Forum - View topic

NEWS: Fate/stay night TV Anime's 1st Character Ad Highlights Rin Tohsaka

Can we rewrite FSN to make Luvia take Rin's spot?

I was joking. But yeah, the sea monster thing was kinda off. Even so, that's hardly a good reason to judge the entire anime's animation.
I think F/SN has less CG, because I can't recall anything that needs to be modelled per se, so it should be fine in that regard.

I was joking. But yeah, the sea monster thing was kinda off. Even so, that's hardly a good reason to judge the entire anime's animation.
I think F/SN has less CG, because I can't recall anything that needs to be modelled per se, so it should be fine in that regard.

relyat08 wrote:

Quote: And you'll just see that it gets a C+ for Animation here. That will depend on how crazy Ufotable gets with their CG. I love the art style used by them, but they tend to have some pretty shitty CG integration. Episode 13 of Fate/Zero looked terrible for example.

I was joking. But yeah, the sea monster thing was kinda off. Even so, that's hardly a good reason to judge the entire anime's animation.
I think F/SN has less CG, because I can't recall anything that needs to be modelled per se, so it should be fine in that regard.

Even live action stuff with actors gets C+ for animation here :p

Nah but in all seriousness, I think animation quality depends on the art style and is totally subjective. If you enjoy the animation, that is all that matters (not if some random critic enjoyed it or not)

Ambimunch wrote:

Even live action stuff with actors gets C+ for animation here :p Nah but in all seriousness, I think animation quality depends on the art style and is totally subjective. If you enjoy the animation, that is all that matters (not if some random critic enjoyed it or not)

Art style is subjective, for example, I am one of the few people who really liked Flowers of Evil as well as Ping Pong. Animation isn't so much, however. Fluidity, the frequency of still shots and the like are very much objective.

relyat08 wrote:

Ambimunch wrote: Even live action stuff with actors gets C+ for animation here :p Nah but in all seriousness, I think animation quality depends on the art style and is totally subjective. If you enjoy the animation, that is all that matters (not if some random critic enjoyed it or not) Art style is subjective, for example, I am one of the few people who really liked Flowers of Evil as well as Ping Pong. Animation isn't so much, however. Fluidity, the frequency of still shots and the like are very much objective.

I think if it looks good, and/or you like how it looks, it matters not how good the animation is (from a technical point). I mean a review is meant to tell the reader if its a pleasure to watch the show, I doubt most people care about the technical stuff. And I mean even if getting technical, the person has problems if he says Fate/Zero had bad animation and looks bad.

Ambimunch wrote:

relyat08 wrote: Ambimunch wrote: Even live action stuff with actors gets C+ for animation here :p Nah but in all seriousness, I think animation quality depends on the art style and is totally subjective. If you enjoy the animation, that is all that matters (not if some random critic enjoyed it or not) Art style is subjective, for example, I am one of the few people who really liked Flowers of Evil as well as Ping Pong. Animation isn't so much, however. Fluidity, the frequency of still shots and the like are very much objective. I think if it looks good, and/or you like how it looks, it matters not how good the animation is (from a technical point). I mean a review is meant to tell the reader if its a pleasure to watch the show, I doubt most people care about the technical stuff. And I mean even if getting technical, the person has problems if he says Fate/Zero had bad animation and looks bad.

A review is supposed to be as objective as possible, so no, they aren't supposed to tell you whether or not they personally liked the art style or enjoyed the animation. Their job is to score the show from a technical standpoint.

relyat08 wrote:

... A review is supposed to be as objective as possible, so no, they aren't supposed to tell you whether or not they personally liked the art style or enjoyed the animation. Their job is to score the show from a technical standpoint.

Yeah yeah, they are supposed to give an overall opinion from a neutral zone (which doesn't always happen). However certain portions of the review, like the animation, are still subjective regardless of their objectivity. No matter how the reviewer grades that section, it is never universally objective simply because people have different interpretations of things like animation.

(this discussion is so off topic btw)

Ambimunch wrote:

relyat08 wrote: Ambimunch wrote: Even live action stuff with actors gets C+ for animation here :p Nah but in all seriousness, I think animation quality depends on the art style and is totally subjective. If you enjoy the animation, that is all that matters (not if some random critic enjoyed it or not) Art style is subjective, for example, I am one of the few people who really liked Flowers of Evil as well as Ping Pong. Animation isn't so much, however. Fluidity, the frequency of still shots and the like are very much objective. I think if it looks good, and/or you like how it looks, it matters not how good the animation is (from a technical point). I mean a review is meant to tell the reader if its a pleasure to watch the show, I doubt most people care about the technical stuff. And I mean even if getting technical, the person has problems if he says Fate/Zero had bad animation and looks bad.

A review is supposed to be as objective as possible, so no, they aren't supposed to tell you whether or not they personally liked the art style or enjoyed the animation. Their job is to score the show from a technical standpoint.

A review, by definition, is subjective.

relyat08 wrote:

Ambimunch wrote: Even live action stuff with actors gets C+ for animation here :p Nah but in all seriousness, I think animation quality depends on the art style and is totally subjective. If you enjoy the animation, that is all that matters (not if some random critic enjoyed it or not) Art style is subjective, for example, I am one of the few people who really liked Flowers of Evil as well as Ping Pong. Animation isn't so much, however. Fluidity, the frequency of still shots and the like are very much objective.

I think if it looks good, and/or you like how it looks, it matters not how good the animation is (from a technical point). I mean a review is meant to tell the reader if its a pleasure to watch the show, I doubt most people care about the technical stuff. And I mean even if getting technical, the person has problems if he says Fate/Zero had bad animation and looks bad.

A review is supposed to be as objective as possible, so no, they aren't supposed to tell you whether or not they personally liked the art style or enjoyed the animation. Their job is to score the show from a technical standpoint.

relyat08 wrote:

A review is supposed to be as objective as possible, so no, they aren't supposed to tell you whether or not they personally liked the art style or enjoyed the animation. Their job is to score the show from a technical standpoint.

It seems you don't understand ANN's policies on the matter: animenewsnetwork.com/faq#review_rating.

EyeOfPain wrote:

relyat08 wrote: A review is supposed to be as objective as possible, so no, they aren't supposed to tell you whether or not they personally liked the art style or enjoyed the animation. Their job is to score the show from a technical standpoint. It seems you don't understand ANN's policies on the matter: animenewsnetwork.com/faq#review_rating.

In what way does that contradict what I said?