I also have a friend in his 30s with a DS, and another friend in his late-20s with a PSP. The guy with the PSP hasn't touched it in several months. He's a real hype-boy so he's playing his XBox 360 now.
After Gamecube, I figured that the Revolution would be another dismal failure. But now, after the DS, I'm not so sure. I seem to be getting more excited about the Revolution as time moves forward.
Could it be that The Warriors game isn't selling well because it's based on one of the cheesiest movies ever created? I know that the movie is a cult hit, but it really freaking sucks. I like to watch it now and then to get a good laugh in, but other than that it bores the crap out of me. I love GTA, I had a great time with San Andreas, but I can't bring myself close to buying The Warriors game because that "franchise" feels like bane to me. Big mistake, Rockstar. It doesn't matter how good a game is, people won't buy it if it's based on something that conjures negative associations. Though I get the feeling that The Warriors is probably a decent game based on a horrible movie. You know, as in the opposite of Star Wars Galaxies;)
Why are you such a complete retard? We both know that Star Wars Galaxies does not come close to the solid design, brilliant artistic style, or enjoyable player experience of World of Warcraft. Stop acting like it ever will. If you want my advice, try designing a new game that doesn't suck large donkey nuts.
The way I see it, games have a whole lot of artistic elements that are tacked onto a non-artistic core concept - Interactivity.
Is a cut scene an art? Yes
Is an animated sprite art? Sure
Is a 3D model art? Yep
Is game music art? You bet!
Is the game of chess an art? No...
I simply refuse to believe that anything that is based on user interaction can be considered art. However, parts and pieces of that full interactive experience can be considered art.
For example, a game might use a cut scene video to portray a scenario and mood. I totally agree that this is artwork, it's just like any movie! But if you allow the user to play the character during the cut scene, it's going to turn into something stupid.
Think of any scene from your favorite movie and put a typical, ADD-driven, teenage gamer into the role of one of the characters. Give him total control over that character's actions. Is the scene going to still have the same feeling if that player decides to run around the room, jumping up and down constantly, trying to find easter eggs and hidden things while something emotional is going on?
Art just doesn't really seem to remain artistic to me when it's interactive. So yes, I agree with Ebert. Though I do feel like the non-interactive parts of games come from artistic mediums of different varieties - movies, sound, graphics - I do not feel like the interactive core of video games is at all artistic.
Slashdot Mirror
I also have a friend in his 30s with a DS, and another friend in his late-20s with a PSP. The guy with the PSP hasn't touched it in several months. He's a real hype-boy so he's playing his XBox 360 now.
After Gamecube, I figured that the Revolution would be another dismal failure. But now, after the DS, I'm not so sure. I seem to be getting more excited about the Revolution as time moves forward.
Could it be that The Warriors game isn't selling well because it's based on one of the cheesiest movies ever created? I know that the movie is a cult hit, but it really freaking sucks. I like to watch it now and then to get a good laugh in, but other than that it bores the crap out of me. I love GTA, I had a great time with San Andreas, but I can't bring myself close to buying The Warriors game because that "franchise" feels like bane to me. Big mistake, Rockstar. It doesn't matter how good a game is, people won't buy it if it's based on something that conjures negative associations. Though I get the feeling that The Warriors is probably a decent game based on a horrible movie. You know, as in the opposite of Star Wars Galaxies ;)
Why are you such a complete retard? We both know that Star Wars Galaxies does not come close to the solid design, brilliant artistic style, or enjoyable player experience of World of Warcraft. Stop acting like it ever will. If you want my advice, try designing a new game that doesn't suck large donkey nuts.
The way I see it, games have a whole lot of artistic elements that are tacked onto a non-artistic core concept - Interactivity. Is a cut scene an art? Yes Is an animated sprite art? Sure Is a 3D model art? Yep Is game music art? You bet! Is the game of chess an art? No... I simply refuse to believe that anything that is based on user interaction can be considered art. However, parts and pieces of that full interactive experience can be considered art. For example, a game might use a cut scene video to portray a scenario and mood. I totally agree that this is artwork, it's just like any movie! But if you allow the user to play the character during the cut scene, it's going to turn into something stupid. Think of any scene from your favorite movie and put a typical, ADD-driven, teenage gamer into the role of one of the characters. Give him total control over that character's actions. Is the scene going to still have the same feeling if that player decides to run around the room, jumping up and down constantly, trying to find easter eggs and hidden things while something emotional is going on? Art just doesn't really seem to remain artistic to me when it's interactive. So yes, I agree with Ebert. Though I do feel like the non-interactive parts of games come from artistic mediums of different varieties - movies, sound, graphics - I do not feel like the interactive core of video games is at all artistic.