And the self-satisfaction of game developers will help them get around the limitations placed on games as a medium due to their perception by the populace at large... how?
I have heard good things about Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, though I haven't actually played either.
Play them. If you think Zelda was good... yeah you'll like these.
They focus more on the interactivity and emotional side, if you are looking for more focus on plot and thematic depth, I would recommend Silent Hill 2.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but as an argument it is largely predicated on games relying on cinematographic artistry, with a story-driven experience being the only option above and beyond simple entertaining gameplay.
In a a truly artistic game, the gameplay is the experience, while simultaneously being fun and entertaining, and the characteristics inherited from literature and cinema, such as the overly-long cutscenes, merely support the gameplay.
Games can do this now and have done this. Just not many because, as you say, most people don't want them. But people look at gaming and see the mainstream garbage and judge that there is no potential for art, apparently without realising that a similarly generalised test of other media exposed to the mainstream would yield a similar result.
So, censor things so that everything is safe for children, so that children can learn 'responsibility' by living in a world where everything is safe for them.
Right. Because giving a child responsibilities is impossible in a context where a child actually needs to be responsible.
Ico and, to a lesser degree, Shadow of the Colossus, rely on the interactivity to communicate the most significant aspects of the 'story' (if you can call the more abstract things they try to get across 'stories'), relegating the elements that games inherited from literature and cinema to supporting roles.
This makes them the only real attempts at truly artistic games (rather than games with artistic elements) that I know of, since most, as you point out, are artistic only in literary or cinematographic ways.
...how crap Wikipedia's idea of a worthwhile reference is. I've seen many discussion pages where people have wanted to add in information which is 'generally known' (and it genuinely is generally known), but there is no verifiable source who states it, or a source who states it doesn't meet their standards. On the other side we now have 'reliable' sources proving unreliable (the reason why, and the wiki-fail-circle is actually fairly irrelevant).
Wikipedia is merely a vaguely accurate primer on any topic, and you generally have to at least skim the discussion page to get even that. While they continue to adhere to arbitrary standards to the point of complete detachment from reality, it can never be anything more.
All this talk of pushing further changes in Windows to enforce best practice on a bunch of programmers who have been doing things the same way for over a decade, just to allow a demographic of users known for not being able to handle a computer intelligently to handle their computers intelligently, all to stop malware after it has already successfully started executing on the target system, is very nice and all, but personally I just tell people to use FF and install antivirus and a decent firewall.
I mean, it would be nice if Windows was Linux, but since it's not, I just choose to go with what works on Windows, rather than shoehorning in something that works on Linux.
I was hoping that someone would bring up an example like this, so that I could point out that America asks for blessings from their deity on their endeavours, whereas others choose to credit the deity with part or all of the achievement.
He's basically making the following claim: I can do a non-scientific survey and publish the results. Therefore, anyone publishing results must also be doing a non-scientific survey.
Try RTFA.
The claim he is making is that people publish results using correlation to imply causation just to get readers, with a nonsensical example to emphasise the point which, lo and behold, got people to read it.
The problem is that, as someone said above, he is 'preaching to the converted'.
What is a leaderboard? A competition. A competition with who? Other players. Thus, leaderboards are a form of multiplayer.
No, single player does not require Internet access to function, by definition.
And if your games lock away content and require 'achievements' to unlock it, that's a problem with the poorly designed games you are playing. Just as with the DRM, the game doesn't require the Internet, the unnecessary hoops they make you jump through do.
Must have been a while since you cracked something. These days you just go to one of the more legit sites, pick a crack for your language and patch, and you're set. I crack everything as a matter of course, since everything at least requires the disk in the drive these days, never had trojans or the like.
Practical? We are talking about the same thing here? The security feature which is -by definition- insecure? Designed to stop piracy but has no effect? Designed not to impede legitimate users in playing games but does so anyway? Practical?
Slashdot Mirror
No one wants to play a dumbed-down game for the masses.
On the contrary, dumbed down games for the masses outsell intelligent/artistic games pretty much every time.
Also, how does an advisory rating reduce the target demographic?
I wasn't referring to the rating per se, but rather the phenomenon I just referred to above.
You mean the eve-o rickrolls also feature a forum, right?
And the self-satisfaction of game developers will help them get around the limitations placed on games as a medium due to their perception by the populace at large... how?
I take it that intentionally aiming the game in question at a smaller target demographic will be explained to the shareholders by you?
I have heard good things about Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, though I haven't actually played either.
Play them. If you think Zelda was good... yeah you'll like these.
They focus more on the interactivity and emotional side, if you are looking for more focus on plot and thematic depth, I would recommend Silent Hill 2.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but as an argument it is largely predicated on games relying on cinematographic artistry, with a story-driven experience being the only option above and beyond simple entertaining gameplay.
In a a truly artistic game, the gameplay is the experience, while simultaneously being fun and entertaining, and the characteristics inherited from literature and cinema, such as the overly-long cutscenes, merely support the gameplay.
Games can do this now and have done this. Just not many because, as you say, most people don't want them. But people look at gaming and see the mainstream garbage and judge that there is no potential for art, apparently without realising that a similarly generalised test of other media exposed to the mainstream would yield a similar result.
Be that as it may, if the world is run amok with deviants, happily blending in despite your virtuosity will not achieve much.
That videogaming is so mainstream now is the biggest blow struck in recent years to 'art' games.
So, censor things so that everything is safe for children, so that children can learn 'responsibility' by living in a world where everything is safe for them.
Right. Because giving a child responsibilities is impossible in a context where a child actually needs to be responsible.
Ico and, to a lesser degree, Shadow of the Colossus, rely on the interactivity to communicate the most significant aspects of the 'story' (if you can call the more abstract things they try to get across 'stories'), relegating the elements that games inherited from literature and cinema to supporting roles.
This makes them the only real attempts at truly artistic games (rather than games with artistic elements) that I know of, since most, as you point out, are artistic only in literary or cinematographic ways.
The experiment succeeded, most people just don't know how to interpret the results.
...how crap Wikipedia's idea of a worthwhile reference is. I've seen many discussion pages where people have wanted to add in information which is 'generally known' (and it genuinely is generally known), but there is no verifiable source who states it, or a source who states it doesn't meet their standards. On the other side we now have 'reliable' sources proving unreliable (the reason why, and the wiki-fail-circle is actually fairly irrelevant).
Wikipedia is merely a vaguely accurate primer on any topic, and you generally have to at least skim the discussion page to get even that. While they continue to adhere to arbitrary standards to the point of complete detachment from reality, it can never be anything more.
only the most trivial things can be done solo
Speak for yourself. Anything but solo is easy mode, tbh.
All this talk of pushing further changes in Windows to enforce best practice on a bunch of programmers who have been doing things the same way for over a decade, just to allow a demographic of users known for not being able to handle a computer intelligently to handle their computers intelligently, all to stop malware after it has already successfully started executing on the target system, is very nice and all, but personally I just tell people to use FF and install antivirus and a decent firewall.
I mean, it would be nice if Windows was Linux, but since it's not, I just choose to go with what works on Windows, rather than shoehorning in something that works on Linux.
Adults should be free to buy whatever the hell games they want.
They are.
You really should consider reading the article.
I was hoping that someone would bring up an example like this, so that I could point out that America asks for blessings from their deity on their endeavours, whereas others choose to credit the deity with part or all of the achievement.
Parodies are not usually held to the same standards of quality as the subject they are parodying.
The real achievement here may be that religion was instrumental in space flight.
He's basically making the following claim: I can do a non-scientific survey and publish the results. Therefore, anyone publishing results must also be doing a non-scientific survey.
Try RTFA.
The claim he is making is that people publish results using correlation to imply causation just to get readers, with a nonsensical example to emphasise the point which, lo and behold, got people to read it.
The problem is that, as someone said above, he is 'preaching to the converted'.
What is a leaderboard? A competition. A competition with who? Other players. Thus, leaderboards are a form of multiplayer.
No, single player does not require Internet access to function, by definition.
And if your games lock away content and require 'achievements' to unlock it, that's a problem with the poorly designed games you are playing. Just as with the DRM, the game doesn't require the Internet, the unnecessary hoops they make you jump through do.
Copyright infringement and/or unauthorized downloading are not stealing.
Stop paying so much attention to those videos which accuse you of being a thief at the start of DVDs you legally purchased.
As for failed business model, see previous sentence for a subtle hint.
The only way to make a platformer where you can't fall better is to make the end of the story a platform-specific long-term rental.
Must have been a while since you cracked something. These days you just go to one of the more legit sites, pick a crack for your language and patch, and you're set. I crack everything as a matter of course, since everything at least requires the disk in the drive these days, never had trojans or the like.
DRM [...] practical
Practical? We are talking about the same thing here? The security feature which is -by definition- insecure? Designed to stop piracy but has no effect? Designed not to impede legitimate users in playing games but does so anyway? Practical?
Not programming your games to fail does even better than 'more often than not'.