thepixiesrock

"Sorry little Johnny, even though your paper is pushing boundaries, expanding a genre, and doing many things to a level so far above and beyond your classmates that it overshadows any flaws, I still can't give you an A."

Phillistines

What is that hand doing?

I don't think so.

No, I was laughing at what you had said.

Request a veto of #4 for religious reasons.

Not anybody in this threads fault.

I've got 10 fingers made into two knuckle sandwiches. You do the math. 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's wrong. The difference isn't significant enough to give you a MUCH HIGHER gpa. You guys are looking at this from the wrong perspective.

Pet goat? What the crap

Hahahaha, that post delivers.

Bill Frisell - Crumb/No Moe

So then you don't throw them out.

Do you even try to sell your games? Edit: I'm sorry, wait, obviosuly you easily CAN sell your games if you get rid of them after a year of not playing them, unless you keep a game for ten years playing it regularly and then decide to sell it. So what, do you just hate not wasting?

I don't know how she knows how many gmaes she's bought if she just throws them out after playing them.

If Mask of the Betrayer doesn't get a ten, then no game should be allowed to!

Well I mean, I haven't studied games. It's easier for me to look at music and say, "This is what makes it art music, because it does this." So I'm sure art games could be defined in a different way than the broad deffinition I used. And if I was talking about a pure art game, it wouldn't be made with profit in mind in any way. If the developers needed to make some money to eat, they would make a regular game.

That's funny. Especially if you really had this forum in mind. I'll get the game, and have my review ready that day.

I'm using the term art game in a sort of abstract way. It lacks deffinition, but I think the easiest way to define it is a game that is a) not created for the purpose of making money and b) a game that's main focus isn't entertainment, but to achieve some sort of greater undefinable artistic value.

Alright yeah that's ture. I do think that.

Right, I'm not saying games shouldn't have an art market, I'm just saying there isn't a company that fills that market right now

So people are stupid because they want more out of games and value the progression of them?

I think there is a problem with veiwing games as art. Games can be veiwed as art, but games are more so veiwed as entertainment. It's the same problem with movies and music. Movies and music are entertainment, and art. The difference is, there is a deffinite market for art movies, and art music. Games do not have an art market yet. If music and movies were made with the explicit purpose of entertainment, they wouldn't be able to pregress. If music and movies were made with the explicit purpose of art, they wouldn't be able to sell. I haven't studied film, but music has made it's biggest steps from time period to time period and genre to genre through music made to be art. The musicians weren't as concerned with selling as they were with creating. Games are missing that, because games are an industry. Games need to make money in order for more games to be made. It's fine to value games in an artistic way, but I think it's a bit premature for the industry to view games more as art than entertainment, and to judge games based on that.

Not to mention you're basically saying that instead of having the opinion that something is good because you like it, you have the opinion it's good because a lot of people you know like it.