I wouldn't bother... I've been having this discussion with him for awhile. I'm an artist working in games and I've explained this pretty thoroughly, linking to the awesome Extra Credits video discussing this precise topic. He seems pretty set on using the term incorrectly.

The problem is that he's using the term "graphics" incorrectly. He means the aesthetics of the game, but he keeps saying "graphics." That term refers to the technical aspects of the game (poly count, texture resolution, lighting/rendering techniques) and doesn't at all refer to the way the game actually looks. Better…

The engineers and the artists use the word the same way. They use the same definition. I am one of those artists, I'm just trying to tell you how it actually is.

Heh dude, I'm just telling you the way professionals use the term. The engineers that construct the engines that drive games refer to graphics in terms of rendering techniques and texture resolution etc. The artists that create the very visuals you're talking about do the same. In game development, graphics refer to…

Well you can use the term however you like, but that doesn't make it correct ;) Your definition of "graphics" is almost the exact opposite of the actual definition. I'm curious though - do you have a source to support your definition? If you don't trust me (even though, as I said, I'm an artist in games), watch this.…

This is a common terminology issue I see all of the time. I think this needs some clarification. The term "graphics" directly refers to the technical specs (texture resolution, poly count, etc.). What you seem to be describing is "art direction" - the actual design choices made to drive how the game's visuals are…

I don't play League, so I can't say either way. You're probably right about that. But I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing.

The vast majority of the big AAA titles we're referring to are still physically distributed - I was merely using that as a reference point for comparison in quality. I guess, for the sake of this discussion, I should've left out any mention of the way they're distributed. Old habit.

A really quality F2P game won't do this. The best ones will allow everyone access to all parts of the game that factor into balance, but you can pay if you want to access those parts quicker. For example, you could play the game for 10 hours to level up or you could pay $3 (or something). That or the upgrades that are…

I think that's more of a Facebook-based concept. That isn't to say it doesn't exist elsewhere, but any genuinely good F2P game wouldn't STOP you from playing like that. I don't know why that dumb mechanic still exists.

That's because it's not a prevalent model yet, thus doesn't have the same backing as a tried and true physical disc distribution model. If F2P was the dominant financial model among all games, the quality would be the same as it is for a packaged-disc AAA title.

Sure, granted it does happen. My only point was that it's much easier in a F2P model due to the way it's slowly distributed and changed over time. F2P games are never "done." They can change constantly throughout it's lifecycle.

I don't think it should be quite as open as Jason is suggesting, but I would love to be working somewhere and not feel like I'm at Fort Knox. As a freelancer, I jump around between dev studios quite a bit and I'm often terrified of even revealing where I'm currently working in a comment on news sites like this. Reason…

I think his point wasn't so much that he has no bosses, but because he's so well known, if he were to be fired, there'd be a massive public reaction to it. Thus, potentially changing fans' opinions of the company.

There are a couple of issues with being entirely open about the creation process that are a bit fuzzy and can seem trivial, but are still issues nonetheless. One being the concept of a "trade secret." I'm a freelance animator and I've jumped around between four pretty cool titles just within the past year and a half.…

I wouldn't say that's entirely true. Not that you're wholly incorrect, but it isn't as if devs don't listen or pay attention. Speaking of EA, Bioware created a whole extension of content simply because of the outcry. That's huge.

Sounds like you know the guy! Well, rest assured, I wasn't intending to rip on him or the short - in fact, I enjoyed it quite a bit. I wish I was better at those very things you listed - setting up shots, editing etc. are all my biggest weak points. For that I'm envious. Being an animator, I've watched tons of these…

This is the main source of disappointment in the animation - at least for me.

Hehe I know about the process well. I've animated on a number of both mocap and keyframe projects. I've also used both some poor mocap data (believe it or not, even on a high profile project) and I've used excellent mocap. My point was that the article was selling the short by saying it had fantastic animation and it…

Fair enough, I guess I was attempting to be a bit more generous before I ripped on the guy's animation ;)