Orogun01

There is no way for one person to determine whether his own self-awareness is true or false. So there is no other choice but to accept your self-awareness as true. If you understand the nature and cause of your actions then you really are aware. We are capable of knowing why we behave the way we do, we can look on a crappy day and see were it all went wrong. The deal here is understanding that your own volition it's under your control and however you react to the deterministic universe is your choice. Buddhism is a lot like Stoicism when it comes to ethics, huh?

I'm a pirate ninja instructor. In my spare time I do legal research for the Brazilian ladies' beach volleyball team, when I'm not test-driving Ferraris. And I'm Buddha.

Believability, most other mediums have shining examples of how a piece of work can influence a whole movements. Those are sort of games that we should be focusing on, the unsung hero who first used "X" feature but nobody ever played or cared to find. I don't want a popular games made by fanboys on the Smithsonian, I want games with actual value to the genre despite popularity.

Chances are that it's going to become more sophisticated, Solitaire still going at it because of housewives. Never underestimate their power.

It means that Time and Space are real but your senses deceive you. There you go, problem solved, that's what Maya is: the Illusion of the senses. I will be giving out Enlightenment to everyone this afternoon, Buddhism 0 Obsidian 1 Next!

If they are going to do something like this the least they could do it's give merit to games that actually contributed to the industry. Not the top 20 fan favorites, specially considering that there is an enormous amount of bias. Amazing, even the Smithsonian treats a video game exposition as something banal.

That would presume that the shared consciousness of our super ego is something that everyone it's constantly aware of. I don't think that there is any chance for people to take control of the movements since for the last 500 years they have been mostly reactionary. Thus making it only possible for people to migrate in large scale from the idealized to the imperfect. It's not optimism, right now we have been conditioned into the current beauty model which has changed. In the past 40 years we have gone through a lot changes regarding the public's view on beauty, we have gone from manly, hairy Burt Reynolds to baby faced Taylor Lautner. Although we have become more inclusive as a result of globalization, and the overexposure of starlets. The reason for the current obsession with idealized symbols is the contrasting reality, we seek the

The worst has come to pass, this it's truly the beginning of the end. LoF has mated and spawned offspring.

This is probably the first time i'm going to agree with LoF, a lot the censored material it's due to ignorance. Plus there it's a lot of double standards when it comes to both censorship and drug regulation. I would say that censorship it's unnecessary and should be taken with a standard, which we don't have. I think the solution will reach itself eventually, What you say it's true, not that we should seek a puritan society where none of us think about sex. Most likely we should get rid of the double standard of being the biggest porn consumer and have such puritan views regarding the subject. Namely we should grow up. I think that's another think that eventually will sort itself out, we tend to have reactionary views to whatever doesn't fit or scheme of things. A series of people who don't fit in the idealized model are eventually find their way to whatever reactionary movements begin, considering that most of us are imperfect the balance of power will change to include more realistic models. Because after an ideal image, the only way to go it's to the opposite. Yeah, I believe in free speech. What I don't believe is in corporations being treated as an individual, and as such they should be closely regulated. Not just by the FCC but held to a higher intellectual standard. Or at least a program set to help the really good networks to survive without selling out (RIP the Tube )

With better stats, duh.

:shocks him with a cattle prod: Good morning!

Are you implying that Diablo 2 did something wrong? My very first char's best item was a lvl16 unique dagger.....at lvl 30. And it was leagues better than anything I had before, so yes, IT DID. Plus it was a paladin. YOU KNOW HOW STUPID A PALADIN LOOKES ZEALING WITH A DAGGER? It's your fault if you don't know how to use the Horadic Cube, or just plain go into a store and buy something better.

Gamers are not artists, that would be like asking a blind man if a movie is art.

Are you implying that Diablo 2 did something wrong?

It's gay family friendly. Really now, being a prude it's a choice and it's something being imposed on our society.(with an hypocritical double standard) We shouldn't take it so far as to start chopping the penises off statues again.

Found this while doing some research (basically I just googled nightshape's quotations and ran into this) http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/vi...ver_be_art.html

Good to know that the guys who did logistics for GI Joe found job after the show tanked.

Crackpot theories about Cerberus intentions....this is starting to become BioBoard thread. Best reasoning; and in all likelihood the main cause, for Cerberus chasing Shepard is: the Reapers are too big to have a shootout with, they need some smaller enemy to fill the game before the grand finale. Collectors are all done for, BW decides ok let's make it Cerberus, because sentient life its stupid enough to fight each other in the face of complete annihilation, no matter if is someone that created the biggest Pro-Human group ever.

There are plays where the audience plays a large role in how it develops, are they not art? There are art installations that require interaction and make the user(s) the center around which the piece revolves, are they not art? http://www.mam.org/act/index.htm Whilst they do require interaction, it's their beauty which it's being observed. Nobody cares about how good the participants are, they care about how beautiful it's the effect that they create. Games do not follow the same measure, they follow performance based on score rather than beauty. I feel like a broken record here.

Without interference from the audience, games on the other hand require that interference. They don't make you a spectator, they make you the center around which the whole story revolves. I wasn't referring to multiplayer gaming only, achievements, in-game scores, percents of completion. Games are measured on proficiency, they require you to have a certain amount of skill in order to progress. But this skill its measured by score and not artistic/aesthetic value. No need to get offensive, I thought I gave enough reason when I stated that games are judged on performance and not aesthetics and the fact that they are interactive. Just because people see modern art being devaluated doesn't mean that the door its open for every pretty new thing to become an art. Playing games its not an art and playing its required in order to experience them. Only one of those games from this year, this should tell you how artistic the medium really is. Even so when you look at it the most permanent games, the ones that had an impact on the industry are all because of technological reasons and not artistic ones. This brings us to another point: permanence, Mozart is as great now as he was on his time. New generations find Mozart and realize his talent. PS:T its hardly revised by new generations, now most of the classics stand a chance at survival thanks to GOG. But despite being available the game won't reach many people due to the fact that we are technology obsessed. In a few generations a lot of these games, even the current ones will be obsolete and with no impact other than whatever engine was used to create it. Crap sells so more crap its made, that's the famous invisible hand. I like art, so I will support an artist that only I enjoy because only I perceive his genius; that's Theo Van Gogh. That's taking a chance on the artistic merits of someone despite the fact that there won't be any financial reward. The game industry it's profit driven, and the sad part is that game developers need the industry. Just because a lot of artistic mediums are involved in the making of games doesn't make them art. Look at illustration or comics, games are very close to comics in regards to public opinion.

God I hope not, Obsidian has taken their first 2 step out of BW shadow. This will only drag them back in, nice selling point though

Plays,music, movies, they all unfold before the audience. Games are the only medium which requires active participation from the spectator, they are also not judged in term of aesthetics but on performance. Games are closer to being a sport; since there already are championships, than an art. There may be lower forms of art or higher, the point it's that they all are part of a medium that it's art. Games; no matter how evocative, are not an artistic medium. Something that I agree on, I would like to see it happen without it necessitating to be art regardless. The fact it's that what its holding the industry back is 2 things; first there isn't a model for writing for games. Most writers come from a different medium and fail to account the fact that games are interactive, simply putting dialog and creating a setting it's not enough. There it's a very pervasive element to dialog when you want actions and get info dumping instead. The second one would be the immaturity of the audience and the lack of supportive publishers. I see this as the same problem because it has the same result, the M ratings are for boob obsessed teenagers and has nothing to do with actual maturity. The mandatory romantic interest, the same twists, plots and settings. The publishers treat games as a business because that's their business, and they are going to keep pushing crap because crap it's what sells. This it's the #1 reason that games are not art, because everyone making that claim will go out and buy a bunch of blockbuster crap and never ask for more artistic games. They all take art at face value, and it's becoming a ****ing buzz word.

I'll also would like to see Obsidian tackle other IPs, SQ bought off a ton they are going to be making splashes on the western market.

Ok let's put it this way, the number one reason that videos aren't art it's because they are competitive and their measure it's not based in aesthetics. Making games may have artistry, all of the artistic pipeline of making the characters and the environments. Playing games has no art whatsoever to it, therefore games are not art because they are interactive.

I always though of PTSD as a failure to adapt to society after a dangerous event. The same defense mechanisms that would protect you in that situation are hindering your ability to function in a different environment.