Pathfinder Pathfinder: Kingmaker - Enhanced Plus Edition - now with turn-based combat

[LannTheStupid]

I understood only conjunctions and prepositions from your post.

 

[Desiderius]

I understood only conjunctions and prepositions from your post.

More lies. You'll tire of them eventually.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I need a critic to explain why the Sistine Chapel cannot be improved by the same treatment as Dresden Frauenkirche.

I think this is more beautiful than the Chapel:

Spoiler

Look man, Tuco Benedicto Pacifico's braindead relativism is the regnant orthodoxy of the age. You want to be edgy rebel against that limpdick shit.

Look bitch, I’m going to slap you sissy whore mouth until your lips fall off if you don’t start to watch it when speaking about me.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

It's a difficult point to explain concisely. Stated differently, If a user can modify the outcome of art, then it reflects the user. If it reflects the user, it's subjective, arbitrary, and not an expression. It can't even be an expression by the user, because the potential outcomes are constrained by the original creator. It is instead a selection. Combine that with fail states mentioned above, and it becomes difficult to argue a game is or can be art. Contain art? Absolutely. Be art, as a whole? No.

Then Myst is art. There are no choices, the user cannot modify the outcome. There is only a single path forward, just like in a movie. And if you think it is not art because the player can fail at a puzzle and not see all of the game, then a movie is not art because the user can stop in the middle and and not see all of it. We go back to "art is static" as an argument, which it patently isn't.

But other than that, what ERYFKRAD said. Art is already open to interpretation.

Myst has conditional progress. This prevents it from being art. If I am telling you a story, but regularly require you to correctly answer riddles to continue the tale, am I telling a story, or am I asking riddles? I'm asking riddles, because they have primacy over the story. The story itself just becomes incentive. It's no longer an expression or representation, it's a game or contest first and foremost. This differs from a film which requires no contest or input from the observer. That the viewer can stop before the film is complete is not valid, as it's no different from walking away from a large mural before you've seen all of it, or approached a painting close enough to visualize its details. A film is expressed. It is represented. Patience of the observer doesn't change this because the film will not change.

Myst certainly contains a great deal of art, but as a whole, is not art itself. It's more akin to a virtual art gallery with puzzles serving as admission to specific exhibits. It's still a game. If a "game" did not have any fail states/conditional progress and also had a constant outcome--then it's not actually a game. It merely provides the illusion of game play, and is actually art.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Xamenos Media created to express or represent an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. Due to it being an expression or representation, the observer cannot influence it.

Spoiler

Michelangelo's Sistene Chapel paintings are art because they are primarily aesthetic and sentimental, rather than literal record. Despite both being sculptures, the Jefferson Memorial Statue is a commemorative monument, while The Thinking Man is art. Ceremonial armor is art because its only purpose is aesthetic and not to functionally protect. Ancient weapons and armor adorning a room might serve as decoration, but are not art because they were created with primary purpose other than to express an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. This does not mean that tools or other objects cannot have art imposed or incorporated upon them.

Spoiler

Your definition appears to exclude stories and books. Is this deliberate, or am I misreading it? And I can see the distinction that "the observer cannot influence it" as something arbitrary, tacked on only so you can exclude games, the interactive art for no good reason. I feel that if we were having this conversation a hundred years ago you'd be claiming art was static just so you could exclude movies.

Spoiler

I make the distinction that the user cannot influence the subject, because otherwise it ceases to be an expression since the media experienced is a reflection of user choice or ability--even if totally random or arbitrary. If I give you a sculpture of stylized horse, I am giving you art. If I give you a semi-formed lump of clay to shape in accordance with conditions I define, I am merely giving you clay. No aesthetic, sentiment, nor ideal is being expressed. A video game is just a different sort of "clay" with different limitations. It becomes more akin to a puzzle. It becomes object oriented. Fail states are necessary for a game to be a game. If one can enter a "fail state" with art, then the actual expression or representation is never presented. If it can't be observed, it definitely isn't media, which means it is not art. If there are no fail states, then there is no object, and hence no game.

It's a difficult point to explain concisely. Stated differently, If a user can modify the outcome of art, then it reflects the user. If it reflects the user, it's subjective, arbitrary, and not an expression. It can't even be an expression by the user, because the potential outcomes are constrained by the original creator. It is instead a selection. Combine that with fail states mentioned above, and it becomes difficult to argue a game is or can be art. Contain art? Absolutely. Be art, as a whole? No.

None of this works with any of the performing arts.

I was using media in the Latin sense, but you are correct. I could simply say "presentation" instead and it would then work. "Art is a presentation created to express or represent an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. Due to it being an expression or representation, the observer cannot influence it."

 

[Xamenos]

Myst has conditional progress. This prevents it from being art. If I am telling you a story, but regularly require you to correctly answer riddles to continue the tale, am I telling a story, or am I asking riddles? I'm asking riddles, because they have primacy over the story. The story itself just becomes incentive. It's no longer an expression or representation, it's a game or contest first and foremost. This differs from a film which requires no contest or input from the observer. That the viewer can stop before the film is complete is not valid, as it's no different from walking away from a large mural before you've seen all of it, or approached a painting close enough to visualize its details. A film is expressed. It is represented. Patience of the observer doesn't change this because the film will not change.

Myst certainly contains a great deal of art, but as a whole, is not art itself. It's more akin to a virtual art gallery with puzzles serving as admission to specific exhibits. It's still a game. If a "game" did not have any fail states/conditional progress and also had a constant outcome--then it's not actually a game. It merely provides the illusion of game play, and is actually art.

Just as I thought, a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction. Art is always dependant on the viewer's skill. You can't read a book in a different languange, for example, and you might fail reading a book written in a language you only half-understand. There is no meaningful distinction between that and failing at a Myst puzzle. Or with being someone technologically illiterate enough to not know how to operate a tv and watch a movie. Your biases demand that games are not art, and you're grasping at straws and splitting hair to justify those biases. It's a post-fact rationalization, nothing more.

 

[NJClaw]

Mr. Magniloquent, so you're saying that, putting the quality aside for a moment, something like Black Mirror: Bandersnatch can't be art because you can reach a fail state, but if you strip the interactivity gimmick it suddenly becomes art? This doesn't make much sense to me.

Art is an expression of the culture of the artist who makes it and of his era, therefore the media used to produce art necessarily change and evolve over time. And if our art has to be the expression of our era, what better medium to use than one full of failures?

 

[Nikanuur]

Not aiming to play like this, but I just had to have fun for a while with the Respec mod. Here, in the gloom of the afore-mentioned Vordekai's Tomb a PC Divine Hunter is chilling out with his Heal'n'Bless Disarming Mastodon Companion Animal/Divine Hunter, and Mastodon's Silver Draconic Line Magus/Animal Companion Centipede spouting some Shields, Enlarge Persons and various melee spells such as Corrosive Touch, and its always-hissing, war-raging Monitor Lizard Divine Commander/Animal companion with its nice'n'simple Giant Centipede Animal Companion buffed to the roof with a cape, tiara, belt and bracers.

 

[Desiderius]

Look bitch, I’m going to slap you sissy whore mouth until your lips fall off if you don’t start to watch it when speaking about me.

Wouldn't it just be easier to join the 21st Century old man?

 

[Desiderius]

I understood only conjunctions and prepositions from your post.

Can't stand under anything when you've let yourself be convinced that you're above it all.

Here, read this:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/77959.Lost_in_the_Cosmos

 

[LannTheStupid]

This prevents it from being art.

My favorite youtuber calls steam engines "poetry in motion". I guess statistically poetry is considered art, so if you agree with this statement then steam engines are art, too.

And why should I care if you disagree?

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Myst has conditional progress. This prevents it from being art. If I am telling you a story, but regularly require you to correctly answer riddles to continue the tale, am I telling a story, or am I asking riddles? I'm asking riddles, because they have primacy over the story. The story itself just becomes incentive. It's no longer an expression or representation, it's a game or contest first and foremost. This differs from a film which requires no contest or input from the observer. That the viewer can stop before the film is complete is not valid, as it's no different from walking away from a large mural before you've seen all of it, or approached a painting close enough to visualize its details. A film is expressed. It is represented. Patience of the observer doesn't change this because the film will not change.

Myst certainly contains a great deal of art, but as a whole, is not art itself. It's more akin to a virtual art gallery with puzzles serving as admission to specific exhibits. It's still a game. If a "game" did not have any fail states/conditional progress and also had a constant outcome--then it's not actually a game. It merely provides the illusion of game play, and is actually art.

Just as I thought, a completely meaningless and arbitrary distinction. Art is always dependant on the viewer's skill. You can't read a book in a different languange, for example, and you might fail reading a book written in a language you only half-understand. There is no meaningful distinction between that and failing at a Myst puzzle. Or with being someone technologically illiterate enough to not know how to operate a tv and watch a movie. Your biases demand that games are not art, and you're grasping at straws and splitting hair to justify those biases. It's a post-fact rationalization, nothing more.

You're both projecting and rushing to false equivalences in an effort to vindicate yourself. Consider what I have actually written, please.

Art is an expression or representation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. That makes it unidirectional. If the observer determines or modifies the subject, its no longer an expression or representation, but a selection demonstrating user preference. If there is conditional progress, it is no longer and expression or representation, because it is now primarily a challenge. You can disagree, but my definition is entirely consistent and logical. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

 

[Desiderius]

It’s arbitrary because it bears no resemblance to actual art or how it is made and there is no telos motivating the distinctions you’re attempting to draw.

Well, there is but you’re unaware of it so you’ve allowed it to eat your thinking alive.

 

[NJClaw]

Art is an expression or representation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. That makes it unidirectional. If the observer determines or modifies the subject, its no longer an expression or representation, but a selection demonstrating user preference. If there is conditional progress, it is no longer and expression or representation, because it is now primarily a challenge. You can disagree, but my definition is entirely consistent and logical. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Anything can be "consistent" and "logical" when the premises are wrong.

Art isn't "unidirectional". We don't know the meaning behind half of the prehistoric art of the world and we can only rely on educated guesses, but it's still art nonetheless. The Calling and Martyrdom of Saint Matthew are works of art whether the observer is an ignorant peasant or a cultured art critic, regardless of their ability to enjoy and understand them.

But this discussion will go nowhere: after all these years we still haven't found a way to agree on whether novels and movies can be art, we probably won't be able to have a serious discussion about videogames for another two hundred years.

 

[Xamenos]

You're both projecting and rushing to false equivalences in an effort to vindicate yourself. Consider what I have actually written, please.

Art is an expression or representation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. That makes it unidirectional. If the observer determines or modifies the subject, its no longer an expression or representation, but a selection demonstrating user preference. If there is conditional progress, it is no longer and expression or representation, because it is now primarily a challenge. You can disagree, but my definition is entirely consistent and logical. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

It is an arbitrary distinction because the observer does not modify games like Myst at all. Not that it would matter, because this is a very stupid thing to be stuck up on, but even your criteria are not consistent with excluding all games. Many forms of art that you accept have progress conditional on user skill. Language barrier for a book and technology-use skills for a movie are two examples that you conveniently ignored. Your definition is neither consistent nor logical. It is simply "old thing art, new thing no art, for reasons".

 

[Desiderius]

Art is an expression or representation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. That makes it unidirectional. If the observer determines or modifies the subject, its no longer an expression or representation, but a selection demonstrating user preference. If there is conditional progress, it is no longer and expression or representation, because it is now primarily a challenge. You can disagree, but my definition is entirely consistent and logical. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

Anything can be "consistent" and "logical" when the premises are wrong.

Art isn't "unidirectional". We don't know the meaning behind half of the prehistoric art of the world and we can only rely on educated guesses, but it's still art nonetheless. The Calling and Martyrdom of Saint Matthew are works of art whether the observer is an ignorant peasant or a cultured art critic, regardless of their ability to enjoy and understand them.

But this discussion will go nowhere: after all these years we still haven't found a way to agree on whether novels and movies can be art, we probably won't be able to have a serious discussion about videogames for another two hundred years.

Who cares about agreement? We’re right, they’re wrong. They’ll come around - always have.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

You're both projecting and rushing to false equivalences in an effort to vindicate yourself. Consider what I have actually written, please.

Art is an expression or representation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. That makes it unidirectional. If the observer determines or modifies the subject, its no longer an expression or representation, but a selection demonstrating user preference. If there is conditional progress, it is no longer and expression or representation, because it is now primarily a challenge. You can disagree, but my definition is entirely consistent and logical. There is nothing arbitrary about it.

It is an arbitrary distinction because the observer does not modify games like Myst at all. Not that it would matter, because this is a very stupid thing to be stuck up on, but even your criteria are not consistent with excluding all games. Many forms of art that you accept have progress conditional on user skill. Language barrier for a book and technology-use skills for a movie are two examples that you conveniently ignored. Your definition is neither consistent nor logical. It is simply "old thing art, new thing no art, for reasons".

I didn't ignore them. They're false equivalents. You're the one who repeatedly only addresses half of my statement then claim victory.

A statement spoken in any language is still expressed. Failure to speak that language has no more bearing on the work than an observers lack of appreciation does. It remains expressed or represented. The art still is. Gating a statement behind a challenge means that it is no longer an expression or representation. Its deliberately withheld. This makes it a contest with an objective. A game.

 

[LannTheStupid]

Who cares about agreement? We’re right, they’re wrong. They’ll come around - always have.

In the end it depends on the fire power. For now it's on your side. It was not so before, and it will not be in the future.

 

[Desiderius]

In the end it depends on the fire power. For now it's on your side. It was not so before, and it will not be in the future.

Only indirectly, but yeah the refining fire of Truth is that upon which all depends. As for the Alpha and Omega He is from everlasting to everlasting.

This is your god:

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

NJClaw Expression is unidirectional. If art is expressive, then art is unidirectional. If the receiver can change, modify, or determine the outcome expression, then it is no longer an expression because that outcome can now be anything. If you give me a clay sculpture and I smash it into a ball, is the art intact? If you give me a clay lump and I produce a sculpture with it, did you give me clay or art?

 

[Desiderius]

It's the difference between an unplugged electric guitar and an acoustic.

The audience is the resonance box. If it kills the artist there's no longer anything to resonate, but without the box the sound goes nowhere.

 

[razvedchiki]

anyone else having a probelm with save games not loading with the new update? (using mods).

 

[LannTheStupid]

(using mods).

Don't.

It is a well known old issue.

 

[Xamenos]

I didn't ignore them. They're false equivalents. You're the one who repeatedly only addresses half of my statement then claim victory.

A statement spoken in any language is still expressed. Failure to speak that language has no more bearing on the work than an observers lack of appreciation does. It remains expressed or represented. The art still is. Gating a statement behind a challenge means that it is no longer an expression or representation. Its deliberately withheld. This makes it a contest with an objective. A game.

So Myst is not an expression of anything because it's gated behind your puzzle-solving skills, but a movie is still an expression of something despite being gated behind your tv-operating skills. Gotcha. There's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I didn't ignore them. They're false equivalents. You're the one who repeatedly only addresses half of my statement then claim victory.

A statement spoken in any language is still expressed. Failure to speak that language has no more bearing on the work than an observers lack of appreciation does. It remains expressed or represented. The art still is. Gating a statement behind a challenge means that it is no longer an expression or representation. Its deliberately withheld. This makes it a contest with an objective. A game.

So Myst is not an expression of anything because it's gated behind your puzzle-solving skills, but a movie is still an expression of something despite being gated behind your tv-operating skills. Gotcha. There's no point in continuing this discussion.

Despite you being deliberately obtuse, you're correct enough. As a whole, it is a game that contains art. The aesthetics presented and represented are prominent, but it is first and foremost a contest or challenge.

Claiming a film is gated behind technology is another false equivalence. That means is separate from the art, not an indivisible aspect of it. It is in no way an incorporated part of the aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal being presented or represented.