Sony vs. Sony?

I see the problem now. You don't think of things outside of dusty paintings and ancient sculptures as art, while I see nearly every product of human civilization as art.

Therein lies our conflict of definitions that causes each of us to be arguing at eachother about completely different subjects.

This looks like a good place for the both of us to shut up and stop looking like asses.
 
Dude just because something is a fact dose not mean that it is always right. People get killed and shot everyday, dose that make it right NO it F***ing wrong and that is a fact. My opinion on the fact that The President is a a$$hole and is not that smart can be true because statisticly a lot of people beleive that to be so. So would that not be considered a fact. I mean you are saying that statistics helps prove that something is true and untrue.

Here is something for you, Statisticly it is said that white people are more prone to shoplift than any other race. So is that a fair statment dose it make it right or wrong. Blacks, and Latinos suffer from failing scools sytems and are statisticly the majority of the people in jail, would that be right or wrong to say.

Your SO called statistics dose not make anything right, It only makes it a statistic a precent nothing more. GTA San Andreas received great scores all over the board but my opionon on the game is still that it wa not better than Vice City.

And games can be an art form. There are a lot of developers out there who treat what they do as a art form. Example Team Ninja, wants Ninja Gaiden to be perfect why, who the hell knows. But from a creative standpoint it could be because it is something they created and like all artist their work must always be perfect.


And statisticly a lot of people think that you are a ass so is that right or wrong?
 
PrinceLUDA21 said:
And statisticly a lot of people think that you are a ass so is that right or wrong?



uhh ide have to say your right.

and spudly if you have the stastics, why dont you show us? is it online? is it in a magizine? or is it your opinion or your idea you just made it?
 
Yes please show us these statistics you so called have. So that we know it is a fact. Other than that it is just your opinion and nothing more which would make you wrong because you could not prove it. And don't give a excuse like I don't feel like it, because that would in turn make you lazy ergo makes your statments and opionon and not a fact.
 
here is the defination of "opinion"

noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.


so dont critize me on if i dont think Resistence is so great, cause thats my beliefs and thats my opinion, and no amount of stastics can change that. and i dont doubt its the best PS3 game out cause ALL THE OTHER PS3 GAMES SUCK
 
I to think that RFM was not O so great has it is made out to be. It's nice but not great.

Also think of an opinon like this: A christian beleives that his choice of religon is right, and that can count as a opinion. Same gose for a muslim. So who is wrong and who is right, they both have a opinion. And by you saying that any opinion is wrong is saying that their choice of religion is wrong also. And that my friend is what can send you to hell, but again thats my opinion so I may be wrong or right.
 
PrinceLUDA21 said:
Yes please show us these statistics you so called have. So that we know it is a fact. Other than that it is just your opinion and nothing more which would make you wrong because you could not prove it. And don't give a excuse like I don't feel like it, because that would in turn make you lazy ergo makes your statments and opionon and not a fact.

Sorry Luda, but he did feel like it about 50 posts ago. Right about here You can't fault him for the data. It's likely from a source like GameRankings that averages all of the magazine and online reviews. He can't be faulted for not having the data. Just being stubborn that the data is the final say in what is "good" and what's not.

As far as Resistance's quality, consider F.E.A.R.: brilliant game that brought a lot to the table and did it well, but it sits firmly in familiar territory and broke little new ground. Thus, it can be rated highly, but it's lack of content innovation makes the package less appealing. While Gears of War created a fresh experience in a lot of ways, Resistance seems like a mash-up of the well-trod WWII and Alien shooters. I have yet to play it myself, but I'm definitely curious to try it.
 
PrinceLUDA21 said:
Dude just because something is a fact dose not mean that it is always right. People get killed and shot everyday, dose that make it right NO it F***ing wrong and that is a fact. My opinion on the fact that The President is a a$$hole and is not that smart can be true because statisticly a lot of people beleive that to be so. So would that not be considered a fact. I mean you are saying that statistics helps prove that something is true and untrue.

Here is something for you, Statisticly it is said that white people are more prone to shoplift than any other race. So is that a fair statment dose it make it right or wrong. Blacks, and Latinos suffer from failing scools sytems and are statisticly the majority of the people in jail, would that be right or wrong to say.

Your SO called statistics dose not make anything right, It only makes it a statistic a precent nothing more. GTA San Andreas received great scores all over the board but my opionon on the game is still that it wa not better than Vice City.

And games can be an art form. There are a lot of developers out there who treat what they do as a art form. Example Team Ninja, wants Ninja Gaiden to be perfect why, who the hell knows. But from a creative standpoint it could be because it is something they created and like all artist their work must always be perfect. Not to mention the fact that you're stupidly mistaking the word "right" as accurate as opposed to morally correct.


And statisticly a lot of people think that you are a ass so is that right or wrong?
Did you just vomit all over your keyboard? Because that was one of the most illegible, incoherent things written on this forum.

And really, you can't say the stats aren't anything but accurate. There are loads of people who are smarter than you who say these things. They play more games and have more information. Think of it like the Madden Bowl players. Madden Bowl players say that, on defense, it is best to play as a middle linebacker and stop passes over the middle and rushes through the lines. And really, they know more than you. They're an expert. Whatever they say is typically true. This applies to the majority of game critics. They've probably played more games than you. They know more than you. They're more able to accurately assess the quality of a game. They're very rarely debatably accurate. There are the occasional, individual exceptions. When I reviewed Ghost in the Shell for the PS2 (8.0/10), I rated it well above all the other sites and mags (65% average). Why? Because I enjoyed it. Was it a good game? Nope. My SUBJECTIVE experience with the game was positive. The OBJECTIVE quality of the game is negative. Is there some conspiracy against Bandai Games to have all the media outlets under-rate the game? I doubt it. The only explanation as to why almost every single site and mag said it SUCKED is probably because it SUCKED. Even though I had a good time with the game, am I going to make the case that it's a good game? No. Because there's enough unanimity among the other people who reviewed the game to make it quite clear to me that the game, in fact, sucks. And there is no outside interference around to manipulate the game's ratings. So what basis would I have to say that everyone else is wrong? None. And that's why none of you have any bases to do the same.
 
spudly how do you not consider Games not a form of art? cause i agree half of some games look like S**t, but the other half is a cinamatic beauty.
look at GOW half of the game takes place in a gothic arcatecture city. and look at Okami, it like a japenese oil painting.
 
spudlyff8fan said:
There are the occasional, individual exceptions. When I reviewed Ghost in the Shell for the PS2 (8.0/10), I rated it well above all the other sites and mags (65% average). Why? Because I enjoyed it. Was it a good game? Nope. My SUBJECTIVE experience with the game was positive. The OBJECTIVE quality of the game is negative. Is there some conspiracy against Bandai Games to have all the media outlets under-rate the game? I doubt it. The only explanation as to why almost every single site and mag said it SUCKED is probably because it SUCKED. Even though I had a good time with the game, am I going to make the case that it's a good game? No. Because there's enough unanimity among the other people who reviewed the game to make it quite clear to me that the game, in fact, sucks. And there is no outside interference around to manipulate the game's ratings. So what basis would I have to say that everyone else is wrong? None. And that's why none of you have any bases to do the same.

So in other words you were wrong. And thats all you have to say. No details on what made you wrong just that I am wrong. But you still liked the game and thats your opinion right? So would that make you wrong for liking a wack game or saying that the game is good, because everyone else said it was bad? NO it dose not make you wrong, because that is how you feel towards the game. Which is and opinion. And I am sure that every game critic out there is the same. They may say Halo 2 is great and everyone should go out and buy the game. But they may not like the game or think that it is all that great. Why? Because in his/her own opinion they do not think or beleive that the game is all that great.


And as far as critics go I don't trust any of them. Sure they know more than me. They make a living off of this type of stuff. From games to movies to music. They get paid to talk about these things. But it dose not make what they say true. I read in some reviews that Gears was crap. They slammed the game for its shortcomings. But gave it a high score. Critics have a opinion just like everyone else, and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. So I would think that they should know more than me when it comes to games. But still it can not and will not change the fact that I did not and will not beleive that RFM is such a great game that it is made out to be. AND THAT IS MY OPINION.
 
Just to chime in: I have reviewed games for fun and profit since about 1999. Now, I've seen many reviewers possessing these plum jobs based on they're being fans and having some writing skills, but many aren't pure journalists. Give them a break...they aren't writing New York Times Political Analysis or about stocks for the Wall Street Journal.

With the glut of video game media outlets, from G4TV to even this site, there are more reviewers of games than seems humanly possible, all vying to be recognized for their views more so than the other guy, and many of these writers are given to the same outside influences and prejudices that afflict the rest of the game-playing community. What makes a useful review to me is when a reviewer takes the time out to describe the mechanics of the game that make him or her either enjoy or loathe the game. Judging by what you like about games in general, you'll know whether or not there's a likelihood that you may enjoy a repetitive, hack n' slash actioner like 99 Nights whereas many reviewers seemed to judge it poorly. Opinions aren't right and wrong...the facts they are based on might be.

Furthermore, if you ever had to review Antz Extreme Racing, Fight Maker 2, The Road to El Dorado, or any games based on the Hot Wheels toy franchise, you too might become a little jaded with an often formulaic and sometimes unimaginative industry...y'know, like Hollywood.
 
Grantastic85 said:
spudly how do you not consider Games not a form of art? cause i agree half of some games look like S**t, but the other half is a cinamatic beauty.
look at GOW half of the game takes place in a gothic arcatecture city. and look at Okami, it like a japenese oil painting.
Sorry, but even Hideo Kojima, whose games are the most "artistic," says that games aren't art.

So in other words you were wrong. And thats all you have to say. No details on what made you wrong just that I am wrong. But you still liked the game and thats your opinion right? So would that make you wrong for liking a wack game or saying that the game is good, because everyone else said it was bad? NO it dose not make you wrong, because that is how you feel towards the game. Which is and opinion. And I am sure that every game critic out there is the same. They may say Halo 2 is great and everyone should go out and buy the game. But they may not like the game or think that it is all that great. Why? Because in his/her own opinion they do not think or beleive that the game is all that great.


And as far as critics go I don't trust any of them. Sure they know more than me. They make a living off of this type of stuff. From games to movies to music. They get paid to talk about these things. But it dose not make what they say true. I read in some reviews that Gears was crap. They slammed the game for its shortcomings. But gave it a high score. Critics have a opinion just like everyone else, and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. So I would think that they should know more than me when it comes to games. But still it can not and will not change the fact that I did not and will not beleive that RFM is such a great game that it is made out to be. AND THAT IS MY OPINION.
Is missing the point a habit of yours? It isn't that I was wrong. It's that my experience was a anamoly, and there's no realistic scenario that would lead to me believing that I am right and that everyone else in the entire world is wrong. There are a handful of people, and a handful of Half Life fanboys (they aren't people, though) who say Halo 2 ain't so great. But when the other 6,899,999,912 people in the world say that it's a godly game, then the opposition's arguments to the contrary become entirely null.

And you can distrust game critics. I distrust every single gaming magazine and site there is because I can accurately point out discriminations they make when it comes to different games. But that's also why I don't just buy entirely into one single outlet. That's why I don't only watch CNN/MSNBC/FNC/ABC for my news.

Just to chime in: I have reviewed games for fun and profit since about 1999. Now, I've seen many reviewers possessing these plum jobs based on they're being fans and having some writing skills, but many aren't pure journalists. Give them a break...they aren't writing New York Times Political Analysis or about stocks for the Wall Street Journal.

With the glut of video game media outlets, from G4TV to even this site, there are more reviewers of games than seems humanly possible, all vying to be recognized for their views more so than the other guy, and many of these writers are given to the same outside influences and prejudices that afflict the rest of the game-playing community. What makes a useful review to me is when a reviewer takes the time out to describe the mechanics of the game that make him or her either enjoy or loathe the game. Judging by what you like about games in general, you'll know whether or not there's a likelihood that you may enjoy a repetitive, hack n' slash actioner like 99 Nights whereas many reviewers seemed to judge it poorly. Opinions aren't right and wrong...the facts they are based on might be.

Furthermore, if you ever had to review Antz Extreme Racing, Fight Maker 2, The Road to El Dorado, or any games based on the Hot Wheels toy franchise, you too might become a little jaded with an often formulaic and sometimes unimaginative industry...y'know, like Hollywood.
I know what ya mean, Scribe. But, to reiterate, this is why you look at numerous sites. Hell, I disagree with probably 40% of the reviews here at Mygamer (7.2/10 for Metroid Prime 2? 7.8/10 for Shadow of the Colossus? 9.2/10 for Guilty Gear Isuka?)

Even here at Mygamer though, we have our people who've grown cynical over time (myself included) from contrived games, like with my recent review of Justice League Heroes, and ol' Ghosttoast's review of Call of Duty 2: Big Red One and poor, poor Zack who has reviewed so many crappy games, that he even hates the good ones now. So we aren't just playing the cream of the crop (except for Final Fantasy XII...).
 
spudlyff8fan said:
Sorry, but even Hideo Kojima, whose games are the most "artistic," says that games aren't art....).

well thats your opinion and i respect that. i on the other hand take notice to all the hard work put into a game and see the amazing enviroment out of it. i dont believe that Video games are 100% art, but i would say that about 20% to 30% games have amazing artisctic values. but i will say that i think video games are more important then Actors artisctically. ACTORS DONT DO ANYTHING, YET WE WATCH TV SHOWS ABOUT THERE LIVES! I DONT CARE HOW CRAZY TOM CRUISE IS! IM MORE INTRESTED ABOUT ALL THE SOILDIERS IN IRAQ ARE DIENG CAUSE OUR DUMBASS PRESIDENT.........FUCK YOU "E"CHANNEL!!!!!
 
Well, the "Are Games Art?" question is entirely a subjective issue. I just think that since Kojima and some other big names don't think they are, I'd have to agree with them.

And if you don't want to see stuff about Tom Cruise, then turn on MSNBC or FNC.
 
It's really an argument that deserves it's own never-ending thread of stupidity, but my two cents on games as art: a lot of people who one would consider an "artist" are doing it for their job, so it becomes work and business to them. Thus, they don't think it's art.

But all this ambiguity lies in the definition of art. If some things are "art" and some things aren't, then what decides? If you study the modernist and post-modernist evolution in art, it's exciting to watch as, over time, the traditional "it looks nice" and "it looks just like something else" rapidly fall away, and one ends up with abstraction and experiementation. A lot of the painters who seemed to just spray and slop paint where ever they wished were capable of highly technically achieved realistic portraits, but wanted to delve into what made art "art." Skip to the end of modernism, where the physical and cultural expectations of art are stripped down to the barest point: nothing. All of that philosophy and experimentation, and when art is reduced to it's simplest, purest elements, it's composed of nothing.

This is because the idea of "art" didn't exist until some time in the 1700's when a bunch of scholars wanted to talk about those kinds of things. Before there was "art," painting or sculpting wasn't far removed from baking or carpentry. The root of the word, latin "ars," just means skill or technical know-how. Essentially, any practiced trade was an art.

Skip back into post-modernism, which is all about trying to reconstruct ideas of art with the knowledge that "art" doesn't really exist. Cold, man. Cold.

There are, however, some romantic and often spiritual definitions of "art" that can persist, based, it seems, on The Book of Five Rings by the ancient Japanese swordsman Musashi, which recent translations have explained, at first, that one must submit to The Spirit of the Thing Itself, which could be swordfighting, calligraphy, music, painting, etc., but in the end it's revealed that The Spirit of the Thing Itself is really Nothing. It's as if there is some kind of undefined essence in the universe from which true art can spring, and humans have access to it, but only if they first submit themselves to it.

I always find that very interesting, since it both supports modernism's conclusion that "art is nothing" while saying that one must draw from art's "no-thing-ness" to create it. It's so Daoist that it hurts.

So there you have it. A brief history of "what is art" that argues no points.

I'd say games are in a strange position, since they are filled with artistic creations (music, models, textures, writing, sophisticated coding, etc.), but the whole package is composed of so many small things... however, certain games take all of it's parts and they sing together so exquisitely that I can't help but think that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

If people want to carry on with this, they should start a new thread, though. It's so off topic that the Martians are wondering how we got here.

And think about how long it's taking for Comic books to be considered art. Film is art, though, so it can't be far off. My only contention with games is that there's a lack of standardized terminology to enable that kind of discourse. In a sense, games are not yet art because we don't have the language to talk about it that way. All we have is the multimedia elements broken down and valued so you know whether or not a game is worth buying.
 
scribe999 said:
Opinions aren't right and wrong...the facts they are based on might be.
Forgot about this.

Facts can't be wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be facts. They'd be commonly held opinions that don't align with reality.
 
spudlyff8fan said:
Forgot about this.

Facts can't be wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't be facts. They'd be commonly held opinions that don't align with reality.

Sorry...let me clarify that: people might be wrong about facts. People, most definitely, can be wrong.