ggg likes their game more than their players?
|
Hi
Everything is art/product but you can't go telling me that my 40$ mtx clipping is part of the ''artists'' intention but more so just some bad programming. Art is/can be a product but would never be without intention/inception. Thus the cost should reflect the time/effort(intention/inception) put into the ''art''/product. Is this art? How much are you willign to pay and accept for an mtx?  cheers Conan: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.
Never dance with the Devil because a dance with the Devil could last you forever... -I thought what I'd do was,I'd Pretend I was one of those deaf mutes- Nullus Anxietas:) |
|
" LOL R.I.P 4.B.
| |
|
I feel the same mindset behind putting a urinal on a pedestal and calling it art is also behind giving every kid a medal regardless of how well they did. There's something sinister about the trend to refuse to differentiate between the wondrous and the shitty (perhaps literally, as far as art goes).
As far as I'm concerned, the definition of art should include the concept of beauty, and the concept of product should include the concept of utility (not necessarily trade). When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on May 6, 2016, 2:45:20 AM
|
|
|
Well, typically, high quality art will be referred to as "good," "amazing," or something, whereas low quality art will be referred to as "shit."
I mean, normally you don't call things 'art,' even when it is, right? You'll call it what it is. A "Painting," or a "Movie," or a "Video Game." Either preceded by "beautiful," "awesome," or "fun," if it's good, or "shit," "shit," or "shit," if it's shit. EDIT: What's I'm trying to say is, we should accept the definition of the label of art in its broad, literal sense, but we shouldn't allow ourselves to be convinced of something's quality due to that label. Even if it is technically "art," that doesn't mean it's not shit. Of course, critics will often describe things as "artful," in an attempt to make them seem of high quality, so it's a frustrating idea. Like everything, it depends on context. I mean, any critic worth their salt will evaluate whether or not the thing they're critiquing is good, regardless of what other descriptors they use. Last edited by Jonmcdonald on May 6, 2016, 2:57:59 AM
|
|
" Makes me cringe every time I see someone placing these kinds of judgments and artificial barriers to what is possible in something as free as art, especially when art is more often than not a reflection of the observer not the maker. Last edited by GeorgAnatoly on May 6, 2016, 7:59:23 AM
|
|
" beauty is not universal. one person may see a painting and call it beautiful while another person might call it ugly. also there are other important aspects of art than the visual. to be fair some artists sell digital paintings for good amounts of money, and the mtx you buy is like digital graphics you can attach to a character in a game so you can see it often while playing, which is arguably better than owning a static work of art. Last edited by pandasplaying on May 10, 2016, 8:16:36 PM
|
|
" People make a big deal about participation awards making kids feel entitled, but I don't buy it. Kids know the difference between a fake prize and a real prize. I actually did tests in primary school where there were participation certificates. We all knew that was the lowest rank you could get, and nothing worth bragging about. The fact that there's no barrier to entry for art doesn't mean we can't criticize it or value some art more than others. Art is a category, not an award. The same goes for products. These words at best give us an indication of what the object is intended to be used for. They really don't need to tell us anything beyond that. Gameplay & Level Design
Need help? Contact support@grindinggear.com | |
" This. And read Jonmcdonald's followup to this comment while you're at it. " You (other) guys are all looking at it from the wrong angle. OF COURSE video games are art. All narrative forms are art. The only distinction worth making here is that between "good" art and "bad" art. Remember when Roger Ebert (may his weary bones rest in peace) famously said that video games can't be art? This comment made him look really, really silly, most obviously because he denigrated his very own field, film, by implying that whether a medium could be considered art can be determined based on the quality of what works lie within. In other words, he implicitly made the statement that I can attack film as "not art" on the basis of the fact that most of what comes out of Hollywood is garbage. And then he confirmed this faulty thinking as really being his own by speaking the same language as the video game fans who were trying to disprove his statement by pointing out exceptionally artistic video games! If he had instead said "Video games may be art, but the medium has yet to create anything worth consuming as art per se," or even more simply "Video games are all bad art," then he would have had a leg to stand on. Even if most of us disagreed with his statement, it would still be a legitimate opinion instead of a massive brain fart. The entire debate over whether video games are art or not is one of the most retarded conversations ever to come out of gaming. Let's all rise above that, shall we? Wash your hands, Exile! Last edited by gibbousmoon on May 11, 2016, 12:07:04 AM
|
|
" i would argue some video games are the epitome of art. they are interactive art, and include almost infinite different views of an artistic representation of a game world. you could frame a screenshot and call it a work of art, and you could make countless different screenshots framed as works of art from the same video game. also i don't believe criticizing art or valuing one artwork over another is ever worth doing. if an artist says an art work is complete, then it's the way they want it to be. maybe it doesn't match all of the highest standards for the category of art it fits into, but should every work of art match the traditional standards? i'd rather artists make their work as they want it to be, and for it to be acknowledged as it's own unique piece of art not being compared to anything. |
|
" I agree with the second half of this, but I don't think taking all value judgments off the table will give you what you want. How can you ever call something beautiful without acknowledging that beauty is not merely subjective; it is also relative? Furthermore, if we were all to agree that all art is equally worthy, why bother trying to get better at your field? In the end, what you produce would be equally valuable regardless. On topic: MTXs are indeed too expensive, but I've never bitched about it, because it's GGG's business, their ledger, what the market will bear, and all that. If they're able to stay in business despite (or because of) overpricing their MTXs, more power to them! But I think there are very good reasons that stash tabs are their most popular MTX, and it being the only pay2win MTX is not necessarily the most important one. I haven't bought ANY* aesthetic microtransactions, because I don't feel that the value added is worth what they ask. If they were priced much more reasonably (at about 25% of their current prices or less, by my valuing), I probably would have spent quite a bit on them over the course of 3+ years of playing. Maybe even $100 or $200 worth. So in my case at least, it was an unprofitable business tactic to price them so high. The question is, am I an outlier? If not, then how common are people like me? Figuring that out is a job for whomever handles business strategy at GGG. ;) *OK, I admit it, I bought the Formosan bear, because he's so ridiculously cute! And because I have a weak spot for bears and pandas. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY EXCEPTION. Wash your hands, Exile!
|
|
