I got into a fight with several gamers on Twitter about the subject of animation, something I Dedicate my life to and would had made into a career if my life was a bit better, and dealing with people who's only knowledge of animation is frames per second, that's it.
These fights started with me reminding these guys that despite the fancy marketing terms (4k120fps80refresh) it is just animation, boiling things down to cartoons reacting to toys.
Funny thing is this guy just wouldn't listen, saying they AREN'T animation because that is beneath them and had these player inputs which made him special.
I explained, those things had a set up of various animations set to some kind of logic algorithm, it doesn't just magically come into existence because Billy hit the trigger button. This just causes him to get angrier and angier but kept going back to fps in high numbers and “player controls”.
In the end I just front load him a huge list of animation articles, wrote a long final rant and muted him.
This, is very common for some reason and brings me to the topic I want to touch on, when a person who has experience, knowledge and skills that can't be easily expressed in an online environment vs structured wiki life. Hard to explain, but I will try. I can't show much of my work online because it just doesn't fit into things like YouTube or Deviantart, I made zines and cds, have hundreds of finished but unreleased and unfinished work all over the place, I had done a lot of commissions I can't share for various reasons, and while my work doesn't have the polish of Hazbin Hotel or such I do have people in person like them and highly impressed by them.
That doesn't fit in the view/fav system a lot of people use as success, a very narrow view of life as “if it's not online, it doesn't exist”.
This comes into play of me trying to use my experience and knowledge of a subject near and dear to my heart to correct a person who only can regurgitate catchphrases as facts. Like there's a point in frames you can't react fast enough and it's the computer doing the heavy lifting and giving the illusion of “skill” (many console first person shooters had to use aimbots due to analog sticks not being responsive enough), or the fact live action movies need CGI/cartoons to pull off an effect like a man flying, rearranging the skyline to suit an era or even airbrush pubs out of the shots.
One guy had a full meltdown, accusing me of making things up, throwing my accusations of him being online too much at back me, actually checking my stats and posting screenshots of unrelated posts at me before I just muted him.
I don't know what this is, just kind of frustrating but funny fighting somebody who acts like an expert on a subject but have like negative knowledge, gets funnier and frustrating when confronting them with something that can't be squeezed into a wiki article.

As someone who's been gaming since I was plunking tokens into the Super Mario Bros. arcade game at Showbiz Pizza - yes, video games are a form of dynamic animation. Not sure what their hang-ups are on the whole thing, my guess is they're more the modern gamer types since a good chunk of that audience has this weird obsession with games being “realistic” (As if that somehow makes them more fun) so heaven forbid someone should ruin that illusion by pointing out that it's not real.

@Furwerk studio - your things are hard for me to respond to because the information is so densely written. Maybe try to spread it out with more paragraph spacings or something? XD

Anyway, you have a novel and interesting point.
I had never considered games in that way.

I think the issue is that you looked at things from an interesting, unusual angle (and quite a valid one), but that fellow shot you down because they were only interested in defending their basic conventional understanding of the concept.

I hate it when that happens! You put so much thought into an idea or concept and some boring fool comes along as just goes “Nope!” and presents you with an unthought out outline of something they read on wikipedia 10 years ago.

- by “concept” I'm not talking about something that overturns science or reality, I mean a different way of looking at something established, like you could say “breakfast cereal is actually a soup”

ANyway, games as cartoons is a really novel and original idea.

And sometimes it was really just staring you in the face.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIIXjulD3_w

I think the framing of games as cartoons gets a negative from what we consider cartoons.
bugs bunny, family guy those are the first things we think of when you say cartoons.
next you have movie cartoons like the Incredibles and more sophisticated ones like those resident evil videos.

if a cartoon is defined by humans creating it then isnt cgi in movies just humans interacting with cartoons. blue screen, green screen objects like starwars are cartoon elements.

cgi is a fancy word for cartoon elements?

I like to think games are closer to cgi techniques with the realism and look than what we think of as traditional cartoons, so technically they are cartoons but not in the same category as a spongebob square pants.

but its just my opinion

takoyama wrote:
I think the framing of games as cartoons gets a negative from what we consider cartoons.
bugs bunny, family guy those are the first things we think of when you say cartoons.
next you have movie cartoons like the Incredibles and more sophisticated ones like those resident evil videos.

if a cartoon is defined by humans creating it then isnt cgi in movies just humans interacting with cartoons. blue screen, green screen objects like starwars are cartoon elements.

cgi is a fancy word for cartoon elements?

I like to think games are closer to cgi techniques with the realism and look than what we think of as traditional cartoons, so technically they are cartoons but not in the same category as a spongebob square pants.

but its just my opinion

I don't consider things that resemble or attempting to resemble reality an escape from the cartoon accusations due to the fact it is still a crafted medium, so things like stop motion, cgi, heavily edited photographs still fall under the banner for cartoons for me.

Of course the big reason I do this this is to remind people that movies aren't real, I actually gotten in very brutal and near gotten physical fights over the fact that live action movies aren't real, as in people actually fighting, killing and fighting dragons behind the screen.

I boil down video games to the same sentiment to kind of remind gamers that it's not real, don't hurt people over them.

Furwerk studio wrote:
Of course the big reason I do this this is to remind people that movies aren't real, I actually gotten in very brutal and near gotten physical fights over the fact that live action movies aren't real, as in people actually fighting, killing and fighting dragons behind the screen.

This reminds me of the latest Quackcast we did on the weekend where we talk about how we experience reality as only a bunch of highlights of the important bits, with all the boring stuff largely ignored- And that relates to how things are reproduced in film and other media:

Those short important parts are expanded in our awareness so that we think they lasted longer.
So when you depict a fight in a movie, comic or game you have to show it lasting much longer than it would be in real life in order to match how people EXPECT to see it.

So yes, it HAS to be very unrealistic and “cartoony”.

Just think how interesting fights in movies or games would be if they took the few seconds they do in real life. You want a tank game where no engagement lasts longer than twenty seconds and a best performance would last three seconds? Real time fights are fleeting moments where you blink and it's done.

Unless you're right in the middle of it and then twenty seconds last a lifetime. What kind of action movie would have two minutes of action in two hours and the rest of it is watching and waiting?

You can flip a car three times before you realize you're awake and driving and need to step on the brake pedal.

bravo1102 wrote:
Just think how interesting fights in movies or games would be if they took the few seconds they do in real life. You want a tank game where no engagement lasts longer than twenty seconds and a best performance would last three seconds? Real time fights are fleeting moments where you blink and it's done.

Unless you're right in the middle of it and then twenty seconds last a lifetime. What kind of action movie would have two minutes of action in two hours and the rest of it is watching and waiting?

You can flip a car three times before you realize you're awake and driving and need to step on the brake pedal.

Exactly

bravo1102 wrote:
Just think how interesting fights in movies or games would be if they took the few seconds they do in real life. You want a tank game where no engagement lasts longer than twenty seconds and a best performance would last three seconds? Real time fights are fleeting moments where you blink and it's done.

Unless you're right in the middle of it and then twenty seconds last a lifetime. What kind of action movie would have two minutes of action in two hours and the rest of it is watching and waiting?

You can flip a car three times before you realize you're awake and driving and need to step on the brake pedal.

Interesting.

Food for thought is there is films that do build up on two hours of nothing for two minutes of action, Westerns, Spaghetti Westerns and Samurai films

But that is not action films, so… I kind of like to point out how different genre handles the, best way to put it, pacing of reality.

On a different topic one thing I had encountered more and more of lately is this opposite end of the can't tell reality from fiction spectrum, where they can't handle fiction breaking the rules of reality, it shows up a LOT in furry communities with people taking things to literal, to people who make fan casting for live action anime adaptations to films themselves.

Kind of scary it's not as addressed as those who think fiction can operate in reality (I wish there was a better way to put it).

My definitions of either were taught to me as
Animation is anything moving.
Cartoon is shape defined by line.

Furwerk studio wrote:

bravo1102 wrote:
Just think how interesting fights in movies or games would be if they took the few seconds they do in real life. You want a tank game where no engagement lasts longer than twenty seconds and a best performance would last three seconds? Real time fights are fleeting moments where you blink and it's done.

Unless you're right in the middle of it and then twenty seconds last a lifetime. What kind of action movie would have two minutes of action in two hours and the rest of it is watching and waiting?

You can flip a car three times before you realize you're awake and driving and need to step on the brake pedal.

Interesting.

Food for thought is there is films that do build up on two hours of nothing for two minutes of action, Westerns, Spaghetti Westerns and Samurai films

The Westerns and samurai films that do that are usually centered around a duel and are usually character studies rather than action films. It's the characters that matter not the action. The classic example here would be High Noon. The nothing is how the protagonist deals with the impending action, not the action itself which is often past the actual climax of the story. Various samurai films are actually just reinterpreting that basic story in a different cultural context. Many Japanese film makers admitted to being strongly influenced by American Western movies.