.

Wow how can that many people be scammed into giving some crazed person money for doing absolutely nothing.

So, how exactly is the goal of getting rid of corruption in journalism working at this point? It seems spreading it over the internet hasn't really done anything, and the journalists just dance around it with shitstains like Anita.

I hate when they mention GTA 5 as the prime example. Well fucking duh, it's a game about crime in general, and the prostitution industry is dominated by females. As for the killing of them, there is no real incentive as much as killing anyone else in the game, male or female which everyone is freely available to do, and both instances result in a wanted level anyway. In fact, in the campaign I find it difficult to name a female character as a target for killing, apart from that one who you chase which she kills herself by accident, compared to the hundreds of male police officers, military and male antagonists you have to kill by the end to progress through the game.

Claiming it's sexist to have the freedom to do this in a sandbox game equates to saying Minecraft is an advocate of nazism because I can create a swastika if I wanted to.

But, alas, so long as they never gain enough traction to alter videogames for their own agenda then I barely care. If they are con artists as this guy alleges (with damn good evidence, I might add), I'd say they've found a gold mine in terms of this whole scenario.

I forgot those faggots existed.

So, how exactly is the goal of getting rid of corruption in journalism working at this point? It seems spreading it over the internet hasn't really done anything, and the journalists just dance around it with shitstains like Anita.

So far almost every major gaming news outlet has since updated their code of ethics guidelines when it comes to disclosure of relationships with the things they are covering. A number of them retroactively going back and putting disclaimers on articles. (PC gamer being the most recent)

The FTC has begun enforcing the disclosure of undisclosed affiliate links (native advertising) as actual advertising due to a gg writing campaign. Which is huge.

I'd say progress is obviously slow and a constant uphill battle, but gg has made a pretty big impact for the better so far.

Admittedly I stopped to reply a couple minutes into the video, but do any of you seriously see video games necessarily as art? I mean, the designs are art. The music is art. The story is probably artful, and clearly the creative process of making a game is an act of artistry, but the typical video game itself is hardly art. A museum isn't art just because it exists to showcase artistic projects. This always seems like such a weak argument to offense taken at the violence seen in some games, as if shooting up a city is somehow less tasteless because it's animated.

And this isn't a slam against those games -- Saints Row IV, a game largely focused around beating aliens to death with dildo-themed weaponry in bondage outfits -- is one of the most enjoyable games I've played, but it's hardly in the same category of media as The Starry Night.

Art isn't defined by such a narrow definition.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. My post was specifically ambiguous about the definition of art.

Admittedly I stopped to reply a couple minutes into the video, but do any of you seriously see video games necessarily as art? I mean, the designs are art. The music is art. The story is probably artful, and clearly the creative process of making a game is an act of artistry, but the typical video game itself is hardly art. A museum isn't art just because it exists to showcase artistic projects. This always seems like such a weak argument to offense taken at the violence seen in some games, as if shooting up a city is somehow less tasteless because it's animated.

And this isn't a slam against those games -- Saints Row IV, a game largely focused around beating aliens to death with dildo-themed weaponry in bondage outfits -- is one of the most enjoyable games I've played, but it's hardly in the same category of media as The Starry Night.

"hurr if it's not classical or doesn't represent some moral abstract concept, it isn't art"

lol

Quote from: Naoto on January 18, 2015, 08:11:02 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 18, 2015, 08:09:34 PM

Quote from: Naoto on January 18, 2015, 08:07:54 PM

Art isn't defined by such a narrow definition.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. My post was specifically ambiguous about the definition of art.

Reads like you're attempting to narrow the definition to not include video games for some reason.
Because 'shooting up a town is tasteless'?

No, in fact my post includes the majority of games in the realm of art. I'm talking about the idea that not all games are art, particularly those that don't strive to explain, explore, criticize, or otherwise discuss the human experience. A child's clay statue is certainly an artistic expression, but is a clay plate? Namely, I'm criticizing the video's excuse of game violence because it's art, as if that somehow dissolves the importance of its meaning. In fact, if all video games are to be art, then they ought to be held to higher scrutiny than mere base forms of entertainment, and so the criticisms are even more valid.

Comparing the plate to the game as a whole is a really bad metaphor that doesn't make sense. The plate is not part of the sculpture while the music, story, artstyle, etc all make the game. Essentially those elements are the clay in this bad comparison. And the developers are the shitty 12 yo slapping them together. Whether they make a plate, a beautiful sculpture, or a dildo its still art. You don't have to like it for it to be art. (though this metaphor is beginning to cross into making 'tools' which is why its such a bad comparison)

Again whether it is violent or not, and whether you find the violence reprehensible or not is irrelevant. You can still criticize art. People make a living doing it. You can still criticize violence in a game. Just as people are able to disagree with those criticisms. Like all other forms of art.

I don't understand your insinuation that because games are art they are some how free of scrutiny. Art is some of the most scrutinized stuff on the planet.

Edit: The video is criticizing those who think violence or controversy are inherently taboo in art. People who would censor the artists for causing offence. At the end of the day the artist is able to make whatever they want, and while you are free to criticize they are not beholden to make their game the way the critic wants.

Video games are as much art as movies are; some could be considered artful, but the most popular ones are just churned out summer blockbusters.

Either you're illiterate or being purposefully ignorant of what I'm actually saying, but if you're going to act like a toddler feel free to do so elsewhere.

What are you actually saying anyway? All I got from your post is that you think that art is solely confined to paintings, theater and movies, or anything that falls under the guise of classical. Art covers an immensely broad range of human based creative activities, which yes, does include videogames.

Seriously, I always laugh my ass off when the "videogames aren't art" argument is brought up. It's essentially just a subjective semantics based argument with no substantiated backing to support it. "Everything that has been input into a videogame is art, but the actual game itself is not because it's not eloquent enough lol"

Yeah, no. If anyone's being infantile here, it's you.

Quote from: LC on January 19, 2015, 10:51:27 AM

That's nice.

What are you actually saying anyway? All I got from your post is that you think that art is solely confined to paintings, theater and movies, or anything that falls under the guise of classical.

I didn't even mention paintings or classicism, which is just a genre of art anyway.

Art covers an immensely broad range of human based creative activities, which yes, does include videogames.

As I said.

Seriously, I always laugh my ass off when the "videogames aren't art" argument is brought up. It's essentially just a subjective semantics based argument with no substantiated backing to support it. "Everything that has been input into a videogame is art, but the actual game itself is not because it's not eloquent enough lol"

For what must be the fifth time in this thread, my post specifically included games as art. Every field of human activity has art in it (some more than others), but not every work of creation is necessarily art, and not all things with artistic elements are, themselves, art. As Tolstoy said, art "is a means of union among men, joining them together in the same feelings, and indispensable for the life and progress toward well-being of individuals and of humanity." There's a specific intent to explore the world and how we experience it.

I was hoping it would be possible to have a meaningful discussion, but the responses are largely juvenile shit slinging, so there's really no point.

You dun goof'd m9.

Yes, that was poorly worded, but the topic was the necessity of all games as art, and furthermore whether that's a legitimate argument against the criticism of violence depicted as per the introduction to the video, not that video games can't be art,