By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 02 June 2014
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
sundin13 said:

I do think (for me of course) that when it comes to graphics it is largely a matter of style over technical achievement. A photorealistic game will wow me for five minutes, a creative art style will wow me for hours. Wind Waker (both the original and the remake) or Okami still take my breath away and Valkyria Chronicles or Ni no Kuni have charm out the wazoo and A Link to the Past or Super Metroid are jaw dropping-ly gorgeous.

While Uncharted was certainly a pretty sight to look at, those pretty sights faded to the back of my mind pretty quickly, while the imagination and charm of the games I listed above reminded me how stunning they were with every turn.

However, I realize that is all personal preference and when it comes to art styles, there is no such thing as superior. I will say that your comparison to books seems very biased and doesn't make very much sense (you say imagination and technique are two sides to the same coin, however I believe they are entirely different metrics...). Also, the anti-mario rant you rattled off at the end just makes this who thread seem like an anti-Nintendo/Nintendo fan hate speech.

Have you even read the OP?

I put several times that it isn't discussing style or aestethic (that can be subjectively evaluated) but the graphical achievement. So why are you derrailing this thread?

And I didn't said that they are the two sides of the same coin... some Nintendo fans try to equate Nintendo to creativity (and more valuable at that) and Sony/MS as technical (and less important because they are just horsepower).

And this isn't an Anti-Nintendo/Nintendo fan hate speech. This is an anti-Nintendo apologist thread. If you think Nintendo games are visually pleasing them this thread isn't to you, but if you think that Mk8 is the best game graphically speaking of 8th gen, or SMG2 is the best of 7th gen, then yes this aplly to you, because you confound subjects. And my posts to you in the other thread make things even more clear, as you probably don't even like or care about cinematic games.

I am "derailing" the thread because I don't really think people say that (or at least I've never really heard it in all my years on the internet). I think most people know that technical achievement and creative achievement are not the same things, however they may value one more than the other.

You may say this isn't about "style" but graphical achievement is pretty much equal to technical achievement, which you are saying people equate to creativity (which is pretty much equal to style). This sounds like a Graphics vs Style debate, with a few synonyms thrown in to throw up a bit of a smokescreen.

"They often say that is a lot harder to create characters (well they already exist for like 30+ years in some cases) and rich enviroment in cell shading or other cartooney techniques because the artist needs to imaginate, and in "photo-realistic" games they just need to copy the place (lets say Venice)."

Could that not be true? Now we are using extremely subjective terms such as "harder" to discuss this, when in the following comments, you immediately begin to talk about the objectivity of technical achievements.

"Evaluate the quality of the game or if the aesthetic is pleasant is subjective. To discuss the technical aspects of the graphical achievement isn't."

Okay, we already established in the OP that people agree that Sony/MS games are generally more technically advanced so where is the argument here? There is no objective measure to compare creativity and technicality and talking about which is "harder" is silly, as harder is highly subjective and a case by case deal.

"but to say that it tops a PS4/X1 graphic is just plain silly and the arguments are usually weak."

We have no metric for measuring which is a larger achievement. Not only do we not have the knowledge of costs and time, but this is a very subjective subject. You seem to be making arguments for why Sony/MS games are more technically advanced, not why they are a greater achievement.

As I said, the entire comparison with books seems silly and the final paragraph of the OP seems to be a rant against Nintendo.

This thread seems confused about what it is trying to accomplish, arguing one thing at times and then throwing that argument over a much larger ground and saying it still fits.

Finally, I don't think my dislike of the story of Beyond says much about my enjoyment of cinematic games. That would be like saying the fact that I dislike Big Rigs means I don't like racing games (a bit of hyperbole there)...