Quantcast
New Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night Trailer looks great

Forums - Gaming Discussion - New Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night Trailer looks great

Tagged games:

mZuzek said:
Chazore said:

It seems like you have with your latter sentence.

Quality is subjective itself. What you think is good, is likely trash to someone else.

No. Nothing in art is entirely subjective, the same way nothing is entirely objective. Yes, there's a lot of subjectivity involved in these discussions, but to think there is no objective quality in art is basically the same thing as saying that there's no value in studying or practicing your art, since you could never actually get better at it (since it's all subjective), and that's just not true. As an amateur musician myself, when looking at some of my older work compared to my newer work, there's a very stark contrast in quality and when going through it I can see the evolution I had in my work, in the same way an athlete gets better the more they practice their sport or a student gets better grades at a test the more they study for it. I think most artists would agree with me here - there are certain things that are just objectively better than others, and to say otherwise is to devalue the work and effort of artists themselves.

Of course, I had already stated I much preferred the look of the new Bloodstained trailers, so in that sense I had already taken a side. When I said I wasn't taking a side, it was my way of saying "regardless of my view on the content at hand" and all that.

Again, it would be like saying "the Mona Lisa>everything else", and it would be in your own opinion, not "the Mona Lisa is factually better than all other art out there by definition of fact", because Art like it or not is subjective. Why do you think art tastes vary massively compared to all the millions of styles out there in the first place?. Why do you think other people, other groups value different pieces of artwork over others and vice versa?. 

Studying/practicing is entirely different to the end result of showing your piece of artwork, especially for those that aren't living on this earth anymore. Getting better at it is in the eye of themselves and the beholder, but of course to someone else, they could look like they got "better", to others not so much and at times, yes, not even to themselves (I know this because I frequently chat with multiple art friends weekly, with a few of them sensing and voicing a lack if improvement to their art styles).

There is value in practicing, just like it is for everything, but that value is up to you, that value is placed into what you want to do with subjectively. Going with "I think I should improve myself" being the subjective part to "I have studied at Art school for 4 years" being the objective example. The part where you actually show off your style?, that's up to the user and the crowds judging it, which lends heavily yo, you guessed it, subjectivity.

You know, it's interesting that you say that practicing always makes you perfect, but I've seen a prime example within the art world, where one guy I've watched for around 10+ years has gone from a nice hand drawn to digital precise/finely drawn style, to a digital style where everything looks the same, horribly plastic looking and lifeless. I'm not the only one who shares that same sentiment about the artist dramatically changing their style from one place to another. You can make regressive steps in your area of work. Are you also aware that there are some people out there (yes, because I am one of them) who practice and practice, and yet they never get far or complete what was set out to be achieved?. 

"I think other artists would agree with me here", see, that's picking and naming a side. Please, at least be honest with your prior wording next time, because I do dislike "I'm being honest" when it becomes dishonest. Saying "regardless of my view", you're still placing all of this under "It doesn't matter, the enw version is objectively better", hence you using an argument on objectivity. Again, please, leave the dishonesty outside the door and just flat out tell me what you're thinking, rather than dancing around the point you're trying to make. 



                                       

Chazore said:
mZuzek said:

No. Nothing in art is entirely subjective, the same way nothing is entirely objective. Yes, there's a lot of subjectivity involved in these discussions, but to think there is no objective quality in art is basically the same thing as saying that there's no value in studying or practicing your art, since you could never actually get better at it (since it's all subjective), and that's just not true. As an amateur musician myself, when looking at some of my older work compared to my newer work, there's a very stark contrast in quality and when going through it I can see the evolution I had in my work, in the same way an athlete gets better the more they practice their sport or a student gets better grades at a test the more they study for it. I think most artists would agree with me here - there are certain things that are just objectively better than others, and to say otherwise is to devalue the work and effort of artists themselves.

Of course, I had already stated I much preferred the look of the new Bloodstained trailers, so in that sense I had already taken a side. When I said I wasn't taking a side, it was my way of saying "regardless of my view on the content at hand" and all that.

Again, it would be like saying "the Mona Lisa>everything else", and it would be in your own opinion, not "the Mona Lisa is factually better than all other art out there by definition of fact", because Art like it or not is subjective. Why do you think art tastes vary massively compared to all the millions of styles out there in the first place?. Why do you think other people, other groups value different pieces of artwork over others and vice versa?. 

Studying/practicing is entirely different to the end result of showing your piece of artwork, especially for those that aren't living on this earth anymore. Getting better at it is in the eye of themselves and the beholder, but of course to someone else, they could look like they got "better", to others not so much and at times, yes, not even to themselves (I know this because I frequently chat with multiple art friends weekly, with a few of them sensing and voicing a lack if improvement to their art styles).

There is value in practicing, just like it is for everything, but that value is up to you, that value is placed into what you want to do with subjectively. Going with "I think I should improve myself" being the subjective part to "I have studied at Art school for 4 years" being the objective example. The part where you actually show off your style?, that's up to the user and the crowds judging it, which lends heavily yo, you guessed it, subjectivity.

You know, it's interesting that you say that practicing always makes you perfect, but I've seen a prime example within the art world, where one guy I've watched for around 10+ years has gone from a nice hand drawn to digital precise/finely drawn style, to a digital style where everything looks the same, horribly plastic looking and lifeless. I'm not the only one who shares that same sentiment about the artist dramatically changing their style from one place to another. You can make regressive steps in your area of work. Are you also aware that there are some people out there (yes, because I am one of them) who practice and practice, and yet they never get far or complete what was set out to be achieved?. 

"I think other artists would agree with me here", see, that's picking and naming a side. Please, at least be honest with your prior wording next time, because I do dislike "I'm being honest" when it becomes dishonest. Saying "regardless of my view", you're still placing all of this under "It doesn't matter, the enw version is objectively better", hence you using an argument on objectivity. Again, please, leave the dishonesty outside the door and just flat out tell me what you're thinking, rather than dancing around the point you're trying to make. 

Yikes. This is a whole new level of taking it personally.

I don't see how I was being dishonest... if anything, I should have a better idea of how honest I am than you do. Look, I never said "practice always makes one perfect", and I don't believe that for a second, because nothing can ever be perfect. Practice does usually make one better though, but not always. I agree that artists can get worse at what they do despite continuing to work on their craft - and sometimes this isn't just down to taste, sometimes it's quite an objective drop in quality that could happen for several different reasons, such as: 1. they started caring more about the money than the art; 2. they want to simplify their work to require less effort; 3. they're out of ideas but continue to pull shit out because it's a "responsibility"; 4. they tried doing something new, but aren't as good at it; and more.

Yes, taste is a thing and so are styles, and often the quality of things can't really be compared objectively when you're always going to be biased one way. But it is important to recognize your bias and to recognize when it affects your opinion more than a critical view. Sometimes, there are things out there with issues you're willing to overlook in favor of your own personal taste, and that's fine. Personally, I like all of Muse's last 3 albums for example, but I can recognize that it's just my personal bias and I'm not gonna argue with anyone about those albums not being worse than their previous output, because I know they are and I just choose to be okay with that. Star Fox Zero is ranked rather high among my favorite ever games for example, despite a lot of people saying it's a bad game - but I'm not blind to reality, I know it's a deeply flawed game, and some of those flaws annoyed me too, but ultimately I just decided to overlook them because I wanted to enjoy it. That's bias, and it's okay to have it. Everyone does. But to say everything in art is entirely subjective and there is nothing that defines quality other than personal preference is like saying that these are as good as each other.



Game looks great I am looking forward to it. I just got the other bloodstain game on xbox live gold



Hiku said:

CladInShadows said:

Only a couple minor ones...the biggest one being the yelling she does for every attack. Apparently it's being/been addressed.  The second was the crappy lip syncing.  Though that one just falls into the area of nitpicking.  It's the yelling/attacking one that I think it more important.

Ah, right. The game is supposed to have Dual Audio when it comes out, so if someone is unhappy with the way one voice actor performs, it could potentially be resolved by switching to the other.

As long as they add some variation to the attack sounds, I'm good.  It was one of the items they said they received a lot of feedback about, so I'm pretty confident they'll be addressing it.



mZuzek said:

Yikes. This is a whole new level of taking it personally.

I don't see how I was being dishonest... if anything, I should have a better idea of how honest I am than you do. Look, I never said "practice always makes one perfect", and I don't believe that for a second, because nothing can ever be perfect. Practice does usually make one better though, but not always. I agree that artists can get worse at what they do despite continuing to work on their craft - and sometimes this isn't just down to taste, sometimes it's quite an objective drop in quality that could happen for several different reasons, such as: 1. they started caring more about the money than the art; 2. they want to simplify their work to require less effort; 3. they're out of ideas but continue to pull shit out because it's a "responsibility"; 4. they tried doing something new, but aren't as good at it; and more.

Yes, taste is a thing and so are styles, and often the quality of things can't really be compared objectively when you're always going to be biased one way. But it is important to recognize your bias and to recognize when it affects your opinion more than a critical view. Sometimes, there are things out there with issues you're willing to overlook in favor of your own personal taste, and that's fine. Personally, I like all of Muse's last 3 albums for example, but I can recognize that it's just my personal bias and I'm not gonna argue with anyone about those albums not being worse than their previous output, because I know they are and I just choose to be okay with that. Star Fox Zero is ranked rather high among my favorite ever games for example, despite a lot of people saying it's a bad game - but I'm not blind to reality, I know it's a deeply flawed game, and some of those flaws annoyed me too, but ultimately I just decided to overlook them because I wanted to enjoy it. That's bias, and it's okay to have it. Everyone does. But to say everything in art is entirely subjective and there is nothing that defines quality other than personal preference is like saying that these are as good as each other.

Not really, I just dislike dishonesty, you can point and voice that out without "taking it personally". It also makes for a bad opening argument point when you put it like that as well.

Mmn, being more honest than me, and I'm the one taking it personally?. 

No, but people who always mutter "practice makes perfect" will continue uttering it until they get the results they want, ergo it's implied that said person will always reach perfection via practicing at any time, because "keep on practicing, just keep at it for all of eternity". 

Going from a fully fledged art to stick figurines, yes, that would be an objective drop in quality, without a doubt, but that becomes an example, not the rule.

Those reasons listed are exactly why some artists seek a more simpler style, or one that simply cuts down on the time required to craft, yet also charging that bit more (I know this because I've been watching one of them for years now, with him charging for a single YCH for a whopping 5k alone, no edits, no input, just your character).

Of course we can't, because as humans we are biased to the core. We try to claim that justice is objective, when inr eality, someone who does weed goes away for longer than someone who's murdered 1-3 people, how can that ever be considered objective justice?. Justice, like many things in life are entirely subjective, depending on how you look at judging things/people. 

See, when you're willing to overlook issues for your own tastes, that's when things start to cloud your general judgement. I see this with the Crackdown thread, all over the net and twitter, "it's fine to spend 5 years to release a game as half arsed as that, keep on doing it etc". When you do not tell an artists what they are doing can be improved, or simply offering your own critique, they will never strive to improve themselves and remain complacent. This also goes for companies like MS.

As for that last part, no I'll have to disagree there, because one was a piece from centuries ago, vs a cleaning lady who ruined the piece with a chemical spray, which ended up smudging the entire painting as a result. She wasn't an artist, nor classed as one and certainly not being the sole creator of that piece. There is a big difference right there between that lady ruining a dead artists piece, and as veteran dev working on the same game, that no other person is going to intervene with and "smudge" by accident. 

Again, saying it's not entirely subjective means Mona Lisa>everything else, and that simply isn't the case, it will never be the case because we've seen this occurring for centuries now. Different people love, like and value/rate objects and people at different levels. We do not all value the same objects/people under a single, objective standard, where absolutely everyone agrees and no bias is injected (because that would be an impossibility as we're all biased by nature anyway). 



                                       

Chazore said:
mZuzek said:

Yikes. This is a whole new level of taking it personally.

I don't see how I was being dishonest... if anything, I should have a better idea of how honest I am than you do.

Not really, I just dislike dishonesty, you can point and voice that out without "taking it personally". It also makes for a bad opening argument point when you put it like that as well.

Mmn, being more honest than me, and I'm the one taking it personally?.

I'm not dragging this any further, the thread deserves better. I just wanna point out I never said I was being more honest than you, try reading that again.



mZuzek said:

I'm not dragging this any further, the thread deserves better. I just wanna point out I never said I was being more honest than you, try reading that again.

I did re-read it again, and it still came off as being more honest than me. I'm sorry you worded it differently than what it would have originally come off as.

You also didn't address the final point I made about the image you linked. I'll assume you now know the difference between a cleaner and an artist with their original work compared to a video game designer and their original work, minus the clumsy cleaner. 



                                       

Chazore said:
mZuzek said:

I'm not dragging this any further, the thread deserves better. I just wanna point out I never said I was being more honest than you, try reading that again.

I did re-read it again, and it still came off as being more honest than me. I'm sorry you worded it differently than what it would have originally come off as.

You also didn't address the final point I made about the image you linked. I'll assume you now know the difference between a cleaner and an artist with their original work compared to a video game designer and their original work, minus the clumsy cleaner. 

"I should have a better idea of how honest I am than you do."

I'm not saying I'm more honest than you, I'm saying I know more about my own honesty than you do - the same way you know about your honesty more than I do.

I didn't address the painting stuff because I didn't know it was done by a cleaner, honestly. I thought it was "professional" work. Still, there are other examples I could've used.



mZuzek said:

"I should have a better idea of how honest I am than you do."

I'm not saying I'm more honest than you, I'm saying I know more about my own honesty than you do - the same way you know about your honesty more than I do.

I didn't address the painting stuff because I didn't know it was done by a cleaner, honestly. I thought it was "professional" work. Still, there are other examples I could've used.

But in saying that, you can't claim dishonesty from the other person on the claims that they should know themselves to being more honest to themselves and others. That really doesn't make much sense, especially when people can prove themselves to being dishonest at times. 

I wasn't aware that you didn't look up the original reason behind the meme/photo in general. There can be other examples out there, but they have to be from the same artist and be on point, rather than what you had originally used, as well as being entirely objective, without any subjectivity being lent. 



                                       

Chazore said:

But in saying that, you can't claim dishonesty from the other person on the claims that they should know themselves to being more honest to themselves and others. That really doesn't make much sense

Yikes. No, it really doesn't.