default header

Theory

Aesthetics & Mechanics

Moderator: JC Denton

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Sep 2009 17:05

Unlocking the thread to post a reply sent to me via email (by someone who, by the way, has since registered an account here):

Cody Miller wrote:Even though you locked the thread because nobody was understanding, I believe I can provide an example of a seemingly purely aesthetic choice that actually affects mechanics, and vice versa.

If we tackle your example of the font in a heads up display, making the font uglier does in fact have an influence on the mechanics. Part of many games involves knowing information presented to you in the HUD, whether it be your life count, your score, or your chains. Making the font uglier would make this information slightly harder to discern during action occurring in the game, because all other things being equal, it would require more focus to keep track of the values (because they are harder to discern, it may take a few more milliseconds to process your chains in Ikaurga for example.) If the typeface is made so ugly that the chain information is not discernible at all, then it requires even more focus, since chaining would involve mentally keeping track of how many enemies of each color you have killed and what number your chain is at. Thus, every change to the HUD to make the font uglier is widening the skill gap between the best and worse chainers, because the more clearly the information is presented to you, the less focus it requires to manage it.

Likewise, in choosing to have a score or a rank in your game (a mechanic), you are making an aesthetic choice because you are saying that a certain type of play is more perfect than another. In Ikaruga, chaining gets you a higher rank, therefore the designers aesthetically value chaining more than they do mindless shooting.

Very much enjoy your site, and am looking forward to your book.


This is the same facile form of thinking that everyone above has adopted: I say purely aesthetic change, and they give me a change that is in no way purely aesthetic. Then I clarify that I want a PURELY AESTHETIC change, and they again give me the same shit, AS IF IT WAS NOT THE SAME SHIT!

Why does UGLIER have to be HARDER TO DISCERN? Of course it doesn't -- it could in fact be EASIER TO DISCERN. All you are doing is connecting two unconnected things in order TO APPEAR to answer my question, while in fact YOU HAVEN'T EVEN GRASPED IT, let alone answered it.

A purely aesthetic change, in this context, is a change THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONNECT TO MECHANICS, as we understand the term mechanics -- AND YET EVERYONE IS GIVING ME CHANGES WHICH ARE CHILDISHLY EASY TO CONNECT TO MECHANICS. "Blah blah blah hard to discern bullets, colors blah blah blah."

ENOUGH ALREADY!

Anyway, I guess this thread has served its purpose, which was to demonstrate to me that no other human being could even begin to understand the question, let alone answer it.

See the problem is that when you make a purely aesthetic change to a game, you do not in any way affect its possibility space. And if you do not affect its possibility space then you are certainly not affecting its mechanics -- at least in the way that we commonly understand the term "mechanics".

But the way we commonly understand the term mechanics is a very narrow one, and when looking at the greater picture we must replace it by a greater one. It is this greater one which I am referring to in the title of this thread -- and the same goes for the term "aesthetics". For there is a narrow definition of aesthetics as well as a greater one. It is the two greater varieties that blend together and are ultimately impossible to distinguish, whilst the narrow ones are quite easy to tell apart.

More in the article in which I'll be dealing with this subject.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 21 Sep 2009 23:47

Locking this thread again because some people posted some more stupid shit (which I deleted), and I plain simply can't take it any more. It really feels to me like a kind of psychological warfare -- as if I am being assaulted and my best means of defense is to lock everything down and refuse to answer. I'll explain everything when I am ready, and at that point it will be up to you to try and understand, but in the meantime there's nothing to be gained by launching your half-witted naiveties at me.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 24 Mar 2010 15:38

A hint:

Even Kael, writing about a medium which ostensibly is pure aesthetics, stiill talks about mechanics:

Kael wrote:Hitchcock teased us by killing off the one marquee-name star early in “Psycho,” a gambit which startled us not just because of the suddenness of the murder or how it was committed but because it broke a box-office convention and so it was a joke played on what audiences have learned to respect. He broke the rules of the movie game and our response demonstrated how aware we are of commercial considerations. When movies are bad (and in the bad parts of good movies) our awareness of the mechanics and our cynicism about the aims and values is peculiarly alienating.


http://insomnia.ac/essays/trash_art_and_the_movies/
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby zinger » 04 Jul 2010 23:40

A game over screen or a high score list tune that fascinates you aesthetically can heavily alter your spirits in preparation for and during your next game, and a heightened feeling of confidence (or the opposite) can have an enormous impact on how you play. Are aesthetics and what we generally speak of as mechanics inseparable because they are both dependent on rules that we subordinate to and which affect our emotions? Our... feeling of power?
User avatar
zinger
 
Joined: 22 Oct 2007 16:32
Location: Sweden

Unread postby Crow » 05 Jul 2010 01:26

Ok, this seems like a dangerous topic, but I'll bite.

icycalm is suggesting to find something that is "purely" aesthetic and then show that this thing is in fact part of the mechanics.

I think I've got the right example: the sky in Super Mario Bros. It's just one solid block of color and is not really related to the action in any way. It can't kill you, it can't help you, you can't even touch it and it offers no information, unlike HUDs or score displays. It's just a background. It's blue for no other reason that our sky is blue and that other colors would be unpleasant to the eye. In fact, it could even be of no color, just black (and it sometimes is, we call those "night stages", despite being functionally the same).

Now how can that be shown to be part of the mechanics? There's always the idea of contrasts. Mario would be hard to see against a red sky, but this argument has already been brought.

Can we consider what humans find pleasurable to their senses, sight in this case, to be part of the mechanics? There are rules to what humans like to see, linked to the way the eye and brain work. Since you said that rules are mechanics, that means you could call those the mechanics of the aesthetics.

Adversely, let's take a "very mechanical" rule: "Mario must reach the finish line in 200 seconds". The amount of time given to complete a stage is a very practical aspect, but why not 201 seconds? Why not 199 seconds? Why not 200.05 seconds? The practical difference is negligible. The reason is because 200 is a nice, round number, that's why. Humans prefer rules that are "elegant" or "beautiful", both concepts that relate to aesthetics. So this would be the aesthetics of the mechanics.

You're talking about the lesser and greater definitions of aesthetics and mechanics. Would the lesser definition of those terms be used to describe only the game and the greater one be used to describe human nature and the world in general, where they are indiscernible?
User avatar
Crow
 
Joined: 30 Apr 2010 02:03

Unread postby gidge-lizardmin » 05 Jul 2010 06:35

You guys are doing the same as everyone else. As Icy explained, you're using human emotions/feelings/thought processes or whatever to attach aesthetics and mechanics together but not actually connecting the two because there is still the emotions/feelings etc. in between them. It's like gluing two things together and claiming that they are one object when what you've been asked to do is melt them down and mix them together.

Crow wrote:You're talking about the lesser and greater definitions of aesthetics and mechanics. Would the lesser definition of those terms be used to describe only the game and the greater one be used to describe human nature and the world in general, where they are indiscernible?


They aren't indiscernible because that's only the lesser and greater application of the definitions.


icycalm wrote:Another way to put it would be this:

Purely aesthetic aspects are not aesthetic at all: they are just more subtle mechanics.

or

Purely mechanical aspects are not mechanical at all: they are just more subtle aesthetics.

In short: the mechanics/aesthetics duality is as fictitious as all dualities, and in order to understand either part of it fully one must also be able to see them as a whole and to understand their inter-relatedness.



Now think of another duality and it should help put the contents of this thread in a better perspective. Day and night is a good example: they seem to be two completely opposite things but once you leave the earth it's clear that they aren't, in fact they are the same thing.

The same idea applies to aesthetics and mechanics. I'm not sure how though, this is as far as I've got towards figuring it out, I'm only posting to say: don't get the thread locked again.
gidge-lizardmin
 
Joined: 13 Jun 2010 21:35
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Jul 2010 16:19

zinger wrote:A game over screen or a high score list tune that fascinates you aesthetically can heavily alter your spirits in preparation for and during your next game, and a heightened feeling of confidence (or the opposite) can have an enormous impact on how you play. Are aesthetics and what we generally speak of as mechanics inseparable because they are both dependent on rules that we subordinate to and which affect our emotions? Our... feeling of power?


Let's leave power out of it. Of course the concept of power is intimately connected with the concepts of mechanics and aesthetics, as with all concepts, but for the purposes of the current subject this need not be taken into account. But apart from that, yes, your example is correct.

So basically, the narrowly-defined mechanics are the relations between the game's various states -- between different points in its possibility space (e.g. 100 rings in Sonic give you a 1UP).

The narrowly-defined aesthetics, on the other hand, are anything in its code which, if we change it, we do not affect its possibility space (e.g. colors, sound-samples, etc.)

These two concepts suffice for day-to-day critical analysis of videogames.

However, for a full, profound undestanding of what actually happens, WHAT HAPPENS TO US, while we play videogames, they do not suffice, and this is where the higher concepts of mechanics and aesthetics come in.

The higher mechanics are emotional mechanics (what Kael calls "mechanics" in her essay about movies) -- how the interaction with the game machine affects us psychologically. It is in this sense that previously purely aesthetic aspects such as color become mechanical ones.

The higher aesthetics, on the other hand, are the aesthetics of mechanics -- i.e. why we find a particular mechanic (a narrowly-defined mechanic) more enjoyable than another, e.g. why some people prefer danmaku shooters like Mushihime-sama, while others prefer memorizers like R-Type (another example is the one given here by Seth Killian. What he calls "aesthetics" in that passage is in fact higher aesthetics -- though he doesn't fully understand what he is saying, which is why he doesn't clarify this). It is in this sense that previously purely mechanical aspects become aesthetic ones.

It is these two concepts, then, the higher mechanics and the higher aesthetics, that blend with each other, and are strictly speaking inseperable. The lower concepts, on the other hand, can be perfectly separated via a consideration of the simple definitions of them I gave above.

So yeah, nice work zinger. And Crow did pretty well also. (As for gidge's post... let's just forget about it :)

So yeah. That's as much as I am willing to divulge for now, for more you'll have to wait for the appropriate upcoming essay. In any case these concepts cannot be pursued further without a profound understanding of all the essays that will follow inbetween.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby the shore » 05 Jul 2010 19:06

This discussion reminds me of when I was a little kid, playing Civilization. I would do all sorts of silly things like fortify a city with twelve cavalry even though I had already researched rifleman, tanks, and the like. I just loved the way those little horseman sprites looked, and the idea of a bunch of ancient mounted soldiers defending a modern city.

I knew this was a bad strategy, but I couldn't help myself!
the shore
 
Joined: 29 Jun 2010 06:41

Unread postby icycalm » 06 Jul 2010 13:29

I deleted a bunch of retarded nonsense from Crow and the shore, and banned gidge-lizardmin for replying to them in a post that did not use paragraphs. Here it is for reference:

gidge-lizardmin wrote:@Crow

Sorry about all that bullshit.
I had the wrong definition of aesthetics. I thought it was only about the way things look and had nothing to do with psychology.

Thanks for the explanation, from both you and icycalm. :)


Subhumans simply never learn.


EDIT: I also banned Crow, actually. He pissed me off with the authoritative, professorial tone he assumed while spewing his retardations.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby cephissus » 16 Jul 2010 00:11

If aesthetics and mechanics are "ultimately ... the same thing," and "ethics and aesthetics are one and the same," with ethics being transcendental (Wittgenstein), does this mean game reviews, which talk about the aesthetics and mechanics of videogames, are nonsensical?
cephissus
 
Joined: 15 Jul 2010 22:27

Unread postby Daniel » 16 Jul 2010 00:47

No it doesn't.

The terms "aesthetics" and "mechanics" used in game reviews are the narrowly-defined aesthetics and mechanics.

icycalm wrote:So basically, the narrowly-defined mechanics are the relations between the game's various states -- between different points in its possibility space (e.g. 100 rings in Sonic give you a 1UP).

The narrowly-defined aesthetics, on the other hand, are anything in its code which, if we change it, we do not affect its possibility space (e.g. colors, sound-samples, etc.)

These two concepts suffice for day-to-day critical analysis of videogames.


When Wittgenstein says that ethics and aesthetics are one and the same and that they are transcendental, he is referring to the higher aesthetics:

icycalm wrote:The higher aesthetics, on the other hand, are the aesthetics of mechanics -- i.e. why we find a particular mechanic (a narrowly-defined mechanic) more enjoyable than another
Daniel
 
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 05:21
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Unread postby icycalm » 16 Jul 2010 12:47

Yeah. Ultimately, the point is to understand what the term aesthetics means. I will be explaining that in great detail in my essay "Acquiring Taste".
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 16 Jul 2010 21:43

Actually, Daniel's explanation is wrong. Because ultimately even the narrowly-defined aesthetics cannot be put into words. I.e. to say that "Blazblue is beautiful" or "Street Fighter IV is ugly" is just as nonsensical as to say that "helping people is right" or "killing people is wrong". The only thing you can say is that "Blazblue is beautiful TO ME" or "I don't like killing people" -- up to that point you are fine. The problems begin when you attempt to JUSTIFY your AESTHETIC/ETHICAL CHOICES to others; when you attempt to explain them. That's where you run up against the nonsense barrier: when you try to make your value judgements UNIVERSAL. (Actually, explaing them is not the same as trying to make them universal, but both enterprises are ultimately doomed to failure -- for pretty much the same reasons.) Because value judgements are quite simply not universal -- they are the most personal thing possible, they practically DEFINE personality.

Still, as long as you realize this, and as long as you also realize that putting such judgements into words is ultimately impossible (because words exist only for common feelings -- our most personal experiences can ultimately never be communicated), you can go quite a ways towards communicating SOME PART of these feelings to other people WHO BELONG TO THE SAME SUBSPECIES AS YOU. And that is where one of the differences lies between the expert who is also a good critic, and the expert who is a bad critic: the former can get much closer to putting his feelings into words without running into nonsense, whereas the latter cannot avoid quickly degenerating into it (or else, due to his incapacity to express himself regresses to relating trivialities, as for example Tim Rogers does most of the time).

And then of course you have the pretentious non-experts, the pseudo-experts, in other words the fagots, who START OUT from nonsense, who practically make a living out of peddling nonsense. See for example all "modern art" criticism ever.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

An example from S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Unread postby Nikolai » 25 Oct 2010 03:10

I kill people for food in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl.

When I started playing the game a few days ago (I hear CS is shit; I know I can't run CoP on my notebook) I was sceptical of the food mechanic. Every few hours, your character must eat food items or suffer reduced endurance. I assumed at the time that food was a low level health restorative with a more interesting, realistic name than "minor health potion" or whatever. Once the programmers started calling it food, then a "eat or die" rule made sense--had to follow.

Soon I realised that I didn't want to carry food around with me due to encumbrance concerns. So I stopped picking it up and only ate by looting from corpses when prompted by the game.

Then I hit a dry spell and started to go hungry. I began to starve, thinking "this is a ridiculous mechanic that adds nothing to the game; it's only in place because they wanted to call their minor health potions sausages." But I was starving. So rather than evade the next patrol of bandits wandering through Garbage, I stalked and slit the throat of the last bandit in line--and clumsily thrust myself into a completely avoidable firefight, wasting valuable ammunition.

Sated, it dawned on me how much I appreciated the inclusion of food now. I began by thinking it was a purely aesthetic decision, a name for a mechanic they wanted to implement anyway (health restoring items), and starvation was a mechanic included just to maintain the illusion established by their aesthetic decision. But this aesthetic change forced me to think about how I played the game--forced me in to challenges in the game I wouldn't have had otherwise--and the illusion created a moment for me when I realised I had killed three people over two tins of beans.

So, would I call eating an aesthetic or mechanical feature? While I can distinguish between the "mechanical" and "aesthetic" parts of the system, I suppose, they both work together to affect how I play the game.

This isn't as an extreme an example as the colour of a menu affecting how I play the game. But a simple thought test--would I play the game differently if it weren't called food?--proves to me that this apparently aesthetic change is a mechanic and that my distinction was a mistake.
Nikolai
 
Joined: 08 Jun 2010 06:37

Unread postby icycalm » 26 Oct 2010 01:15

That would make an excellent opening post for a thread on an artfag site. It's fairly long, has the appearance of profundity about it while being at bottom idiotic and a complete misunderstanding of the subject in question. Here, why don't you try this site instead:

http://forums.selectbutton.net/


(P.S. You have not understood a word that's been posted in this thread. Not a word.)
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Chrysalid » 18 Dec 2010 23:59

After reading the discussion on the slow running speed of Team Fortress 2, this example occurred to me; let's say you increase the speed on the footstep sound effect in an FPS. Though the character makes it from one place to another in the same time, it may feel as if he is moving faster, because of how our brain processes the information.

In graphic design, a purely aesthetic practice, huge effect is dedicated not just on making, say, a logo, pleasant to look at, but also what colour, line ect. do to a viewer. Like how you are more likely to buy something if a shop is painted a certain colour, different effects, art direction, game over screen ect. effect the way you play (and feel about) the game.

I don't have any examples, and perhaps I'm repeating some things, but I hope I am looking in the right direction.

And of the higher aesthetics, or where a mechanic becomes aesthetic; it reminds me of how mathematicians refer to certain mathematical proofs as beautiful. For sure, some mechanics are beautiful; the power pellet in Pacman (and the "ghost train" in Pacman CE:DX), you might describe as beautiful. Having to continually tap the X button in Shadow of the Colossus just to make your damn horse move forward, or the curve of the road in Desert Bus that forces you to sit there for 8 hours and repeatedly tap left to realign your vehicle? Not so beautiful. Is this to what you are referring?
Chrysalid
 
Joined: 13 Dec 2010 20:36
Location: England

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Dec 2010 00:06

Chrysalid wrote:After reading the discussion on the slow running speed of Team Fortress 2, this example occurred to me; let's say you increase the speed on the footstep sound effect in an FPS.


Do you have any idea how stupid you look when you use a semicolon inappropriately? Obviously not.

I am going to go ban you for this, and then come back to this thread and force myself to ignore it while reading the rest of your post in order to reply to it.

I am not being mean. I am just doing my utmost to STAMP OUT PSEUDO-INTELLECTUALITY FROM THIS FORUM. Using words, or punctuation marks, or anything whatever really, WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR IS PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL. It is trying to pass yourself off FOR SOMETHING YOU ARE NOT. It is a form of behavior which, to people who can see through it, IS UNACCEPTABLE.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Dec 2010 00:13

Chrysalid wrote:Is this to what you are referring?


HAVEN'T I ALREADY PERFECTLY EXPLAINED WHAT I AM REFERRING TO? HAVEN'T I ALREADY SAID THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER UNTIL MY ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT IS PUBLISHED? WHAT IS THE POINT OF POSTING IN A THREAD IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BOTHER READING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN FIRST?

Meh, it's no use. Not to mention all the muddling and half-lying in his post. Check this, for example:

Chrysalid wrote:After reading the discussion on the slow running speed of Team Fortress 2, this example occurred to me; let's say you increase the speed on the footstep sound effect in an FPS. Though the character makes it from one place to another in the same time, it may feel as if he is moving faster, because of how our brain processes the information.


Totally unsubstantiated conclusion. I have no reason whatsoever to believe this claim without either scientific research to back it up, or my own experience with such an experiment -- both of which are at this point in time completely lacking. Yet he takes it as a fact without the slightest attempt at justification. Good thing I got rid of him then.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 19 Dec 2010 00:42

I went ahead and also banned Nikolai for that smug nonsense above he dared post in my theory forum. In fact this thread is so full of bullshit posts I am tempted to ban everyone who posted in it just to be on the safe side.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 29 Sep 2012 01:26

The Devil May Cry 3 review and thread (and especially the thread) contain lots of insights into this subject, so whoever can't wait until Videogame Culture: Volume II to get my final word on this extremely important issue, can get some hints in there:

http://culture.vg/reviews/in-depth/devi ... 5-ps2.html
http://culture.vg/forum/topic?f=3&t=3961

And even if you are patient enough and can wait for the book, it would still be a good idea to read these links very carefully right now, since they'll give you some extra examples and arguments to get you thinking in my direction, so that when you read the book you'll be a little more prepared for what is coming than the average reader.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 01 Feb 2013 16:37

http://culture.vg/forum/topic?p=17941#p17941

I wrote:And seriously now, is there anything more ridiculous than people falling over themselves to prove to you that they are "above" aesthetics? How could anyone be above his own senses? "I don't care about looks" -- and neither do bats and pigs, so you are in good company. In all previous times people were falling over themselves to claim that they had higher aesthetic taste, and today we have a crop of people who are proud to claim the opposite.

Or they say: "I don't care about beauty in a woman -- the only thing that matters is the 'womanfuck', the mechanics of my dick moving in and out of her vagina".

O rly?

But if the woman is ugly enough you can't even get an erection, and what will happen to your mechanics, to your "pure womanfuck" then, eh?

The truth is the exact opposite to what you contend, and there are indeed people who will ejaculate with the mere thought of a beautiful woman, with practically no need for mechanics at all; whereas if you don't at least have an IDEA of a beautiful woman in your head, you can rub your cock against a rock all day long and nothing will come out. Aesthetics -- beauty, in other words -- are above mechanics in every aspect of life, even in videogames. "Pure mechanics" is pure nonsense, as I have explained in my 36-page essay on autism. But it's not online, so if you dudes want a copy of that book email me your addresses and I'll have a copy sent to you so you can learn what's up.



http://culture.vg/forum/topic?p=17948#p17948

I wrote:So yeah, in clever people like these two guys, the "grafix dont matter" fagotry is indeed a knee-jerk reaction -- a reaction to the limp-wristed and braindead fags who judge games based exclusively on their textures. Also, against the ever-increasing numbers of developers who find it easier to ratchet up the aesthetic instead of the mechanical complexity of their games (which is indeed harder and more expensive to improve).

But it is a stupid and hysteric reaction -- you don't have to go to the OTHER fucking extreme (which as I've humorously shown above, and as I've also explained in my autism essay, is even MORE retarded than the fags' fixation on aesthetics) in order to get your goddamn point across. Without mechanics you still have art, without aesthetics you have NOTHING: you are just a dumbass fagot sitting on his couch pressing plastic buttons for no reason at all -- at least a painting or a movie(/pure cutscene) can still give you a lot of satisfaction, but what satisfaction can you get by slapping a couple of buttons around for hours on end with no goddamn audiovisual feedback?

And it's not that the solution lies "somewhere in the middle", either -- i.e. in having mediocre mechanics and mediocre aesthetics -- this is just as retarded as the other two extremes. Rather, you need to ratchet everything up to the maximum, to the full, as far as your talent and resource pool will allow, in order to get the ultimate result, which is to say the masterpiece.

I will develop all this in full in the Aesthetics & Mechanics essay, and will include several more good analogies in there, so I hope that soon enough everyone who wants to resolve all this shit inside his mind will get the chance to do so. But this should be enough to convince anyone that disregarding, never mind frowing upon, the aesthetic aspect OF GODDAMN ART is utterly retarded. As is the allegation that resolution and color palette and polygon count -- i.e. the technical part of a game's art design -- are not related to the aesthetic. If you seriously believe this, every goddamn painter and moviemaker in the world would like to have a word with you.



http://culture.vg/forum/topic?f=1&p=19051#p19051

I wrote:Haha, I got it!

There are no bases because this is World War II! You can't build barracks and walls and towers and castles in a World War II setting -- never mind entire cities -- because that's not how war works in the modern era. The most you can build is temporary fortifications, which have nothing to do with strategy but only with tactics. All WWII warfare was tactical warfare. The strategy took place at the level of NATIONS! They'd have to simulate Hitler in Berlin moving chess pieces on a map and issuing orders to North African oil fields or Norwegian iron mines or some shit, which means they'd have to go for a grand strategy model in real-time in the Europa Universalis mold (and that's indeed what Hearts of Iron is, but without the micro-management found in small-scale RTSes, because then the game would have to be insanely complex).

See how the aesthetics affect the "gameplay" now, retards?

And when you move into sci-fi, as with Command & Conquer and Supreme Commander, you can move back to the classic RTS scale again because with sci-fi you can do whatever the fuck you want and it will still make some kind of sense in your fantastical, twisted universe!
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Apr 2017 16:54

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I HAVE NO WORDS

http://www.insomniacgames.com/how-much- ... te-matter/

Mike Acton wrote:However, during development, there are hard choices to be made between higher quality graphics and framerate. And we want to make the right choices that reflect our commitment to providing you with the best looking games out there. To that end, our community team did some research into the question of framerate. The results perhaps confirmed what I’ve known for a long time, but found it difficult to accept without evidence. They found that:

A higher framerate does not significantly affect sales of a game.
A higher framerate does not significantly affect the reviews of a game.

And in particular they found that there was a clear correlation between graphics scores in reviews (where they are provided) and the final scores. And they found no such correlation between framerate and the graphics scores nor the final scores. As an interesting side-note, our team also found no direct correlation between gameplay scores and final scores, however it does appear that gameplay scores are also influenced by graphics scores. i.e. Better looking games appear to be more “fun” to reviewers, in general.


Aspies
BLOWN
L
O
W
N

THE
H
E

FUCK
U
C
K

OUT
U
T

BUT MUH GEAMPLAY IZ BETER THAN YUR GRAFIKZ

Via http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread. ... t233399184
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Previous

Return to Theory

cron