Why do people prefer stylized/simplistic animation to realistic/detailed animation?
>>83866401
G-Force was fucking horrible.
I doubt it's a real preference for all but a few people. It's just Stockholm Syndrome.
>>83866401
Mostly uncanny valley stuff
>>83866401
>>83866557
>>83866578
That's just narcissism.
>>83866401
Because in animation, so much is possible.
Why stay grounded in realism when you can go above and beyond?
>>83866614
>empathy is narcissism
I think it's just cheaper and easier to animate, So studies will gravitate to simple stuff regardless of what the consumer wants.
The consumer has no option but to consume what actually exists in the market.
>>83866623
Realistic designs and animation don't mean the story and presentation have to be realistic.
And from what I've seen on /co/, what people usually mean by "going above and beyond" is basic squash/stretch cartoon animation.
>>83866666
I am referring to the right panel, not the left one.
>>83866401
I like detailed animation but it takes you out of the details when the animation is silky and hyper as fuck. Or the opposite like in The Good Dinosaur.
You have realistic backgrounds that contrast with how cartoony the characters were.
>>83866623
How does realism = bad? Why wouldn't you want to animate birds like this >>83866526 instead of Angry Birds style birds?
>>83866401
Too much meming about 'gray and brown realism' in game graphics
>>83866712
>basic squash/stretch cartoon animation.
>Implying that's a bad thing.
>>83866792
>How does realism = bad?
It doesn't.
I never said it does.
>>83866801
I mean I've seen people act like it's some incredible thing pushing animation to its limits or some shit. As if there was nothing more to animation, and as if there was anything novel about it anymore.
>>83866834
I smell what you're stepping in.
I still love squash/stretch, but there definitely is more to animation.
>>83866401
Stylized is better eye candy
Your able to do more that would otherwise look awkward on realistic
>>83866865
Stylized character designs are just stylized character designs, they don't tell us anything about their level of detail, and the quality and inventiveness of the animation, backgrounds and camera work.
>>83866401
Why do you think that more detailed=objectively more appealing no matter what?
>>83866401
Something stylized will stay stylized forever, while imitating reality will become outdated as soon as technology gets better.
>>83866401
Because you want a lot of replies.
>>83867074
The only thing that aged badly on TP is the fucking ridiculous amounts of bloom in the graphical engine. Everything else may be a different style from Wind Waker, but it's still stylized enough to be distinct and set itself apart from uncanny valley pitfalls.
>>83866401
Simpler artstyle. Not simplistic animation. Simplistic means oversimplified to the point of negative effect.
Well actually you could mean simplistic, if so because most people don't give a shit about animation, which is why Family Guy and the Simpsons use Simplistic animation because the creators think more complex and fluid animation would distract from the comedy.
But I'd say people don't like shit like G-Force, ontop of it being unfunny, is because it kind of looks fucking creepy because the tech isn't there to make it truly convincing so it's kind of unsettling.
>>83866401
Cos it's gonna be fucking weird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QbVmZw7iVk
>>83866401
>>83866431
I can't hear that one Black Eyed Peas song without thinking of this movie.
>>83866952
I really hope his next project isnt outsorced garbage.
