Fairchild VI - Latest Comments

Re: Opinion: And Justice For Whom?

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:36:40 -0000

...slow applause...

That is, by far, the most accurate take on this piece thus far Rob. This is *exactly* the intention here.

Re: Opinion: And Justice For Whom?

Rob Chase — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:31:56 -0000

Another great article. I'll admit, I was afraid this was going to be fiery critique of one side of this debate, or the other, and it took me half the article of asking "What the hell is this guy's view?!" to realize that wasn't the point at all. This is 40 minute read CAUTION sign, and I think the principles you outline could be applied universally, yet especially to the video gaming community. For an opinion to be valid you have to have the facts, not the other way around, and I think that's one of the problems with this debate. Gamers have tendency to treat pertinent issues like anything else that upsets them on the internet or on an online game, by flaming and attacking each other personally (verbally, of course). I say gamers because that's what I've seen, and that is what's relevant conversation, but it can probably be applied more generally. Perhaps with teenagers, or the largest demographic of gamers(18-35)? Regardless, gamers or not, we as a society need to be more concerned with the meanings of an issue, not necessarily how it makes us feel. We have to be rational, take a step back (or two, or three), formulate our opinions based on relevant material, and then express them in meaningful ways. If you find meaning in the broken controller campaign, go for it, especially if you think the meaning can be divulged through that action, past "I am an unhappy and broken video game controller". Don't jump on board with something just because it seems ridiculous and might show up on Digg, because it makes the rest of us seem equally as absurd.

Re: Sony Takes a Bite Out of Apple (It Hopes)

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:00:19 -0000

I'm so going to set my voice mail to:

"Hey, I can't get to the phone right now, I'm currently power leveling. send a message to my PSN and I'll respond as soon as I can. If it's an emergency, try Facebook."

Re: Dragon Age: Origins – Dark Ritual

Sisulan — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:49:59 -0000

Well written, i liked it.
Morrigan is the best =)

Re: Not With a Whimper, but a Bang

Shawn Gordon — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 18:14:31 -0000

You do make a succulent point (yes, I said succulent). We've had some pretty stellar stuff so far and this year punched it when the gates lifted. In hindsight yes - we've had a great year.

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:17:24 -0000

The movie and games industry are comparable in the topic at hand because how how they're rated. You make this very same comparison in your comment above. Likewise, this article is counter-point to Green's post and I'm only operating in the field he put out to play in.

Why do I think there needs to be legislation on games? Well, look at your compelling statistics. All of those are indicating that the stores are working on limiting sales themselves. Is 20% acceptable? It's good, and it's better than movies and music. But canyou tell me in all honesty that parents weren't involved in those choices to begin with? Your FTC reports don't show this and fall short in that area. However, the breakdowns that I've found (most recent being 2 years, almost 3, ago), talk only about retailers. Legislation on games helps apply pressure on parents to get involved, something that I think we can both agree needs to happen. ESRB, retail chains and what not - aren't enough just as 'only' parents would not be enough. Legislating it makes parents get involved because legislating business ethics is the better alternative to legislating social morals.

I get that you're saying we don't need to mess with it at all, and ideally... you're right. We shouldn't. The fact that it's even up for debate says that somewhere there's a NEED for it. What that need is to each individual is uncertain, but what it is for us all is outlined in what I wrote at the end.

You question that with the voluntary processes and self-regulation what the problem is, and I ask you the same. If all of these things already happen, what's the problem with putting those actions into law if they're already being done? Why not seize the opportunity to ensure that retail business remains ethical? Again, they're not legislating what content is in the game... only to whom it's sold and how it is sold to them.

Finally, I'm sorry you feel that I'm misleading about the TN code on R rated tickets, but we both know that the previous 907 code by itself isn't singular and is in conjunction with other codes of the same chapter. However, I'll conceded that perhaps it would have been best in hindsight to include those codes or use them in lieu and that as the claimant the burden of proof is mine - so I've adjusted this in my argument. I now reference 911 and 914 in lieu if 907. Hopefully this is not something anyone would consider misleading in the future, and I apologize sincerely if that is how you felt. As an aside, I've also gone back and edited the article to be less passive in tone so that subject confusion occurs.

I've also responded in tune, on GIO to you both.

If you have further questions or feel I've not adequately addressed your concerns as to my position or reasoning, please refer to:

http://fairchild6.com/news/new...

In this article I'm sure the background of my position will become more transparent.

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

E. Zachary Knight — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:07:06 -0000

Shawn,

I really have to ask. What is the film industry doing that makes them so great and an example to the games industry? You don't make that point clear at all.

Does the film industry voluntarily rate their own films? Yes. So does the games industry.

Do threatres and film retail outlets voluntarily block minors from purchasing R rated movies? Yes. Unfortunately you mislead on this subject as pointed out by jccalhoun above.

Do game retailers voluntarily block minors from buying M rated games? Yes and they do a far better job at it than the film industry.

For a little background on this, the FTC performs a retail survey in which they send kids under 16 into retail outlets to buy R rated DVDs M rated games and Parental Advisory Music. They also send kids into theatres to buy R rated movie tickets. (it seems that including the link is forcing my comments into moderation)

Here is the breakdown:
Kids were able to buy R rated movie tickets 35% of the time.
Kids were able to buy R rated movies 47% of the time.
Kids were able to buy Parental Advisory Music 56% of the time.
Kids were able to buy M rated games 20% of the time.

So if all 3 industries have voluntary ratings systems and voluntary enforcement on the retail level and the games industry is doing far better than the film and music industries, why do you think the games industry deserves to be legislated like this?

We already take all the steps this law would require minus the threat of fines and jail time. So what is the problem?

I want to stress one last time. All these ratings systems and enforcement are VOLUNTARY. Contrary to what you have stated or think, there are no laws regulating the sale of R rated films to minors.

As for jccalhoun's comment, that law is specifically targeting theatre hopping. Nowhere does it say the kid can't buy the R ticket. it says they can't buy a ticket for a G or PG film and sneak into the R rated movie.

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

E. Zachary Knight — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:03:13 -0000

I posted this on GameInformer, but since you were kind enough to respond here, I will ask it now.

Shawn,

I really have to ask. What is the film industry doing that makes them so great and an example to the games industry? You don't make that point clear at all.

Does the film industry voluntarily rate their own films? Yes. So does the games industry.

Do threatres and film retail outlets voluntarily block minors from purchasing R rated movies? Yes. Unfortunately you mislead on this subject as pointed out by jccalhoun above.

Do game retailers voluntarily block minors from buying M rated games? Yes and they do a far better job at it than the film industry.

For a little background on this, the FTC performs a retail survey in which they send kids under 16 into retail outlets to buy R rated DVDs M rated games and Parental Advisory Music. They also send kids into theatres to buy R rated movie tickets. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05...

Here is the breakdown:
Kids were able to buy R rated movie tickets 35% of the time.
Kids were able to buy R rated movies 47% of the time.
Kids were able to buy Parental Advisory Music 56% of the time.
Kids were able to buy M rated games 20% of the time.

So if all 3 industries have voluntary ratings systems and voluntary enforcement on the retail level and the games industry is doing far better than the film and music industries, why do you think the games industry deserves to be legislated like this?

We already take all the steps this law would require minus the threat of fines and jail time. So what is the problem?

I want to stress one last time. All these ratings systems and enforcement are VOLUNTARY. Contrary to what you have stated or think, there are no laws regulating the sale of R rated films to minors.

As for jccalhoun's comments, that law is specifically targeting theatre hopping. It does not say that a kid cannot buy the R rated movie ticket, it just says they cannot buy a PG or G movie ticket and sneak into an R rated movie. The text you quoted was the description of the rating and not a defined portion of the law. If you noticed G was followed buy "General Audiences" and PG was followed by "Parental Guidance Advised". Those are the full names of the MPAA ratings.

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:55:33 -0000

@ E. Zachary Knight:

What I'm saying is that the industry can't claim an abridgment of rights to free speech in the manner that Green is attempting to get people worked up on. subjecting yourself to censorship of some kind, which is how the ESRB is somewhat viewed as, negates his claim. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with ability to sell - which is what the debate has been about from the beginning. Green falters in that he's mixing two arguments (content control / ability to sell) and trying to make them one, with lots of flaw. The law isn't saying that people cannot create games like 'nazi genocide facefuck kill 3', it says that people under a certain age may not purchase it. And, this totally misses a point in a previous piece I wrote on the same topic about how no right is absolute anyway. So, to show how it makes no sense and is in fact hypocritical from what he's really upset about (bottom dollar), I take that aspect on.

Where Paramount v. United States come into play is that it shows Green's sentiment of uneven treatment between the movie and game industries as true, but for rather than against his favor. The game industry is just as subject to the anti-trust laws, but no laws have been specifically set up just for the game industry despite the shaky grounds new technology such as the internet stores have brought.

@jccalhoun:

... which is exactly what was cited in the article. The ticket retailer is responsible for people being the right age to view the material by law, and without adequate proof that the person will be buying a ticket and then coming back with mom and dad or someone of age, then they wont be sold a ticket. Implies or explicit, the effect is the same.

Thanks, both.

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

E. Zachary Knight — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 21:03:01 -0000

Shawn,

I really have to ask. What is the film industry doing that makes them so great and an example to the games industry? You don't make that point clear at all.

Does the film industry voluntarily rate their own films? Yes. So does the games industry.

Do threatres and film retail outlets voluntarily block minors from purchasing R rated movies? Yes. Unfortunately you mislead on this subject as pointed out by jccalhoun above.

Do game retailers voluntarily block minors from buying M rated games? Yes and they do a far better job at it than the film industry.

For a little background on this, the FTC performs a retail survey in which they send kids under 16 into retail outlets to buy R rated DVDs M rated games and Parental Advisory Music. They also send kids into theatres to buy R rated movie tickets. www.ftc.gov/.../secretshop.sht...

Here is the breakdown:

Kids were able to buy R rated movie tickets 35% of the time.

Kids were able to buy R rated movies 47% of the time.

Kids were able to buy Parental Advisory Music 56% of the time.

Kids were able to buy M rated games 20% of the time.

So if all 3 industries have voluntary ratings systems and voluntary enforcement on the retail level and the games industry is doing far better than the film and music industries, why do you think the games industry deserves to be legislated like this?

We already take all the steps this law would require minus the threat of fines and jail time. So what is the problem?

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

E. Zachary Knight — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:55:27 -0000

Good catch. While the article was pretty good on most accounts, I failed to glean Shawn's point. Is he saying that since the industry is willing to submit themselves to a voluntary ratings system very similar to the film industry, that we should be willing to be subject to legislation on the matter when the film industry is not?

I also fail to see the relevance of Paramount vs United States on this matter. This is not a case of Anti-trust. This is a case of Free Speech and whether this law violates that constitutional right.

Re: What Jeff Green Is Missing (Potential Legally Affected Citizen Calls Jeff Green “A Hypocrite…Too”)

jccalhoun — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:31:45 -0000

Interesting post. I had never heard of Tennessee Code 39-17-907 so I looked it up and it seems as if it has been misinterpreted. The text of the pertinent section of the law is as follows:

39-17-907. Restrictions on showings.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to exhibit for public consumption, whether or not such exhibition is
for compensation, any motion picture, film, movie, or videotape which depicts sexual conduct as
defined in § 39-17-901, unless such exhibition is within a theater auditorium or other enclosed area
which effectively removes such exhibition from the view of members of the public who are not
voluntarily engaged in viewing such motion picture, film, movie, or videotape.

(b) Each theater at which two (2) or more motion pictures are shown in the same building shall
maintain adequate supervision of the customers to prevent minors from purchasing a ticket or
admission pass to a motion picture designated by the rating board of the Motion Picture Association
of America by the letter "G" for general audiences or "PG" for all ages, parental guidance advised,
and then viewing a motion picture designated "R" for restricted audiences, persons under eighteen
(18) years of age not admitted unless accompanied by parent or adult guardian, or "X," persons
under eighteen (18) years of age not admitted.

Now it seems to me that the law is requiring theaters (that have 2 or more screens) to have supervision of the place to make sure kids aren't buying tickets for a G or PG film and then going to an R film and NOT that it is prohibiting the sale of tickets to R-rated films.

Re: Butler and Molyneux Walk In To A Bar…

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 17:34:39 -0000

Oh, it's just a joke. I'm a closet optimist for both myself. Also, I won't feel a fraction as foolish as those playing that will look.

Re: Butler and Molyneux Walk In To A Bar…

Dietrich Stogner — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:41:42 -0000

Zing! Shawn, you're going to feel awfully foolish when Microsoft announces the release of Dance Groove Seizure Jiggle for the Kinect. Go ahead and start the countdown now.

I do still maintain my guarded optimism about the Kinect. Yes, it's a toolset that no one really knows what to do with yet, but it's still a really amazing toolset. There are hundreds of brilliant, creative people in the industry. I think it's a fair bet that one or two of them will come up with something that none of us saw coming.

Re: Games ARen’T

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 09:16:08 -0000

...brilliant argument, just brilliant.

Re: Games ARen’T

Dietrich Stogner — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:25:27 -0000

There was a brilliant argument made a few months ago that asked the question "are games art" about one of the oldest and simplest games in history: chess.

I consider chess more of a true game than most video games, which tend to follow the pattern of an interactive narrative closer than that of a true game. If Shawn and I both play Bioshock, we can easily have a conversation that includes the phrase, "Do you remember what happened in Andrew Ryan's office?" This is a valid and genuine statement that has meaning. But if Shawn and I both play a separate game of chess, and I ask him, "Do you remember what happened when I captured the bishop?", this is meaningless. Chess has no narrative except the one we create to accompany it. So let's examine the question. Is chess art?

I don't think that there's any doubt that the design and construction of the board itself can be art. Different materials and styles provide an impression of the designer (artist's) thoughts and motivations. But the design of the board has no impact on the game itself. I can play a master level game of chess on a cheap WalMart plastic board just as easily as on a priceless marble and teak board.

What about the style of play? There are certainly grandmasters whose play has been described as artistic. And while the game of chess is very logical, those that past a certain point in mastery seem to be able to do something on the board that's completely new and unique, and I would definitely call that artistry. But that's the approach and utilization of the game, NOT the game itself. When a painter creates a beautiful work of art, we don't credit the paintbrush and canvas for the artistic content. We credit what he/she managed to do with those tools.

Chess is, by many standards, a perfect game. A simple rule set with limited resources provides for nearly infinite permutations, and the generation of both narratives and styles that are as varied and unique as the people who sit down at the board. While easy to learn, many have spent their lives trying to master it, and none of them have come close to scratching the surface of the game's possibilities. But by any definition, the actual game of chess... the set of resources and rules that it exists within... is not art.

I feel video games are much the same. The components that go into creating them are certainly art. Music, design, the actual gameplay mechanics, definitely. I even feel that the game can be used to accomplish artistic expression (Little Big Planet providing countless examples of this). But video games, like chess, are representations of mathematical expressions. The sense of art comes from what we make of them.

Re: Thoughts: Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Their Impressions at E3 Thus Far

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:17:43 -0000

Lol... well that's fine Dietrich. You're the guy that we need. Someone has to be excited and see the value in the production of such things. Your attitude is high risk, high reward but I don't see me as a pessimist - just a realist, and what is realism other than the pessimism that optimists overlook? Be a half full kind of guy, it's a good thing - but have you considered that perhaps the glass is just too big?

To lend proof that I'm not overly pessimistic, something that the Kinect hasn't been looked at for is character interaction. Yeah, there's the whole 'Milo" thing, but if you look at the way Heavy Rain did things... imagine what kind of game can be developed where you can't touch anything, but still have to complete an objective? every tried to explain a bomb diffusion? how about talk someone down from doing something really tragic?... it has the opportunity to open the door to a more communicative style of game where the narrative blurs into what the player says and how their own body language. Like you, I'll probably be devastated with the TENS of other people that have thought about this and expect it at some point, only to find that its one of those things in Fable 5 that never gets put in after being talked about it for years at a time.

Re: Thoughts: Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Their Impressions at E3 Thus Far

Dietrich Stogner — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:15:03 -0000

This debate is far too reasonable for an internet gaming forum. I feel like I should be apoplectic with rage that you dared contradict my obviously ironclad rationale and reasoning.

Is there a LONG way to go for Kinect, 3DS, and Move? Absolutely. When I say I see potential in the Kinect, that's kind of like me saying that I see potential in a two day old child. While he may one day be a world renowned surgeon, right now we're just happy that he doesn't get eaten by a dingo. But while I do acknowledge the fair distance we still have to travel, I can see the promise of something glimmering on the horizon. Maybe your pessimism is justified, and I'll arrive to find the shattered hopes of the literally TENS of people online that agree with me about the Kinect. But I'm a glass half full kinda guy, and I prefer to see that shimmer as an Emerald City full of cupcakes, Swedish models, and a lightsaber game that doesn't make me feel like a spastic epileptic at a strobe light convention.

Ain't unbridled optimism fun?

Re: Thoughts: Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Their Impressions at E3 Thus Far

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:43:06 -0000

Dietrich,

Some of the lackluster presentations were enough to make a man need a hug, so... come here big guy... I'll take you up on that.

On the hardware side of things I just chose the Red pill to many others Blue pill. While the points on potential are very valid and warranted, the last time that a manufacturer handed a device with as much focused potential and innovative ability as the Kinect we ended up with things like Ninjabread Man, Chicken Shoot, and Eye of the Beholder; or at least 50 of those to every one, count 'em ONE, Mario Galaxy. And, I hope that Microsoft sets up a few ground rules for developing material for the Kinect, but Kinectimals and then 14 or so other titles that equate to clones of each other (3-4 dance games, 3-4 fitness programs, 2-3 kart racing and 2-3 'sports') doesn't really scream "we're gonna do it right". It screams "uh... shit...now what?" With Burger King as a developer of software for the Kinect, one really can't feel too enthusiastic about the possible end result here.

Where I agree is that there are going to be some things that it may add to in terms of creative play - the optical recognition features are something that I'm interested in seeing, but again there's the risk of it being totally unused or misused to such a degree that it generates games that focus on little more than that one feature; think "I Spy, Kinect Edition", which may be actually neat in concept but what does that really add in terms of worth to either the device or the need for it?

"say what you will, but if the 3DS can generate reliable and attractive 3D without requiring birth control glasses, that's a HUGE deal"

It is a huge deal. It's also a technology that is not quite finished. Many people involved in the development of this technology for, shall we say "consumption", have come out and said that for it to be something as popular as retailers want it to be, it needs more work. Look at what people went though with HD TVs 5 years ago. Want to watch Blu-Ray - not with component cable you're not. Yet, most HD TV's in the first year didn't have HDMI input. Sure, there was a solution for it, but for the first 2 years 1080 wasn't even standard. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until around half way through year 3 that 1080 was standard and then 120hz didn't become standard until last year... and now we're being pushed into 3D? No thanks... I'll give it a few years. I see the 3DS as something of a 'useless genius' (opposite of useful idiot). Great, I applaud the design of putting 3D into something both portable and without the need for yet another bulky peripheral to actually get the full effect on a device or service that is mature in design, but it's something no one asked for, and no one 'needs' in order to enjoy a game. It's not a lot different from adding the second camera to the device with the DSi. It was a gimmick designed to have SOME application but, was it really part of the streamlining process or merely 'hey we changed this 'cause.... we just did'. The games themselves, particularly the ones that are nothing other than reboots, will not be an entirely different experience. So, what exactly is it the 3DS does that offers players anything worthwhile? Is playing Super Mario in 3D going to be something lots of people do? Yes, I'd gander at numbers around the millions. Will they like it? Yes, they will most likely love being able to do it. But, 'innovation' means to do something in a new way and while seeing the game in 3D is a new way to see the game, it has nothing to do with HOW the game is played, nor WHAT can be done in the game - so on that note is it really 'innovative'? Being able to even debate the point of 3D as being innovative towards a game means that it couldn't be compared to what exists.

The software of the show will have to carry the new hardware that was seen and while there's a lot of things on the software side to be excited about (and I 'squee' at GT5, Civ 5, Witcher 2, and a few other proven franchises) the lack of new original IP (not new IP that just rides a coat tail *cough* Vanquish *cough*), but IP that really takes something in a new direction indicates both that the industry is out of really solid ideas (despite having things like Move, 3DS and Kinect talked about and shown to developers for close to a year). What good is hardware put out for an audience that they'll have to rely on a software industry more concerned about brand loyalty and safe bets than taking the same degree of risk to make games that utilize the technology in a fun and innovative way, that the hardware developers took in making the device. Expect to see things like Resident Evil 4, for Kinect and GT5 with "move" capabilities.

What is needed for these things to have merit they need to give players an actual reason to use and play them, not hypothetical excuses to do so. Where you see opportunity I see risk, and risk is needed as is opportunity so I'm not claiming it's a total loss, just that overall - It was full of 'yawn'. We'll have fun this year just as we do every year and there's a lot of things that come out that don't get shown at E3 (and there's still TGS to watch later this year), but the expo itself was just... 'meh'.

Do I think people SHOULDN'T look forward to the things announced? I think they should... I can think that the things announced were this that and the other, but that shouldn't stop someone from seeking enjoyment. I know I'll be in line for a few of the safe bet staples later this year myself.

Re: Thoughts: Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo and Their Impressions at E3 Thus Far

Dietrich Stogner — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:42:04 -0000

I'm starting to think that you need a hug, Shawn. That was a fairly dismal recap.

While I do agree with some of what you wrote, I look upon this E3 as a lot of potential brilliance that hasn't been clearly defined yet. After a few weeks of searching, I have come to the conclusion that I am the only person not directly employed by Microsoft to see the Kinect not as a big steaming pile of so what, but a big steaming pile of possibilities. In true Microsoft fashion, they have created an innovative device that has the potential to do things that Sony and Nintendo quite simply cannot (the foreign object recognition is piquing my interest, as is the lack of physical controller demanded by the system). Also in true Microsoft fashion, they have created this innovative device with a herd of launch titles that seem about as fun as a root canal. But, I do feel there's a future to this that's worth watching carefully.

Nintendo's presentation was exactly what we expected, and no dramatic deviation from what we've seen before. They dropped a half dozen titles that made fanboys soil themselves, they unveiled an innovative new platform (say what you will, but if the 3DS can generate reliable and attractive 3D without requiring birth control glasses, that's a HUGE deal), and they demonstrated their ability to lead the pack once more. Yes, the 3DS has its doubters. So did the Wii, and so did the DS. Nintendo can't hear your objections over the massive dump trucks full of money backing up to their headquarters fifty times a day.

As for Sony, they seem to be the most deserving of your derision. Move showed me nothing that makes me think it will distinguish itself from the Wii in any significant way. While the economics student in me understands the need for PSN to be supported by subscription revenue, there are about a dozen ways Sony could have handled it better. To be honest, PSN needed to be charging a monthly fee about eighteen months ago.

With all that said, I saw a LOT of things I'm very excited about. Rock Band 3, Bulletstorm, new Zelda, Portal 2 (I love typing that because you can't hear my girlish squeals of glee as I do), Hulu on the 360, Rage, Civ 5, Epic Mickey, Child of Eden, Gran Turismo 5, The Witcher 2, XCOM... I'm running out of breath. This show has a MASSIVE amount of potential, and that's not even counting my suspicions that the Kinect and the 3DS are going to prove, perhaps in the long term but conclusively nonetheless, as revolutionary.

Re: Games ARen’T

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:07:50 -0000

Well, by all means qualify your claims of 'plebeian perspective' and your authority to disqualify the ability to create any meaningful discourse. What 'faults' do you pick out? Are you going to argue the point of aesthetics?

Also bear in mind the audience - this is a gaming site not hum hum or root 42, so you'll have to forgive the dilute content in respect to art in that sense, but you don't know enough about me or evidenced that you know enough on the topic to have any merit behind the claims.

P.P.S. Louis Vitton purses have been argued as art numerous times, having that label affixed by consumers, designers and fashionistas alike. While consumerism has a hand in driving up the prices, knock offs can use the same stitch pattern, material and fabric - just not the exact same pattern. With that, explain why then if all but the pattern (the printed logo / art) are identical there is a huge price difference? Why would a Picasso sell for millions but someone of equal caliber today sell for less? Is it the art or the artist? If the artist, then you've made your point (poorly), but if the art, then I've made mine.

Re: Games ARen’T

Khans — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:23:10 -0000

You very clearly have little understanding of art outside of an oddly plebeian perspective on it and as such are hardly qualified to create any meaningful discourse of the question of "are videogames art?". Though I don't directly disagree with your conclusion, unfortunately, I do find fault in every argument used to support it.
p.s. Louis Vitton purses don't cost that much because they are art, it's a capitalist/luxury thing with its own set of problems.

Re: 5 Games That Failed To Reach Their True Potential

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:11:36 -0000

Fair enough, but you don't have to. Apparently I stand alone in my opinion - which is fine. If you disagree with it being on the list then I'm not gonna stop you from disagreeing.

Re: 5 Games That Failed To Reach Their True Potential

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:10:45 -0000

You bring up points that while true, have ZERO bearing on the aspects of the game that I found disappointing. I didn't say that game was a disappointment - I wrote about disappointing aspects of the games that kept them from being absolutely everything they could be.

Second:

"i dont know why this appeared on your list but you seem to have just taken games from the last 2 months coupled with MW2. which doesn't bode well for your 'journalistic' skills you think you possess, obviously have no knowledge of any other games "

The list, if you happened to notice (which you obviously didn't), were games considered some of the best games this year (and yes, MW2 while a 2009 release is still considered one of the best games this year). Also, I never indicated in the title that the list was "of all time", "past decade", or "of this generation" - so it's pretty safe to assume that the list would be something current and simply 5 games that I've played that I felt could have been better. That said, it doesn't bode well for your supposed critical 'thinking' or cognitive reasoning 'skills' when you jump to conclusions and make baseless assumptions driven by your raving disdain for anyone frowning in your general direction.

Oh, and not that I expect you to know how to use a search bar, but any retarded monkey can look up my past writings and find your statement false. But, congratulations on your asshattery

Re: 5 Games That Failed To Reach Their True Potential

Shawn Gordon — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:53:56 -0000

Matt,

Maybe it was just something that rubbed me wrong personally then, but by no means would anyone be required to espouse my opinions. I'm really picky when it comes to voice acting; how the mouth moves, body language that goes with the tone and tempo of the voice in relation to the actions taking place... and RDR may very well have some of the best voice acting, but that doesn't mean it's perfect or that anyone shouldn't be disappointed with it.