Please do not read this if you are not interested in my answer to Goat Abuser's last post directed towards me.
Goat Perverted
At least as a troll you are are trying, but it still lacks the finesse for the amusement, and it will only get you the Dumbfuck tag and perhaps also me, if i continue to answer to you. But because of my Humanistic ideals i will answer this, so you may make yourself some thoughts about some things, and this answer is also for other people, who confuse science with other things like philosphy.
Your used (flawed) definition of art and therefore your (flawed) approach:
Art as somekinda REDUCTION where you basicaly take a thing and reduce it to its most essential elements, because this thing it cant really be expressed any other way...
This specifies an irreducible artifact or set of certain attributes, which can be a kind of art (minimalism may be a good example), but it
is not the only one kind of art. Especially if we take the surrealism and realism (art of painting) into a consideration. By your definition Mona Lisa is not art, because certain parts are reducible. Even the wikipedia has defined it much better, than the definition you are using. Please read it. I will now state now that the art lies in the eye of the beholder, and is as a subjective interpretation of aesthetics, but a certain attribute is required for calling it art: the human agency.
The definition of science is much more complicated to explain, but i will try:
Science is the systematic pursuit of knowledge (study) of the nature and behavior of the observable universe, by using the scientific method, with observation, experiment and measurement. Its goals is to formulate laws and theories to describe the processes and objects of the observable universe.
The scientific Method is a toolkit of techniques for investigating and describing the observed phenomena, which are based on empirical measurements and evidence, to correct previous knowledge and to reduce systematically the errors in experiments and analysis.
This Tools are based on statistics, mathematics, logic and previous observations / experience.
From Observations and Assumptions we develop a Hypothesis, which is tested by an experiment, from which we gather Data for a analysis. This analysis let us draw a Conclusion by which we update our Hypothesis. This is the Scientific Method as the cycle, which should lead to a Theory.
To condense this statement: Science is only made with the scientific method and the scientific method is mathematics. Or as Roger Bacon stated in Opus maius:
1) "Et harum scientiarum porta et clavis est Mathematica" Translated: Mathematics is the door and key to the sciences.
2) He who is ignorant of this [mathematics] cannot know the other sciences nor the affairs of this world.
3) If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics, in so far as disposed through it we are able to reach certainty in other sciences and truth by the exclusion of error.
The Quintessence is in science used only in as a reference to Aether (the fifth element), of as a hypothetical form of dark energy as a reference to the fifth element.
Further the essence is philosopical sense as a definition to a set of necessary attributes that make an entity or substance, and without this attributes it will loses its identity. Therefore it cannot be further reduced or decomposed and still retain its identity.
Philosophie is not science. A scientist makes philosophy, but a philosophy is not necessary a scientist. (I know how much philosophy has contributed to development of modern science.) Gary Edwards has made a good video about philosophy and science on youtube if you have some interest in a view of how philosophy stands towards science. But else the essences is never used in any scientific conjunction, it has fallen out of use with the development of modern chemistry, pharmacy and physics.
With this knowledge and the definitions we may conclude that art cannot be defined and examined by the sciences or better said with the scientific method. Naturally we can use scientific tools to determine certain attributes like colors, chemistry, age, and etc. But this attributes are not essential to art.
To use the word "essence":
We don't know what the essences (set of necessary attributes) of art is and it cannot be defined and examined by the scientific method, if art depends of an observer perception of what art is. If someone shits into a bottle and calls this art, and i call it shit in a bottle and certainly not art, then there is a contradiction, which depends on observer. This contradictionary case negates the necessary objectivity attribute of science. Science is always objective, in opposite to art which is subjective. If you know what objective means, than it is clear to you.
Attention "Bold" statement:
The game narrative and the game elements or the game narrative may be also art.
Conclusion of your previous statement:
Therefore there is no PURE ESSENCE EXTRACTION towards what art / game narrative and elements are and it is not a scientific term, it is a philosophical term.
The reduction onto some simple mechanics would kill the art of the game. Where the developer try show us in high detail the world and living in Bohemia in the medieval times, and where they try to involve the player by focusing his attention on his current actions, in every aspect of living in this game.
For every example where you can state that a high degree of detail was not good and the abstraction degree was not high enough, i can say an other example, where a more complex mechanic brought more fun to the game.
Any statement that you have made concerning Warhorse and KCD are nonsense or assumptions without any real substance, and if you want some more simple game mechanics in a RPG without involvement, then F:3 or Skyrim is good for you.
Case for crafting with minigame:
In Everquest 2 the crafting mechanics are also a minigame and this is one of the most crafting mechanisms with the most fun for me. But perhaps not for you.
Reduction and game narrative:
You example was: If MEAT AND FIRE AND CLICK -> COOKED MEAT. Why dont we reduce the FIRE? Why not a simple found MEAT equals COOKED MEAT if the only factor necessary for cooking MEAT is a FIRE, and FIRE has no other real purpose then cooking. But if there are other food sources like FRUITS and BREAD, why do we not draw a further abstraction towards simple FOOD, and if the sources have different factors for the "calories" then why not simply have FOOD CALORIES? As you see we can reduce all this things toward only a String and an Integer. But in the process the art / game narrative and elements lose their expanded meaning.
Now to your case of Maximum Risk and 2001:
This is highly subjective, therefore you may call Maximum Risk trailer art and i will call it shit, like i would state 2001 is art and you call it boring. Then we may argue what is shit and why, but this is a matter of taste, therefore not objective.
About the two Strauss (es) ('Also sprach Zarathustra' (Richard) and 'An der schönen blauen Donau' (Johann)) and 2001. Without Elite probably you would not even know this. But i think that Lux Aeterana by Gyögry Ligeti had much more impact and meaning in this master piece.
Also i much more prefered Requiem for Soprano, Mezzo-Soprano by György Ligeti in it's context in the film.
Your statement about Kubrick was too much, if you would not made this then you would pass just as a simpleton. But this clearly indicates a Troll, that is fishing and i am the fish.
To your "More about KCD":
Quote: He rides a horse from point A to B for 3 fucking minutes.Thats 280 seconds of wasting my goddamn time.
Darkzone answer: Then do not waste your time playing this game. Or mine by making post like you did, that is directed at me. And i have wasted about 2 hours for making this the right response, so that may make yourself some right thoughts about what your are saying.
