Orogun01

I'd pay good money to see your face when you realize that Avatar is planned as a trilogy.

Probably because of piracy; PC games are released way after their console counterparts in a lot of cases. After they have made their profit piracy is just another mean of publicizing their products, some will actually buy the games and others become fans. Which means that they join the initial sales numbers.

Bet you that a percentage of the sales were from people who had pirated the game and bought it later.

(and super creeps)

Tried to finish my second playthrough of Demon's Soul. Remembered why I quit in the first place.

Sounds like something you know from experience. care to share?

Just out of curiosity, what will you do to them if they don't like the game/don't want to play?

I always said that Citizen Kane could had used more boobs.

I never noticed, I rarely focused on her face in conversation. They clearly focused their art resources elsewhere. Her teeth. her chin; use in case of reaper invasion only.

Aren't they?

If this is true I hate you so much right now.

Wow, humans are probably the only creatures who see the divine in a puddle of crap. Isn't that what art's about? Basically, that's why aesthetics were invented. To sort out the crap from the art.

Wow, humans are probably the only creatures who see the divine in a puddle of crap.

I thought we were going down the road of blockbuster movies and pop music. Games as a product are going more in the way of movies and pop music, as a culture we are more like comics. Our own separate expositions, references and values. Movies and music have a celebrity status and it's culture centers around Hollywood, unlike games.

Just because games incorporate art doesn't make them; as a whole, art. I guess that's one of the reasons why we are going down the same road of comic books and horror films, becoming our own little culture with it's own set of values.

Whilst you raise some valid points, this one I disagree. I don't know who Luc Benson is, never seen his face and yet I have seen almost all of his films. Same way that I know who Sid Meister is, because both are names advertised by the product itself. Just a short string of letter saying "A John Doe game" eventually there will be that great game that reaches someone and there is a director's name attached to it. I have looked for directors that way and found out about other films that they made that I've enjoyed, now that becomes a name on my watch list.

Hollywood has been around for how long? Not sure I would classify most of the stuff that comes out of there as "mature" these days. I actually think the video gaming industry is doing a frighteningly good imitation of the movie industry, being formulaic, predictable, market analysis driven and often catering to the lowest common denominator in the quest for disposable income. Yeah, the problem is that we are just imitation of the "formulaic, predictable, market analysis driven and catering to the lowest common denominator". The big difference is that for a Duchamp putting a toilet on a pedestal, there is a Michelangelo revealing a David. For every crappy blockbuster and slasher film, there is a Schindler's list. I hate that the most common argument for games as art comes from the mouths of people who wouldn't now art if they were stabbed with it. That games should be art by default because the arts have degenerated to a point where a deuce can be called art. The fact of the matter is that the game developing model isn't designed for artists, the names are for the teams and the teams are faceless entities (like their publishers) with a more familiar "feel" to them. There is little room for a personal vision, teams are often too big to contemplate everyone's input and publisher don't take few risk because every game it's a big risk on it's own. If Spielberg came to the door of any executive with a script called Ballbusters from Planet 8 they wouldn't even read it, they'd just jump right on it. Because it's Spielberg and he has star power, he can get other people behind it's projects that line up just for the chance of working with him. If the movie tanks it's just another chapter on Spielberg filmography, he will go on to make good movies with other companies and other executives. A game director screws up and they just fire him, keep the team, the brand name and the director has no name to fall back on even if he was behind some great games. It's the brand name(publisher, dev team) that holds the power, not the director or team member(the would be artist).

Nope, doesn't work. Really?! Well I think I found the only video that will work

That would work better if it could be seen outside the US.. Still, it's crossed midnight here in the UK.. so I shall wish all you folks a Merry Christmas day.. Right, I forgot that about Hulu. Can you see it now ?

^Couldn't have said it better myself.

My favorite Christmas song

Can't believe that nobody remembered. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...eed-Brotherhood http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...4-Splatterhouse http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...575-Epic-Mickey

Same difference between Natalie Portman nominated for a Golden Globe and the Black Swan, but that's never stopped a film to put their nominations on their tv spots. Games are the same, remember "The much awaited sequel to game of the year Fallout 3". It's the ethos, when we go to buy we have an assurance that it comes from a good source and the risk it's diminished. The fact that video games budgets are ever growing is what I consider to be the main obstacle for more "artsy" games. It seems that every game has to come up with better graphics and engine than the previous one; the shiny effect, which raises the budgets and the development time. The fact of the matter is that if the blockbuster games don't come up with these new ideas they are never seen by the mainstream, because unlike movies you can't distribute games outside of their format (via TV) like movies. Thus a series of obscure games who are the true innovators whose names are only paid tribute by someone having an argument over some AAA game whose "new" tech comes from those games. Considering that the artistry of video games is in it's design more than it's content, the jewels of our medium are becoming lost to us (with exceptions) The best analogy I could make would be if Citizen Kane was released, a complete box office failure; then another movie with the same techniques becomes a hit and it's regarded as the innovator.

Did we not get a "from the makers of Mass Effect" when DA came out? The industry has realized that it's easier to market a game when a company's star power it's behind it. It's both a campaign for the game and a tip to the quality of the game (developers) It's a very common advertisement tactic, elevate the product by paying tribute to the star. I don't think that it's about what the audience wants, in my mind that is what has held any development of the medium as an art. The irony of course is that a lot of the people that want the same games; and don't know the first thing about art, are the ones pushing for games to get treated as an artistic medium. I think that there should be a level of compromise, you give the audience entertainment but not at the cost of your personal vision. Hideo Kojima has been able to do this quite well and find financial success.

Have you any idea of how wrong that was?