Thread 717377212

Indiesisters, our response?

>>717377212 (OP)
DELETE THIS NOW YOU FUCKING CHUD

>>717377212 (OP)
this would only mean something if we only watched video games instead of also playing them (and listening to them.)
graphics can be realistic or unrealistic, but there is no game with gameplay approaching true realism yet, and soundtracks, as a premise, can never be realistic as a rule.
also, who is this fat fuck? realism has always been as gay as it was possible. god is a surrealist.

>>717377569
>realism has always been as gay as it was possible.

>>717377212 (OP)
This would only mean something if indies had the same capabilities as AAA, Ubisoft and Activision for example have entire departments with a 100~500 or even more people whose entire job is to make models for 8+ hours a day, 12 guys working in a garage aren’t going to be capable of anything nearly the same output, it’s not a argument of not wanting to, it’s realistic, have your two guys in models do low polygon and you might be able to finish half your game in 1.5 years

>>717377212 (OP)
Realism is bad because reality is inherently undesirable. Millions of years of evolution have granted us the ability to outright ignore reality in favour of comfortable delusions and I for one won't let that go to waste.

>>717377825
the fat fuck agrees with me then. it has always been as gay as it was possible. God is a surrealist

>>717378047
Surrealism and what the OP pic is describing are two different things.

Jean Renoir is based as fuck.

>>717378319
I understand that. I making a conclusion from the evidence that art dies with realism, so something else should be the ideal. I'm saying "god (ultimate thing, the omega) is a surrealist (anti real)" to summarize.

Alrgiht I will listen to bald fat guy instead of thinking for myself

>>717377825
>why is it that when technique is primitive, everything is beautiful
Because limitations is what breeds creativity.
The 1980-2000s were the wild west of innovation and originality, people were FORCED to master their work tools and adapt things into their vision to be able to tell the story they wanted, every new thing you got was so different than the last that everything felt unique and groundbreaking.
Finding novel ways to portray something making full use of your limited means is exactly what art is, unbound means and standardization just incentivizes laziness.
Just compare old media with the absolute soulless slop that general tools like Unreal Engine gives us these days.

>>717377825
Pictures on the right are not exactly realistic.
Renoir was talking about actual realism, he wasn't saying an art form is lost when it exceeds 20.000BC cave painting technical levels, which is what the left is for vidya.

>>717377212 (OP)
why can this fat fuck not have a regular expression? he always looks like a retard

Flawed argument when applied to video games as there's a direct benefit to simpler visuals like the ones indie devs use - they're easier to produce and work with for small teams. Video games are capable of ultra-realism now (or something we can act like is close enough for the sake of this discussion), but that isn't feasible for every game by every dev team, nor is it applicable to every game design (what the fuck would realistic visuals do for Balatro?).

>>717379297
>Because limitations is what breeds creativity.
Very true. Looking at it from a player's point of view, it also requires some thought to make out what the graphics are depicting. The ability interpret things to whatever you imagine goes a massive way to making these games stick in your mind that games with better graphics just cannot. That's why the NES/SNES/Game boy, heck even PS1 graphics add so much to the experience. Our minds fill in the gaps and make things feel bigger than they are. New graphics are just filler and for those that cannot imagine.

>>717379297
>The 1980-2000s were the wild west of innovation and originality, people were FORCED to master their work tools and adapt things into their vision to be able to tell the story they wanted, every new thing you got was so different than the last that everything felt unique and groundbreaking.
Absolutely not.

>>717377212 (OP)
That is why indie games are good if they're made by a small team.

>>717377825
He's missing a key point: meaning.
If your movie (or game) has no meaning then the only value is its aesthetics/gameplay.

>>717377212 (OP)
the response is self evident and obvious.

>>717377212 (OP)
Realism > fantasy. Tolkien will always be dogshit in comparison to Dostoevsky.

>>717377212 (OP)
The difference is that movie, tapestry, they were all some kind of art form where video game is a just adigital toy

>>717377212 (OP)
In this quote and the other one that gets posted a lot, this guy comes off like a total retard.

>>717377212 (OP)
>We can't artificially try to film badly
Black Dynamite, nigger.
Dark Place, nigger.

>>717386026
both of those movies are pastiches to actual bad stuff. He'd talking about how you move an artform foreward. If there's nothing new to do, the medium is dead.

>>717383709
dostoy wrote phantastically. His stories are only realistic in their psychology, but the way events play out are as hightened as the best kind of fantasy novel.
the Demons isn't a realistic portrayal of how a communist revolution happens, but it is realistic about the kinds of people who think to do such a thing in the first place.