When there's a sniper on a rooftop that usually means people will die and the longer he stays there the more will die. Going up to arrest him not only takes time but also could end with him shooting police officers. In this case the police will try to prevent innocent and officer deaths first before protecting the life of the sniper. You can't go around threatening people and expecting no response, people think you're serious and when it looks like you're going to kill them they'd rather kill you first.
Yes, many games are just there for the raw entertainment value.
Perhaps that's where we need to ask the question what the purpose of art is. Isn't art created for enjoyment? What is the purpose of a painting? Is it to be interesting to look at? Is it to tell a deeper story? Or is it just to have a status symbol to hang on your wall to look like you're educated? My money's on the last option, modern art has reduced the concept to its foundations by cheaply making something that the buyer can feel good about owning, possibly revelling in the knowledge that noone but him knows the deeper meaning of the picture (though he just read it off the label).
Can art not be pure enjoyment? Must it always critique something? Is it valid to call something like Lord of the Rings, the Foundation series or even Un Chien Andalou art when they don't have a deeper meaning (Tolkien was opposed to interpretation, Asimov just didn't seem to care and Bunuel/Dali specifically wanted to make something that could not be interpreted)?
I think that sentence right there shows that Bioshock isn't a game that is art but a game that contains art. If you can strip the game part without significantly impacting the art then it's not using the medium it chose properly. The game medium has its own unique traits and an artist should only choose the medium if he wants these traits in his work (sure, the market is a trait too but don't movies make more money still?). Many seem to be fighting the traits of their chosen medium, writing a static story and forcing the player to play through it (basically giving him a work sheet to complete between the story scenes) rather than using the interactivity of the game as a central component of their work. When you don't want to make a game perhaps you really shouldn't make one. Think about the traits you need for your work and then choose the medium, don't make a movie out of a painting, a book out of a play or a game out of a story.
To be recognized as a medium for art games must find their own strengths instead of merely copying other media. Show the critics something that makes them say "this could only be expressed in a videogame!".
I always use the word "fun" in such a context to describe enjoyment, the positive response towards experiencing something you like experiencing. Whatever the emotion the medium wants to evoke, there's also the part of enjoyment that makes one go "wow, this was a good _____".
History might be a better teacher than fiction when it comes to totalitarianism. Living in Germany means history lessons spend a lot of time on the third Reich including its origins with faked terrorist attacks, knee-jerk "national security" laws being passed in the wake and general bitterness and hate left over from the first world war. Meanwhile behind the wall (at least before it fell, of course) there was a prime example of a communist police state. Who needs fiction when history contains all the lessons much more clearly?
Fahrenheit 451 was about decadence and mass media consumption, not censorship (burning the books was just a result as the dumb masses got scared of even knowing someone has books and might be one of the smart people). I don't think any common description of the life in communist countries involves consumerism and media overload.
Patents have a very wide scope since they are designed to prevent people working around them. If, say, LOTR was covered by a patent noone would be allowed to use orcs in any fiction or use any story or setting that's somewhat similar to LOTR. Copyright only covers direct copies and derivatives so e.g. your story wouldn't have to just involve a dark lord and an artifact of doom but a whole lot more specifics. You can write a book about a wizard in school and not get in trouble with the Harry Potter copyright. You can create a cartoon mouse that talks with other animals despite Mickey Mouse, etc.
Why is it unlikely? The person had money and was willing to pay it for the game. The buyer might even have assumed everything was legal and considered it a better deal than the official one.
Should be added that the "wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is in part based on the current perception of value, the value of a game is seen as very low when one is used to downloading games for free. Of course it seems way too expensive to get a 50€ game when all the others one "gets" are for free.
To my knowledge, the games pre-loaded on this set are also currently out of production
They aren't, some are already on the VC, others are in classic game collections released by other companies. Sure, many aren't but there's still a large number of games that are still sold.
They would have gotten at least extended to 28 years. Hell, Nintendo is STILL selling them. People are STILL buying them. IMO they deserve those sales when they manage to make something that stays relevant for such a long time. Most games just fade into obscurity within maybe 3 years.
Besides, if they were really free for everyone it wouldn't be a selling point to pre-load them on a console.
I'd give a game with levels and autolevelling an F for including a feature and negating it. All that does is add confusion, especially if it's possible to level incorrectly, making the enemies grow faster than yourself which means the player has to go munchkin or end up with an unplayable savegame.
Your superiors won't be impressed by that excuse. You make a game for the customer, not a game that somehow stands independent of the customer. If you want to spend your spare time on a hobby project, sure, it doesn't matter if people don't get it but when you're working in a company you better make sure there is nothing about the game that's "not to get" because that's just a way of blaming the customer instead of your product for the failure of your product. The customer was there before you designed your product, why didn't you make something he will "get"?
With autoscaling you really don't need to be 'careful' as you play... the overall difficulty of a mission will be they same if you play it at level 5 or 50.
Weren't there a lot of complaints about how easy it is to "mis-level" in Oblivion and not growing enough in combat power compared to your level so the game actually gets HARDER if you level up carelessly and improving non-combat skills could resulrt in becoming too weak to go anywhere?
Slashdot Mirror
Which is different from games about any war, how?
When there's a sniper on a rooftop that usually means people will die and the longer he stays there the more will die. Going up to arrest him not only takes time but also could end with him shooting police officers. In this case the police will try to prevent innocent and officer deaths first before protecting the life of the sniper. You can't go around threatening people and expecting no response, people think you're serious and when it looks like you're going to kill them they'd rather kill you first.
Yes, many games are just there for the raw entertainment value.
Perhaps that's where we need to ask the question what the purpose of art is. Isn't art created for enjoyment? What is the purpose of a painting? Is it to be interesting to look at? Is it to tell a deeper story? Or is it just to have a status symbol to hang on your wall to look like you're educated? My money's on the last option, modern art has reduced the concept to its foundations by cheaply making something that the buyer can feel good about owning, possibly revelling in the knowledge that noone but him knows the deeper meaning of the picture (though he just read it off the label).
Can art not be pure enjoyment? Must it always critique something? Is it valid to call something like Lord of the Rings, the Foundation series or even Un Chien Andalou art when they don't have a deeper meaning (Tolkien was opposed to interpretation, Asimov just didn't seem to care and Bunuel/Dali specifically wanted to make something that could not be interpreted)?
In closing, why is Pong not art?
It would of made an excellent novel.
I think that sentence right there shows that Bioshock isn't a game that is art but a game that contains art. If you can strip the game part without significantly impacting the art then it's not using the medium it chose properly. The game medium has its own unique traits and an artist should only choose the medium if he wants these traits in his work (sure, the market is a trait too but don't movies make more money still?). Many seem to be fighting the traits of their chosen medium, writing a static story and forcing the player to play through it (basically giving him a work sheet to complete between the story scenes) rather than using the interactivity of the game as a central component of their work. When you don't want to make a game perhaps you really shouldn't make one. Think about the traits you need for your work and then choose the medium, don't make a movie out of a painting, a book out of a play or a game out of a story.
To be recognized as a medium for art games must find their own strengths instead of merely copying other media. Show the critics something that makes them say "this could only be expressed in a videogame!".
I always use the word "fun" in such a context to describe enjoyment, the positive response towards experiencing something you like experiencing. Whatever the emotion the medium wants to evoke, there's also the part of enjoyment that makes one go "wow, this was a good _____".
Wouldn't success also require a userbase that cares about the concept of Home?
Join the Navy!
It was said that books got banned because the people demanded it, they were afraid of people who had an attention span long enough to read a book.
History might be a better teacher than fiction when it comes to totalitarianism. Living in Germany means history lessons spend a lot of time on the third Reich including its origins with faked terrorist attacks, knee-jerk "national security" laws being passed in the wake and general bitterness and hate left over from the first world war. Meanwhile behind the wall (at least before it fell, of course) there was a prime example of a communist police state. Who needs fiction when history contains all the lessons much more clearly?
Fahrenheit 451 was about decadence and mass media consumption, not censorship (burning the books was just a result as the dumb masses got scared of even knowing someone has books and might be one of the smart people). I don't think any common description of the life in communist countries involves consumerism and media overload.
If we go "early" shouldn't we reach Verne and Wells?
Reading something limits your imagination, just sit down and think up your own story (or get up and LIVE your own story).
88 is sometimes seen as a short form of Heil Hitler, it's also the diameter of the most popular cannon the Nazis used...
At least some of them are still being sold by the rightsholders. The Wii Virtual Console made a lot of companies dig up their old ROMs.
Patents have a very wide scope since they are designed to prevent people working around them. If, say, LOTR was covered by a patent noone would be allowed to use orcs in any fiction or use any story or setting that's somewhat similar to LOTR. Copyright only covers direct copies and derivatives so e.g. your story wouldn't have to just involve a dark lord and an artifact of doom but a whole lot more specifics. You can write a book about a wizard in school and not get in trouble with the Harry Potter copyright. You can create a cartoon mouse that talks with other animals despite Mickey Mouse, etc.
Level 80? You consider that early? I rarely make it into the double digits in MMORPGs. They're way too boring usually.
Why is it unlikely? The person had money and was willing to pay it for the game. The buyer might even have assumed everything was legal and considered it a better deal than the official one.
Should be added that the "wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument is in part based on the current perception of value, the value of a game is seen as very low when one is used to downloading games for free. Of course it seems way too expensive to get a 50€ game when all the others one "gets" are for free.
Contra. Super Mario Bros. Bomberman. These aren't games noone is interested in selling, they ARE being sold.
To my knowledge, the games pre-loaded on this set are also currently out of production
They aren't, some are already on the VC, others are in classic game collections released by other companies. Sure, many aren't but there's still a large number of games that are still sold.
They would have gotten at least extended to 28 years. Hell, Nintendo is STILL selling them. People are STILL buying them. IMO they deserve those sales when they manage to make something that stays relevant for such a long time. Most games just fade into obscurity within maybe 3 years.
Besides, if they were really free for everyone it wouldn't be a selling point to pre-load them on a console.
Well, it isn't a particularly good game. It tells a nice story and such but as a game it's a mindless hack&slash.
I'd give a game with levels and autolevelling an F for including a feature and negating it. All that does is add confusion, especially if it's possible to level incorrectly, making the enemies grow faster than yourself which means the player has to go munchkin or end up with an unplayable savegame.
Your superiors won't be impressed by that excuse. You make a game for the customer, not a game that somehow stands independent of the customer. If you want to spend your spare time on a hobby project, sure, it doesn't matter if people don't get it but when you're working in a company you better make sure there is nothing about the game that's "not to get" because that's just a way of blaming the customer instead of your product for the failure of your product. The customer was there before you designed your product, why didn't you make something he will "get"?
With autoscaling you really don't need to be 'careful' as you play ... the overall difficulty of a mission will be they same if you play it at level 5 or 50.
Weren't there a lot of complaints about how easy it is to "mis-level" in Oblivion and not growing enough in combat power compared to your level so the game actually gets HARDER if you level up carelessly and improving non-combat skills could resulrt in becoming too weak to go anywhere?