on one trend, where as art is simply all over the place and diverse as hell.

That being said, I sure as hell won't sit here and believe Miyazaki intended for Blighttown to be 10 fps because it fit his artistic vision. It didn't. I'm going on what the creator intends, not what the consumer perceives.

That wasn't really what I was trying to argue with the Blighttown thing. I'm not saying Miyazaki intended for Blighttown to run shitty--just that it's notorious for running shitty, and some might argue it's an essential part of the experience despite not being intended. If someone were to experience a lagless Blighttown, a Dark Souls purist might say that he didn't get the "true" experience. I'm not gonna lie--I might even be one of those people, if only ironically. It's just a thing.

And I'm glad you can concede my point from an artistic perspective, and that's the only perspective I intended to argue from.

Now I can't wait for this subject to crop up three or so months from now, only for you to forget we've ever come to this agreement.

Well I can admit when I'm wrong, or that if I came about it the wrong way, so it shouldn't be too surprising.

As for what you just said, I think I finally understand what you mean. The immediate example that cropped up in my head was "dude, you haven't experienced the true bro trip until you've *insert some shitty thing happening to you*". Because it's not really anything positive or even productive, but people would consider it part of the complete experience.

If I'm going about that right. And no, I don't forget, shut up.

After reviewing some of the stuff posted, I suppose I can concede my argument if we're talking about it from an artistic perspective. From the technological and capable perspective, I still hold fast that what I say is correct.

But I guess art and technology and its progress are just two separate things entirely since one is only going on one trend, where as art is simply all over the place and diverse as hell.

That being said, I sure as hell won't sit here and believe Miyazaki intended for Blighttown to be 10 fps because it fit his artistic vision. It didn't. I'm going based off what the creator intends, not what the consumer perceives.

Fair enough. Thanks for actually doing research and backing up your claim. I concede on that front.

That doesn't at all dissuade me from my technology and window argument though, since it allows more creativity

i'm not gonna repeat that though, and I have class tomorrow, so I go. Night.

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.

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.