The creativity x techniques achievement discussion.

[F0X]

DonFerrari said:

F0X said:

Let's not forget and Mario Kart and Infamous are different games with different needs. Racing games benefit more from, at the least, stable framerates with 60fps being ideal for gameplay (particularly multiplayer) purposes. Would Mario Kart 8 be a better game at 30fps but better overall effects? I think you'll at least have a divided consensus over the answer to that question.

However, I agree with you that people who are saying that Nintendo has the best-looking games of this generation... probably haven't even played enough games to fairly reach that conclusion. Yet, I think you're going about your argument in the wrong way. The whole Harry Potter/Ulyssees analogy is so extreme that I'm not sure it's even applicable to a Flappy Bird vs. Crysis discussion! Literature isn't even a visual art form and the line between technical ability is creativity is more blurry since it's depedant on a rather malleable ruleset, not physical technology with more well-understood and evolving capabilities and limitations.

Well you called both games to say Mario Kart trump over Infamous because of framerate making it not clear cut the discussion of graphic prowess. But yes I do accept that for most gameplay (and its needs, framerate or other aspects) is more important than graphic. This is the reason I said that I was just discussing graphics not aestethic or gameplay (and besides refining the code to hit 60 fps it isn't exactly a graphic measure, just a "speed measure").

As I said before as well if someone says Nintendo X or Y game is the most pleasant he ever seen I wouldn't discuss because that is a taste/opinion thing (as I said I wouldn't discuss the prefference of art direction), but to say that it tops a PS4/X1 graphic is just plain silly and the arguments are usually weak. I don't think the analogy is extreme, it's just that both books have value and HP can please a lot of people (as Nintendo games do) but it isn't a better book than Ulysses even if less people like it (And in this case, most PS4/X1 games are graphically more impressive than any Nintendo game, but a lot of them wouldn't be pretty or pleasant).

Literature is a visual art form in the subjective part, a well written book (like Machado the Assis and other "realistic era" books) make you really see the ambient, clothes, face and everything else described with plenty of details - and for me that is one of the downfall of books after that time... most authors don't even invest much time on describing because they think tv does it better. I do agree that we can't say HP is more creative than Ulysses, but we can't deny that Ulysses have a better technical achievement than HP.

It doesn't make much sense to seperate the discussion of graphics from gameplay when the graphics exist to serve gameplay. In fact, it's ideal to refer to graphical achievement in terms of how much gameplay benefits from it... and the same applies to judgement of aestetics.

I agree that unless taste or opinion is implied in those statements, then they carry little weight.

I'm only scratching the surface of why your comparison doesn't work - from what I read, you see to claim that PS4/XB1 graphics are comparable to the masterful technique of Joyce and Mario Kart is perfectly anologus to the broad appeal of Harry Potter. Is there grounds for a comparison? Perhaps, but without more specificity/clarity on your part, I could spend a long time meditating on all of the reasons why it doesn't make total sense (Harry Potter is about racing? It has gameplay? Ulysses and Crysis are in the same boat?). I see the point you want to make, but an argument presented with "enough sense" is unideal.