MinorityReport
Banned
- Joined
- February 10, 2014
- Messages
- 372
I'm not so sure, I think you're being too forgiving of the more obstreperous nature of the quality/aesthetics argument.
Take King's Bounty, for example, as a really easy comparison. The newer version looks better than the original. That's kind of an obvious full stop unarguable scenario, both in quality and in aesthetics. To a certain extent quality must also mean an improvement of aesthetics. Arguing the philosophy of 'opinion can mean anything' in such a regard is pure obstreperism and nothing more, like arguing a 1920's movie is more aesthetically pleasing than a modern movie because you 'personally' prefer jumpy black and white silent movies as your 'personal' preference.
Also, if someone has a deep seated hatred of a specific developer then that will effect their judgement as well, they will be looking for every minor loophole to 'angle' an argument, or, find something... obstreperisable.
King's Bounty is an excellent example to use in this context as it's a game with very little 'controversy' issues, either with the original or the modern remake/sequel. I feel very confident indeed that a sample of 1,000 randomly sampled people would produce a high 90's % agreement that the newer version was 'better' graphically and, therefore, would automatically get an *equally* high 'better' aesthetics score.
To fully extrapolate DArtanion's position (how it's being viewed by me at least) is to look at an extreme example in order to fully understand the situation:
Artist 1: A talented amateur, can produce nice and likeable landscapes, but lacks that edge which makes them 'obviously' good.
Artist 2: A painting genius, can produce almost photo-like quality art while still being able to capture mood, atmosphere and a hint of the mysterious.
Artist 1 paints a loving but slightly awkward painting of Bob Geldof sitting, head in hands, surrounded by swathes of starving africans, the food aid lorries running out of food before everyone has been fed. What's not to like? Artist 2 paints a masterpiece of Adolf Hitler in all his glory (?), a clearly positive approach which, too all intents an d purposes, would only be bought by someone who would likely not display their purchase in their living room during public gatherings.
Yes, Artist 2 may well have produced the 'best' piece of art, but the subjectivity surrounding the art has overwhelmed the viewer. This is how DArtanion is approaching this debate.
Take King's Bounty, for example, as a really easy comparison. The newer version looks better than the original. That's kind of an obvious full stop unarguable scenario, both in quality and in aesthetics. To a certain extent quality must also mean an improvement of aesthetics. Arguing the philosophy of 'opinion can mean anything' in such a regard is pure obstreperism and nothing more, like arguing a 1920's movie is more aesthetically pleasing than a modern movie because you 'personally' prefer jumpy black and white silent movies as your 'personal' preference.
Also, if someone has a deep seated hatred of a specific developer then that will effect their judgement as well, they will be looking for every minor loophole to 'angle' an argument, or, find something... obstreperisable.
King's Bounty is an excellent example to use in this context as it's a game with very little 'controversy' issues, either with the original or the modern remake/sequel. I feel very confident indeed that a sample of 1,000 randomly sampled people would produce a high 90's % agreement that the newer version was 'better' graphically and, therefore, would automatically get an *equally* high 'better' aesthetics score.
To fully extrapolate DArtanion's position (how it's being viewed by me at least) is to look at an extreme example in order to fully understand the situation:
Artist 1: A talented amateur, can produce nice and likeable landscapes, but lacks that edge which makes them 'obviously' good.
Artist 2: A painting genius, can produce almost photo-like quality art while still being able to capture mood, atmosphere and a hint of the mysterious.
Artist 1 paints a loving but slightly awkward painting of Bob Geldof sitting, head in hands, surrounded by swathes of starving africans, the food aid lorries running out of food before everyone has been fed. What's not to like? Artist 2 paints a masterpiece of Adolf Hitler in all his glory (?), a clearly positive approach which, too all intents an d purposes, would only be bought by someone who would likely not display their purchase in their living room during public gatherings.
Yes, Artist 2 may well have produced the 'best' piece of art, but the subjectivity surrounding the art has overwhelmed the viewer. This is how DArtanion is approaching this debate.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 372