By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The creativity x techniques achievement discussion.

F0X said:
DonFerrari said:
F0X said:


Technical achievement is not as easily measured and compared than you make it seem. Yes, Infamous: Second Son is more technically advaned than Mario Kart 8 overall when speaking as objectively as possible... but then again, it's not running at a stable 60 frames per second. When one game has a technical feature that another doesn't, then there is room for subjectivity in technical discussion. You may call it a weak excuse, but it's not actually irrational justification.

To compare a simulation of let's say 120k polygons at 30 fps with dozens of enemies against a 10k model at 60fps with fewer things on the screen doesn't make 60fps on Mario better than 30 fps in Infamous. If we were discussing DR3 multitude of enemies making the fps drop bellow 20fps the excuse of too much on screen is valid, cutting everything to 1/3rd and achieve 60fps wouldn't make any player happier.

And as a lot of people in the forum have posted and I tend to agree, 1080p and 60 fps are more buzzword in the graphics department than the sole reason for a good graphic, the effects are more important... it is basically, models/textures/effects 1st, resolution second, framerate depending on gameplay needs.


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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
aikohualda said:
F0X said:
aikohualda said:
subjective can't be measured.....


same reason why picasso is more popular than some realistic renaissance painting....


Is that a bad thing? Personally, I'm happy with the implication that the human imagination is difficult/impossible to measure and interpret.


it is a good... thing... it is a bad thing when someone is rationalizing how this is better than that... even though it is a matter of taste...

 

same thing with a awards or sports that involves judging by points.  Some stuff is just better than the eyes of the individual


It's an obvious statement, but farrrrrr more things can be rationalized as opposed to justified. Or maybe one can adopt pragmatism and say "I'm justified in liking a thing because it is of pratical use to me".



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

F0X said:
aikohualda said:
F0X said:
aikohualda said:
subjective can't be measured.....


same reason why picasso is more popular than some realistic renaissance painting....


Is that a bad thing? Personally, I'm happy with the implication that the human imagination is difficult/impossible to measure and interpret.


it is a good... thing... it is a bad thing when someone is rationalizing how this is better than that... even though it is a matter of taste...

 

same thing with a awards or sports that involves judging by points.  Some stuff is just better than the eyes of the individual


It's an obvious statement, but farrrrrr more things can be rationalized as opposed to justified. Or maybe one can adopt pragmatism and say "I'm justified in liking a thing because it is of pratical use to me".

but pushing your own justification to someonelse won't always have the same result.... because it still subjective



 

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.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

aikohualda said:
F0X said:
aikohualda said:


it is a good... thing... it is a bad thing when someone is rationalizing how this is better than that... even though it is a matter of taste...

 

same thing with a awards or sports that involves judging by points.  Some stuff is just better than the eyes of the individual


It's an obvious statement, but farrrrrr more things can be rationalized as opposed to justified. Or maybe one can adopt pragmatism and say "I'm justified in liking a thing because it is of pratical use to me".

but pushing your own justification to someonelse won't always have the same result.... because it still subjective


There's nothing wrong with a subjective opinion being justified for at least one person to have, but there can be serious problems (and hypocrisy) when someone believes that justifications are universal by nature.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Around the Network
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.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

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)...



There is a loooooot of spin happening in this thread. To the point where I am reading that it makes no sense splitting graphics from gameplay as one is designed to serve the other?????? Wow.......

And are we somehow saying that MK8 is technically comparable to I:SS because it runs at 60fps? Like seriously?

Anyways to OP, this is what I think. Nintendo fans that are "still" fans of nintendo are fans of nintendo for a reason. They don't care about the things that others that have moved on from nintendo care about. That cartoony look that nintendo embraces with every game, is made for their fans. And as long as nintendo keep s making those games, their fans will keep following them, until they want something else.

There is nothing wrong with this. I could go into why nintendo makes games the way they do, but rather i would just say that they build the best games for their hardware. Do people think that nintendo doesn't care about things like global illumination and hyper realistic reflections and AA? Or about ridiculous poly meshes and super detailed textures? Of course they do, if they didnt then their games will still look like how they looked like with the N64. The fact is simple, nintendo will make the best hardware possible that they can sell for $250 and make a profit on it. So be rest assured, when nintendo can make a console as powerful as the PS4 and sell it for $250 while making a $50 profit; they are gonna do it. Then nintendo fans will suddenly care about the things we care about now.



Intrinsic said:
There is a loooooot of spin happening in this thread. To the point where I am reading that it makes no sense splitting graphics from gameplay as one is designed to serve the other?????? Wow.......


What's wrong? There's no implication that graphics are unimportant. In fact, my claim implies that graphics are important, but for the sake of gameplay primarily.

I'd like to hear your philosophy of game design and find out whether I'd play any games designed with it in mind.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

F0X said:
Intrinsic said:
There is a loooooot of spin happening in this thread. To the point where I am reading that it makes no sense splitting graphics from gameplay as one is designed to serve the other?????? Wow.......


What's wrong? There's no implication that graphics are unimportant. In fact, my claim implies that graphics are important, but for the sake of gameplay primarily.

I'd like to hear your philosophy of game design and find out whether I'd play any games designed with it in mind.

ok, thats where I dont agree with you. Graphics has nothing to do with gameplay. Gameplay has everything to do with gameplay, and if you hop around a bit and look at games you will find tons of games that aren't even remotely the best looking things but live entirely off their gameplay. We don't even have to go too far, just look at wii sports. Or look at minecraft. Both games that look like crap but play beautifully. Some games are even designed with low poly counts/2d sprites as an art style.... everyday shooter, braid.

You can have the best looking agme in the world, and if it plays like crap no one will play it for longer than 5mins. The funny thing is, nintendo basically thrives on this; its the mantra so to speak. Cause time and time again they have seen that an awesome game will sell itself, no matter how it looks.