I’m not going to spend all day going through your comments to prove a point.

The first one is positive.

The second is zero, so probably 1 downvoted, assuming you didn’t remove your default upvote. Not really meaningful. It’s also dismissive of Trump to shift to Biden, but whatever.

The third if you notice the comment you replied to is positive and implying Biden supports genocide, so it once again proves that comments or posts that are critical of Biden or the Democrats generally get upvotes.

You have a confirmation bias. You want it to be true that comments critical of democrats are downvoted, but it isn’t. Usually they’re received positively, as long as you aren’t being an asshole.

I went digging through your comments a bit to see what you’re talking about, and no most are upvoted from what I saw. There are exceptions, like this one:

I think teaching the Democrats a lesson was worth it. They can’t commit genocide and pretend to be the lesser-evil. You can and should oppose both. I am of the personal opinion that evil hiding behind polite decorum is a greater threat than evil that doesn’t pretend to be good. You are free to disagree.

Yeah, no shit you get downvoted for stuff like this. People aren’t going to be very thankful you support their suffering being worsed. The people in Gaza also probably aren’t super happy that Trump has straight up supported the plan for genocide and taking the land.

Being critical of Democrats gets upvotes. Being a callous asshole who says Democrats “learning a lesson” (which I haven’t seen any evidence for) is worth all the suffering the Trump adm. will cause will deservedly get you downvotes.

Cool. No need to look further than this post though. It’s got positive votes despite implying it should be negative. It only takes one counter-example to prove the statement wrong. It doesn’t have to be true every time.

Yeah, sometimes it’ll get downvoted, especially if you’re a dick about it. It’s not that surprising.

I downvoted. Not because you criticized democrats, but because your stupid post says you get downvoted for that. No you fucking don’t. You almost always get up voted for it. This is a garbage bait post.

Who said most was swaying to the negative?

Malice is not implied by propaganda. What are you talking about? Propaganda is material trying to make you think a certain way. That can be good or bad.

Well, then don’t be hyperbolic, let’s see where that takes us.

Dude, we aren’t in a court room. Informal language is the expectation in a casual online forum. Get out of here.

… but talking about games, not architecture…

Are you going to come here and imply there’s no similarities between different forms of art? Should I not have used painting as an example earlier because we must only discuss video games?

I never played that game, but it’s amazing that for a while there we had this little cottage industry of doomsters that used Detroit to show how bad anything ranging from David Cage’s games to Sony to graphics, apparently turn out to be. To such a degree that I have very rarely seen a defense of Detroit, I’ve never played Detroit, the game seems to not have done that well and Cage has never published another game. It’s a consensus entirely predicated on opposing a fanbase of defenders that seemingly never existed.

I haven’t either, but that was a tiny part of the video and doesn’t matter. However, I want to point out that you haven’t played it so have no basis to judge. Then you claim the dissent must only be to fight the defenders and not just because it was a bad game? How to you make that judgment. You’re speaking out of your ass just because you want to say something, but you don’t have anything meaningful to say about it.

All the while this guy argues that AAA games have a look (then caveats that some don’t) while showing clips from, if you’re keeping track, a game about robot dinosaurs set in a lush jungle full of red plants (which is shocking imagery pulling inspiration from super nerdy, niche illustration work), a bleak but beautiful zombie apocalypse made out of grungy rural clothing, a superhero game and a gorgeousely unique take on norse mythology.

Setting and style are two different things. They all have the same style, though different settings. Compare Monet to Van Gogh to Corbet. Even when they’re painting similar settings their styles are wildly different. If you take the style of Horizon and plug it into the Indiana Jones game it’d look almost identical.

I don’t think you’re understanding this distinction. You’re constantly on the offense saying I’m the one who doesn’t understand, but it’s you who isn’t getting it. Look at the game Sable as an example. They could have rendered it realistically, but the style they chose turns it into something totally unique while also supporting the game and improving usage of development resources. The style is not realistic, even if the setting could be. These are very different things, and I’m speaking about style and have been the entire time.

Lol. You’re the one that started talking down to him. You’re a silly one.

By “all games look the same” I’m being hyperbolic. I mean nearly all AAA games and the majority of AA games (and not an insignificant number of indies even).

Watch this video. Maybe it’ll help you understand what I’m saying.

Whenever I see takes like these I can’t help but think that people who like to talk about games don’t play enough games, or just think of a handful of high profile releases as all of gaming.

Lol. No. Again, I was being hyperbolic and talking mostly about the AAA and AA space. I personally almost exclusively play indies who know what they’re trying to make and use a style appropriate to it. I play probably too many games. I also occasionally make games myself, I was the officer in a game development club in college, and I have friends in the industry. I’m not just some person who doesn’t understand video games.

I think you’d get a better system looking at the roman republic than this crap. They had consuls who had the highest power, but it rotated every month between the two. Even they understood if you consolidate power it only leads to more consolidation. There’s no way in hell this would be good for more than a generation or two.

Do you think Captain America wasn’t? All media is to some extent.

If anything, I don’t know what “realism” is supposed to mean. What is more realistic? Yakuza because it does these harsh, photo-based textures meant to highlight all the pores or, say, a Pixar movie where everything is built on this insanely accurate light transfer, path traced simulation?

The former is more realistic, but not for that reason. The lighting techniques are techniques, not a style. Realism is trying to recreate the look of the real world. Pixar is not doing that. They’re using advanced lighting techniques to enhance their stylized worlds.

Some of that applies to GoW, too, except they are trying to make things look like Jason and the Argonauts more than Saving Private Ryan. But still, the references are filmic.

Being inspired by film is not the same as trying to replicate the real world. (I’d argue it’s antithetical to it to an extent.) Usually film is trying to be more than realistic. Sure, it’s taking images from the real world, but they use lighting, perspective, and all kinds of other tools to enhance the film. They don’t just put some actors in place in the real environment and film it without thought. There’s intent behind everything shown.

I guess we’re back to the problem of establishing what people mean by “realism” and how it makes no sense. In what world does Cyberpunk look similar to Indiana Jones or Wukong? It just has no real meaning as a statement.

Cyberpunk looks more like Indiana Jones than Persona 5. Sure, they stand out from each other, but it’s mostly due to environments.

I think there’s plenty of games that benefit from realism, but not all of them do. There are many games that could do better with stylized graphics instead. For example, Cyberpunk is represented incredibly well in both the game and the anime. They both have different things they do better, and the anime’s style is an advantage for the show at least. The graphics style should be chosen to enhance the game. It shouldn’t just be realistic because it can be. If realism is the goal, fine. If it’s supposed to be more (or different) than realism, maybe try a different style that improves the game.

Realism is incredibly hard to create assets for, so it costs more money, and usually takes more system resources. For the games that are improved by it, that’s fine. There’s a lot of games that could be made on a smaller budget, faster, run better, and look more visually interesting if they chose a different style though. I think it should be a consideration that developers are allowed to make, but most are just told to do realism because it’s the “premium” style. They aren’t allowed to do things that are better suited for their game. I think this is bad, and also leads to a lack in diversity of styles.

I know you’re joking, but these probably have the same poly count. The biggest noticeable difference to me is subsurface scattering on her skin. The left her skin looks flat, but the right it mostly looks like skin. I’m sure the lighting in general is better too, but it’s hard to tell.

We technically aren’t at max roundness. Almost every rendered now renders polygons, but it’s possible to make a rendered to other shapes. We can render a perfect cylinder if we want to, or whatever shape you can define mathematically.

Visual fidelity isn’t the same as realism. RDR2 is trying to replicate a real experience, so I mostly agree with you. However, it does step away from realism sometimes to create something more.

Take a look at impressionist art, for example. It starts at realism, but it isn’t realistic. It has more style to it that enhances what the artist saw (or wanted to highlight).

A game should focus on the experience it’s tying to create, and it’s art style should enhance that experience. It shouldn’t just be realistic because that’s the “premium” style.

For an example, Mirror’s Edge has a high amount of fidelity (for its time), but it’s highly stylized in order to create the experience they wanted out of it. The game would be far worse if they tried to make the graphics realistic. This is true for most games, though some do try to simulate being a part of this world, and it’s fine for them to try to replicate it because it suits what their game is.

I would say GoW and SotC at least take realism as inspiration, but aren’t realistic. They’re like an idealized version of realism. They’re detailed, but they’re absolutely stylized. SotC landscapes, for example, look more like paintings you’d see rather than places you’d see in real life.

Realism is a bad goal because you end up making every game look the same. Taking our world as inspiration is fine, but it should almost always be expanded on. Know what your game is and make the art style enhance it. Don’t just replicate realism because that’s “what you’re supposed to do.”

At the end of the day it’s all propaganda. Yes, I think the best version of propaganda about how to deal with the wealthy would do this, and show how it’s more effective. I don’t think creating media about how we should rely on billionaires to solve our problems out of their own good will is a good idea.

It’s a government, but it isn’t necessarily a state. Regardless, Anarchists aren’t against all forms of government. The media’s version of total chaos is not what Anarchists are trying to create.

Here’s some more information if you want it: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1

Why wouldn’t the monarchs cooperate with each other to increase their power? Why do you think they’d keep each other in check instead? I think it’s quite plain to see that those with power would rather work together to fuck us, to their own benefit, rather than work with us against each other.

Anarchism is not the thing you’re told about in the media. It isn’t a total lack of all government. It’s a removal of hierarchical systems and exploitation. There still needs to be systems to protect people from these. They’d just be done through concensus.

This page has more information if you want to learn. https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1