-
Posts
3913 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Orogun01
-
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?
-
Yes, let's blame socialism. I know socialism made me want kill myself.
-
Judging from the huge advertisement campaign made for both DA and ME I think that they have broke some ground when it comes to reaching an audience. Plus there is a flood of people on the Bioboards that came after these two games. I would risk to say that most gamers look to the hype and publicity of AAA games before buying, since none of us want to make the mistake of buying a crappy game. Selling the brand name (dev's team name) as an assurance of the product has become something of a practice. Don't we see a lot of "from the makers of" when it comes to launching new IPs?
-
As enterix said there are those; particularly the BW, that have become a brand. I see no reason why they wouldn't use their name power to push something a little more innovative, specially when they have such great IPs on their back-pocket to fall back in case of a failure. In which case the reception would be a sound "now they can go back to making ME" from it's community, which is one of the main points of criticism when it comes to BW: it listens too much too it's audience. The reason for the lack of risk I don't know, my guess would be pressures from the publisher and since a director it's not indispensable when it comes to developing a game (seeing as the star power lies with the team name) they may be reluctant to push for a new IP. Despite the fact that Indie games have been steadily breaking into the market as successes.
-
No, I believe that there is a lack of interest. Since this bears much similarity to the movie industry I will put an example, for every guaranteed blockbuster that a film company makes theres is at least three flukes that they finance to see if they pan out. This gives new talent a chance to be discovered and to profess their skill, for every three major movies that a director may have they make an artistic one where they risk it for the sake of doing the film. These films are financed because of the names on it, usually well established actors and directors who liked the script and would like to see the movie made. All done without any prospects at the box office, they are dedicated to making that film some to the extent of accepting cuts on their salary. I see no such commitment from the directors and the people in the industry. I'll admit that games are made for an audience and that it plays a big part on the development procedure. But most of the time there seems to be a clear distinction made by developers "If you want to make games for yourself go indie, if you take the resources of others you have to make their game".
-
It's a complicated issue, no doubt. It deals with legal aspects that we don't even have a consensus and are at odds. In one hand we have the right to privacy and self determination over one's body, and on the other the right to live, human life being sacred. I personally still hold that doctors shouldn't be forced into that position, that said I won't let my family suffer all so they can squeeze a few bucks out of my HMO. If only it were a few buck that they were after.
-
Because they are considered more established and because we have grown to believe that they create a more integral person. Games and comics are relatively new and still have to prove themselves; namely produce remarkable work that transcends boundaries and breaks into the mainstream. They both share the same beginning since they both were conceived as children's entertainment that grew as the children grew into adults and sought more mature content. Truth is that just because one person watches the whole Rambo movies, reads the Twilight series or listen to Vanilla Ice, doesn't make them any more knowledgeable or integral. There is work that should be taken purely at entertainment value and there work with serious artistic value. Same is true for games, problem is that it's a hard medium to promote and break into the mainstream. On the other hand there are very few games with real artistic value, so we may be lacking in serious content. That's not what I asked. I meant why does it matter to you? I doesn't, I have no such shame. My beef is more with the lack of actual serious games and the lack of interest amongst the industry to produce them.
-
Comics by themselves and out of the comic strips were targeted towards a younger audience. The problem has always been perception, that's what needs to change; comics had The Sandman as which was treated as a serious book. Even though it was changed afterwards to make sure that no other comic would receive the award, it's that kind of rejection by the the established institutions that have turned comics into their own institution. Same with games. I'm one of those people, abstract expressionism is a piece of crap, I specially hate Duchamps, Warhol and Pollock. Despite this being a low point in art, movements come and go and now we are moving towards more elegant, classical and at the same time technical forms of art. Probably as a reaction to the modernists ideals of originality and content over elegance and aesthetics. Another point in which I find myself agreeing with you, specially the medium part. It's one of the reasons why I believe that games can't be considered art, they don't grow outside of their format and depend solely on the commercial aspects for promotion.
-
Because they are considered more established and because we have grown to believe that they create a more integral person. Games and comics are relatively new and still have to prove themselves; namely produce remarkable work that transcends boundaries and breaks into the mainstream. They both share the same beginning since they both were conceived as children's entertainment that grew as the children grew into adults and sought more mature content. Truth is that just because one person watches the whole Rambo movies, reads the Twilight series or listen to Vanilla Ice, doesn't make them any more knowledgeable or integral. There is work that should be taken purely at entertainment value and there work with serious artistic value. Same is true for games, problem is that it's a hard medium to promote and break into the mainstream. On the other hand there are very few games with real artistic value, so we may be lacking in serious content.
-
In an intrinsic view, yes they are. Since they have no more value than how much they affect us it's up to the audience to assign that value and how much it affects them. That's its the nature of art, it's value is on the eye of the beholder.
-
Get 'im!!! Serious now; I don't now why the whole game shame. No movie critic feels ashamed when they say that Citizen Kane it's the best film ever, even though most people think it's the most boring piece of **** ever filmed. I don't like that there is a double standard, dedicating yourself to music, movies, books or art it's seen as a more noble pursuit than games. Despite the fact that all of them are an equal waste of time and serve the same purpose of enriching your life.
-
Seems like there is no stopping the suicide talks. Can we move it to it's own thread then?Mods?
-
Demon's Souls combat for DA2 would surely silence a lot of PC elitists. But alas. You mean "throw 2 strikes, block and die" that kind of combat?
-
I'd love that!. :runs to see if anyone has made one: edit:Jackpot!
-
Although there is the other side of the coin, a doctor is someone we can trust, who swore an oath to save lives. If assisted suicide is something open for everyone, it becomes a matter of choice amongst the afflicted and his/her family.The doctor should have no obligation, nor choice in a man's death unless it's a medical issue. I agree that a method that's both painless and dignified it's the best way to go, on the other hand that would make the option to appealing. A reason that people don't kill themselves or that they fail, it's because they are afraid of a gruesome death. If suddenly it's marketed as something painless and dignified, those who think about committing the act but stop short because of fear will turn to this "new way".