Joseph Bulock

You are old fashioned. :D

Thats a decent description for the lucky/newer testers. As one becomes more familiar with a game, one tends to get much more specific tasks.

There's a bit more to it than that... And as far as building a general game industry career out of QA, external QA experience is only useful to get you into an internal QA department, which the gives you access to real industry jobs. The only places to move up at most external testing firms is management, or if at a publisher, production. And since its listed right next to every post I make, it would be awesome if my last name was spelled correctly Hassat.

Missouri is super cheap in the most awesome of ways.

I'd say no more than a handful of people are ever in zombie mode. Aside from the usual funny movie clips and screenshots and such, the "higher-ups" really take great care of us. Lots of pizza, recreation, BF2 (our server is back!) and even some guitar hero set up on the big screen. Also, everyone here is awesome about pulling each other off the floor, and everyone has lots of experience here. Crunch is nothing new, and we've pretty much figured out how to cope in our own ways. The only real sign of a deadline around here is a little extra facial hair on a few people.

You know, I find that to be the case as well. If any germans take aoffense at the above statement please by all means prove it wrong. The only "born in Germany" Germans that I've met were some of the funniest people I've ever hung out with. It was perhaps a more straight faced humor than we get in the states, but they were hysterical.

ka-ta-na

Oh yeah, sadly I knew about most of that. I don't have any huge hopes of a good movie out of that one, but I really wish it could be. If nothing else, it'll be easy on the eyes, with decent amounts of knives to the face.

I have my fingers crossed for V for Vendetta. I want it to be the best comic adaptation ever, as its based of a comic that really doesn't get enough credit. I don't have faith in the W brothers to write anything amazing, but they have a great sense of visual style. As for existing movies, I'm a huge fan of the original He-man: Masters of the Universe and the Xmen series. Looks like both of them will only get the worst of treatments in their next release though.

that use to not matter, now everyone in hollywood is a freaking martial artist with the ability to wield a samurai sword in leather pants . Keaton did ok in his fight scenes though, plus i think he look the most accurate inthe bat suit, Bale looks awkward. I don't think Bale has looked awkward a day in his life, personally.

I second Super Tecmo Bowl Technically, you third it.

By that mentality, RPGs would be for people who "can't cut it" at social interaction...

Megaman Soccer Mario Strikers Cyberball Super Tecmo Bowl

The Danger Mouse collaboration is a enjoyable album, as are Sage Francis and Grand Buffet. That being said, I must admit that rap is my second string genre, experimental metal is the primary for me.

Anime is shown on most major networks, and while it has a different demographic in Japan, it is as mainstream as saturday morning cartoons in America (which are now about 50% horrible anime).

This is almost close to my excuse for being on here more recently. Sometimes I find a problem that has to be fixed before I can do much. If I'm going to have to play a waiting game for half an hour while a dev gets something fixed, might as well chat on here and do something positive.

Early television was treated like "radio with pictures" by producers. Your point is specious. Gromnir makes a valid point: Metropolis or The Great Dictator didn't even use sound, yet they are just as powerful as any modern day claimant for the crown of best film and example of art. Chaplin could easily have blamed the studio environment for preventing him from creating his art, but he didn't. Your point actually proves mine that early films were never made without preconceptions, similarly to early TV. It is impossible for human creation to occur without reflecting preconceptions that are a product of existence. I also agree that Metropolis is an amazing film. That was in my original point. We have our exceptions currently, our Nosferatu's and Metropolis, but for the majority of out titles, we get "Electrocution of an Elephant" and "Women Undressing" over and over again. Maybe in fifty years we'll get our Wild Bunch and our Nights of Cabiria.

Just a quick point for Gromnir: Early films were in no way free of preconceptions. People simply didn't know how to handle a moving picture, so the defaulted to established photographic standards. Thats why most early films are a static camera of a single scene. People just said, we now have "moving pictures," so lets place the camera like you would to take a picture, and make the subject do stuff. No artistic expression has ever been free of preconception. Art is a product of culture, which is little more than a base of accepted preconceptions.

Can art be created accidentally then? If I make a painting better than the Mona Lisa, but I create it by accidentally dropping a case full of paint on a canvas, is it still art. It's easy to say that I am not an artist because I couldn't do it again, but is the painting that resulted not still art?

With something being called "art" comes a connotation of "high quality".. The problem is that what one deems as high or low quality is subjective. What about the famous sculpture "fountain." This was of course nothing more than a toilet turned upside down and entered into an art exhibit. Many artists recognize it as a ground breaking piece, while many people find it to be a primary example of "dumb" art. If it was art, it definitely wasn't high quality, in that all of its ingredients were of low quality. Also, can we not find art in those things that are of low quality, which then makes them art? For example, Starship Troopers, most would agree, is a low quality movie. However, a very strong argument can be made for its value as art, despite its quality.

If that were true, that could only be because we had all excepted a standard definition of art, one that either was comprised of the overlap between subjectivities of the members in agreement, or perhaps a definition propagated through the establishment of a discourse and excepted by a larger mass of people. By the way, I had no intention of diverting this topic to a philosophical discussion of the nature of art, only to point out the inherent difficulty in answering the original question.

Video games as a media is an art. Now whether "specific" video games are art or not is contingent upon a person's subjective tastes. My point is that even your claim that the media is an art is subjective, as what defines a media as an art is subjective.

Art is only subjective. If art was not subjective, people wouldn't have been arguing about what art is for the last couple thousand years.

These definitions are as slippery as the Supreme Court's definition of pornography. They simply serve to promote one section of media over another, based upon the values of the manipulator of the definition.

That seems like a fairly narrow perspective to filter through to determine if games are art. There is a lot more to interactive media than their stories or dialogs. Much more time goes into their look, their gameplay experience than their story, and a case could be made of course for the importance of sound in many games as well. To look at only the literary nature of a game is like determining a film's value as art based only on the script.