> KnavishPlum169 Wrote:
> So I have to say that I really liked this post and though that it was very well thought out and written. I personally really like all the talk in the first post as someone who is majoring in Digital Media & Design/Game Design. I don’t entirely agree with some of the thoughts about game-play and adding the upgrades, but that is just my opinion.
Thank you for appreciating the effort. I am glad people are finding it as I intended. About your opinions, I agree and completely accept that everyone can have differences in this. What works for me might not work for you and vice-versa. No need to harass or insult others for this. Though I would like to hear you opinions on gameplay and upgrades : )
> KnavishPlum169 Wrote:
> My main issue is with this assessment of the aesthetics. While I agree with keeping a sense of familiarity and also don’t like the weapon designs shown in the demo, I feel like this mindset constricts what can be tried when evolving a design. This kinda feels like the blanket statement of “its not Halo”. With this mindset, I feel like we wouldn’t have gotten designs like the Reach AR, Halo 4 BR or heck… The Banished. Designs that still hold the same feel, yet entirely new and different looks. The same could be said for how armor has changed between games. Ignoring 4 and 5, Reach armor bears only a passing resemblance to that of CE or 3, yet it’s seen by many as the best. I understand the broader message of keeping things familiar, yet feel that approach can only hurt future design choices and evolution.
Okay. So when we talk about aesthetics there are 2 ways to go about it.
1. Objective or General: This applies to almost everyone and works regardless of culture and experience.
2. Subjective or person specific: This applies to case by case basis and takes into consideration things like culture, personal experiences, memory, geographical conditions, travel history, and ability of person to process and understand emotions and feelings.
With that said. I want to tell you that I do not say that change is bad. “More often then not people like to stick the the known devil then to follow an unknown angle” (Heard similar words said by Sadhguru). I agree that sticking to one aesthetics kill or severs the ability to evolve over time. LIke you mentioned Halo 4, 5, R.
This is a rather complicated topic to explore so. I want to avoid getting to details. Aesthetics are meant to be felt. Not written down. I personally was a logical person when I joined college. I was so so bad at emotions and aesthetics. It what there I learned that this can not be learned by reading or watching something. I comes and develops by feeling it.
Basically speaking there are various ways to go about it. There is no right or wrong. It really just depends on context.
Rasa is in very diluted meaning aesthetics. It originates from Sanskrit work “natyashastra”. There are 9 rasas. each translates to various emotions such as love, fear, anger, etc. ( I dont want to get into the details. because. paragraph above this one )
Staying true to original and preserving layout does retain original “rasa” while changing away from it changes the “rasa”. Both has benefits and pitfalls really just depends on the context. I personally dont want to comment on what should 343 do. This is their call since its their product. (There is no right or wrong remember)
So yes I agree with your statement that it limits creativity and explorations. But my question to you is. You live in amazon forests with your tribe with culture specific to that place. Do you need Futuristic architecture there? you will really be excited about it but you don’t need it. you might want it…
can you message me your post link in personal message?