Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!




Last Active
  • Are games art?

    It seems people would rather their games be good art instead of good games.  Games make much games than art.
  • Are games art?

    Alverant said:
    DMKano said:
    Horusra said:
    Art is subjective. Everything thing is art and not art at the same time.

    Is nature art?
    Not unless the section of nature was designed by a person (ie a garden).

    Games are art by looking at the word origin along with "artificial" and "artiface". All have the same root concept of something intentionally made by skill. Cooking, writing, programming, building, etc are all forms of art. There is no reason not to include games.
    In that case everything man made or done by man is art.  In which case nothing is art.  

    Whats the difference between a soccer game, a game of chess, and an mmorpg?  Since painters compete for the resources of patrons of their art, painting is a game.  

    The stock market is a game.  Making plain napkins at a factory is a game.  Communicating on forums is a game.  Drudge work is a game.  And all of them are art.  And any of those activities being considered primarily a game or art is useless and wrong.

    Any definition that includes almost anything is useless.  Definitions, by nature and common sense, need to be exclusive to be of value.  

    At their root, base level games and art are not the same.  Everything that is art isn't a game, and everything that is a game isn't art.  Almost any work that the vast majority of people would agree is primarily art would not also be considered a game.  Almost any game the vast majority of people would agree is primarily a game would also not be considered art.

    Some players of the game may play the game artfully, and some artists may create art playfully.  

    Is chess a better game when the pieces are beautiful pieces of art?  Would Rodin have been a better sculptor if his creations chased people around playing a game of tag?

    A game is good regardless of its artistic value.  Art is good regardless of if it can be interacted with or has some sort of game aspect to it.

    Edit - Of course Rodin would be a lot more well known if his sculptures chased people around.  But the artistic beauty of his sculptures would be judged independently of his magical ability to turn them into automatons.  Its a bad example since it is based on magic but you get what I was trying to say hopefully.  
  • Are games art?

    Art is a passive medium you enjoy.  Game is an active event you participate in, unless you are passively watching someone or others play a game.  Any game that is more art than game isn't much of its root word.  Anything else said claimed is hyperbole and semantics.  

    I don't play games because I want my movies to have slightly interactive parts between the movie.  I don't play games to have something arty to look at.  I play games because I enjoy the game part of games.  I want the game part to be good, not art.
  • Guild Wars 2 - Bill Murphy - ArenaNet and the Wisdom of Not Doing Anything - MMORPG.com

    sayuu said:
    Scellow said:
    None of them should have been fired, they HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to think / and say WHATEVER they want in their FREE TIME, if they did something illegal, or disrecpectfull, you can report tweet on twitter or give your lawyer a call

    They got fired, i hope they'll sure ArenaNet, America is fucked up
    Look! Someone with a brain! A FREE THINKER! Proof that not everyone subscribes to the PC madness corrupting society.

    PC will be the death of free speech, and that, people, will be the death of democracy.
    you are literally crying about actions having consequences.

    and F.W.I. democracy = tyranny 

    Actions? ACTIONS?
    I refer to my earlier "sticks and stones" comment.
    Words are not actions. It's one thing to say something and something quite different to act upon those words. Had she physically assaulted someone then fair game but she didn't. She posted some comments on twitter. I mean, seriously, she posted some comments on twitter. Big fucking deal.

    This is exactly the kind of PC, namby pamby bollocks I'm talking about.

    Edit, @MadFrenchie as well. Actions, get real.
    If you don't believe an employee of the company can, through words alone, cause very real negative repercussions for their company that the company would have a vested interest in protecting against, then I have to hope you never work for the company I work for.
    Once again this is just another example showing that PC has gone beyond the pale. It shouldn't even be an issue but because of unchecked political correctness, running amok, we find this atmosphere in which fear of consequences forces people to act (over react) on the slightest perceived offense.

    You should not have to fear for your job because something you say may have repercussions on your company, not if you don't speak for them officially. This is the insanity of political correctness.
    I agree with what you are saying to a point - but before the term "political correctness" was coined, people were fired from work for actions outside of work.  There are huge sections of various titles within the U.S. Code specifically about it relating to government employees of various types in various ways as one set of proof, and very old cases in the US as another.

    I am against PC nonsense, and for free speech rights.  I am also against employees being fired for actions outside of work generally - with reasonable and logical exceptions.   

    I get work calls outside of work.  I'm salaried and its part of the job.  The people I deal with aren't customer's of my company, but I see anyone I deal with in my official work role as a customer.  I would never think about verbally assaulting any of them.  And I certainly would fire her, or any employee, that was going out of her way to cause harm and lose to her employer.  

    I don't have free speech in my official role at work.  I doubt she is an hourly employee.  In this case, since she failed to either disengage, and didn't accept his blatant and humble attempt to deescalate the situation, but went out of her way to escalate it - what recourse does the company have?

    This isn't about free speech or free thinking or PC anything.  Its about a fanatical ideolog flying off the handles while biting the hand that feeds her, and that hand, reasonably and rationally, deciding to no longer feed her.  

    Its hard to make the argument you are anti-PC, pro-free speech, and pro-free thinking - while in the same breath saying a company should be forced to employee people directly harming the company.  She didn't get fired for going to some hate-cult gathering and doing hate-cult things outside of work.  This is directly related to work in a very public arena.  

    If she was fired for her political views and there wasn't a clear and direct link to work, and a clear and obvious breach of the universal basic rule of don't go nuts on a customer that doesn't deserve it that everyone everywhere has to live by, the majority of people would be defending her.  

    If you owned a business, and an employee went nuts of a customer that did nothing to deserve it, and this situation was very public and very visible, what would you do?  Just have no standards and say fuck it?  You wouldn't have a company for long, and the rest of your employees wouldn't have jobs.  But I'd be interested in hearing how you think this should have been handled, while keeping in mind your actions impact not just the crazy lady, but the rest of your employees, work culture and expectations, your angry community that pays the bills, etc.
  • Guild Wars 2 - Bill Murphy - ArenaNet and the Wisdom of Not Doing Anything - MMORPG.com

    First five points (of seven). I think point two encapsulates the majority opinion of the people defending this lady's behavior or trying to manipulate the narrative. Other than the person who responded wasn't an enemy, but was perceived as one for daring to try and start a conversation.

    ---Paxton, author of several books, including "The Anatomy of Fascism" (Vintage, 2005), said fascism is based more on feelings than philosophical ideas. In his 1988 essay "The Five Stages of Fascism," published in 1998 in the Journal of Modern History, he defined seven feelings that act as "mobilizing passions" for fascist regimes. They are:
    1 - The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights.
    2 - Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies.
    3 - The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group.
    4 - A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's "unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary."
    5 - Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. Paxton called this an "enhanced sense of identity and belonging."---