Probably one of the most addictive games ever made and yet it was rediculously simple. More games need to come out with bodies just dangling around in death throws.
I miss OpenDoc. It was like a wonderful pallette you could paint anything on. Fully extensible. I guess you could think of it as web pages as documents. It was too advanced for the time and the idea was too hard to explain so it never really caught on. Curse you Jobs for thinking too far ahead.
I saw posters here, nothing on raw walls. The kids look like they are on drugs and the PSP in each image is not being used as you would expect. Skateboard, Paddleball, etc.
Personally it wont sway my choice of handheld game device, but it's interesting to see a corp take this kind of risk. Can't the city sue them?
They never owned a valid trademark to "Risk" as a standalone term
To take that statement out of the context of the discussion would certainly make it look stupid, but since it was in a threaded conversation refering to Risk the Game being recreated using Google Maps API and refered to as Risk the Game on that person's page... I think I was more than clear enough. Either that or you don't bother looking for context.
BTW, they can Copyright their rules, by which I mean they way they wrote their rules and not the mechanics of the rules. The text that explains the mechanics of the game ARE Copyrightable and using them verbatum requires their authorization.
On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.
But they do own the trademark Risk, and have every right to protect it. So while you're right that they can't use copyright, they have every right to protect their trademark. The lawyer was just lazy.
Calvin and Hobbes is art, but Watterson has said that he didn't set out to make it that way- he just wanted to make a good cartoon strip.
Does Watterson call it art?
I agree you need people to experience something for it to be art, but I don't think you can create art by accident. Art is intentionally made by artist.
If intent is not required then it would be possible to have accidental art. Media created without the desire to share experience or emotion, but which accidentily did.
I can't agree that such a think can exist. In order for art to exist you must have an artist (creator). If that creator doesn't desire to share something (or in my words, intend to), then it's not art.
Basket weaving can be art, but more often it's craft.
The same can be said for games. Most games are craft. Some games are art.
But, just as with all those other media, there are some exceptionally artistic games, and in fact I'd say that the medium has more potential than traditional art forms.
I agree. I am very excited about interactive art/games.
I felt sad after I killed some of the Colossi in Shadow of the Colossus, like I had killed some elegant beast. Would this make it qualify as art? The developer was clearly trying to communicate something.
If the developer was attempting to communicate this feeling, then yes, it's art.
GTA has missions in it similar to scenes from The French Connection and Live and Die in LA, how can those be classed as art but a game not?
Just because something looks similar to something that was art, doesn't make it art.
Games can be artistic, and in fact some are.
I agree. But it has to be the creators intention to create a work of art. Pac-Man is not art.
I certainly did. Most of all I felt entertained. Sure, I thought about various issues surrounding warfare, in particular how we use it in entertainment media, but I've done the same thing after picking through an encyclopedia or playing Advance Wars.
Again, this comes back to intention. Did the creators of Saving Private Ryan intend to communicate something about warfare? Was there a message intended by the actors, directors, etc?
Now in Advanced Wars, I don't think there was an intention to communicate a message (at least I didn't notice one.) If there was, then it would be considered art by myself... if not others.
So by your definition, Saving Private Ryan isn't art, but an illustrated dictionary is?
I believe that the creators of Saving Private Ryan were attempting to communicate something to the audience, thus it would qualify as art. Did you not feel anything after viewing that movie?
Users suggest stories. We tell you what we want to read about, and you decide what you write about. This is the pefect mix. Newspapers are not built for this type of input and the head Editor will be unconfortable with any system where the readers decide what they want to read.
You'll be expected to give a detailed breakdown of the structure for each chapter; typically a couple of mostly complete sample chapters; an analysis of the market you're aiming for, any other books in competition with yours and how they compare; a list of key selling points for your book; and plenty more.
I'd be happy with just the first part. A few sample chapters would tell me if I wanted to patronize your book. The real problem with the patron system is getting people to understand and accept it. It worked fine for hundreds of years. The introduction of the middleman in order to print and distrubute works is what inspired copyright. Authors tend to want to be read, even if they don't make money from it.
Under your scheme, all of this might even be impossible, because it's not clear whether it would even be practical to run a bookstore or music radio station profitably.
You would always have the same source your current have, minus the bookstore, which may or may not disappear. There's still no good substitute for text on paper for reading. When there is, books will die. But that's not really a big lose to me. I like trees.
So you only have to be able to do all the work necessary to produce a complete work for free, and then you might get paid something for the next one?
Actually in the fiction world you can't even get considered as an unknown unless the book is done. Yes, you have to show you can produce something people want to read before they are willing to pay you to do it again. Is that really that strange?
It's no more artificial than the concept of physical property: the natural order of things is that you can take what you want unless someone physically stops you. A long time ago, we worked out that there are benefits to recognising the convention of "possession" even where someone is not physically guarding their goods. This generally works, because most people in society respect the convention, and you can effectively charge the few who don't with theft.
Actually "owning" something still comes down to the threat of physical violence, we simply have organized groups to defend our "property rights" for us. We call them police.
There's no particular reason a similar concept shouldn't apply to intellectual property.
I've already outlines several. It's an interesting debate, but I don't think either of us is being swayed by the other's point of view. I'm willing to simply disagree at this point because no new points are coming to mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably one of the most addictive games ever made and yet it was rediculously simple. More games need to come out with bodies just dangling around in death throws.
Better yet, give everyone guns. There's accountability for you.
I miss OpenDoc. It was like a wonderful pallette you could paint anything on. Fully extensible. I guess you could think of it as web pages as documents. It was too advanced for the time and the idea was too hard to explain so it never really caught on. Curse you Jobs for thinking too far ahead.
I saw posters here, nothing on raw walls. The kids look like they are on drugs and the PSP in each image is not being used as you would expect. Skateboard, Paddleball, etc.
Personally it wont sway my choice of handheld game device, but it's interesting to see a corp take this kind of risk. Can't the city sue them?
They never owned a valid trademark to "Risk" as a standalone term
To take that statement out of the context of the discussion would certainly make it look stupid, but since it was in a threaded conversation refering to Risk the Game being recreated using Google Maps API and refered to as Risk the Game on that person's page... I think I was more than clear enough. Either that or you don't bother looking for context.
BTW, they can Copyright their rules, by which I mean they way they wrote their rules and not the mechanics of the rules. The text that explains the mechanics of the game ARE Copyrightable and using them verbatum requires their authorization.
On a side note, that they have now stipulated in a legal notice that "Hasbro Risk" isn't sufficient to differentiate their product in the consumers mind, that they need to be able to expand their title claims to all uses of "Risk" in conjunction with a board game, indicates that the term Risk in conjunction with territorial conquest board games has in fact become generic - a stipulation that I am quite happy to accept.
Did I ever imply otherwise?
But they do own the trademark Risk, and have every right to protect it. So while you're right that they can't use copyright, they have every right to protect their trademark. The lawyer was just lazy.
You could just scam a price gun and change the can of soup from 1.19 to .69 cents? I miss those days.
There are a ton of alternate maps, including world maps and maps of middle earth. Just cut the countries differently and you're good to go.
Allow me to edit:
Most games are not attempting to communicate, but are rather trying to entertain their audience.
Most games are not attempting to communicate as art, but are rather trying to entertain their audience.
You kinda have to be here for the entire thread to get that, but I'm guessing you just jumped in.
Yes - you're aparrently old enough to communicate with the outside world, but seemingly don't realize that you aren't the center of it.
Who are you? You don't fit into my world view.
Calvin and Hobbes is art, but Watterson has said that he didn't set out to make it that way- he just wanted to make a good cartoon strip.
Does Watterson call it art?
I agree you need people to experience something for it to be art, but I don't think you can create art by accident. Art is intentionally made by artist.
Now, the feeling I'd like to convey is that this is a pointless argument. Labels only matter to shallow people.
;-)
Now I feel shallow.
My point is that if Advance Wars was created with the intent of creating art, then it's art. That's it. That's my definition.
I don't get it. No one I know wants one of these things and yet they're running out of them? Something's not right here.
And if the "intention" is to entertain? If the "intention" is to design something to be functional?
The intent must be to create art.
I thought that was self-evident in my definition, but perhaps not.
I disagree that intent is required.
If intent is not required then it would be possible to have accidental art. Media created without the desire to share experience or emotion, but which accidentily did.
I can't agree that such a think can exist. In order for art to exist you must have an artist (creator). If that creator doesn't desire to share something (or in my words, intend to), then it's not art.
Basket weaving can be art, but more often it's craft.
The same can be said for games. Most games are craft. Some games are art.
I think we're on the same page here. I said "most games" are not art. Just so I'm clear I don't agree with Ebert.
But, just as with all those other media, there are some exceptionally artistic games, and in fact I'd say that the medium has more potential than traditional art forms.
I agree. I am very excited about interactive art/games.
You've touched on a good point. Many things that are created are just craft and are not art. Art requires intention. Craft requires skill.
A great movie that entertains but which was never intended to convey a message isn't art. An artist must intend to create art...
I felt sad after I killed some of the Colossi in Shadow of the Colossus, like I had killed some elegant beast. Would this make it qualify as art? The developer was clearly trying to communicate something.
If the developer was attempting to communicate this feeling, then yes, it's art.
GTA has missions in it similar to scenes from The French Connection and Live and Die in LA, how can those be classed as art but a game not?
Just because something looks similar to something that was art, doesn't make it art.
Games can be artistic, and in fact some are.
I agree. But it has to be the creators intention to create a work of art. Pac-Man is not art.
I certainly did. Most of all I felt entertained. Sure, I thought about various issues surrounding warfare, in particular how we use it in entertainment media, but I've done the same thing after picking through an encyclopedia or playing Advance Wars.
Again, this comes back to intention. Did the creators of Saving Private Ryan intend to communicate something about warfare? Was there a message intended by the actors, directors, etc?
Now in Advanced Wars, I don't think there was an intention to communicate a message (at least I didn't notice one.) If there was, then it would be considered art by myself... if not others.
So by your definition, Saving Private Ryan isn't art, but an illustrated dictionary is?
I believe that the creators of Saving Private Ryan were attempting to communicate something to the audience, thus it would qualify as art. Did you not feel anything after viewing that movie?
The question of "What is art" is not an easy one to answer, but IMO most games are not art. My working definition of art is as follows:
Art is that which is created by an artist with the intention of communicating with their audience.
Most games are not attempting to communicate, but are rather trying to entertain their audience.
Users suggest stories. We tell you what we want to read about, and you decide what you write about. This is the pefect mix. Newspapers are not built for this type of input and the head Editor will be unconfortable with any system where the readers decide what they want to read.
You'll be expected to give a detailed breakdown of the structure for each chapter; typically a couple of mostly complete sample chapters; an analysis of the market you're aiming for, any other books in competition with yours and how they compare; a list of key selling points for your book; and plenty more.
I'd be happy with just the first part. A few sample chapters would tell me if I wanted to patronize your book. The real problem with the patron system is getting people to understand and accept it. It worked fine for hundreds of years. The introduction of the middleman in order to print and distrubute works is what inspired copyright. Authors tend to want to be read, even if they don't make money from it.
Under your scheme, all of this might even be impossible, because it's not clear whether it would even be practical to run a bookstore or music radio station profitably.
You would always have the same source your current have, minus the bookstore, which may or may not disappear. There's still no good substitute for text on paper for reading. When there is, books will die. But that's not really a big lose to me. I like trees.
So you only have to be able to do all the work necessary to produce a complete work for free, and then you might get paid something for the next one?
Actually in the fiction world you can't even get considered as an unknown unless the book is done. Yes, you have to show you can produce something people want to read before they are willing to pay you to do it again. Is that really that strange?
It's no more artificial than the concept of physical property: the natural order of things is that you can take what you want unless someone physically stops you. A long time ago, we worked out that there are benefits to recognising the convention of "possession" even where someone is not physically guarding their goods. This generally works, because most people in society respect the convention, and you can effectively charge the few who don't with theft.
Actually "owning" something still comes down to the threat of physical violence, we simply have organized groups to defend our "property rights" for us. We call them police.
There's no particular reason a similar concept shouldn't apply to intellectual property.
I've already outlines several. It's an interesting debate, but I don't think either of us is being swayed by the other's point of view. I'm willing to simply disagree at this point because no new points are coming to mind.