 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> But since there can
> never be an objective reason for why one person's subjective opinion
> should be regarded as superior to another's,
I disagree this is as obvious as it sounds. That's precisely why we have
experts to start with.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/5/2010 7:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> "Oh, good.. Another Myst clone,
>
> Yeah, for a while, there were a whole *bunch* of Myst clones that really
> sucked rather hard. I think both Lighthouse and Schism fell into that
> description.
I found even parts of Myst to be rather frustrating. There are places
where the interface is inconsistent, in that to progress, you have to
try things that the game engine doesn't respond to anywhere else in the
game.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/6/2010 4:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> But since there can never be an objective reason for why one person's
>> subjective opinion should be regarded as superior to another's,
>
> I disagree this is as obvious as it sounds. That's precisely why we have
> experts to start with.
I wasn't referring to all opinions, merely subjective ones. Clearly a
doctor's opinion on a medical issue is based on objective criteria (or
at least it is supposed to be). But some of what Ebert might have to
say on a given work is reflective of tastes that we don't necessarily
share. Why are his tastes superior to ours?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> I found even parts of Myst to be rather frustrating. There are places
> where the interface is inconsistent, in that to progress, you have to
> try things that the game engine doesn't respond to anywhere else in the
> game.
I remember there being things you could interact with that weren't obviously
pointed out as such (like the door to the imager chamber), but I don't
remember what you're talking about. Like what, out of curiousity?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> I wasn't referring to all opinions, merely subjective ones. Clearly a
> doctor's opinion on a medical issue is based on objective criteria (or
> at least it is supposed to be). But some of what Ebert might have to
> say on a given work is reflective of tastes that we don't necessarily
> share. Why are his tastes superior to ours?
I'm not sure one can easily rule out objective criteria that one cannot
enunciate. What makes you think Ebert's opinions aren't based on objective
criteria he just can't explain?
Or, as another example, one could survey a large number of people and
discover that 90% of them like peanut butter, but only 6% like broccoli.
From this, one could say "peanut butter tastes better than broccoli." Yet
that's based entirely on subjective opinions.
Is Shakespeare a better writer than Ebert? What objective criteria do you
use to show that Beethoven's music is superior to Def Leopard?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/12/2010 02:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Roger Ebert has famously stated that in his opinion video games can never
> be art.
As far as I can determine, "art" is anything excessively miserable or
unpleasent. (Therefore something depressing like Shakespear's Macbeth
would be considered "art", while the cheerful up-beat Crazy For You does
not.)
Similarly, anything excessively cryptic, bizare and/or pointless
qualifies as "modern art". (For, for example, if I spent the next 40
years becoming a master painter and I paint a stunning landscape, this
is not "modern art". If, however, I take a photograph of the dust at the
back of my cupboard, that is "modern art".)
In summary: Who gives a **** about what is or is not "art"? I care only
about what is or is not /enjoyable/.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
> > But since there can
> > never be an objective reason for why one person's subjective opinion
> > should be regarded as superior to another's,
>
> I disagree this is as obvious as it sounds. That's precisely why we have
> experts to start with.
Experts may have a saying in technical fields, but not as much as in such a
subjective field as arts. For instance, experts say this is worth 140 million
bucks:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/03/usa.topstories3
To my ignorant peasant taste, it just looks like a badly used piece of toilet
paper... I'll take Mario Bros. any day for higher art...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> What objective criteria do you
> use to show that Beethoven's music is superior to Def Leopard?
one is the high watermark of its art, the culmination in technical flawlessness
and sheer thematic scope and development and a damn good representation of its
time; the other is barely much else than noise and much attitude trying to
overcome the lack of musical content...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/5/2010 1:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>> Roger Ebert is full of BS. Watching games is not the same as playing them. I
>>> first realized games could be art when I would not pay attention to the score
>>> anymore...
>>>
>>> He's like one of those late 1800's drama critics dismissing cinema as a cheap
>>> toy medium...
>>>
>>>
>> He has, fairly obviously, never a) played games that have real stories
>> (which could stand as movies, if you yanked out the player interaction),
>> or b) gone to/heard of interactive art exhibits.
>
> He says: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a
> game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and
> poets."
>
> Even if that were true (which is debatable), it still doesn't make sense.
> Is the requirement for something "being art" that it has to be comparable
> with great examples of other fields of art?
>
> Is he, basically, saying that "if it's not great art, it's not art at
> all"? That sounds like snobbery to me.
>
Snort. Worse, I had to read a lot of the "great whatnots" in school, as
I am sure a lot of other people did. As near as I could tell, "great"
meant wordy, weak plotted and boring, mixed with a bit of, albeit
understandable, confusion, delusion, bigotry, and/or cluelessness. The
worst "junk" Sci-Fi often at least *attempted* to ask questions about
whether or not the reality the people where it made sense at all, and
give reasons why. The best of the "classics", like Hemingway, spent 10
pages describing drapes billowing in the wind. You could SDL the damn
things in less lines than it took for the man to describe one damn room.
The actual book, if you removed all that stuff, would have been 2 more
pages. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 05/12/2010 02:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> > Roger Ebert has famously stated that in his opinion video games can never
> > be art.
>
> As far as I can determine, "art" is anything excessively miserable or
> unpleasent. (Therefore something depressing like Shakespear's Macbeth
> would be considered "art", while the cheerful up-beat Crazy For You does
> not.)
are you sure you come from the United Kingdom?
there's also plenty of examples of very aesthetically pleasing art out there,
it's just that tragedy and drama have much more punch.
It's also funny that you can remember painful moments very well, because it's
unpleasant and your organism doesn't want to ever make you forget those moments
so you don't go through the same process. But enjoyable moments... those are
about as brief and faded in memory as an orgasm...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
