That is only the guise of it all; it's what they use to justify it. It actually doesn't mean a goddamn thing to the people with money. Copyright protects profit. That's all. No RIAA exec really cares about the promotion of arts--if they did, they'd see that art has EXPANDED through the use of piracy, because more people have access to more art, inspiring more people to create future art. Art has little to do with copyright and most pop artists wouldn't know what art is if John Cage walked up to them and smacked them in the mouth... without making a sound.
That's where you're wrong, see: "The Medium is the Message."
Why do you think those poets experimented with other forms? Maybe because form is important and greatly affects interpretation?
The method of communicating to an audience has a huge impact over how they experience and interpret the ideas you present--any communication expert will tell you that. Ever wonder why it's commonly a failure when people make video games into movies, movies into books, and so forth? There's a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is that conversions between media are difficult. There are things inherent about forms of communication that give them clarity, character, appeal, et cetera. The composition (form) of a specific medium is extremely important.
A video game with great content ideas but whose form is thrown together without a care is going to be a buggy failure. The same goes for verbal communication: if you don't care about how you write, no one will care about your ideas. No one of great competency, anyway. If your content carries any importance at all, you want it to be precise as possible so that there are no miscommunications. You do this by mastering form, not content. One misunderstood word in fragile matters could be the difference between success and failure.
Indeed, you could make arguments of the vice versa: great form without great ideas is useless. The point is that both are essential and should not be ignored.
heya man i wanted 2 get ur windows so my friends like lol just dwonlaod it so im like k and now i guess its illiegiatmate but i didnt no that was bad n stuff so can ig vie you money and stuff i ehard sp2 was kewl thx
I heard about eXeem a while back when SuprNova disbanded... the creator's next project or something. I also heard that it was being backed by spyware companies... so I haven't jumped to try it out. Could someone who has tried out eXeem give their thoughts about it?
From Dvorak: "Some of today's games are ridiculously hard to play--unless gaming is your so-called life--and so daunting to casual players that they will quickly reject them. Who needs to devote themselves to a game just to play it once in a while? I'll take Spider Solitaire instead."
Way to take a jab at MMORPGs without saying the name, John.
I've played nearly every MMORPG on the market: Ultima Online, EverQuest 1 & 2, Asheron's Call 1 & 2, Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot, SWG, and many more including tons beta tests and random Korean games.
So I must think MMORPGs are pretty killer and innovative since I play them so much, right? Well, I don't think they've done much of anything innovative. I think UO and EQ did some interesting things, but beyond that everyone has just been copying each other in the genre and it has only progressed in minor details. No *MAJOR* gameplay enhancements. Even a space MMO, Earth and Beyond, felt and played like EQ, except twice as boring. MMORPG has become another cookie-cutter genre just like FPS and adventure games.
Vanguard, the game in production from Brad McQuaid's new company, looks to be a solid upcoming MMO. But it's not going to revolutionize the genre; at best, it'll revitalize it.
It's good to see games throw ideas around, take ideas that have worked and build from them. But you also need to add your own spin to things, especially in the design if anything. There are only a few MMOs who have done anything interesting at all in terms of design. Anarchy Online probably had some of the best original design, but unfortunately it suffered from sub par gameplay.
MMORPGs haven't contributed much of anything other than massive servers with thousands of people playing together. The idea is great, but it's hardly a gameplay feature. You're not playing with those thousands of people simultaneously; at most you'll be playing with 70 on a guild raid depending on the game. On average you'll be playing with about 6 people in a group, which is less than a FPS. The gameplay is like any other RPG: going around killing monsters for loot and experience. MMORPGs are different from regular RPGs in some ways, but they're far from avant-garde.
When you convert between two mediums, there's always something that's lost--something extra the medium adds to the flavor that we just can't put our fingers on. It's the same way when books get turned into movies: it's just not the same. Movies turned into video games rarely recreate the experience either.
Are people just never satisfied, or is there something inherently bad about the design tactic of imitating a story from another medium? What people really want to see recreated is the story, but what they don't realize is how much the medium affects their interpretation of it. The Final Fantasy movie, Spirits Within, was a huge disappointment to fans of the series. Was it a bad story? Compared to most movies (especially action) it had a lot of depth. Fans were going in expecting to watch a Final Fantasy game take place in front of their eyes; but you don't have the sense of adventure being at your command--the ability to explore and grow on your own.
It's the same with a horror game being transformed into a horror movie. I'm rarely ever frightened by movies, but video games have freaked me out quite a lot. The interactivity reinforces the immersive design, and it makes you feel like you're in danger. No matter how hard the producer tries, they can't recreate the experience, because it's not possible. So, like you said, they should TRY to make it good, but it can't try to do it in the same heart as the game. Maybe that's why video game movies have been so bad: not because producers/directors aren't being true enough, but because they're trying too hard to be.
Is making these video game movies actually profitable? They've been becoming more frequent, but they're rarely of any quality. I suppose a generic horror film named after a video game is going to sell better than one that's not.
Call me cynical, but I really don't see them coming close to recreating the game experience. The immersion and interactivity combined is what makes it so great. So what's the point, if any, other than the old $?
Well, if I can speak up for him, the majority (but not all) of professors at Universities are liberal. It's a side effect of "open mindedness"--or at least the ideals resulting from academia. So, it's not necessarily the fact that you're "smarter," but the higher you've gone in the education system, the more liberal lectures and reading material you've probably encountered. It brushes off on people. Now, I am speaking generally here, I know it's possible to go through the system as a conservative and maintain being conservative, but most students entering college are for the most part pretty apathetic; it's not that conservative ideals are easily broken, it's just that liberal ideals are either built upon or reinforced. Alternatively, some people go through education being liberal, and then become conservative once they get a great job and make lots of money. The lifestyles match the ideals. Go figure.
The above post is obviously a marketer attempting thwart your claim and spin it positively! "I used to race huskys too. You want fries with that GPS unit?"
I'm sure that would be a great PR move for Bill! I can just smell the religious boycotts.
I agree with you that the beliefs are outdated, but there's just no way to go about this. It's got to come across naturally. I think we've come along way since the advent of the printing press. Sure there are still some stragglers out there holding onto absurd ancient values. They do slow down things, but it's not always a bad thing. Sometimes we do need to stop and look at the moral implications of new advances, especially in the field of science. Occasionally there is more to them than some irrelevant thing jotted down in scripture; there are things like genetic engineering that could really change the fabric of our society, and it's nothing we should jump into. Too much change too fast can be just as fatal as too slow change. A balance is a good thing.
"...even though the original Gator software can be considered one of the original plague carriers of the spyware blight -- be careful about calling it that. The company has repeatedly threatened its critics with libel lawsuits for dubbing it "spyware.""
Of course Gator isn't "spyware!!!" It is a perfectly fine way of business. Excuse me, I'm off to break into homes, hide, and pop up out of nowhere to sell viagra and insurance. Maybe I'll bug some phones for marketing information while I'm there.
Slashdot Mirror
That is only the guise of it all; it's what they use to justify it. It actually doesn't mean a goddamn thing to the people with money. Copyright protects profit. That's all. No RIAA exec really cares about the promotion of arts--if they did, they'd see that art has EXPANDED through the use of piracy, because more people have access to more art, inspiring more people to create future art. Art has little to do with copyright and most pop artists wouldn't know what art is if John Cage walked up to them and smacked them in the mouth... without making a sound.
That's where you're wrong, see: "The Medium is the Message."
Why do you think those poets experimented with other forms? Maybe because form is important and greatly affects interpretation?
The method of communicating to an audience has a huge impact over how they experience and interpret the ideas you present--any communication expert will tell you that. Ever wonder why it's commonly a failure when people make video games into movies, movies into books, and so forth? There's a variety of reasons, but one of the main ones is that conversions between media are difficult. There are things inherent about forms of communication that give them clarity, character, appeal, et cetera. The composition (form) of a specific medium is extremely important.
A video game with great content ideas but whose form is thrown together without a care is going to be a buggy failure. The same goes for verbal communication: if you don't care about how you write, no one will care about your ideas. No one of great competency, anyway. If your content carries any importance at all, you want it to be precise as possible so that there are no miscommunications. You do this by mastering form, not content. One misunderstood word in fragile matters could be the difference between success and failure.
Indeed, you could make arguments of the vice versa: great form without great ideas is useless. The point is that both are essential and should not be ignored.
dear bill gates
heya man i wanted 2 get ur windows so my friends like lol just dwonlaod it so im like k and now i guess its illiegiatmate but i didnt no that was bad n stuff so can ig vie you money and stuff i ehard sp2 was kewl thx
jimmy g
I heard about eXeem a while back when SuprNova disbanded... the creator's next project or something. I also heard that it was being backed by spyware companies... so I haven't jumped to try it out. Could someone who has tried out eXeem give their thoughts about it?
From Dvorak:
"Some of today's games are ridiculously hard to play--unless gaming is your so-called life--and so daunting to casual players that they will quickly reject them. Who needs to devote themselves to a game just to play it once in a while? I'll take Spider Solitaire instead."
Way to take a jab at MMORPGs without saying the name, John. I've played nearly every MMORPG on the market: Ultima Online, EverQuest 1 & 2, Asheron's Call 1 & 2, Anarchy Online, Dark Age of Camelot, SWG, and many more including tons beta tests and random Korean games.
So I must think MMORPGs are pretty killer and innovative since I play them so much, right? Well, I don't think they've done much of anything innovative. I think UO and EQ did some interesting things, but beyond that everyone has just been copying each other in the genre and it has only progressed in minor details. No *MAJOR* gameplay enhancements. Even a space MMO, Earth and Beyond, felt and played like EQ, except twice as boring. MMORPG has become another cookie-cutter genre just like FPS and adventure games.
Vanguard, the game in production from Brad McQuaid's new company, looks to be a solid upcoming MMO. But it's not going to revolutionize the genre; at best, it'll revitalize it.
It's good to see games throw ideas around, take ideas that have worked and build from them. But you also need to add your own spin to things, especially in the design if anything. There are only a few MMOs who have done anything interesting at all in terms of design. Anarchy Online probably had some of the best original design, but unfortunately it suffered from sub par gameplay.
MMORPGs haven't contributed much of anything other than massive servers with thousands of people playing together. The idea is great, but it's hardly a gameplay feature. You're not playing with those thousands of people simultaneously; at most you'll be playing with 70 on a guild raid depending on the game. On average you'll be playing with about 6 people in a group, which is less than a FPS. The gameplay is like any other RPG: going around killing monsters for loot and experience. MMORPGs are different from regular RPGs in some ways, but they're far from avant-garde.
Oh, and I somehow became braindead a moment ago because the plural of medium is obviously media.
When you convert between two mediums, there's always something that's lost--something extra the medium adds to the flavor that we just can't put our fingers on. It's the same way when books get turned into movies: it's just not the same. Movies turned into video games rarely recreate the experience either.
Are people just never satisfied, or is there something inherently bad about the design tactic of imitating a story from another medium? What people really want to see recreated is the story, but what they don't realize is how much the medium affects their interpretation of it. The Final Fantasy movie, Spirits Within, was a huge disappointment to fans of the series. Was it a bad story? Compared to most movies (especially action) it had a lot of depth. Fans were going in expecting to watch a Final Fantasy game take place in front of their eyes; but you don't have the sense of adventure being at your command--the ability to explore and grow on your own.
It's the same with a horror game being transformed into a horror movie. I'm rarely ever frightened by movies, but video games have freaked me out quite a lot. The interactivity reinforces the immersive design, and it makes you feel like you're in danger. No matter how hard the producer tries, they can't recreate the experience, because it's not possible. So, like you said, they should TRY to make it good, but it can't try to do it in the same heart as the game. Maybe that's why video game movies have been so bad: not because producers/directors aren't being true enough, but because they're trying too hard to be.
What's up with this Anonymous Coward battle going on? Someone send for a butcher.
There are gamers who own Macs and not a PC?
???
Is making these video game movies actually profitable? They've been becoming more frequent, but they're rarely of any quality. I suppose a generic horror film named after a video game is going to sell better than one that's not. Call me cynical, but I really don't see them coming close to recreating the game experience. The immersion and interactivity combined is what makes it so great. So what's the point, if any, other than the old $?
Well, if I can speak up for him, the majority (but not all) of professors at Universities are liberal. It's a side effect of "open mindedness"--or at least the ideals resulting from academia. So, it's not necessarily the fact that you're "smarter," but the higher you've gone in the education system, the more liberal lectures and reading material you've probably encountered. It brushes off on people. Now, I am speaking generally here, I know it's possible to go through the system as a conservative and maintain being conservative, but most students entering college are for the most part pretty apathetic; it's not that conservative ideals are easily broken, it's just that liberal ideals are either built upon or reinforced. Alternatively, some people go through education being liberal, and then become conservative once they get a great job and make lots of money. The lifestyles match the ideals. Go figure.
The above post is obviously a marketer attempting thwart your claim and spin it positively! "I used to race huskys too. You want fries with that GPS unit?"
I'm sure that would be a great PR move for Bill! I can just smell the religious boycotts.
I agree with you that the beliefs are outdated, but there's just no way to go about this. It's got to come across naturally. I think we've come along way since the advent of the printing press. Sure there are still some stragglers out there holding onto absurd ancient values. They do slow down things, but it's not always a bad thing. Sometimes we do need to stop and look at the moral implications of new advances, especially in the field of science. Occasionally there is more to them than some irrelevant thing jotted down in scripture; there are things like genetic engineering that could really change the fabric of our society, and it's nothing we should jump into. Too much change too fast can be just as fatal as too slow change. A balance is a good thing.
He wanted to watch Mulholland Drive with his mother? I hope he's comfortable watching it her when the hot lesbian scene comes on.
repeat after me: "communism is good."
Actually, it is out on DVD... in the UK, at least.
A 8/202-8389048-6566215
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0007L6S
"Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Sleep!!!" You don't want him in the military?
"...even though the original Gator software can be considered one of the original plague carriers of the spyware blight -- be careful about calling it that. The company has repeatedly threatened its critics with libel lawsuits for dubbing it "spyware.""
Of course Gator isn't "spyware!!!" It is a perfectly fine way of business. Excuse me, I'm off to break into homes, hide, and pop up out of nowhere to sell viagra and insurance. Maybe I'll bug some phones for marketing information while I'm there.