>>285439354 When it comes to video games, people often confuse 'design' with 'art.' So when people say the art style is important, and when they say art style > graphics, it simply means they'd rather see games still look good on limited hardware rather than just go for fullblown realism which is what most games with great graphics go for. You really only get good looking games on weak hardware if you make good design decisions, the use of colors, polygon count and effects AND it still runs at a decent FPS and decent res.
>>285441391 That's the changing of trends. It doesn't affect artstyle at all. We don't go back and say the Mona Lisa is shit because we value surrealism more than realism, we still say the piece is a masterwork. It doesn't just "degrade", but it might be appreciated less than initially.
>>285441391 >we currently value surrealism over realism We're not art gallery curators here. Most people really don't. I believe there are certain unknowable visual standards that most people hold that lets them appreciate some piece of art on a non-historical level despite its age.
Non-objective points when a game is described are not to be disregarded entirely, but are only as valid as your faith in the judgement of the reviewer.
For example, it's the different between hearing "I like the art style, and it's just a really fun way to kill an afternoon" from a Kotaku writer, a more reputable online reviewer, a Youtube commentator, a random /v/-goer, and your best friend since childhood. You'd have different amount of trust in each one's judgement.
Sometimes just saying "it's fun" is just a lack of skill on the reviewer's part. Things are "fun" when they're satisfying, rewarding, challenging but fair, and consistently entertaining, among a league of other factors. But every single one of those is subjective. The margin might be smaller but what is satisfying, rewarding, challenging, fair, and entertaining to one person may not be for another. How true we hold these statements come from, again, our faith in the reviewer.
It is extremely hard to praise a game objectively. It can be criticized by listing indisputably bad missteps like glitches and bugs, but even complaints (or compliments) like "the menus are clunky (or seamless)" and "the bosses are too hard (or easy)" are subjective.
>"This painting is a typical example of impressionism, as indicated by the use of pastel color pallet, visible brush strokes, and a predominant on color and representation of lightening over distinct contours of the figurative elements." >BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT'S IMPRESSIONISM, WAAAAAAH!" Also: >"This picture has higher definition, which by default makes it better than a picture with lower depiction. How and what it depicts is irrelevant."
Do you people even realize how dumb you are?
>>285442163 And you are an idiot who does not comprehend the concept of shared value systems and the subject of aesthetical preferences having deeper foundations because you get utterly stumped the very first time you see two people disagreeing with each other.
>>285443075 >"This painting is a typical example of impressionism, as indicated by the use of pastel color pallet, visible brush strokes, and a predominant on color and representation of lightening over distinct contours of the figurative elements."
None of that is objectively good though, that is what I've been saying.
>>"This picture has higher definition, which by default makes it better than a picture with lower depiction. How and what it depicts is irrelevant."
When would you ever say that a lower resolution picture is superior to a higher resolution picture if both pictures depict the exact same thing?
I showed my mother (who has no gaming experience) pictures of N64 games and modern games and she loved the N64 ones and said they looked a lot better because they were more "creative."
Not being used to games (but being educated in art) she assumed the low-poly models and simple colors were a stylistic choice. She thought they were trying to go for a cubist aesthetic. She doesn't have much concept of technical limitations.
This doesn't really have a point I just thought it was an interesting story.
>>285439354 Graphics that are technically impressive tend to have a half-life, in that they inevitably become dated as hardware and rendering techniques become more sophisticated. Games that have an appealing visual style don't tend to decay as quickly because what makes it appealing isn't as dependent on processing power.
>>285440662 >What makes art style good though That's a matter of opinion.
>and what makes art style more important than graphics? Also a matter of opinion.
Look at The Order and its high resolution and polygon count and so on. Then compare it to Wind Waker, or Prince of Persia 08, or Borderlands, or Catherine, or Folklore, or Devil May Cry, or Bayonetta.
You cannot say that the only differences between them are resolution, polygon count, and everything else that makes up the limit of graphical 'quality'. There is an inherent stylistic difference of what they're aiming to make from the beginning, and a gulf of difference between the end-product.
And that's because of art-style. Character and environment design, lights and shadows, use of colour and styles of shading, and so-on and so-on.
People who say art-style is more important than graphics tend to mean that things like the colourful world of Wind Waker, the fucked up monster designs of Catherine, the environments of DMC, are simply more interesting to look at even at a lower resolution and with less polygons than The Order with its expertly crafted but simultaneously boring as shit world and characters.
An expert and perfect carving of a human being isn't always as interesting as a flawed carving of a majestic fucking dragon.
>>285443376 >None of that is objectively good though, that is what I've been saying. The evaluation of "good" or "bad" is normative, not objective. By definition. "Good" or "Bad" are not concepts representing specific physical states of the world. They represent our social and cultural priorities. So throwing around the word "objective" in this context is equally as fucking stupid as throwing around the word "subjective". Even concepts of aesthetical schools or trends is normative. They don't mean anything beyond the meaning that we arbitrarily (in the original Saussurian sense, not in the modern misappropriation) defined for them.
What you have been saying was one long string of utter misconceptions of what epistemological states such as objective, subjective, or any other similar concepts mean.
>When would you ever say that a lower resolution picture is superior to a higher resolution picture if both pictures depict the exact same thing? Irrelevant to the context of this discussion. If we judge two different titles, and we make the decision to put larger priority on either graphical fidelity, or art style, it's because we assume they are both different in both categories. If we had two identical games with identical art styles, but one with higher graphical fidelity, the question is moot, because we don't need to make decisions about which one is of higher priority than the other.
>>285444158 >That's a matter of opinion. That is a matter of the justifications of that opinion.
>Also a matter of opinion. No, it's actually a matter of the question whenever formal aspects should be considered more important than the content of the medium. Which is a pretty big question with pretty big implications that goes a lot further than just "opinions".
>>285444240 So would you say that it's a moot point to argue that Wind Waker has a good art style, because even though almost everyone says this, it's completely subjective whether it has a good art style? So what exactly is it about its graphical presentation that pleases so many people? What's the "objective" factor in it?
>>285439354 >people already turning this into a HURR NINTENDO argument No you niggers There are examples of this duality on every system, and it's more obvious when you look back to the past. Crash Bandicoot 2 looks a hell of a lot better today than TR2 because the latter was going for a realistic style while the former's cartoony look makes it more timeless.
Having said that, the two things aren't totally unrelated. Higher technical specs give developers more choice and ability to realise unique artistic visions. There are some visual styles that literally can't be executed on older hardware and the reverse isn't true. So low-tech consoles don't exactly get a pass. Think of it like this; the graphical power is the tool but the art style is the ultimate result. In GENERAL better tools is a good thing but you'll always get some geniuses who can create masterpieces with sticks and stones and shitstains who make cave scratchings even with the latest technology.
>>285440561 There's a difference between preference and presentation. A higher polygon count is objectively more suited to more flexibility in modelling as well as more realistic or detailed models. Texture resolution leads to the same in textures.
>Art style is completely subjective, so it should not be more important than an objective aspect of game design. A lot of things are subjective, but if an art-style is well done and happens to tickle your fancy then it'll mean a lot more than if the graphics are technically impressive.
>>285444586 >So would you say that it's a moot point to argue that Wind Waker has a good art style, because even though almost everyone says this, it's completely subjective whether it has a good art style? No, my argument is exactly the opposite. Whenever something is good or bad in terms of art direction is neither subjective, neither is it a moot point in discussion. The "objective" element, which isn't objective at all, you just completely misuse - and in fact fundamentally misunderstand - the very concept of it. I think you should gradually start using a better terminology, something along the lines of "authority", "relevance" or simply "justification" instead of "objectivity".
What specifically matters when we want to justify the judgement of art style as good or bad? That is for a long and complex discussion, that would include more than one scientific or social field of studies. But in very rough terms: the basis lies in the fact that "art style" is basically little more than "visual language" or "visual code" in which the game presents it's content. And like with language or code, you can have varying success in getting your point across: it's either good or bad depending on how successful it is in getting the intended message across. All existing debates on the subject of art style are knowingly or unknowingly debates on how does the langue or code of the games visual representation represent the intended message, and more importantly, how successful it is.
>>285444702 >Justifications of an opinion are themselves a matter of opinion you fucking retard. You have to be kidding me. NOBODY in the world can afford to be this stupid. Even a complete moron with no interest in things like basic epistemology cannot afford to be THIS ignorant.
>>285445520 >A stylized game will never have its visuals obsoleted because no one will look at it and think "this doesn't look real at all compared to today's games". That's not true, because all NES games are stylized since none of them were capable of even slightly emulating realism, and therefore none of them tried. Still, nobody would argue that any NES game holds up to the graphical standards set by SNES games.
>unable to grasp the very concept of art. Since when is questioning = ignorance by the way?
>>285445076 >I love you, please be in every thread on /v/ from now on. I tend to be, but it usually just leads up to massive shitstorms and explosions of asshurt. On both sides, to be honest, because after I while, I tend to get tired of the stupidity here and eventually end up acting equally as moronic as everybody else.
So frankly, I would rather not be here. But I can't help myself.
>game X has 10 levels, game Y has 100 levels. Game Y OBJECTIVELY has more levels than game X. Therefore game Y is better! >but game Y's levels aren't any fun >that's SUBJECTIVE. OBJECTIVE measures ALWAYS beat out subjective ones. Why would you play a game that's more "fun" when that's just an OPINION?!?!
It's a matter of whether or not it fits with the material, and whether or not it's executed well.
For example, Shovel Knight utilized a "retro" art style because the gameplay has a similar feel. They go well together. A more realistic art style would turn out like the DuckTales remaster, which some people liked but to me it seemed like there wasn't enough going on for how much detail they added.
To me, the more separated from reality the game mechanics feel, the more you will benefit from a less realistic art style. Maybe that doesn't always hold true, but I can't think of an example off the top of my head for which that doesn't follow.
Also, it's nice to have some variety for how games look so that things don't get stale.
>>285445332 The best are technically impressive games with a well executed artstyle. Some of my favorites are:
Journey - not really a game but it had amazing technical assets. The desert looked like it was cel shaded but when you got up close you could actually see individual grains of sand moving in the wind. That wind was also modeled to look like the wind in windwaker
Windwaker - a great use of a unified artstyle. everything in the game fit in with everything else perfectly.
Romancing SaGa: Minstrel Song - not actually technically impressive but the artstyle was actually awesome (if you grew up on chibi weeaboo games). They managed to transition that chibi look into a good 3d style
>>285445729 >I think you should gradually start using a better terminology, something along the lines of "authority", "relevance" or simply "justification" instead of "objectivity". But if you use these terms instead of objectivity, you ignore the fact that so many people thought that WW had good art style without contacting one another. There had to have been something that pleased all of these people the same way in terms of visual presentation, and what I'm looking for is that element that made so many people individually think that Wind Waker looked good, despite all the graphical limitations.
>>285445729 >What specifically matters when we want to justify the judgement of art style as good or bad?
That's very simple.
How an individual feels about it. That is all.
Your problem is that you see some kind of hivemind mentality in which there is a definite say on what is bad or good to be dictated by laws of art.
That is not the case. Different people have different feelings to different styles, different reactions to what they are presented with. There is no definite answer in matters of taste, it is all down to the individual perceiving it as and when they perceive it you jumped up fucking tool.
A good art style can compensate for mediocre graphics and can hold up quite well over time. What's considered graphically excellent for the time often ages like milk once better technology comes along.
No one today thinks, say, Goldeneye looks good in the slightest. And that's one of the earliest examples of attempts at realism, with so few polygons it could definitely pass for an attempt at stylization. The PS2 era fares even worse.
The only "realistic" old games people enjoy the visuals in today are the ones that still used a decent amount of artistic design back then, such as MGS1.
>>285446221 >But if you use these terms instead of objectivity, you ignore the fact that so many people thought that WW had good art style without contacting one another. No. Again - this is the problem. People tend to work on the absolutely misappropriate concept that objectivity, or the objective reality is the only thing that connects different subjects. That is false: a radial and frankly idiotic reduction of the fact that human beings are linked though other means than empirical evidence.
The reason why so many people appreciate WW for it's art style is not in some kind of empiric evidence, but in the fact that a lot of our normative evaluations are based on certain degree of psychological unity, as well as large amount of shared cultural and social concepts. This gives people ability to form some kinds of basic intuitive judgements that are alike. People: whenever intuitively or knowingly, seek and judge certain things for very much functional reasons. They might do it on basis of some predetermined psychological universalisms (or at least, "prevalent tendencies"), or on the basis of shared standards imposed on them by the culture they are part of. There is nothing "objective" about this, but there is very little subjective about it either. It is, again: normative. Norms transcend invididuals and their subjective perceptions: that is their fundamental purpose in the first place.
>>285446313 >Your problem is that you see some kind of hivemind mentality in which there is a definite say on what is bad or good to be dictated by laws of art. Your problem is that you are an insecure asshole who has no clue about the subject matter, yet presents himself as such, and even throws accusations on others because he could not comprehend anything beyond simple "me against everybody else, and if you don't agree with my EXCEPTIONALLY shallow and simplistic view, you must be my enemy plotting against me".
>>285447230 >People: whenever intuitively or knowingly, seek and judge certain things for very much functional reasons. And this is what I am looking for. What is it, in terms of art style that would please so many people that Wind Waker did?
>There is nothing "objective" about this, but there is very little subjective about it either. It is, again: normative. This is unrelated, but raises the question, what is the difference between objective and normative?
>>285447610 >And this is what I am looking for. Well, good luck with that. Entire army of scholars has been trying to identify that for thousands upon thousands of years: we have made some great progress, but we are nowhere NEAR clear and simple answers yet. What I believe that was the key here, in most simple terms: the consistence between the clarity of the means, and the (relative) simplicity of the message. The game utilizes relatively minimalistic style, which basically means that the "dictionary of tools or representation" was relatively small. This allowed for the individual tools to be carefully narrowed down to only those which resonate most universally and most deeply with some preconceptions or intuitions that people have. In addition, there was nothing distracting about it - nothing that would distract you from the core message the game was trying to tell in each individual moment. Not sure if that suffices to you. But I would like to tell you this: you are on the best road possible. Seriously, sitting down and asking yourself "what makes this appealing", just analyzing it, hammering it down, trying to find every possible angle on an explanation, is what makes the difference between good and bad judgement. Even if you can't make full sense of it now, insisting on asking yourself such questions, and not satisfying yourself with a cheap cop-out of relativism or pluralism is a wonderful attitude. Stick to it if you can.
>>285447821 I called you paranoid because you immediately interpreted what I'm saying as some form of threatening, simplified plot. You even had to project additions to my words just to make your position more convincing and simple.
>>285448093 >I feel like in each post you're not really saying anything. Or maybe you just don't understand what I'm saying. Which would be entirely reasonable: I'm terrible at speaking clearly in laymen's terms and explaining things well.
if you observe that a lot of people claim to like the art style of a game that is as objective as the metrics you use to evaluate its graphics. so it's not an issue at all. if you personally feel that something like resolution is more important than the actual visual design of the game, then that's ok, it's just probably bullshit.
>>285450193 Well, you immediately jumped to the conlussion that I'm having some kind of sinister agenda of (and I quote) "hivemind mentality in which there is a definitive say on what is good and bad to be dictated..." etc.
The fact that you misunderstand the intention to understand the fundamental principles involved in the nature of making such judgements for the intention to dictate anything is pretty telling. You called me a retard because I don't think "hurt durr, people disagree with each other" as a satisfying answer? Yeah, I'm really hurt. Again: why don't you fuck off. If this is really the extent to which you are willing to get interested in the subject, you are not going to have ANYTHING to tell to anyone on the subject.
>>285450520 No, it's merely because it's so damn convenient. It's a place where I can afford to lose my temper and fuck up. And it's incredibly quick, with almost immediately response. That makes it addictive, and so much easier to return to than any other forum or site.
But I hate this place, and vast majority of people posting here. Every now and then, somebody rational and nice with genuine interest appears and makes it all worth while for some time, but then it's back to facing the endless brick wall of stupidity, arrogance and shitposting. This place is pretty much eating me apart, and I really wish I knew how to quit.
Well, I could mention the annoying characters, the retarded plot, the terrible singleplayer, the flood of grinding and fetch quests, the insanely easy combat which makes enemies giant squishy sponges that could be cleavd in half by a summer breeze, and the OST was meh. Nothing special.
>>285447230 >Your problem is that you are an insecure asshole who has no clue about the subject matter, yet presents himself as such, and even throws accusations on others because he could not comprehend anything beyond simple "me against everybody else, and if you don't agree with my EXCEPTIONALLY shallow and simplistic view, you must be my enemy plotting against me".
That's quite funny since it describes you perfectly.
>>285449345 >I'm terrible at speaking clearly in laymen's terms and explaining things well.
Oh I get it, you're yet another pseudo-intellectual who sugarcoates his ignorance with frivolous, meaningless words to try to invoke a sense of authority on the matter without making any point whatsoever.
>>285453115 Ahhh the sheer amounts of insecurity! Seriously I don't really care that much, but have you ever considered this might be something that might eventually start crippling you in your normal life?
Seriously, if you are going to continue react to the slightest sign of somebody using big words with rampat accusations of "Pseudointelectualism sugarcoating ignorance with blahblahblah", you are going to shoot yourself in the foot eventually in some kind of actually relevant social interaction.
>>285440662 >>285440017 Have you never looked at various kinds of art before anon? An art style is something that differs from artist to artist, a thing that makes their art unique. Even in realism, every artist creates their figures/backgrounds/etc in a way that is unique to them. Please watch this video, these three artists paint the same tree, but each painting looks different because they applied their own style to it. http://youtu.be/9JK9uQNBDxQ
But you're probably thinking "does this apply to 3D models"? Yes it does. Okami and Borderlands have vastly different art styles despite them both being 3D models. Borderlands is stylized realism, and Okami isn't. Now, humans have always tried to show their skill by showing just how realistic they can make their art. Nothing is wrong with this at all. People try to do this in video games as well as it's a great way to show just how skilled your art team is and how much technology has evolved. The only problem is that technology is always advancing. They'll always be able to fit more polygons and better textures in as time goes on. And when you're going for hyper realism, these sort of models don't age well. After getting used to the better models, the older ones' problems become more visually apparent. One day we'll look at Crysis and think " wow, how did anyone like this ugly shit, it's giving me eye cancer just looking at it". It's like comparing models going for realism back from 2001 to the ones we have now.
But with models that are stylized, whether heavily or just stylized realism, our minds don't automatically compare them to real life as they're not trying to emulate real life. If they are made nicely (e.g. made by people who understand color theory) then they're probably always gonna look good. Of course, Toy Story looks like crap compared to Toy Story 3, but the models still look good. Mario Sunshine still looks great today for example, low-poly cartoony sorta games still look great.
That's good for them. Doesn't change the fact that objectively, higher resolution usually equals better looking game (in a technical sense). Unless of course you're just stretching out the pixels. Native 1080 or higher resolution will always make a picture much more crisp.
>>285439354 I'm gonna sound like I'm contradicting myself here, but when people say that, it means that just because you have more polygons, doesn't mean it will ultimately look better.
>>285453616 >So I'm the one projecting when you are here throwing a million projections towards people who disagree with you? I'm making reasonable estimations based on your reaction. Look, I was willing to drop the subject entirely. The fact that you are the one insisting on continuing this shit, instead of addressing what I was ACTUALLY talking about shows that you are in this merely for maintaing your poor facade of self esteem. Which is incidentally, why unless any of your next posts addresses the actual subject of art direction or value and evaluation, I'm going to simply ignore you.
Same applies to >>285453913 as well. I genuinely tried to warn you about a sociopathological trend in your behavior, but if you aren't willing to let other people help, I'm not going to insist. It's your life and your personality problems, after all.
If you wanna say I think art style x is better than art style y then yes that is subjective, but just saying "art style" is subjective is retarded and shows you either didn't go to school or are too underaged to reach the level of education where this is taught.
>>285459976 I don't know about you, but calling some statement meaningless and pathological usually means that I disagree with it, or that, in fact, I find it either a waste of breath, or a genuine threat.
>>285459772 It's an excuse to avoid conflict. It's used by a lot of people to brick wall their ideals from anything that doesn't agree with themselves. Personally, I use it to avoid talking to people on the extreme end of spectra.
>>285460676 >It's an excuse to avoid conflict. The problem is that it generates conflict. If it was nothing more than a conflict avoidance attitude, I would not have much of a problem here. But it isn't, and it never was. It's merely a completely unfair line of argumentation, one where you dismiss validity of your opponents argument by allusion to his insufficient moral status.
That is really the most terrifying thing about this attitude. It's far more arrogant and aggressive than people realize. And it is being used as such, by the way. Not to avoid conflict, but to avoid the very option of being defeated in one.
>>285459162 When I said everything is subjective, I didn't really mean literally everything. Numbers are obviously objective. If your model has 200k polygons, it has 200k polygons. There is nothing subjective there. When your texture is 1000x1000, it's that. Nothing more, nothing less.
However, there is nothing objectively good in games. You might think that higher polygon count is always good. Well, more details can be good, but low poly games can look lovely as well. Some things are even better with low poly models than high poly models. A higher resolution texture allows for more details, but sometimes you don't want more details. A clean texture with a single color could do wonders in some cases. Pretty good examples are the high-rez texture packs in Minecraft. Any clean 16x16 pack looks better than any of the 128x128 texture packs if you ask me.
Now you might say "Well you can make the exact same model with more polygons so higher polygon count > lower polygon count because it can do the same and more. And you would be right if we have PC's with unlimited specs and we could waste power. Why have 10 times more polygons if you don't need them. What else is there that you could say it's "objective"? Good level design? Good music? Good story? Nothing there is objective. Some things could be good in the eyes of 99% of the human population, but that doesn't make them objective.
the plot was pretty good. the game was generous as fuck and huge in scope and that makes it pretty unique for a 3d rpg. and comparing it to xiii is just trying way too hard, you don't spend hours exploring the environments in xiii.
Thread replies: 133 Thread images: 17
Thread DB ID: 43474
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.