Moderator: JC Denton
by icycalm » 11 Jun 2010 17:18
by icycalm » 11 Jun 2010 17:35
by icycalm » 12 Jun 2010 00:13
Dan Aykroyd wrote:A screenplay is 120 pages, and a game is 650 pages.
by gidge-lizardmin » 14 Jun 2010 05:06
by icycalm » 20 Jun 2010 16:13
KeenanW wrote: That, by far, is the most ridiculous game writing I've ever read. Not sure if in the bad or good way. Never before has a game essay included a Zero Wing quote, Plato's cave allegory, and a Jizz in My Pants link. Also: major, major Schopenhauer-esque pessimism. Damn.
by icycalm » 23 Jun 2010 14:36
Heather Anne Campbell wrote:Shadow of the Colossus was the better game, but I had more fun playing Resident Evil 4 with my best friend.
Matthew Blackwell wrote:Second, as I've stated on a couple of occasions, I reject the notion that games need to be "fun." They don't need to be fun.
by MrPattywagon » 01 Jul 2010 08:47
My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds. What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art.
by icycalm » 01 Jul 2010 14:47
by the shore » 02 Jul 2010 08:17
icycalm wrote:And what's in it for them is social status -- they find in this so-called "modern art" a means for advancement in what I call "the slave game" -- the game for social distinction.
by raphael » 02 Jul 2010 10:31
For this is how it is with theory, and with the all the uneducated imbeciles who start dabbling in it without a thought for what others may have already achieved before they made their grand entrance on the scene:
"we're getting art for our money we when haven't even had a good time". (Kael)
by austere » 02 Jul 2010 16:26
Alex Kierkegaard wrote:...once the masses have been unleashed on the art of painting, and any bungler can make a name for himself by playing the virtuoso in front of uneducated half-peasants who were born yesterday and don't know any better.
by icycalm » 03 Jul 2010 13:07
the shore wrote:Do you call this the slave game because of the particular way the hipsters and ultra rich play it? Or are you saying that all vying for social distinction, regardless of strategy, is a slave game? I'm not sure I understand.
austere wrote:The artfags surely cannot ignore this and so I await their reactions with wicked glee. If they read it with some honesty, they will be devastated.
austere wrote:I'll include my own perspective, in the hope it is of some value. A long time ago, I started to make my own games, though I had no illusions as to their standing against the greater games out there. Since it was always more fun to spend my time playing the awesome games that were being released, I hardly finished any of my projects. Making anything worthwhile took a long time and a lot of effort -- volumes of algorithms, data structures, optimisation and esoteric hardware tricks had to be learnt. There was much joy in this, the process of learning and discovery more so than the end product. Many people my age did the same and the best and most dedicated went on to make commercial games, while the rest moved on as the barrier to entry became too great for their aspirations. The latter were like children growing up, realising their doodles just don’t cut it anymore.
austere wrote:A similar decay is happening in the field of hobby electronics, ever since the release of the "Arduino". Just replace "platform game" with LED blinker and you’ll find a familiar pattern of childish infatuation. Outside their little circles, no one gives a damn about their stupid blinkers. Well, possibly this store owner with the motto "Electronics can be art".
austere wrote:I can't wait to read the second part, icycalm!
by Diamond Dawg » 03 Jul 2010 16:00
in attemping, that is to say, to appear as if they stood on a higher plane compared to everyone else at least in one respect
by icycalm » 09 Jul 2010 15:06
David Carrier wrote:In the 1980s, when painting was commonly said to be dead, many group shows were devoted to abstraction. Although some individual artists emerged—Sean Scully was the best—none of these exhibitions had much effect [I wonder why, lol]. But even when Dave Hickey and the philosopher Alexander Nehamas proclaimed that beauty was back, abstraction still was marginalized. The interests of the art world had shifted [to what? lol]. Bob Nickas’s book takes up this story, without much concern for the longer-range perspective [since he doesn't understand it, lol]. “Paintings that are clearly made from the point of view that abstraction is always in a sense an assisted readymade” [saywhat] he says at the start, “can be seen to reanimate rather than recapitulate the histories of both abstraction and the readymade” (p. 5).
by icycalm » 17 Jul 2010 00:06
Ashley Miller, co-writer of Thor wrote:Thor's powers are godly, yes... But at the end of the day, he's a man... Odin sends him to Earth because he's not perfect. He's brash, arrogant. Even over-confident... he also bleeds. He struggles. Life kicks him where it hurts the most... You want to feel Thor's rage when he rages. You want to see him fight like hell, and take as much as he dishes out -- maybe more.
by JoshF » 17 Jul 2010 03:57
by icycalm » 14 Aug 2010 14:16
sethhearthstone wrote:While there are some people who (even in this modern era) believe that Impressionism was a “vulgarization of painting” or even a step “back and sideways” for the advancement of the art of painting, these misguided individuals are simply unaware that impressionism was a reaction to the advancing field of photography. Up to that point painters had sought more and more realistic deceptions [he means "depictions" --icy] of the interplay of light and shadow, the scattering and diffusion of light from different surfaces, and believable representations of the human figure. The transition to unreal use of color and form was a way of saying “look! Here is something that photography cannot create! The human imagination holds greater beauty than the mundane physical world will give you!“ Now with the advancing art of the shader algorithm and hardware that can render increasingly detailed geometry, and further use of laser-scanned actors, we are due for a movement away from realistic visual design in games. I expect more games with more non-representational imagery in the future.
sethhearthstone wrote:While there are some people who (even in this modern era) believe that Impressionism was a “vulgarization of painting” or even a step “back and sideways” for the advancement of the art of painting, these misguided individuals are simply unaware that impressionism was a reaction to the advancing field of photography.
sethhearthstone wrote:The transition to unreal use of color and form was a way of saying “look! Here is something that photography cannot create! The human imagination holds greater beauty than the mundane physical world will give you!“
sethhearthstone wrote:Now with the advancing art of the shader algorithm and hardware that can render increasingly detailed geometry, and further use of laser-scanned actors, we are due for a movement away from realistic visual design in games. I expect more games with more non-representational imagery in the future.
by icycalm » 14 Aug 2010 14:27
sethhearthstone wrote:The second game in this list marks the return of one of gaming’s true auteurs. (Even the game’s title seems to reference how long it’s been since his last project!) Project Dust directed by Eric Chahi, author of Another World