The creativity x techniques achievement discussion.

[DonFerrari]

sundin13 said:

 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)...

 You are derailing the thread by putting aesthetic into it when op says it is purely graphic prowess. And I have seen several people (that I can't name because it's bannable behaviour to name someone that haven't entered the thread) defend that SMG2 have the best graphics (in all aspects and to refuse the techinical part says artistic view is what matters and techiques are the easy part).

For you what achieves higher in graphics department, SMG2 or TLOU? And why?

If you have difficult understanding harder read as more time consuming, horsepower dranning, more expensive to put.

I stablished that shouldn't be a discussion in this aspect, but you can see in this very thread that people try to distort the graphics achievement to favour nintendo. And I have see here people claim that WiiU is technically on par with ps4 (while in discussion most people would say even X1 is a lot lower).

We have metrics. How much a GTA cost to produce and how often it ships, or an Uncharted, and how much a SMG costs. Iwata was even saying about returning to nintendo profitability margins in sw because they saw the increase in cost to achieve 7th gen graphics (wiiu).

What confusion there is between OP saying graphics prowess is one thing and creativity/artistic view is another and that photorealism doesn't negate the other aspects of that graphic making it less artistic.

So what cinematics games do you appreciate?