So...why is there a picture of UCLA when UCLA isn't on the list?
Unfortunately, I have never lied about my greatest failure as a gamer (although I probably should): I've never beaten SMB.
The youngest of three kids, I never really got my turn at the game. Instead, I spent hours upon hours watching my older brothers grind away while I waited (and begged!) for my turn, which rarely came.
I've beaten SML, SMB2, SMB3, SMW, SMW2, Mario 64, Paper Mario: TTYD, Super Paper Mario, NSMB, NSMB Wii, Galaxy and Galaxy 2. I have SMB sitting on my Wii and I pick it up about once a month for a couple hours, but I can never beat the damn thing!
The youngest of three kids, I never really got my turn at the game. Instead, I spent hours upon hours watching my older brothers grind away while I waited (and begged!) for my turn, which rarely came.
I've beaten SML, SMB2, SMB3, SMW, SMW2, Mario 64, Paper Mario: TTYD, Super Paper Mario, NSMB, NSMB Wii, Galaxy and Galaxy 2. I have SMB sitting on my Wii and I pick it up about once a month for a couple hours, but I can never beat the damn thing!
in comparing inception to video games, do you mean that it is poorly-written, terribly acted and utterly boring, overlong drivel occasionally broken up by tension-less yet extraordinarily pretty battle scenes?
hm...seems accurate. inception is the new final fantasy 13.
hm...seems accurate. inception is the new final fantasy 13.
Here is a radical thought: people WANT to play video games.
Here is another radical thought: creating barriers to entry dissuades people from playing video games (by definition, duh).
Here is yet one more radical thought: 2D games are easy to pick up and play, difficult to master.
People have been clamoring for YEARS for 2D Sonic and Mario. Think of all the would-be gamers who never bought in to the confusing controllers and overpowered consoles during the late 90's and early 00's...
Here is another radical thought: creating barriers to entry dissuades people from playing video games (by definition, duh).
Here is yet one more radical thought: 2D games are easy to pick up and play, difficult to master.
People have been clamoring for YEARS for 2D Sonic and Mario. Think of all the would-be gamers who never bought in to the confusing controllers and overpowered consoles during the late 90's and early 00's...
@frog_man1975: I used "by and large" to connote that while I do think certain games have artistic merit, I don't think the entire medium is art.
As for your second question, I have seen beautiful, engaging and thought provoking women, trees, hot air balloons, etc. I wouldn't consider those art ;)
I certainly allow that some people COULD include video games on their lists of what is art. I simply think that games are artistic, but not art. Comparing them to movies (which I see as kind of on the cusp of art already), literature, painting or theater seems kind of pointless to me.
As for your second question, I have seen beautiful, engaging and thought provoking women, trees, hot air balloons, etc. I wouldn't consider those art ;)
I certainly allow that some people COULD include video games on their lists of what is art. I simply think that games are artistic, but not art. Comparing them to movies (which I see as kind of on the cusp of art already), literature, painting or theater seems kind of pointless to me.
I LOVE videogames. I play videogames. Hell, I work in videogames. And yet, I agree with Ebert...mostly.
Yes, I believe that certain games can be art. And I believe that games require an extraordinary amount of art in order to be produced. But the experience of playing a game is completely different than that of viewing a painting or watching a play -- even a play that involves its audience by breaking the fourth wall.
Games are games. They are closer to chess, checkers or go than they are to Twain, Shakespeare or Sargent. A goban can be beautifully crafted from amazing wood. A chess board can be sculpted by a master artisan. But that still doesn't make chess or go art.
When played competitively, games are closer to football, baseball or hockey than they are to Murasaki, Bach or Neruda. Sure, baseball teams require graphic designers, seamstresses and craftsmen to develop their uniforms and equipment. Yes, football players perform balletic movements in the heat of violent competition. But that doesn't make sports art.
Games are -- by and large -- not created as a form of expression, but rather as a form of interactive entertainment, of creating a challenging puzzle, of developing a product. It's an entirely different impetus than that of the artist who creates to express, who creates to create. Again, yes I think SOME games fit MY subjective definition of art. And SOME games fit the dictionary definition of art. But what definition of art are other people using that games fit into? To me, games USE art towards a completely different (and un-artistic) purpose. They are more than art. They are less than art. They are different from art, and I appreciate them differently. I'm not sure why people are so intent on PROVING they are art. They are something amazing that artists of the past could never even dream of. I enjoy appreciating them as games. Feel free to argue :P
Yes, I believe that certain games can be art. And I believe that games require an extraordinary amount of art in order to be produced. But the experience of playing a game is completely different than that of viewing a painting or watching a play -- even a play that involves its audience by breaking the fourth wall.
Games are games. They are closer to chess, checkers or go than they are to Twain, Shakespeare or Sargent. A goban can be beautifully crafted from amazing wood. A chess board can be sculpted by a master artisan. But that still doesn't make chess or go art.
When played competitively, games are closer to football, baseball or hockey than they are to Murasaki, Bach or Neruda. Sure, baseball teams require graphic designers, seamstresses and craftsmen to develop their uniforms and equipment. Yes, football players perform balletic movements in the heat of violent competition. But that doesn't make sports art.
Games are -- by and large -- not created as a form of expression, but rather as a form of interactive entertainment, of creating a challenging puzzle, of developing a product. It's an entirely different impetus than that of the artist who creates to express, who creates to create. Again, yes I think SOME games fit MY subjective definition of art. And SOME games fit the dictionary definition of art. But what definition of art are other people using that games fit into? To me, games USE art towards a completely different (and un-artistic) purpose. They are more than art. They are less than art. They are different from art, and I appreciate them differently. I'm not sure why people are so intent on PROVING they are art. They are something amazing that artists of the past could never even dream of. I enjoy appreciating them as games. Feel free to argue :P
@NoxiousStar: people fear what they don't know, no?
lightsabers are not a problem because everybody knows them. if everybody knows them (and they are sold in the gift shop), a security guard can't get in trouble for allowing them.
but this keyblade thing...well, THAT has to be suspicious because people don't know what it is. at least the security guard didn't confiscate it or anything.
lightsabers are not a problem because everybody knows them. if everybody knows them (and they are sold in the gift shop), a security guard can't get in trouble for allowing them.
but this keyblade thing...well, THAT has to be suspicious because people don't know what it is. at least the security guard didn't confiscate it or anything.
Goofy looks like he is ready to tussle!
I played a demo of Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep on the PSP about an hour before I took RE for a spin on the 3DS. Graphics advantage: Nintendo. BIG TIME.
@Aprotosis: laf. the people that understand these things just get tired of trying to convince the idiot fanboys that most business decisions are the result of a shit-ton of research and testing, and that the world does not revolve around one blog posters' opinions.
personally, i think that MS and Sony are going to have a difficult time tapping into the casual crowd. Nintendo spent $500MM building brand awareness for its Wii, and even developed the console specifically to appeal to non-gamers. They achieved unbelievable penetration, and now MS and Sony are coming out with ADD-ONS that will attempt to convince Wii owners to buy another device that will let them play virtual bowling. I don't see it happening.
i am, however, very excited to try out the technology b/c it looks like a lot of fun!
personally, i think that MS and Sony are going to have a difficult time tapping into the casual crowd. Nintendo spent $500MM building brand awareness for its Wii, and even developed the console specifically to appeal to non-gamers. They achieved unbelievable penetration, and now MS and Sony are coming out with ADD-ONS that will attempt to convince Wii owners to buy another device that will let them play virtual bowling. I don't see it happening.
i am, however, very excited to try out the technology b/c it looks like a lot of fun!
@Horst Tappert: it's like "Nintendogs," only stupid and not cute.
@Thut: or even better, don't talk about your contributions. just make contributions.
i think kotick has done amaxing things to bring the video game industry to the mainstream. but that's as a businessman and a salesman and a strategic thinker, which won't garner any enthusiasm from gamers & programmers. if he wants to make contributions to the technical side, he needs to start investing in innovation.
i think kotick has done amaxing things to bring the video game industry to the mainstream. but that's as a businessman and a salesman and a strategic thinker, which won't garner any enthusiasm from gamers & programmers. if he wants to make contributions to the technical side, he needs to start investing in innovation.
@SublimeSunrise: heh. speaking of acti apologists...
[littlebobeep.com]
[littlebobeep.com]
@FrankieViturello: Mmm...po-tat-to chips.
/homer
/homer
@stranger: At least Heidi Montag went out and did some gun training and made a bad-ass tape of herself. Kim Kardashian has...a Carl's Jr. ad.
Ditto on the disgusted. How does this alleged person even get mentioned in a serious discussion? Direct-to-Video AT BEST.
Ditto on the disgusted. How does this alleged person even get mentioned in a serious discussion? Direct-to-Video AT BEST.
Don't hate me for saying this, but...Alexis Bledel FTW. I haven't seen anything she's done in years, but I was very impressed by her turn in Sin City. She plays smart well, is pretty and can be charming. Get that body in shape, and play Lara Croft like a female Indiana Jones instead of a boobtastic cartoon.
Of course, that's assuming Tomb Raider fans are more interested in witty adventure than ta-tas, which is probably not the case.
;)
Of course, that's assuming Tomb Raider fans are more interested in witty adventure than ta-tas, which is probably not the case.
;)
@dansyndrome: Bonus points for Jolt cola.
@Chestnut Bowl: I think the iPhone allows for some unique interfaces for games (ESPECIALLY rhythm games), so I'll be excited to see how this takes advantage of the platform...
What's going on?
VERY ballsy of the Konami marketing team to shy away from branding this game a Contra game. I mean, the name "Contra" alone would sell a ton of units, especially in the current nostalgia-heavy market. And considering it's named after a Contra game...well, that speaks to Konami's faith in the quality of the game, I think.
