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

[Xamenos]

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.

I would VERY MUCH like to see you create a film without using technology or view one without using technology either.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Xamenos Again, being deliberately obtuse. The medium of course matters, but is not part the sentiment, aesthetic, or ideal that defines whether it is art or not. That is what the contention has been. Film is merely a method. I can novelize a film or film adapt a novel. Either form would be valid, even if they had different virtues. Both forms would be an expression or representation that are not withheld as fruits of a contest.

I haven't read your definition of art yet. Do you have one? That's not a challenge, but an honest question. I came late to this particular thread derailment.

 

[Xamenos]

Xamenos Again, being deliberately obtuse. The medium of course matters, but is not part the sentiment, aesthetic, or ideal that defines whether it is art or not. That is what the contention has been. Film is merely a method. I can novelize a film or film adapt a novel. Either form would be valid, even if they had different virtues. Both forms would be an expression or representation that are not withheld as fruits of a contest.

I haven't read your definition of art yet. Do you have one? That's not a challenge, but an honest question. I came late to this particular thread derailment.

And you can gamify a film, or film adapt a game. Game is merely a method then, according to your criteria. The contest of solving a puzzle is not any different of the contest of knowing how to read or the contest of knowing how to operate a tv. You are still making arbitrary and meaningless distinctions to justify your bias.

I refuse to attempt to define art. I'm not the one trying to arbitrarily exclude games from it, so I don't really feel like I have to.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Xamenos Again, being deliberately obtuse. The medium of course matters, but is not part the sentiment, aesthetic, or ideal that defines whether it is art or not. That is what the contention has been. Film is merely a method. I can novelize a film or film adapt a novel. Either form would be valid, even if they had different virtues. Both forms would be an expression or representation that are not withheld as fruits of a contest.

I haven't read your definition of art yet. Do you have one? That's not a challenge, but an honest question. I came late to this particular thread derailment.

And you can gamify a film, or film adapt a game. Game is merely a method then, according to your criteria. The contest of solving a puzzle is not any different of the contest of knowing how to read or the contest of knowing how to operate a tv. You are still making arbitrary and meaningless distinctions to justify your bias.

I refuse to attempt to define art. I'm not the one trying to arbitrarily exclude games from it, so I don't really feel like I have to.

It's not arbitrary. Narrow distinctions can have tremendous impact. Do not conflate the means of a medium with being the ends. It can be, but that can only be known on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the goal of the art is to present or represent an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. Operating a device, paying admission to a museum, or searching for a book in a library are not the ends of whatever art you are attempting to observe. They are tangential circumstances of reality because that art is scarce. That is not equivalent to deliberately withholding an expression or representation contingent some inseparable demonstration of skill. There are words (see: concept) for those things. They're called: games, challenges, contests. They are distinct. They are not art. They may incorporate art, or have artbut as a whole they are not art. The purpose of art is to be expressed--to be rendered externally from self. There is no contest or condition involved as part of that expression.

Your grandstanding on refusing to define art is a lazy cowardice exhibited by critics who produces nothing, yet possess the gall to claim authority. For shame. One thing that might help you, is shedding your emotional attachment to video games. For someone who doesn't know what art is, "the lady doth protest too much methinks" when confronted with the concept of video games not being art, but merely contain it.

 

[Xamenos]

It's not arbitrary. Narrow distinctions can have tremendous impact. Do not conflate the means of a medium with being the ends. It can be, but that can only be known on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, the goal of the art is to present or represent an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. Operating a device, paying admission to a museum, or searching for a book in a library are not the ends of whatever art you are attempting to observe. They are tangential circumstances of reality because that art is scarce. That is not equivalent to deliberately withholding an expression or representation contingent some inseparable demonstration of skill. There are words (see: concept) for those things. They're called: games, challenges, contests. They are distinct. They are not art. They may incorporate art, or have artbut as a whole they are not art. The purpose of art is to be expressed--to be rendered externally from self. There is no contest or condition involved as part of that expression.

Your grandstanding on refusing to define art is a lazy cowardice exhibited by critics who produces nothing, yet possess the gall to claim authority. For shame. One thing that might help you, is shedding your emotional attachment to video games. For someone who doesn't know what art is, "the lady doth protest too much methinks" when confronted with the concept of video games not being art, but merely contain it.

I knew continuing this discussion was pointless. You've planted your feet like a mule about your arbitrary distinctions. You can have the final word, I won't contribute to this derailment any further.

 

[NJClaw]

I love how "events" can be art and you literally can't experience them if you don't attend them, but video games? Fuck no, you can die to the swarms, that's not art.

Also, apparently, movies became art somehow. But this "if anyone can't fully experience it then it's not art" introduces hundreds of funny paradoxes. For example, any kind of visual art is actually not art, because it challenges your ability to see and a blind person can't overcome this challenge. Painters are clearly "deliberately withholding an expression or representation contingent some inseparable demonstration of skill". Now let's wait for Mr. Magniloquent to explain HOW seeing and identifying things are not skills.

Also, the Sistine Chapel? Not art: your ability to dress properly is challenged, and if you're bad at it the guards won't let you in.

That publicity stunt/movie with John Malkovich produced in a single copy? Not art, your ability to spend millions on a single movie is challenged.

 

[Nikanuur]

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

Sadly, LanTheStupid has a point. Some mods work for sure, but some literally break the game or deteriorate its parts. You saw it for yourself, the same happened to me. Several times.

Now, I've been playing at least hundred hours with the setup shown bellow. The picture you see is brought up after pressing ctrl+F10 in-game. It's the menu of the Unity Mod Manager.

With this setup and so far I've experienced only one main bug. It doesn't have to be necessarily caused by the mods. ---> I'm at the 5th chapter, I don't have Jaethal and Harrim and probably never will. They are stuck by the door in the kobold parts of the old Sycamore cavern system saying something about being able to flee from the captivity. They don't move, always the same conversational line, they've never made it to Olegs nor to the capital after the Sycamore quest climax. Apart from that, only minor things. Be warned though, Call of the Wild's added Classes do have some issues. Probably not too many. The track-log of these is shown at the Nexus. My Zen Archer / Divine Hunter has been pretty ok so far.

 

[Desiderius]

Why would you do ZA Hunter?

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I love how "events" can be art and you literally can't experience them if you don't attend them, but video games? Fuck no, you can die to the swarms, that's not art.

Also, apparently, movies became art somehow. But this "if anyone can't fully experience it then it's not art" introduces hundreds of funny paradoxes. For example, any kind of visual art is actually not art, because it challenges your ability to see and a blind person can't overcome this challenge. Painters are clearly "deliberately withholding an expression or representation contingent some inseparable demonstration of skill". Now let's wait for Mr. Magniloquent to explain HOW seeing and identifying things are not skills.

Also, the Sistine Chapel? Not art: your ability to dress properly is challenged, and if you're bad at it the guards won't let you in.

That publicity stunt/movie with John Malkovich produced in a single copy? Not art, your ability to spend millions on a single movie is challenged.

Don't go down the same path as Xamenos with more false equivalence. A painter is not art. They are an artist. One who creates a specific type of art. The Sistine Chapel is not art. It is a chapel which contains art. Are you alleging that its structure is only a canvas, and that it being a place of worship is coincidental or after-the-fact? That's not a rhetorical question. Answer it. You appear to be having trouble finding the forest through all of those trees. An unobserved tree falling in the woods still makes a crashing sound. The Mona Lisa is still expressed even if a blind man stands before it. The observer is an externality to the painting. The puzzles in Myst are not. They are inseparable from the experience. They take primacy over the art within it because they control whether the art is expressed or not. It is contingent on an externality. This makes it a game. A game is not art. If it were, we wouldn't have separate words for them.

Spoiler

Here is another spoiler. It's not actually a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe. A game isn't art, because it's a game. It's a contest or challenge with a ruleset. Games may incorporate art to enhance the experience, but that no more makes it art itself, than this painting is an actual pipe.

 

[NJClaw]

Man, everything you're saying makes so little sense to me that I'm having trouble coming up with a reply.

The Sistine Chapel is not art. It is a chapel which contains art.

I was obviously referring to the frescos, but are you implying that architecture can't be art?

The Mona Lisa is still expressed even if a blind man stands before it.

And Pathfinder: Kingmaker is still expressed even if a dumb man can't go past the fucking swarms in the tutorial.

The observer is an externality to the painting. The puzzles in Myst are not. They are inseparable from the experience. They take primacy over the art within it because they control whether the art is expressed or not. It is contingent on an externality. This makes it a game.

Dude, you're using words that make sense on their own, but seem meaningless to me when put together. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand your point. Saying that puzzles can't be art because they take primacy over the art makes no sense, because the puzzles themselves can be art.

A game is not art. If it were, we wouldn't have separate words for them.

What. This is wrong on so many levels.

We have different words because video games weren't created with "hey, let's make a new form of art!" in mind. Do they suddenly become art if I invent a language where the word "swazzlibuzzl" means both "art" and "game"?

Also, this applies LITERALLY to every single art form ever: painting, sculpture, music, dance, theatre, architecture, photography. They don't sound anything like "art" to me.

A game isn't art, because it's a game. It's a contest or challenge with a ruleset.

You still haven't explained why something that incorporates elements of challenge can't be art. Unless the only reason is "I said so".

 

[Yosharian]

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

Sadly, LanTheStupid has a point. Some mods work for sure, but some literally break the game or deteriorate its parts. You saw it for yourself, the same happened to me. Several times.

Now, I've been playing at least hundred hours with the setup shown bellow. The picture you see is brought up after pressing ctrl+F10 in-game. It's the menu of the Unity Mod Manager.

With this setup and so far I've experienced only one main bug. It doesn't have to be necessarily caused by the mods. ---> I'm at the 5th chapter, I don't have Jaethal and Harrim and probably never will. They are stuck by the door in the kobold parts of the old Sycamore cavern system saying something about being able to flee from the captivity. They don't move, always the same conversational line, they've never made it to Olegs nor to the capital after the Sycamore quest climax. Apart from that, only minor things. Be warned though, Call of the Wild's added Classes do have some issues. Probably not too many. The track-log of these is shown at the Nexus. My Zen Archer / Divine Hunter has been pretty ok so far.

And some mods fix bugs...

 

[Desiderius]

CotW is generally bug free. Holic works hard at fixing stuff.

 

[Desiderius]

He’s a fanatic, and an understandable one. The people who killed the Author did so because the Author was standing between them and us.

He’s trying to reestablish those defenses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

I argue on behalf of playing games as designed for similar reasons.

 

[razvedchiki]

they just added an option to roll back, which steam in its infinite and unquestionable wisdom had removed.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

NJClaw Yes, I have. Many times. I will do this one last time and bow out. And go down with the ship. I've repeated myself far too much already. Consider the following:

1. A completed puzzle which displays a scenery is not art. It is a puzzle which incorporates art. It is not an expression or presentation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. It is a challenge with an objective and a reward. If I were to cut apart a painting of "The Mona Lisa" into interlocking segments, it is no longer art. It is now a puzzle, formerly regarded as art. The puzzle must be completed before anything can be displayed. This prevents it from being a presentation or expression. It is now a challenge, a puzzle, a game.
2. If I paint a handle-bar mustache on The Mona Lisa, it is no longer art. It is now a ruin, formerly regarded as art. In influencing it, I have destroyed the presentation of the aesthetic being expressed. It is no longer art. It is now a ruin, formerly regarded as art.
3. If you give me clay with a set of conditions and restrictions to sculp, you are not presenting me with art. You are presenting me with an activity. No aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal has been expressed.
   1. If I create something that expresses or represents and aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal, it is now art. If I return it to you and you roll it into a ball, it is no longer art. The expression is altered. It is gone. Expression is unidirectional. Art is unidirectional.
4. A video game is a set of conditions and restrictions given to the user to interact with. What is presented is variable given the user input. As a whole, it is a game, a contest, a challenge. This is not unidirectional. It is not an expression. It is a challenge--a sophisticated game which incorporates art.

Ergo, "Art is a presentation which expresses or represents an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. Because it is an expression or representation, it cannot be influenced by the observer." Video games are not art. [/done]

 

[Desiderius]

If you want to be that pedantic, it isn’t influenced. It’s a string of code.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

If you want to be that pedantic, it isn’t influenced. It’s a string of code.

E tu, Desiderius? Unless you engage games purely through a compiler, your comment is a non-sequitur. It appears you guys are struggling with the concept of what a game is, as much as art.

 

[NJClaw]

A completed puzzle which displays a scenery is not art. It is a puzzle which incorporates art. It is not an expression or presentation of an aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal. It is a challenge with an objective and a reward. If I were to cut apart a painting of "The Mona Lisa" into interlocking segments, it is no longer art. It is now a puzzle, formerly regarded as art. The puzzle must be completed before anything can be displayed. This prevents it from being a presentation or expression. It is now a challenge, a puzzle, a game.

And what if the act of completing the puzzle itself is the expression of a sentiment or an ideal? What if the meaning that the author intended to convey is expressed through the challenge and gameplay?

If I paint a handle-bar mustache on The Mona Lisa, it is no longer art. It is now a ruin, formerly regarded as art. In influencing it, I have destroyed the presentation of the aesthetic being expressed. It is no longer art. It is now a ruin, formerly regarded as art.

This is literally art:

If you give me clay with a set of conditions and restrictions to sculp, you are not presenting me with art. You are presenting me with an activity. No aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal has been expressed.

1. If I create something that expresses or represents and aesthetic, sentiment, or ideal, it is now art. If I return it to you and you roll it into a ball, it is no longer art. The expression is altered. It is gone. Expression is unidirectional. Art is unidirectional.

An activity can be art. If the process of sculpting the clay given to you by the artist somehow conveys an emotion or a message, the activity itself is art.

No matter how many times you keep repeating it, "art is unidirectional" remains a completely worthless statement in this context. Not only because it doesn't apply to Kingmaker at all (the experience is set in stone, the player can't "modify" it), but also because it isn't true: theatre is an art form, and participatory/interactive theatre is a thing.

A video game is a set of conditions and restrictions given to the user to interact with. What is presented is variable given the user input. As a whole, it is a game, a contest, a challenge. This is not unidirectional. It is not an expression. It is a challenge--a sophisticated game which incorporates art.

Again: why can't "a game, a contest, a challenge" be art in itself? The user input doesn't actually introduce any variability, because all the paths themselves are crafted by the authors. Forms of interactive art exist, I don't understand why you keep ignoring that.

 

[LannTheStupid]

Unless you engage games purely through a compiler

Obviously, he meant the string of binary code.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

NJClaw I'll need to put you on pause NJClaw. You need to define art before we continue. Please do so. I need the benefit of knowing how you are using the term. We should probably go to direct messages.

 

[Nikanuur]

Like I know there's this need for an evergrowing dose of cynicism after anybody hits 11,5 yrs, but what the heck...

art (n.)
early 13c., "skill as a result of learning or practice," from Old French art (10c.), from Latin artem (nominative ars) "work of art; practical skill; a business, craft," from PIE *ar(ə)-ti- (source also of Sanskrit rtih "manner, mode;" Greek artizein "to prepare"), suffixed form of root *ar- "to fit together." Etymologically akin to Latin arma "weapons."

---

So I guess everybody gets the meaning where an art means a piece of achievement made by a person that's either talented or very experienced or both. Or its paralels towards martial-art, 5yrs old furniture drawing art, an art of pissing somebody off etc...

The second part to an art, where kinda more people have to agree the deed is worthy in order the art to be recognised within, that's where the issue arises. Frankly, I don't think there's a cure to the ailment of disagreeing upon the root of this to and fro. (Infuriatingly) most of points of views will have some grain of truth to them.

For me, games can be a bloody good piece of art themselves or contain some gaming-art at least. Writing this, I strangely realize I don't consider some game an art just because it is good or even awsome. I liked Horizon or Metro series immensely, but they don't seem particularly artistic to me. Masterfuly composed, true, but not an art. Hmm, why? On the other hand games like Beyond Good and Evil, Zeno Clash or any Amanitas Design's - these are awsome pieces of art to me. Art as in Sixintween Chapille Frisco's TM you've all mentioned here. Or an art as in Mozart's music. As for the in-game art - my consideration would be strongly inclined towards any sketch-drawings in Baldur's Gate, PoE or Pathfinder: Kingmaker for example.

As for something being an art to just one person furiously defending its artistic status... Well, be my guest. But we kinda can't call wheel a barrow in order for others to see and use a wheelbarrow now, can we.

 

[Desiderius]

NJClaw I'll need to put you on pause NJClaw. You need to define art before we continue. Please do so. I need the benefit of knowing how you are using the term. We should probably go to direct messages.

Art defines you. Gotta know your limitations definition-wise.

 

[Sykar]

NJClaw I'll need to put you on pause NJClaw. You need to define art before we continue. Please do so. I need the benefit of knowing how you are using the term. We should probably go to direct messages.

Art defines you. Gotta know your limitations definition-wise.

Well in some cases art defies them.

 

[Nikanuur]

Three spellcasters with heeps of the Controlled Fireballs figuratively saved my life from depression.

 

[NJClaw]

A couple of weeks ago I finally decided to buy Varnhold's Lot. Now, after all this time, I can look at this while starting the game: