ThunderPeel2001

Has anyone seen that Charlie Sheen Cookery video? I hear it's great, but I can't seem to find a link to it anywhere.

Ironically I had a similar experience in Rango... I kind of felt sorry for the kid, though, because he was probably expecting something aimed at kids. Rango was a little more mature, I felt.

I'm not sure where I can stand on BM's definition of art, but it is compelling. One thing I do agree with is: There has been no single game that has reached the status of art. Ebert puts it into perspective, perfectly: "I have recently seen classic films by Fassbinder, Ozu, Herzog, Scorsese and Kurosawa, and have recently read novels by Dickens, Cormac McCarthy, Bellow, Nabokov and Hugo, and if there were video games in the same league, someone somewhere who was familiar with the best work in all three mediums would have made a convincing argument in their defense." It's true that I've yet to play a game that has touched me in the same way the best examples of a medium such as novels, painting, music, film, theatre, has. As both Ebert and Moriarty admit: The majority of movies are NOT art. They're "mass-produced art" (aka kitsch art). Which isn't to say they're worthless trash, just that they're well made, highly crafted, often beautiful, but not as profound or as lifting as the best examples of their medium. The ending of Braid , came damn close for me, but it was still a bit pretentious, as it didn't reveal anything to me about my life or life in general.

Yeah, you can't lose! Well, unless you count "losing" as spending tens of hours of your life playing tripe in order to get to the top of the Idle Thumbs Leaderboard Achievements are great for me at the moment. I'm not remotely interested in my overall score, but I am interested in squeezing more life out of old games I own. Some achievements are really satisfying to unlock.

I'm not sure this is entirely fair. His point is really about what art is... and how any choice is an enemy of that. I still don't know how I feel about his definition of art, but it's an interesting point of view, and it's got nothing to do with how you define games.

Only the last two are new to me, everyone else has been around for a while, I think.

Added

You should try ImgBurn. I feel pretty confident that it will work for you.

A fascinating article, that leaves me with plenty to consider My initial reactions, as I wrote them going through the article: (Written in the form of a comment to Brian Moriarty.) "By what right do games suddenly demand the status of great art?" Because for the first time we're playing them against the _creators_ of the game, instead of against each other, or against a set of rules. A better analogy for modern gaming (at least the average 1 player game) is not chess, but Fantasy Role Playing, where you sit with a "Dungeon Master" who creates a world for you to interact in. New technology has allowed the greatest "Dungeon Masters" to create more sophisticated worlds to play in, and allowed them to add more interactivity (although never as much as someone sitting next to you, making things up depending on what you say). The question is really: Can the type of game typified by Fantasy Role Playing ever be considered art? (I don't know the answer to this, but I would imagine that if the "Dungeon Master" were talented enough, then yes... but you make a compelling argument that choice is the enemy of art.) Re: The Fountain. I think you may have missed the point of this work of art (perhaps deliberately). Without putting that bold decision in the context of art history, it is just a urinal. It's so much more than that, though. Re: Stomp videos. You seem to deliberately distort the truth behind that story. The only reason those videos were not initially banned, was because the law was too broad and could be used against those that trafficked dog-fighting videos and hunting videos, because those videos may have been taken in a place were such things were legal. The Supreme Court agreed that sexually motivated stomp most likely did not fall under "free speech", and literally said that a new law, specifically aimed at these sexual-fetishist stomp videos, would likely pass their scrutiny (and I wouldn't be surprised if it already has). Re: Clive Barker. To be fair to him, he said, if something moves you, "I think it's worthy of some serious study". He didn't say that it automatically qualified as art, just that it shouldn't be dismissed.

I think they're going to need external help, too, though.

Chris, what you're describing to me is just the difference between poor characterisation and good characterisation. Characters, generally speaking, are the most important thing to any story. Star Trek's characterisation was pathetic, so be blunt (I don't think anyone could argue with that, at least for the original series, but if I've offended someone, I'll add: IMHO). There was no depth, nothing interesting about their interactions, hardly anything "real life" to relate to, but... that's not why people were watching and enjoying it. (I think they tried to add more in TNG, but it was still secondary to exploring scientific/fantastic ideas.) Something like The Wire, Alan Moore's writings, or even Shakespeare, are all about the characters. The plot helps things move along, but it's not essential. Watchmen has a pretty terrible plot in the original comic (and not much better in the film), but what makes it worthwhile is the relatable, believable characters. We undergo their journey, we relate to their pain and struggles, and we learn about ourselves in the process. A Serious Man is a great example of this, as you pointed out. I left that movie thinking about my own life and the things I worry about, and how pointless that might be. A film with a gripping plot can be intellectually satisfying, but I think it also becomes boring on repeated viewings very quickly. (I cite Christopher Nolan's recent films, which are amazing on many levels, but if you're not in the right mood for them can be a real chore to re-watch... at least in my experience.) Stories with less believable, rounded and complicated characters, (like Star Trek, soap operas, action movies, and er, porn) are generally seen at the lower end of the "art" spectrum... and I agree with that assessment. I don't learn anything about myself or my life by watching a building explode or learning about the societal structure of The Borg. (I'm sure there are exceptions in all these genres, of course.) An immediate exception that leaps to mind, though, is Kubrick. He is on record talking about how he disliked it when Hollywood movies put scenes in to manipulate the audience into liking characters (he used the example of a ball-breaking, drill sergeant being shown in his office, alone, crying -- see, he's got a soft side!). It's an interesting point, but for many people he went too far in the opposite direction. 2001: A Space Odyssey, in particular, is seen as a very cold and unrelatable film... but it's also considered a masterpiece, because it excels so much in other areas. (Note: Generally speaking this impersonal nature of sci-fi is why most (not all, obviously) women say they don't like watching it, and claim it's childish. "Who cares about things that don't relate to real life?", is the attitude I've repeatedly heard. Firefly (and to some extent, BSG) are noted for being more popular with women than your normal sci-fi, because they try to deal with that issue.) Of course, as with 2001, "hard" sci-fi can open our minds to genuinely new and interesting ideas, despite the fact that the characters are non-existent. Firefly wasn't necessarily Shakespeare or anything, but it was successful at doing one thing: Creating believable, complicated, well rounded characters, and putting them in a sci-fi setting. I love both these things (and witty dialogue in the vein of Wilder, etc.) so I was in my element... but if you don't like the characters, then I imagine you'd hate it.

So be it, stranger. Welcome to the leaderboards

I don't think Kroms has met her character yet, but you're right. A lot of people in the show are real (compared to other shows, at least). The "real" Avon Barksdale appears as "The Deacon", for one thing. Lots of the original homicide/newspaper people that Simon worked with also appear. I heard an interview that Simon said that everyone who appears in the show is loosely based on people they've met or heard about during their time on the streets.

Like you say, they touched upon some potentially very sensitive topics in that game (the history of violence in Niko's home country), so I'm sure they were keen deliberately NOT to make him from one specific country... I can understand, as I'd much prefer they didn't wade into offensive material (as in, actually offensive material, not satire) for the sake of mock-realism... It is a fictional universe, after all. But yeah, we Brits hate it when US films get the UK and UK accents wrong... so I appreciate the annoyance.

Are you saying Tribbles aren't real?

Definitely. Anyways, I guess it's just not for everyone. It has got quite a dry sense of humour, I can understand people not liking it. I thought it was really good, though.

Well, the setting allows for lots of interesting things happen: A mixed group of people from different backgrounds forced to live and work in close-quarters creates interesting conflict and storylines. A space-ship is a perfect place to set such a thing, as it's really this ragbag of people against the world. M*A*S*H was a similar idea, but in a more depressing and "realistic" environment. Setting it in the future also allows cool things to happen that couldn't happen if it was set in present day New York, or on a ranch in Montana. I'm sure there are other settings, but "the future" does make it easier to have battles (literal and metaphorical) with an "evil" corporation/government, for example. Chris, I'm sure you can acknowledge that characters are less the focus in Star Trek. In Star Trek, the characters are there to interact with new technology and ideas. I.e. They essentially play the part of the audience, asking questions and probing the possibilities of science and technology. I'll bet there aren't episodes where the major plotline involve someone getting over a relationship, or coming to terms with an event from their past. Battlestar Galactica also attempted to make the show more character orientated than usual TV sci-fi and, yes, many of those stories could have been told in a present day military academy... but you have more opportunities if you set it in your own universe.

This.

James M and Miffy are added

The Star Trek thing is wonderful! (It's also made by a die-hard trekkie.)

Yes, they did a great job because they tried to look at everything from every angle, instead of taking the easy way out and making someone a "baddie", or whatever. Glad to hear you enjoyed it. You might be interested to know some of the background: David Simon was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun. He wrote on the crime desk, and unlike the other writers, he liked it their. When he felt that the quality of the newspaper was sinking, it broke his heart, so he asked for a year off to write a book. He decided to ask the local Homicide Division if he could shadow them for a year, live alongside them and watch everything they do, all with the aim of publishing it. For a reason that he still doesn't know to this day, and against all odds, the person he asked said yes. (They died before Simon could ask, and obviously at the time he didn't want to jinx his luck -- he just went along with it.) So he became the first journalist ever to be given complete, unfettered access to a Homicide Division. He did that for a year, all day, every day, and then wrote the book: Homicide: A Year On the Killing Streets (highly recommended, btw). This was later turned into the TV show Homicide: Life on the Streets in a compromised form, but one that still won accolades. After his first book was published, he decided to look at the other side of the story with an ex-police that he'd befriended during his research, Ed Burns. Burns had been a homicide detective who got to work on several special cases, like the one seen in the first season of The Wire. In fact, the story of the first season is heavily based on a real case that Burns worked on. It's so much Burns's story that he's listed as a co-writer on every episode of the first season. By the time Simon was looking to write his second book, Burns had retired after 20 years of service. (He later became an inner-city school teacher, an experience his likened to Vietnam.) The two of them then spent a year on the "worst" drug corners in Baltimore, getting to know everyone they could. As you'd imagine, people were initially reticent, suspicious of these two new guys hanging around... one of them a former cop (although, I don't think he got recognized very often), but people soon got used to them being there, and went back to their day-to-day existence. They got deep into the so-called "dregs" of society, the people that "don't matter", even to the homicide department. Most murders are drug or gang related, and there's a feeling that those people aren't part of "our" society, so they don't get reported in the news, etc. Simon and Burns wanted to find out more about them, who these people were, the choices/problems they faced, and the lives they lived. The result was the book, "The Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner-City Neighborhood", co-written by Simon and Burns. So when you say it feels "realistic", there's a damn good reason for it Excellent stuff. Your observations are very perceptive.

That's a really cool idea. I'm sure it could be done with that animated cube really easily... I was about to say it was an amazing idea, but isn't the fourth dimension time?

You're there now

I gave crap examples. Sci-fi is generally about SCIence and technology. Star Trek, for example, doesn't fall into space opera or sci-fantasy, but it's often about the technology more than the people. Firefly (and Battlestar Galactica, to some degree) made a conscious effort to try and ignore the technology. These were people first, who just happened to be in the future. A typical storyline in Firefly would involve a "job" going bad and someone on the crew betraying someone. A typical storyline on Star Trek would involve meeting new alien intelligence. Quite a change in focus, I think. That was what I was attempting to say, anyway.

Haha! That cracked me up. Poo, Everyone knows that backslashes are fast becoming the most used key on a keyboard... Now you have a spare for when one of them inevitably breaks from wear and tear.