luj1
You're all shills
what this guy did was essentially say "you can put a fucking urinal in a museum and you idiots will claim it's art".
That doesn't require any talent or skill, so it isn't art.
what this guy did was essentially say "you can put a fucking urinal in a museum and you idiots will claim it's art".
The TLDR of the article is basically that he used to think that adding more and more interactivity to a game would make the storytelling better untill he played The Last of Us (the original one). He thought that the story was one of the best that he had seen in a video game
So really why would most writers spend months just to get a single location and a handfull of characters right, when in that time they could do a book or even a TV script and get much more recognition and success than they would making that new AA rpg.
Don't know if I agree with the first two sentences, but I do the rest.Sean Malstrom said:I have never, to this day, seen good original video game world building. Nearly every cool game world got taken from another media. This is fine since it is hard enough for a game maker to deal with the variables of game design, programming, and art let alone ‘interesting game world’. Might as well just steal what works.
When paintings came up, did anyone bother comparing them to songs ?
When movies came up, did anyone ponder how they were in front of novels ?
When statues appeared, did someone thought of comparing them to songs ?
When paintings came up, did anyone bother comparing them to songs ?
When movies came up, did anyone ponder how they were in front of novels ?
When statues appeared, did someone thought of comparing them to songs ?
Because you are talking about the classical arts, e.g. painting, sculpture, music, etc.
Movies and video games are pan-art, they incorporate all the various elements of other arts
Because you are talking about the classical arts, e.g. painting, sculpture, music, etc.
Movies and video games are pan-art, they incorporate all the various elements of other arts
Really.
Songs, pictures, and statues all incorporate storytelling.
Songs and text describe scenes, that could be paintings.
Novels can include songs, without the music, of course.
Everything is interconnected, and I thought we clearly agreed by this point that a media was more than the sum of its parts. Movies are more than photography, dialog, and music.
It's strange how the people who defend this kind of thing tend not to believe in free speech.
Ebert's a film guy, so using that as my example, Tarsem Singh's The Fall and Michael Bay's Transformers are both movies, but only one of them is art. The same applies across the board.
When movies came up, did anyone ponder how they were in front of novels ?
Art schools are a waste of time. I went to one. They're utterly pointless. I learned more about drawing from Game Art than I did in a traditional setting.
The worst part of art school was the cryptic as hell briefs that made no logical sense and no one was going to give you a hint. Everything was left up to interpretation and your interpretation assuming you weren't a degenerate was normally wrong. Anything taken for face value was wrong. Anything involving heavy heavy amounts of cryptic thought was praised and encourage. The entire point of modern art is alienation. Instead of putting art out in the plazas and the fields like they once did they now hide art in the galleries and put their prices so high that no one can afford it. Modern art is elitist.