Dragon Age: Inquisition Generic Graphics

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.

Not gonna comment everything but only the example used.
Why on earth would a painting genius make Hitler's portrait ever? If he's about to make a portrait of historical mass murderers he'd go for those we're not sure how they really looked, like Genghis Khan, Alexander or Attila. Then again, I can't remembera painting genius making a portrait of a person that tortured, mutilated and killed painting geniuses just because.

What we need is a game with Picasso-style graphics.

That would be … well, it's up to you.

@joxer Quite!

@alrik Lol, now that would be a sight to behold!

Hmm, in my reading (in English, mind you), "graphics" refers to the total visual experience, while "graphics technology" refers to just the technology, "art design" refers to the aesthetics.

Now photography is the best graphics? That's just been released? Common.

EDIT: There's even an awful confusion from too many players between level of realism and graphics quality.

You think that 3D game looks that great because it's the most realistic of its time? Then wait 4/5 years and look it back you'll see how awful it is. At reverse those that tried a style and art will survive.

EDIT: And yeah DAI landscapes looks awfully generic and has no style (in comparison with skyrim). That said learn it doesn't aim pure open world gave me a bit more hope (but in trailers I still saw a lot too many boring walk/run).

I get the feeling that you guys are saying the graphics in DA:I MAY or MAY NOT be generic… yes?

Originally Posted by MinorityReport
To a certain extent quality must also mean an improvement of aesthetics.

Quite a bold claim.

As usual, anything done in the past is disregarded. Just as RPG is not defined, people manipulating the concept without knowing what it was for decades.

What debate? There is no debate. The debate was closed more than a century ago.

When photography appeared, this provided a reference point to define the horizon of graphics: photorealism.

Painters reached that point in the late nineteen century. Up to that point, they lacked the how to do.

A painter, trained in the 20th century, had the whole theory to reach the highest level of graphics.

Reversely, it also means that, prior that point, no painter had the theory.

Following the claim, it means that painting went up in aesthetics. Somehow.

A painter like Vermeer (1600 or something) reached a photorealistic treatment of light and certain textures but on other points, failed.
Following the claim though, it should mean that the aesthetics of paintings reaching photorealism painted in the 20 th century show to a certain instance an improvement of aesthetics over Vermeer's paintings.

And so on.

It should also mean that the latest century is filled with the paintings showing the highest quality in aesthetics since mechanically, painters are given a boost over the works of painters in the past who did not have the how to.

Very bold claim.

What's certainly debated and closed more than one century ago is what is art in painting.

What is debating here is more the aesthetic not really art. The problem of pure realism without any other focus is that video games aren't photography from far. Until that is true games that choose pure realism look ugly 4/5 years after.

That isn't true for a comics, end of debate. :-)

EDIT: And I got what reminded me DAI traliers, Oblivion, awful.

The debate over what art is in painting was closed one century ago? I missed the report of that.

Better to read that than being bling, you can tell.

I don't care what it looks like in terms of art-style. If this manages to match up to Origins in terms of gameplay, characters and role-playing and actually recognizes player choice unlike the sequel then that's what's important most to me. The graphics look fine.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
The debate over what art is in painting was closed one century ago? I missed the report of that.

Better to read that than being bling, you can tell.

Beside you contemptuous comment as if you have a high degree of culture that you obviously don't have, you could elaborate a bit to soften a bit your hit on my head.

As you didn't you got this post. :-)

So yeah ok what is art is an ever opened question, I was meaning that the debate is closed over photography, painting, reproduction of reality and art. Nobody but some ignorant will argue that art in painting is degree of realism. That's eventually an element, not a necessity, nor a criteria of superiority and if you think this isn't a close debate then you are an ignorant. For sure Darwin validity is still debated by some idiots, that doesn't mean the question isn't closed.

Contemptuous comment? More than claiming that the question of art was closed one century ago?

A high degree of culture? Where is that displayed? Basic notions were sufficient to question the claim that to certain extent, quality must mean an improvement of aesthetics.
It is very doubtful to find display of high degree of culture on an internet forum.

Nobody but some ignorant will argue that art in painting is degree of realism.

No joke. But who made that claim?

History of Art, that basic.

But the point isn't art as I already posted it in the same post, it's aesthetic. But even in aesthetic there's no debate but for some (many) video gamers that aesthetic isn't realism and that's totally obvious, woo really those pointless debate are so weird.

Originally Posted by Ihaterpg
…
So yeah ok what is art is an ever opened question, I was meaning that the debate is closed over photography, painting, reproduction of reality and art. Nobody but some ignorant will argue that art in painting is degree of realism. That's eventually an element, not a necessity, nor a criteria of superiority and if you think this isn't a close debate then you are an ignorant. For sure Darwin validity is still debated by some idiots, that doesn't mean the question isn't closed.

Now I understand what you meant,, and I can agree with some of what you say here. But I woudn't use the expression "debate is closed" as I think that is a bit misleading, easy to misunderstand (as I did) what you really meant.

pibbbur who find it easier to post when he agrees with someone than when he disagrees