The creativity x techniques achievement discussion.

[DonFerrari]

sundin13 said:

DonFerrari said:

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?

Like I said before, the way I see it, Creativity=Style and Techniques=Graphics. That is why I can't really tell what you are arguing. You already established that people agree that Sony/MS games are greater technical achievements, so what is the problem here? The people who say that SMG has the best graphics of the gen were likely saying that because of the style, not because they believe it to be more technilogically advanced. 

As for the comparisons between TLOU and Galaxy, I personally prefer the look of galaxy, but it is obvious that TLOU is more technilogically advanced. If I were grading them, I would give them both very high scores. "If I were grading them" makes it feel like I am a reviewer and as such I would be taking in things from console's capabilities to the style to the technilogical achievements to the performance of both games while rating them.

"And I have see here people claim that WiiU is technically on par with ps4": Here as in this thread or here as in this forum? because I really don't think many people are saying that...

"We have metrics. How much a GTA cost to produce": But we don't know how much of that went into marketing or licensing music or creating the huge world or story or mission design etc.. We have no way to breakdown costs, and even if we did, money is not a perfect representation of graphical achievement...

"What confusion there is between OP saying graphics prowess is one thing and creativity/artistic view is another": The OP blatantly compares technology to creativity and weighs them against each other...thats where the confusion comes from.

If you want to argue that TLOU is more technilogically advanced than Super Mario Galaxy, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but the way you set up this thread seems like you are trying to stretch one small argument over a larger scale...

"So what cinematics games do you appreciate?": Well for one I really enjoyed Uncharted. I thought it was a good example of a cinematic story done well (although I do have a few problems with the marriage between story and gameplay, but that is another story). Additionally, the story in games such as Persona, Skyward Sword and Valkyria Chronicles all left a pretty big impact and contributed positively to my enjoyment of the game as a whole. 

Honestly, what is all comes down to is that I don't really think people are making the point you are arguing against and I think this is all just a big misunderstanding. So far, no one has really come into this thread to argue that point. The problem is the way you make your points...

PS: Out of curiosity, is english your primary language?

Well so we agree on graphics and style being diferent aspects of the presentation. But as I said I have come to different threads with members saying the best graphics were SMG2 because technique is meaningless and the art direction made it the best graphic in the gen (saying this while basically saying ps3 wasn't much stronger than wii since wii had the some of the best graphics of the gen and in smg2 the best overall) you may not believe but they exist and this is why I said the thread could be an anti-nintendo appologist but not anti-nintendo fan.

In your comparison of TLOU against SMG2 you seem to also consider that there is basically no artistic value or creativity because of it focus on realism.

There are threads on this and unfortunetely I can't search in the cellphone but when I get them I'll pm you.

We have certain measures of the work involved into making bigger world (and how much it impact into the graphical cost and exuberance and prowess) and how much cost to make better texture, models, AA, ilumination, etc. And those are the parts that basically make a game like SMG have a lot lower break even point than UC, marketing, voice and music were done in gen 6 and prior so you know from were came the rise in production cost. And I wasn't equating cost to achievement, I was equating to how hard (since you said it was subjective).

No OP shows how technology/techniques are different than creativity and that having techniques don't make creativity inexistent (and there are a lot of people that say there is no creativity in the art direction of ps/xbox).

But I'm certain that cinematics isn't your sweet spot. But that is ok. I like nintendo games in general (don't like the milking tough) and have no problem with the presentation.

Ps: if you click my name you will see that I'm brazilian.