Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
What changed in sculpture? Are there new machines that let us make better sculptures? While I believe they could make sculpting easier, I don't think the end result would be better.
Movies are also heavily dependent on the story and the acting. A movie will no doubt be improved by better visual effects, and good visual effects alone can even make a good movie (Avatar for example). However, like games, graphics aren't the only thing that matters. This is specially true for films because most films don't even need visual effects at all.
Art, painting for example, will not improve with technology because it involves no technology at all.
Modern day standards doesn't mean "only things that came out in 2012", it englobes everything done up to this point. Only very few games that came out in the last 5 years can rival with Ocarina of Time, for example. Mario Land 2, however, cannot even compete with most indie games. It's a simple platform jumper with no story and low quality graphics. If it came out now you would never even try it.
Movies are also heavily dependent on the story and the acting. A movie will no doubt be improved by better visual effects, and good visual effects alone can even make a good movie (Avatar for example). However, like games, graphics aren't the only thing that matters. This is specially true for films because most films don't even need visual effects at all.
Art, painting for example, will not improve with technology because it involves no technology at all.
Modern day standards doesn't mean "only things that came out in 2012", it englobes everything done up to this point. Only very few games that came out in the last 5 years can rival with Ocarina of Time, for example. Mario Land 2, however, cannot even compete with most indie games. It's a simple platform jumper with no story and low quality graphics. If it came out now you would never even try it.
^I'd actually mildly agree to that. Mario might have innovated, but there are better platformers out today.
"I'm ebolakin. You can refer to me as Ebola-Chan." - Vurtax
"I also am Otherkin. Whenever autumn rolls around I can feel my kin-type slowly taking over my body. You must know, I identify as pumpkin. I can control it pretty good most of the time, but when September ends, I just cant hold it in anymore. Whenever Im outside I see my brothers and sisters being chopped into soup, coffee, donuts, cake, drinks, bread - ppl even cut human faces into their skin, making a mockery out of their noble appearance. When I see things like that I cant control my pumpkin urges anymore. My natural instincts kick in. I then sit down motionless, while getting bright orange." - Morgana L
"I also am Otherkin. Whenever autumn rolls around I can feel my kin-type slowly taking over my body. You must know, I identify as pumpkin. I can control it pretty good most of the time, but when September ends, I just cant hold it in anymore. Whenever Im outside I see my brothers and sisters being chopped into soup, coffee, donuts, cake, drinks, bread - ppl even cut human faces into their skin, making a mockery out of their noble appearance. When I see things like that I cant control my pumpkin urges anymore. My natural instincts kick in. I then sit down motionless, while getting bright orange." - Morgana L
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
A lot changed. Do you think perspective was always known to people? That was a matter of technology, a twist in thinking. Same applies to sculpture (or any other fine art im broader term), there were certain rules that didn't let people do whatever they wanted because of technological (getting certain colour, making painting last) and/or social regulations (form of the work was dictated by very strict rules). Thing is they're much older so it doesn't seem so obvious.
So yes, it's pretty simple to say there is no technology at all from our perspective but that is also not true. These are older media that already evolved and getting to know how they did it can really help in cases like this where completely new and not developed medium crashes into evaluation problem. It happened a lot of times. If you were to read about history of architecture you'd have definitely found information about how gothic architecture was treated by rennaisance architects because they felt it was vulgar and common, developed by goths (that's why gothic; it was meant pejorative). Media doesn't evlolve linearly, they expand - there is no reason to think that with limited ability authors couldn't come up with something valuable.
I think most of non-competitive games are really bad compared to how rich and much more valuable experience other, more developed media can provide. There are only few examples where games can be compared. I wouldn't list any of the metioned games here (ML2, OoT) maybe besides SotC but that would be also a thing to discuss. It doesn't mean that I don't consider them valuable in terms of how much they brought to develop the medium as a whole.
I also don't see why they should get lower ratings. I don't think they are so much worse. It definitely cost authors a lot of work under hard conditions to develop them and I can't think of a reason not to try them "just because", I'd even say I'd be willing to play ML2 more than Skyrim because most of modern AAA games I recently played are just timesinks with some cool features.
PS And no, Avatar is not a good movie (I really don't give **** about IMDB notes, it's like metacritic, because a lot of people say something about really popular thing it doesn't mean it is good - if you put hundreds of milions on the industry you make sure it sells the product). Noone will remember it in 20 years because there is nothing more in it that effects and they doesn't seem to last long (old Planet of The Apes used to be the-top-notch special FX movie). That leads me again to the substance of the medium but we covered that already.
PPS I've certainly missed something that I was about to say, feel free to ask
So yes, it's pretty simple to say there is no technology at all from our perspective but that is also not true. These are older media that already evolved and getting to know how they did it can really help in cases like this where completely new and not developed medium crashes into evaluation problem. It happened a lot of times. If you were to read about history of architecture you'd have definitely found information about how gothic architecture was treated by rennaisance architects because they felt it was vulgar and common, developed by goths (that's why gothic; it was meant pejorative). Media doesn't evlolve linearly, they expand - there is no reason to think that with limited ability authors couldn't come up with something valuable.
I think most of non-competitive games are really bad compared to how rich and much more valuable experience other, more developed media can provide. There are only few examples where games can be compared. I wouldn't list any of the metioned games here (ML2, OoT) maybe besides SotC but that would be also a thing to discuss. It doesn't mean that I don't consider them valuable in terms of how much they brought to develop the medium as a whole.
I also don't see why they should get lower ratings. I don't think they are so much worse. It definitely cost authors a lot of work under hard conditions to develop them and I can't think of a reason not to try them "just because", I'd even say I'd be willing to play ML2 more than Skyrim because most of modern AAA games I recently played are just timesinks with some cool features.
PS And no, Avatar is not a good movie (I really don't give **** about IMDB notes, it's like metacritic, because a lot of people say something about really popular thing it doesn't mean it is good - if you put hundreds of milions on the industry you make sure it sells the product). Noone will remember it in 20 years because there is nothing more in it that effects and they doesn't seem to last long (old Planet of The Apes used to be the-top-notch special FX movie). That leads me again to the substance of the medium but we covered that already.
PPS I've certainly missed something that I was about to say, feel free to ask
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Searz
Precisely. It was probably the best platform game when it came out, but that hasn't been true for quite a long time. We can't blame someone because they're playing the game now instead of 20 years ago.
@JMastiff
It doesn't matter the technology at the time, if you are to rate 2 sculptures now you're not going to say "hmm, the first one is worse but since they didn't have [insert random tool here] I'll rate it higher". You are not rating the skill of the sculptor, you are rating the sculpture itself which is timeless.
Games can be compared by the experience it provided and how good it was, just like art can be compared by how good it looks. Ratings have nothing to do with how money was spent. It doesn't have to do with how much you're willing to try a game either, it's about how much fun you have the moment you start playing it.
I'd say IMDB's rating are pretty truthful. It reflects the majority of the population's feeling towards that movie, how much they liked it. Avatar's story was extremely ****py, but it certainly deserves that 8/10 for how good it looked. I was certainly amazed throughout the film and that rating reflects the experience I had that night at the movies pretty well.
In a few years the movie's rating will drop because it will lose what it had best, those amazing graphics. The graphics themselves don't become any worse, the standard is just raised higher so a new watcher will not be "amazed" at all.
Precisely. It was probably the best platform game when it came out, but that hasn't been true for quite a long time. We can't blame someone because they're playing the game now instead of 20 years ago.
@JMastiff
It doesn't matter the technology at the time, if you are to rate 2 sculptures now you're not going to say "hmm, the first one is worse but since they didn't have [insert random tool here] I'll rate it higher". You are not rating the skill of the sculptor, you are rating the sculpture itself which is timeless.
Games can be compared by the experience it provided and how good it was, just like art can be compared by how good it looks. Ratings have nothing to do with how money was spent. It doesn't have to do with how much you're willing to try a game either, it's about how much fun you have the moment you start playing it.
I'd say IMDB's rating are pretty truthful. It reflects the majority of the population's feeling towards that movie, how much they liked it. Avatar's story was extremely ****py, but it certainly deserves that 8/10 for how good it looked. I was certainly amazed throughout the film and that rating reflects the experience I had that night at the movies pretty well.
In a few years the movie's rating will drop because it will lose what it had best, those amazing graphics. The graphics themselves don't become any worse, the standard is just raised higher so a new watcher will not be "amazed" at all.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
I feel I kinda didn't completely understand your last post. You seem to misunderstand mine. Oh well I'll do a quote stream.
I said about the technology used because I wanted to emphasize that we look at already developed medium (because you said that no technology was involved), that's why it seems "timeless". You seem to connect the game strictly with the platform that allows it to run and while this is valid point to make (that they are pretty much inseparable) that doesn't change the structure of the game itself and I deliberately separate them because it shouldn't affect me as a reciever. I think of as if it was the only game I played. That yeilds satisfying results.
You said
Thing is watching or looking at something is an experience as well. It's pretty obscure but many people wrote many books already about it and it is clear for most people that find themselves confident enought to judge them how to do it. We could apply similar criteria to games but unfortunately because there is so much misinformation involved and nothing really serious happens (in terms of evaluation, methodology and terminology) we are still in what I call "fun syndrome". Fun is really fuzzy word when used, children like it because it describes all the good feelings they have when they approach something that grabs their attention and that's about it. Nothing serious, nothing mature, not rich nor time worthy.
People who work on reviews (really, most of them, even those off) doesn't know how to describe true form of the game (given it has any, huehuehuehue, rare ocassion) and they follow a strange old-fashioned pros/cons graph,music,gampemplay,controls route which doesn't really tell you anything about it. It's cheap and I hate it from all my heart because noone really has done anything to pop-out from their ****hole to ask themselves a question if the way they do it is relevant.
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but as an average person who has spent some time watching movies I think most of the most popular are pure ****. Sometimes people give credit to something valuable but it seems they do it to justify wasting so much time watching ****. And I really don't care about "majority of population", I pick my authorities through study and still can disagree with them (Hai Duff, meloveu, huehue) but that creates a real point of reference not just blunt wall of average opinions.
Quoted:
It doesn't matter the technology at the time, if you are to rate 2 sculptures now you're not going to say "hmm, the first one is worse but since they didn't have [insert random tool here] I'll rate it higher". You are not rating the skill of the sculptor, you are rating the sculpture itself which is timeless.
I said about the technology used because I wanted to emphasize that we look at already developed medium (because you said that no technology was involved), that's why it seems "timeless". You seem to connect the game strictly with the platform that allows it to run and while this is valid point to make (that they are pretty much inseparable) that doesn't change the structure of the game itself and I deliberately separate them because it shouldn't affect me as a reciever. I think of as if it was the only game I played. That yeilds satisfying results.
You said
Quoted:
Games can be compared by the experience it provided and how good it was
Thing is watching or looking at something is an experience as well. It's pretty obscure but many people wrote many books already about it and it is clear for most people that find themselves confident enought to judge them how to do it. We could apply similar criteria to games but unfortunately because there is so much misinformation involved and nothing really serious happens (in terms of evaluation, methodology and terminology) we are still in what I call "fun syndrome". Fun is really fuzzy word when used, children like it because it describes all the good feelings they have when they approach something that grabs their attention and that's about it. Nothing serious, nothing mature, not rich nor time worthy.
People who work on reviews (really, most of them, even those off) doesn't know how to describe true form of the game (given it has any, huehuehuehue, rare ocassion) and they follow a strange old-fashioned pros/cons graph,music,gampemplay,controls route which doesn't really tell you anything about it. It's cheap and I hate it from all my heart because noone really has done anything to pop-out from their ****hole to ask themselves a question if the way they do it is relevant.
Quoted:
I'd say IMDB's rating are pretty truthful...
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but as an average person who has spent some time watching movies I think most of the most popular are pure ****. Sometimes people give credit to something valuable but it seems they do it to justify wasting so much time watching ****. And I really don't care about "majority of population", I pick my authorities through study and still can disagree with them (Hai Duff, meloveu, huehue) but that creates a real point of reference not just blunt wall of average opinions.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
1st paragraph:
The platform is incredibly important due to the constraints it puts on a game. If you manage to get BF3 playing on a PSP screen the game will be terrible. If you manage to put FFVI on an FULL HD TV it will look terrible as well. It would be like watching a 3D film without the 3D glasses.
To the rating, however, it changes nothing. A PSP game you rated 9/10 should in theory provide as much fun as a PC game you rated 9/10.
2nd/3rd Paragraph:
But fun is the only thing that really matters really. How good a game is is directly related to how much fun people will have playing. if you spend your whole life making a gaming masterpiece but the players just have a nerve-wrecking experience then it'll have a poor rating. It's not like art where some dudes come up with ******** reasons so a painting with nothing but a line will sell for millions. It's simply a matter of giving the users the best experience. It's more like cooking really, what matters is how good it tastes. The chef can use the most awesome techniques ever, but if it tastes like **** then it's ****. If you don't like the word fun then use enjoyment instead. It doesn't change anything, the rating still reflects how good the overall experience was.
Graphics, music, story, etc. are the most important aspects of a game and the ones that directly connect to your senses, so it makes perfect sense to rate them separately. The overall rating, however, doesn't really need to be tied to those. Theoretically a game could get 1/10 in each of those fields but the overall experience be the best thing ever.
4th paragraph:
Really? I think the opposite. The god father, pulp fiction, star wars, lord of the rings, shawshank redemption, fight club, forest gump, etc. are definitely the most memorable films I've ever watched, and the most popular as well.
I find that people are more likely to rate something down because they wasted time watching it than to rate it up to try and justify watching it. You can see that in imdb not that many movies make it past 8.0, which would not happen if what you said was true and people tended to give higher ratings. The vast majority of the films stay around 7, a pleasant experience but not a memorable one.
The platform is incredibly important due to the constraints it puts on a game. If you manage to get BF3 playing on a PSP screen the game will be terrible. If you manage to put FFVI on an FULL HD TV it will look terrible as well. It would be like watching a 3D film without the 3D glasses.
To the rating, however, it changes nothing. A PSP game you rated 9/10 should in theory provide as much fun as a PC game you rated 9/10.
2nd/3rd Paragraph:
But fun is the only thing that really matters really. How good a game is is directly related to how much fun people will have playing. if you spend your whole life making a gaming masterpiece but the players just have a nerve-wrecking experience then it'll have a poor rating. It's not like art where some dudes come up with ******** reasons so a painting with nothing but a line will sell for millions. It's simply a matter of giving the users the best experience. It's more like cooking really, what matters is how good it tastes. The chef can use the most awesome techniques ever, but if it tastes like **** then it's ****. If you don't like the word fun then use enjoyment instead. It doesn't change anything, the rating still reflects how good the overall experience was.
Graphics, music, story, etc. are the most important aspects of a game and the ones that directly connect to your senses, so it makes perfect sense to rate them separately. The overall rating, however, doesn't really need to be tied to those. Theoretically a game could get 1/10 in each of those fields but the overall experience be the best thing ever.
4th paragraph:
Really? I think the opposite. The god father, pulp fiction, star wars, lord of the rings, shawshank redemption, fight club, forest gump, etc. are definitely the most memorable films I've ever watched, and the most popular as well.
I find that people are more likely to rate something down because they wasted time watching it than to rate it up to try and justify watching it. You can see that in imdb not that many movies make it past 8.0, which would not happen if what you said was true and people tended to give higher ratings. The vast majority of the films stay around 7, a pleasant experience but not a memorable one.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
1st.
Wether I watch a movie on a 14 inch tv screen or in huge *** cinema I can pretty much say if it's good or bad. There are more conditions that apply but it doesn't hurt inherent value if the work has it. Same with games - it doesnt matter but the concept must be coherent and true.
2nd
Ok, ok. We're getting really baffled here. There were games that were good and not esentially fun. There are many examples where something not strictly enjoyable has enough value to enrich your time spent with it: sad movie, greek tragedy etc. Fun is not all that matters in a long run, there are many other elements that makes any form of human expression more or less true and valid to his condition; the richer it gets the better it is. How they're going to achieve it? It's their job.
At the moment there isn't much to offer in gaming industry but the structures were made and it's kinda hard to drop it.
Games are currently developed in a way that blocks it from developing their "possibility of means" because people fear they won't be "enjoyable".
I was going to write that you can't really compare it to cooking but actually you can. But lets say a good experience would be whole dinner with well selected appetizers, dessert and a good drink. Current game design formula is McDonaldish, you don't really match up something bitter and ease it later with something sweet so you get a richer taste experience, people are too afraid and doesn't have enough time to explore it well so they sell what they got and say it's good. It's not, it's cheap, it wastes your time and you probably would read whole Faulkner bibliography by the time you finished all episodes of Elder Scrolls.
I'm not saying reviewers and developers standards aren't understandable to me I only say they're wrong because they are constantly chosing easier and not appropriate ways of judging means provided by the medium.
3rd
Man, come on, Pat Garret and Billy Kid got 7.3 and Matrix 8.7. How can you trust any of these? Of course in main 250 tops are one of the most important movies in history but most of them are there because they are just popular. That's a ranking of popularity, why would you be interested in something everybody TOLD YOU (want to emphasize that because I've got a theory that contradicts it in a subtle way) was great. That's the first reason to think otherwise. No, I'm not a hipster, that's just common sense. If there was a ranking of movies that aren't that great but worth watching led by these people I might consider that.
Wether I watch a movie on a 14 inch tv screen or in huge *** cinema I can pretty much say if it's good or bad. There are more conditions that apply but it doesn't hurt inherent value if the work has it. Same with games - it doesnt matter but the concept must be coherent and true.
2nd
Ok, ok. We're getting really baffled here. There were games that were good and not esentially fun. There are many examples where something not strictly enjoyable has enough value to enrich your time spent with it: sad movie, greek tragedy etc. Fun is not all that matters in a long run, there are many other elements that makes any form of human expression more or less true and valid to his condition; the richer it gets the better it is. How they're going to achieve it? It's their job.
At the moment there isn't much to offer in gaming industry but the structures were made and it's kinda hard to drop it.
Games are currently developed in a way that blocks it from developing their "possibility of means" because people fear they won't be "enjoyable".
I was going to write that you can't really compare it to cooking but actually you can. But lets say a good experience would be whole dinner with well selected appetizers, dessert and a good drink. Current game design formula is McDonaldish, you don't really match up something bitter and ease it later with something sweet so you get a richer taste experience, people are too afraid and doesn't have enough time to explore it well so they sell what they got and say it's good. It's not, it's cheap, it wastes your time and you probably would read whole Faulkner bibliography by the time you finished all episodes of Elder Scrolls.
I'm not saying reviewers and developers standards aren't understandable to me I only say they're wrong because they are constantly chosing easier and not appropriate ways of judging means provided by the medium.
3rd
Man, come on, Pat Garret and Billy Kid got 7.3 and Matrix 8.7. How can you trust any of these? Of course in main 250 tops are one of the most important movies in history but most of them are there because they are just popular. That's a ranking of popularity, why would you be interested in something everybody TOLD YOU (want to emphasize that because I've got a theory that contradicts it in a subtle way) was great. That's the first reason to think otherwise. No, I'm not a hipster, that's just common sense. If there was a ranking of movies that aren't that great but worth watching led by these people I might consider that.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
1st.
It does because you will not be able to judge the movie/game properly. What if it had an amazing soundtrack and you had sound muted? What if the graphics and level of detail was amazing and you're not able to see it because you're playing it on a small screen? What if the game is made for PS3 but since you're playing on a small screen you can't tell that the graphics actually sucked and were extremely unattractive?
If you do not use the correct medium then you will be missing out on a part of the game/film which would make the rating untrue since you're leaving that out.
2nd/3rd.
Fun =/= Happy. Fun = Enjoyment. Well, maybe I've been using the incorrect word, but I've said that by fun I meant enjoyment before. I can watch a sad movie and say it was fun and that I enjoyed it. I can watch a happy movie and say the same. The richer a movie/game is the more enjoyment it'll provide.
I think it's very much like cooking. You can make a food with an incredible technique that only an expert would understand, but a 10 year old will love it as well even though he knows nothing about food.
The "mcdonaldish" games never get the highest ratings. It tastes good, but you simply know that there are better things out there. Like a movie filled with action. Sure, you like to see the guys fighting and you'll think it's awesome when you're watching, but when you leave the cinema you won't rate it above 8. Why? because it didn't move you. It didn't have enough depth to attach you to the film and make it memorable. The same thing happens with games.
For a game to reach 9.0 in a good rating website it'll have to be completely distinguishable form everything else. You can be sure that I'll never forget the Dark Brotherhood questline from ESIV Oblivion or the moment where Aeris gave her life to save the world in FFVII.
There's a huge difference between the levels of enjoyment I had from the "macdonald" 8/10 games and the 9.5/10 masterpieces, and the vast majority of the people who play them will know the difference. One is excellent to pass the time, the other leaves memories. Just like the other day I went to macdonalds with my friends, I remember I had fun but I can't really recall what actually happened and in one month I'll completely forget about it.
4th.
I never watched any of those so I can't comment on the films, but I do get what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't agree with it. Going back to the food analogy, I assume (since I've never seen it) that Pat Garret would be something with a brilliant taste to a trained taster. Like how a 1800 port would be superb to a wine taster but maybe you wouldn't be able to differentiate it from a wine that's 150 years younger or might not even like the taste. And that's really the big difference between those two movies. Would you rate a movie higher due to your understanding of it even knowing that the general population will not enjoy it as much? That movie basically has a niche demographic and does not fit the needs of the general population. Are you going to say that it makes the film better? Probably, but I'll say it makes it worse because the impact it creates on the population is much lower. A macdonalds film will have more impact than the 1800 port film, but the films that deserve the highest rating are still the one that fit the taste of both a common bloke and the wine taster. A great movie needs a certain depth, but the overall picture has to be just has good.
It does because you will not be able to judge the movie/game properly. What if it had an amazing soundtrack and you had sound muted? What if the graphics and level of detail was amazing and you're not able to see it because you're playing it on a small screen? What if the game is made for PS3 but since you're playing on a small screen you can't tell that the graphics actually sucked and were extremely unattractive?
If you do not use the correct medium then you will be missing out on a part of the game/film which would make the rating untrue since you're leaving that out.
2nd/3rd.
Fun =/= Happy. Fun = Enjoyment. Well, maybe I've been using the incorrect word, but I've said that by fun I meant enjoyment before. I can watch a sad movie and say it was fun and that I enjoyed it. I can watch a happy movie and say the same. The richer a movie/game is the more enjoyment it'll provide.
I think it's very much like cooking. You can make a food with an incredible technique that only an expert would understand, but a 10 year old will love it as well even though he knows nothing about food.
The "mcdonaldish" games never get the highest ratings. It tastes good, but you simply know that there are better things out there. Like a movie filled with action. Sure, you like to see the guys fighting and you'll think it's awesome when you're watching, but when you leave the cinema you won't rate it above 8. Why? because it didn't move you. It didn't have enough depth to attach you to the film and make it memorable. The same thing happens with games.
For a game to reach 9.0 in a good rating website it'll have to be completely distinguishable form everything else. You can be sure that I'll never forget the Dark Brotherhood questline from ESIV Oblivion or the moment where Aeris gave her life to save the world in FFVII.
There's a huge difference between the levels of enjoyment I had from the "macdonald" 8/10 games and the 9.5/10 masterpieces, and the vast majority of the people who play them will know the difference. One is excellent to pass the time, the other leaves memories. Just like the other day I went to macdonalds with my friends, I remember I had fun but I can't really recall what actually happened and in one month I'll completely forget about it.
4th.
I never watched any of those so I can't comment on the films, but I do get what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't agree with it. Going back to the food analogy, I assume (since I've never seen it) that Pat Garret would be something with a brilliant taste to a trained taster. Like how a 1800 port would be superb to a wine taster but maybe you wouldn't be able to differentiate it from a wine that's 150 years younger or might not even like the taste. And that's really the big difference between those two movies. Would you rate a movie higher due to your understanding of it even knowing that the general population will not enjoy it as much? That movie basically has a niche demographic and does not fit the needs of the general population. Are you going to say that it makes the film better? Probably, but I'll say it makes it worse because the impact it creates on the population is much lower. A macdonalds film will have more impact than the 1800 port film, but the films that deserve the highest rating are still the one that fit the taste of both a common bloke and the wine taster. A great movie needs a certain depth, but the overall picture has to be just has good.
JMastiff
<Member>
<Member>
Can't imagine how many analogies I'll have to build to get it crorrectly. You will judge the work well given it has depth where it should. I don't give a **** if I play Tekken 6 on 14 inch analog tv or 52 lcd flat screen in hd. The core gameplay stays the same. The WoW effect doesnt last long (great graphics detail etc.). If there is something that should be emphasized it will be or it will be only a subtle addition enrhiching the work but doesn't affect the core (I try make thing simple now to keep it short). Muted sound isn't relevant, it is too extreme.
2nd
There you go.
3rd
That's all fine. Thing is I don't agree with your evaluation. Like I said before, the current way of developing games is mcdonaldish, it doesn't provide level of the experience other, more mature media provide. I have games that are close to me "just because" but that doesn't affect my judgement upon them. The death of Aeris was something completely new for gaming. Although I have a lot of nostalgia towards FFVII it doesn't change that it was just a single example of subtle evolution. Imagine games were made way so you experience similar things all the time, like in a good book. I won't rabble about how it was only connected to story rather than gameplay.
4th
I don't want to divide it that extremely. As human beings we have access to similar potential, let's call it objective truth. I said earlier that I have small theory that contradict's a bit my previous statement. It's up to you wether you stop thinking (evaluating) about something around you and wether you consider it sufficient to your taste or needs. That's why it is not recomended to rely completely on other peoples choices. But it doesn't mean there is nothing more about it. I bet anyone would find the difference in those wines you mentioned if they spent enough time just tasting them. You may chose not to do this but you shouldn't get angry if someone said you drink cheap wines.
This comparison is not really good though. The art that comes from combining understandable means with depth is something very, very rare. This is what is called objective truth, where all people can agree it is valid or says something valid about our condition. The closer it gets to this the higher "grade" it should get. That doesn't happen because there are too many people that stopped where they wanted and think that there is nothing more. But even with this conclusion I can't really imagine anyone sayin Shakespeare is **** after reading his plays.
2nd
There you go.
3rd
That's all fine. Thing is I don't agree with your evaluation. Like I said before, the current way of developing games is mcdonaldish, it doesn't provide level of the experience other, more mature media provide. I have games that are close to me "just because" but that doesn't affect my judgement upon them. The death of Aeris was something completely new for gaming. Although I have a lot of nostalgia towards FFVII it doesn't change that it was just a single example of subtle evolution. Imagine games were made way so you experience similar things all the time, like in a good book. I won't rabble about how it was only connected to story rather than gameplay.
4th
I don't want to divide it that extremely. As human beings we have access to similar potential, let's call it objective truth. I said earlier that I have small theory that contradict's a bit my previous statement. It's up to you wether you stop thinking (evaluating) about something around you and wether you consider it sufficient to your taste or needs. That's why it is not recomended to rely completely on other peoples choices. But it doesn't mean there is nothing more about it. I bet anyone would find the difference in those wines you mentioned if they spent enough time just tasting them. You may chose not to do this but you shouldn't get angry if someone said you drink cheap wines.
This comparison is not really good though. The art that comes from combining understandable means with depth is something very, very rare. This is what is called objective truth, where all people can agree it is valid or says something valid about our condition. The closer it gets to this the higher "grade" it should get. That doesn't happen because there are too many people that stopped where they wanted and think that there is nothing more. But even with this conclusion I can't really imagine anyone sayin Shakespeare is **** after reading his plays.
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>