It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Oh, I criticize Star Citizen heavily, but I don't think that means I'm part of a cult.Torval said:Phaserlight said:Ironically similar to atheism, being a critic of SC does not require one to adopt any particular set of beliefs whereas being a 'true supporter' requires one to accept some very specific items on faith. There are many different ways to criticize Star Citizen whereas there is only one 'gospel of Roberts'. As such, the "critic cultist" label doesn't work.Torval said:Blizzcon tickets are $200 each at a minimum. The fancy dinner stuff costs more I think ($500) and the "virtual tickets" are $40. This is normal convention stuff, but don't let that stop your irrational judgement of one game company over another.The critic cultists of this game are as freaky as the fanboys.Hahaha, you keep telling yourself that lie. Also, notice how you had to deflect the thing that triggered you instead of actually answering my point? Guilty.And I'm not a fan of this game at all. It doesn't look good or fun at this stage. It looks like it will turn out to be a fancier clunkier Elite Dangerous which was a total disappointment.
Serious question: how do you know this won't already be the case without any sort of technological deus ex machina?iixviiiix said:Yes ,i want to see how the world become in future , to 2100 and 2200 . i hope i live long enough to see the sci-fic become true . Then maybe i will rest in peace at that time lol , the curious is one reason worth to keep you alive .
Scot said:Sorry, but I have to point out how lacking in substance these arguments are. This "asking the viewer to think about things in a different way" is intellectual claptrap. What they are doing is coming up with an idea for you to think about, and because the art elite buy into this it has to be amazing. If you don't "get it" you must somehow be of lesser intelligence, not able to master the ability to see beyond what you see. It reminds me of the fable of the Emperors clothes.Sovrath said:MadFrenchie said:Literally considered art:
Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting [three panel], 1951
You can't make this up.It is important to put context to that "painting."There's "art" that is about skill as well as subject matter and there's "art" that is about the artist asking the viewer to think about things in a different way.If one were to look at the other end of the spectrum, say Jackson Pollack, criticism could be made that what he did took no "talent" as a kid could do it.But if you watch the videos of him painting one gets the sense that he truly meant what he painted. And what he painted was a sort of visual representation of his improvisatory movements as well as his choice of color, texture, etc.Not to say everyone can or should appreciate or even like this stuff but understanding what is going on is part of understanding why some consider this "art."
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
If you make it past the intro, the rest of that soundtrack is surprisingly chill. Ironically blissful at times, even. Take "Hall of Souls":Jean-Luc_Picard said:Hey, I really like Nine Inch Nails !