When people say art style > graphics, what exactly do they mean.
Art style is completely subjective, so it should not be more important than an objective aspect of game design.
>>285439354
Nothing is objective, sorry to break it to you.
>>285439658
Polygon count is objective. Texture resolution is objective.
Games like the Wind Waker, Okami, and others are examples of art style winning over graphics
They might not push the console to its limit, but it still looks gorgeous because of the art style
>>285439919
What exactly does art style mean though?
Making it have a unique art style instead of looking real, it covers up bad graphics. If it's unique it can look nice with little detail.
You see how the water doesn't look detailed at all but still looks good because it's the art style? This makes it so they can focus the consoles power on more important things than graphics.
>>285440017
the way the world and characters are designed. for example, wind waker has a cartoony art style. Because of this, it looks good.
>>285440017
You know, art style
Instead of hyper realistic environments, there are cel shaded games, usually different that what a "normal" game would look like
>>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.
>>285439721
How? In some deranged anons opinion they may prefer lower res and polygon count. Think outside the box for once, normie.
>>285439354
That's just nintendrones damage controlling for the fact the wii u is an outdated piece of shit, even more than the other two outdated pieces of shit.
Just like they twist logic until it fits into their narrative that having no third party support whatsoever is "a feature!"
There's a reason they're often compared to apple fanboys, you know.
>>285440389
>>285440282
What makes art style good though, and what makes art style more important than graphics?
what's with the pic in the op?
>>285440581
But despite all consoles being severely underpowered most Wii U games still run at 60fps. How do Xbros and Ponies explain that?
>>285440662
Art style isn't always good
>>285440662
>What makes art style good though, and what makes art style more important than graphics?
Preferences and opinions bruh, preferences and opinions.
>>285440787
Not really a feat when your games look worse than smartphone games.
>>285440878
So is "good art style" not a valid point when describing why a game is good? To me it seems like it's on the same level as "it's fun".
>>285440662
graphics degrade, art style is timeless. For example, if you go back and play the original CoD, it looks like shit in comparison to CoD Black Ghost OPS 2: Electric boogaloo.
However, if the art style is bad, it's even worse than bad graphics. See Aku no Potato's anime.
>>285441118
Art style might degrade too. In the world of paintings, we currently value surrealism over realism, but this was not always so, and it will not always be like this.
>>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.
I don't accept the premise that aesthetics are entirely subjective.
>>285442007
Then you're an idiot who can't conceive the basic notion that people have differing tastes.
>>285442007
That's nice.
Good graphics > Art style
Sorry console shitters
>>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.
>>285439354
An art style is good when it makes the game pleasant to the eyes despite the technical limitations of the hardware.
Which is why all those that try to achieve the perfect photorealism are really stupid. It's wasted potential. They should focus more on the gameplay and not on muh realism.
>>285441107
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.
>>285439354
>Art style is completely 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?
>>285440780
The filters and shit are supposed to make it look like the order. It's like irony or something.
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.
>>285444053
Post mom pics
>>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?
![36714-Crash_Bandicoot_2_-_Cortex_Strikes_Back_[U]-9.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QgpsQGf.jpg "36714-Crash_Bandicoot_2_-_Cortex_Strikes_Back_[U]-9.jpg")
>>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.
>>285439354
>>285440662
If you really don't understand this, then you are a fucking retard.
"Why do people care about paintings? I can just take a picture and it will look much more realistic"
^This is you.
>>285444459
Justifications of an opinion are themselves a matter of opinion you fucking retard.
Art style makes a game look good
Graphics make an art style look good
>>285444667
That's not what I'm saying, I'm trying to explore the exact arguments why some people think stylization is favourable.
Art style is the content the artist has created. Graphics is the technoloy that supports it.
The Order has great graphics, but it looks like some seriously fucking ugly grungy shit.
Wind Waker has dated graphics, but the art style is so fucking beautiful that it still looks amazing to this day.
>>285443075
>>285444240
I love you, please be in every thread on /v/ from now on.
>>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.
>>285444053
Have more conversations with your mom anon, She won't be there forever.
>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.
>>285444869
Let's use an explanation that doesn't involve artistic value at all then, since you're obviously unable to grasp the very concept of art.
A "realistic" game will only remain "realistic" for the next 5 years until the graphics have become obsoleted by newer hardware. At that point no one will care about the game anymore.
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 alone is reason enough to prefer stylized games.
>>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?
>>285445242
You are aware that more polygons and higher res textures mean more work for the designers, which directly leads to smaller, fewer and more expensive games?
Xenoblade is an example of an undisputed GOTY that wouldn't exist at all if not for the Wii's outdated graphics, since Monolith Soft could never have afforded to make the game for a HD platform.
>>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?!?!
>>285444869
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
>>285445821
There's a reason they went back to NES graphics for Mega Man 9 and 10. Your argument is bullshit.
>>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.
>>285446045
Yes, the reason is, in this case: nostalgia.
>>285439919
so basically, cel-shading=Art for you
>>285445520
this. graphically, GC wind waker holds up better now than GC Twilight Princess does.
>>285445520
>At that point no one will care about the game anymore.
Today's realism is tomorrow's stylization.
>>285440934
That's just racist
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.
>>285447005
You didn't post a picture with a good art style though, you posted a very detailed pixel art.
>>285446704
Said no one ever.
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".
>>285447102
This is bait.
>>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?
>>285447230
>You called me a retard, therefore you are paranoid and think everyone is plotting against you
You are insane.
>>285447230
I feel like in each post you're not really saying anything.
>>285448134
Funny thing is, if the Big Mac cost the price of a steak, people would still buy it.
A good game balances the aesthetic out given the resources to that it can look good, and at the same time have lots of interesting gameplay
A bad game overtly complicates the visuals using up memory resources leaving them with less they can do with the actual gameplay, as well as hampering the framerate.
This applies less so to PC but shitports still exist, so be aware.
>>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.
>>285439354
They are saying a game can be aesthetically pleasing but still not have ridiculous graphical benchmarks.
>>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.
>>285444053
Your mom is based, anon. Play some games with her
>>285445909
Fun may be subjective, but there isn't any objective reason to play a game
That's why you play the game you enjoy the most
>>285445886
Don't forget! You're here forever!
:D
>>285439919
Okami pushes the PS2 to the limits.
>>285449795
>Don't forget! You're here forever!
Yeah, I'm worried that you might be right. Which is a terrifying though.
I tried to quit or migrate many times. Always ended up back here anyway.
>>285449172
>threatening
Threatening what exactly? I merely called you a retard because I find you laughable. It's incredibly arrogant to assume I'm threatened by you from that, when the opposite is true.
>>285445875
>Xenoblade is an example of an undisputed GOTY
Ahahahahahahahaha, no.
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.
>>285450250
Sorry, I meant "undisputed except by contrarians on /v/".
>>285450045
That's because despite everyone shit talking, this place is great and the people in it are generally intelligent even if they like to fuck with each other a lot.
Embrace it. There's no place on earth as free as here.
>>285450495
Undisputed by weebs and graphic fags.
I understand it was pretty to look at it but it was in no way a fun game. It was a single player MMO with tons of meaningless grind quests.
What good qualities it did have were greatly outweighed by the barely decent fighting and awful quests which were 90% of the game.
It's also fucking great to have a billion quests open and no marker indicating who you got it from or at what time in the day so you can actually fucking complete it.
either the game is fun and addictive or it isn't
graphics and sounds aren't really considerable in the same way you don't judge a cake by it's ingredients
the ingredients could be the freshest and best quality but that doesn't the mean the cake won't taste awful
good graphics or art style do not a make a good game
anyone who brings up art style or graphics is just trying to justify a crappy game
>>285450495
The only people who think Xenoblade was a GOTY are people who only own Wiis and who are only interested in JRPGs.
There is absolutely nothing special about Xenoblade.
>>285450790
>There is absolutely nothing special about Xenoblade.
yes there is. ok it's a niche genre but it's a great entry in that genre.
>>285450980
>JRPG
>niche genre
this is what nintendrones have to do to convince themselves their nogames platform is ok
>>285451171
what are you talking about?
>>285441685
I know where that image is going.
Graphics deals with technically stuff like jaggies and textures
Artstyle deals with the coloration and detail like if something is realistic or cartoony
>>285442674
The only 2 games in existance that does Photorealism well by only focusing on specific things rather than the entire game was Crysis 1 and Pikmin 3
>>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.
You're retarded.
Just... just so fucking retarded.
>>285450980
JRPGs aren't really a niche genre, and no, it's not a great entry in that genre. Xenoblade is a very slightly improved Final Fantasy XII, and Final Fantasy XII was awful.
>>285443075
>>285444240
>>285445729
Never in my entire life have I seen someone so verbose. You type, type, type and yet nothing comes out of it other than a slightly dilluted "hollier-than-thou" pretentious attitude. Outstanding.
>>285450980
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.
Xenoblade was the Final Fantasy 13 of the Wii.
>>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.
>>285452683
Sure thing, kid, sure thing.
>>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.
>>285452925
>That's quite funny since it describes you perfectly.
Familiar with the concept of "projecting"?
>>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.
Just an honest warning.
>>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.
>>285453193
So I'm the one projecting when you are here throwing a million projections towards people who disagree with you?
At least we can agree you dominate irony, being a parody of it yourself.
>>285453568
Outstanding, three paragraphs of what essentially narrows down to an "autist nerd" ad-hominem projection.
Thanks for, once again, proving my point.
>Ahhh the sheer amounts of insecurity!
Says the one covering his own insecurity with misused words that carry no message forward whatsoever.
>>285440020
Sorry you may think so.
But that Zelda game still looks like a sack of shit.
>>285440561
>They may prefer it
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.
>>285439354
A game can look good with out cutting edge graphics but cutting edge graphics can never be more than a novelty with out good art direction.
>>285453958
It used to look nice until Nintendo gave it the HD treatment and shoved a bunch of unnecessary lighting and shading into it. Now it just looks like a mess.
>>285454326
instead of being a Nintenfag
you should've put a game that is true to your statement
>>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.
>>285454852
You're a faggot
>>285439354
>Art style is completely subjective
Not it is not. Art style is defined.
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.
>>285439354
>Art style is completely subjective, so it should not be more important than an objective aspect of game design.
There is nothing objectively good anon. Everything is subjective.
>>285458465
>Everything is subjective.
I used to think this statement is merely meaningless.
At this point, I'm starting to think it's actually pretty damn pathological.
>>285459162
Welcome to post-modernism. It's the reason why so many people say "That's just your/my opinion".
>>285459467
Is that supposed to be a justification, or excuse?
We don't live in the sixties anymore either. It's high fucking time someone started questioning the post modernistic perspectives.
>>285459162
I don't get it. Do you agree or disagree.
>>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.
>>285444053
Did you ever try sneaking a peek on your mum when going thru puberty? Like trying to get a look at her tits or pussy because you were curious? Did you like what you saw?
>>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.
>>285460676
>>285461225
Get a room, fedoras.
Art is anything to anyone. If I shit in my underwear and glue it to a canvas it is just as much art as a mural as it is my self expression and people attach value to it.
No rubbing each others neckbeards will prove otherwise either
>>285463247
Where were we arguing about art?
>>285452229
they absolutely are a niche genre in the west. and while ffxii was a great game, xenoblade is not much like it.
>>285452814
>terrible singleplayer
what the hell is this even supposed to mean?
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.
