Castle Paradox :: View topic - Leroy's Locked review

Castle Paradox

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Gamelist Review List Song List All Journals Site Stats Search Gamelist IRC Chat Room

Leroy's Locked review
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Castle Paradox Forum Index -> The Arcade

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 7:47 pm Post subject:

Yes, I'm talking about every game from badminton to Final Fantasy. But I've been talking about all games from the start.

Quote:

Games are about overcoming obstacles and having fun in the process (on a very base level).

...which I've simplified to just competition and entertainment. Games at their simplest.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Though I do think my definition is a little more universal than your:

Quote:

1) Being in some way valuable to the creator, either in the process of creation or in the end product.
2) Creating a valuable (not necessarily enjoyable) experience for the audience.

I already said that this wasn't my definition of art, it was a statement of what art should do. Furthermore, any game that is fun and has challenge will fulfill at least the second criteria anyway, as well as many games that are not fun or challenging.

Quote:

I personally don't think that a game's value to its creator is what games are about on their simplest level.

Why not? And don't go back to your example of tag not being about the creator. That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I never said "all games do these things." It was a statement about what art should do. If a game is not valuable in any way to its creator it is still a game, I'd just say that it is a game of less quality because of it.

Quote:

I don't so much understand the second statement just because valuable is so vague.

Of course it's vague. If you make the statement too specific it will exclude some things that should not be excluded. Saying games have to entertain is far, far too limiting.

Quote:

EVERYTHING has value.

Well, no, that's not really true at all. If a game doesn't excite any emotions, doesn't teach the player anything, doesn't challenge the player at all, and is just a complete waste of time, then it was not in any way a valuable experience. Most experiences will have at least some tiny amount of value, of course, but not necessarily enough that it's worth the time or energy. It's true that most things will have some value to someone, but for a specific person many fewer things will have value. The second criteria is stated with a single person in mind. If a work of art was a valuable experience for one person and not another, then it was good art for the first and bad for the second.

Quote:

And your two definitions describe pretty much every creative process.

Yes, you'll note that I said those criteria applied to all forms of art.

Quote:

And I don't think that games are about the creation, I think that games are about the playing.

For what reason? I mean, obviously the playing is important, but why do you disregard the creation and creator? As a game designer yourself, would you ever want to create a game that was worthless to you?

Quote:

For example, movies, an obvious form of entertainment, produce a wide, wide range of emotions, and movies are meant to entertain.

Now you're limiting another artform? Movies can be made to do anything. They have been, in fact. Many movies are made for education, some with little to no emphasis on entertainment. Some movies are made to convince people of a particular argument. What is the reason for limiting it to entertainment?

Quote:

Like what? I'm not saying this to challenge you, I'm saying this because I'm actually interested. Because my definition covers every game I can think of, but maybe you could sway me if something that I considered a game didn't fit into my definition.

You said that Pain and Suffering, while being a game itself, was not designed to be a game but rather a tool of pain and suffering. So, I can assume that you're saying Unc was unsuccessful in creating this non-game, and accidentally made a game. What if he had successfully created a tool of pain and suffering? Clearly, you would not consider it to be a game. I would, if it was designed as a game. This would also apply to all games that are not trying to be entertaining. Your definition does not include them.

Quote:

I don't mean that games actively "try to entertain," like they're sitting around somewhere thinking "Enjoy me please." It's kind of like how a painting could try to evoke an emotion and fail for some people.

So what? Why is the reaction of the audience more important than the intentions of the artist?

Quote:

BTW, do you agree with the competitive aspect of games? Because I'm not sensing as much of a counter argument toward this as I am toward the entertainment aspect.

I'm not sure about it. Until I can think of some possible way to make a game with no obstacles or competition, I won't argue this point.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject:

Quote:

This isn't what you said. You made this claim about games. What you said was that "games, like any kind of art," are about this. You also later said that:

Quote:

Nobody has claimed that all games are art.

So I think my tag argument definitely has relevance here, since tag has nothing to do with its creator. Of course it has something to do with your second statement, but practically everything ever made has something to do with your second statement. That's the reason I don't agree that your second statement is what games are about. If that's what games are about, what's the core difference between games and other kinds of art. You don't include any aspect of interactivity in your "about statements."

Also, I NEVER said all games are fun. But the aim of a game is to entertain (rhymey). Not all games are challenging either, some are easy as cake. But there's still competition there, however minimal. This is why I say games are about entertainment and competition.

Quote:

Games are not necessarily art, which you agreed to, so how is making a generalized statement about games limiting an artform, if all games are not art? Can no generalizations be made about anything? As for movies. Educational movies are made to entertain while educating or to entertain through educating. Education can be entertaining. Even experimental film is meant to entertain. I've seen a lot of it and a lot of it sucks.

Quote:

So what? Why is the reaction of the audience more important than the intentions of the artist?

The audience reaction is not more important, more like the effect on the audience. Because games, much like films, are made for an audience, while this is not necessarily true of every kind of art.

[I wrote something here about everything having value, but I don't want this debate to get sidetracked]

Quote:

I do consider it a game. A tool for pain and suffering cannot be a game BUT a game can include a tool for pain and suffering. Take for example, that game where you spread your fingers out on a table and stab a knife between them. There's a huge potential there for pain and suffering, but the game itself isn't a tool for pain and suffering. A knife isn't a game until you throw in the competitive and entertaining aspects. You might argue that this game isn't entertaining, but if you've ever played it, it's lots of fun. Never played it with a knife, but I've played it with a pen when I was bored in class.

Thinking about it now, a good analogy is sculpting. What separates sculpting from other artforms? It's valuable to the creator and audience. Duh. But is that what sculpting is about? Sculpting on its most base level, is shaping something in three-dimensions. Painting is about putting paint on something to create an image. Sure all art might include your "about statements." But to say that's what they are about completely ignores the differences between them. Sculpting on its most base level is different from painting, so they must be about something different. They are all art, but they are all different. To ignore their differences and fail to accept/embrace them, that is limiting.

EDIT: Please don't get into the specifics of my "abouts" for painting and sculpting. They were quickly thought of and typed out. Their specifics don't matter. Hell, the particualr "abouts" I gave for that paragraph don't matter. You can still understand the point of that paragraph.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

The Wobbler

Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 2221

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject:

Note from Castle Paradox Administration:

This content has been removed by the user. Contact the original author and link them to this post if you wish to view the original content. Only the author can remove the tags hiding this content.

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject:

Quote:

It certainly can be, but the vast majority of it is not, nor does it aim to be.

Whoa! I definitely never said that. That's why I said, education can be fun. But I argue that educational movies are also meant to entertain. Learning in general is a fun thing until you're forced to do it.

EDIT: I still want to know of a game that isn't supposed to be entertaining. And please don't mention "Pain and Suffering" again...
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Last edited by The Drizzle on Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

The Wobbler

Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 2221

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject:

Note from Castle Paradox Administration:

This content has been removed by the user. Contact the original author and link them to this post if you wish to view the original content. Only the author can remove the tags hiding this content.

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:31 pm Post subject:

I disagree. The fact that they were in film form was attempting to make it entertaining. Film is a medium for entertainment. Shooting at certain angles and making sort of a moving, visual book is supposed to be an entertaining way to soak up the information they give you. Otherwise they would hand you pieces of paper with diagrams and text (much lower in production cost). _________________ My name is... The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

The Wobbler

Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 2221

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject:

Note from Castle Paradox Administration:

This content has been removed by the user. Contact the original author and link them to this post if you wish to view the original content. Only the author can remove the tags hiding this content.

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:

I see where part of the disagreement is coming from here. A lot of this is just based on misinterpretation and misstatement. When I said:

Quote:

Games, like any kind of art, are about two things:

1) Being in some way valuable to the creator, either in the process of creation or in the end product.
2) Creating a valuable (not necessarily enjoyable) experience for the audience.

I was not anticipating a long debate into all of the specifics so I didn't phrase everything exactly correct. Here is exactly what I meant by this:

"Games, like art in general, should do two things: Be valuable to the creator, and bring some valuable experience to the audience."

I was not intending to say "this is what games are," but rather, "this is what games (and art in general) should do."

Actually, I see now that I made this distinction in the post right after that, saying:

Quote:

I meant those two things to be "what art should ideally do"

And given that I included the statement "like any kind of art," it should have been obvious that I was not making a statement about how games are separate from other kinds of art, but rather how they were similar to them. If I was going to say something about what games are specifically I would probably say something like "games, unlike other kinds of art..."

Frankly, it was stupid of me to not say specifically what games are and how they are different from other arts before now. Well, I would say that games are interactive and I would probably say they require an obstacle or challenge of some kind. I don't think anything more specific is necessary, but I'm open to argument.

Quote:

Can no generalizations be made about anything?

Generalizations can be made, but yours is limiting to a pointless degree.

Quote:

As for movies. Educational movies are made to entertain while educating or to entertain through educating.

I said absolutely nothing about what movies are made to do. If you'll look, I said "movies can be made to do anything." What movies have in the past been made to do is totally unrelated to what I said.

Quote:

The audience reaction is not more important, more like the effect on the audience. Because games, much like films, are made for an audience, while this is not necessarily true of every kind of art.

Okay, so why is it that games should be made for an audience and not other kinds of art? What is the reasoning behind this?

Quote:

I still want to know of a game that isn't supposed to be entertaining. And please don't mention "Pain and Suffering" again...

You've never given any reasoned explanation for how P+S "tries to entertain." What is it that causes this game to try to entertain if the author's intentions are apparently not involved? What criteria must be met for a game to not be trying to entertain? Cause my reaction is that whatever game I name, (and there are a lot, many TGC games would fall into this category) you'll say that it was for some reason trying to entertain.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:24 pm Post subject:

Quote:

You only noted the similarities but that wasn't the point of that sentence. You said that games were about those things which ignores the differences between games and several artforms. So I guess I just misunderstood what you were trying to say because you said it about games initially, and never clearly said that you were saying this only about art and not about games.

Quote:

Well, I would say that games are interactive and I would probably say they require an obstacle or challenge of some kind.

I guess, then, that my argument would be that interactivity as it exists in games, is entertaining. Is the interactive aspect of games necessarily for entertainment? I say yes, you say no. I guess that's our real argument- whether or not interactivity (as far as games go) is necessarily meant to be entertaining.

Quote:

Okay, so why is it that games should be made for an audience and not other kinds of art? What is the reasoning behind this?

I thought I had covered this adequately, but I guess not. Games are not always art. Can we please stop referring to it as art if we both agree that it's not always art? And I say "we," because I've done it a couple of times, and that's actually pretty limiting, because it ignores the games that aren't art.
Anyway, back to audience (I'd actually rather refer to this as players or participants, on account of the interactivity). To put it simply, games are for playing. The point of a game is not to be made, but to be played (more rhyming).

Quote:

I said my opinion about game interactivity above. That should cover it. And you misunderstood me. I never said the author's intentions are not involved. I said sometimes a game can drift from the author's intent. I think those were my exact words. The quality of his game being "a pain" is still apparent but it isn't free of entertainment as he'd meant for it.

What's TGC? By the way, thanks for the jab about "you'll say that it was for some reason trying to entertain." Again, this is covered by my interactivity opinion.

I feel like our argument is becoming slightly more specific and refined at this point. Am I right? If so, can we start to focus more on the philosophy behind entertainment and interactivity? Because I feel like we keep getting hung up in these tangents, and it's killing my desire to debate this.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Iblis
Ghost Cat

Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1233
Location: Your brain

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 11:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

I guess, then, that my argument would be that interactivity as it exists in games, is entertaining. Is the interactive aspect of games necessarily for entertainment? I say yes

Why?

Quote:

So, I can't refer to games as art because not all games are art? Then I guess I can't refer to paintings or stories or movies as art cause not all of those are art. Really, I can't refer to anything as art because there is no such thing that is always art.

Quote:

To put it simply, games are for playing. The point of a game is not to be made, but to be played (more rhyming).

I just asked you why games are focused on the audience/player. What you really just told me isn't very different from "games are for playing because games are for playing." What I'm asking is why. Why is the focus on the player/playing? You said that other kinds of art are not focused on the audience, so why is it that games are different?

Quote:

What's TGC?

Terrible Games Contest. While there are many games in those contests that are trying to be terrible in a funny way, there are also many that are just bad for the sake of being bad.

Quote:

I feel like our argument is becoming slightly more specific and refined at this point. Am I right? If so, can we start to focus more on the philosophy behind entertainment and interactivity?

This last part is what I've been asking you about, and that you've never explained. Why does interactivity automatically mean that the game is trying to entertain?
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

Uncommon
His legend will never die

Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2503

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:05 pm Post subject:

The Drizzle wrote:

Did I expect that the dictionary definition would be the end-all-be-all, that our conversation would simply end and everyone would suddenly agree with me because dictionary.com agrees with me? No. I didn't expect that at all. Obviously, "game" has different meanings to different people or we wouldn't be having the debate we're having. Right?

Then why in the bleeding HELL did you bother quoting it? I certainly got an I'M-RIGHT-YOU'RE-WRONG vibe out of that whole parargraph.

The Drizzle wrote:

Can we please stop referring to it as art if we both agree that it's not always art? And I say "we," because I've done it a couple of times, and that's actually pretty limiting, because it ignores the games that aren't art.

I'd like to second Iblis' point here. A game may not always be a piece of art, but it is an artform. Just because textbook isn't usually entertaining doesn't mean books can't be a valid artform and recognized as such. The problem here is that you've created a barrier between games (electronic games, in particular) and other artforms, where it must suddenly fulfill specific and limiting roles that other artforms wouldn't. That, I believe, is the basis of this debate.

And how is it that interactivity suddenly means it's trying to be entertaining? What is it that makes it fundamentally enjoyable?

your dictionary.com wrote:

Interactive:
1. Acting or capable of acting on each other.
2. Computer Science. Of or relating to a program that responds to user activity.
3. Of, relating to, or being a form of television entertainment in which the signal activates electronic apparatus in the viewer's home or the viewer uses the apparatus to affect events on the screen, or both.

Look like your limiting things again. Interactivity is so much broader than that. It's what you do with the world every day! Tell me, are you entertained by yelling at your lover? By having a particularly boring conversation with a person you don't like anyway? Well, why not? That's interaction, after all!

And I still don't understand why movies must always be entertaining, either.

Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner

Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject:

Also, Iblis has 999 posts. _________________ Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

The Drizzle
Who is the Drizzle?

Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 432

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject:

The arguments here may be a little disorganized, I apologize in advance. As I thought of different things I added them where I saw fit so it may seem a little jumbled. Bear with me, and please please please, if you're going to quote me, do it in the context of what's been said throughout this section and not as the sentence might be interpreted on its own. In fact, I'd rather you'd paraphrase, so that I can see if you're not understanding correctly. Anyway:

IBLIS:

So, I can't refer to games as art because not all games are art?

BOTS can be ROTS. ROTS can be BOTS. True or false: All BOTS are ROTS. False right? So if you refer to BOTS as ROTS when you're talking about all BOTS, then you're potentially leaving out a healthy chunk of BOTS.

So in answer to your question: Pretty much. Because if you say, "games, like any artform," while admitting that not all games are art, you're throwing a lot of games out of the conversation.

What are games about, in your opinion? This time I'm asking only that. Not how are they different from other artforms, or how are they like art. Just what are games about? Are they about what you said differentiates them from "other artforms": interactive and obstacles or challenges? If so, then our only debate is about game's interactivity and entertainment.

Quote:

No, you didn't ask "why are games for playing," you asked "why is the audience more important than the creator" and I said "because games are for playing." The creator is not the player. They can be the same person. I can create a game then play it. But while I'm creating, I'm the creator and while I'm playing, I'm the player. I'm sure you agree that "games are for playing" though you probably don't agree that the player is more important than the creator. That's fine. But I think this because games are not made to sit on a shelf with the creator stroking himself thinking "Wow, I've made a great game." They're made for people to play.

It's kind of like that age-old argument, if something sits on a shelf for a million years never fulfilling its purpose, is it really anything? If a hammer is never used, is it really a hammer? Not really. It's sort of just a piece of metal and some wood. If a game is never played, would it still be a game? Ask yourself that, and if you say yes, a game will still be a game, then fine, we've got no reason to even talk about it. Because we probably won't agree. Because to me, a game is a game because it gets played.

You may be saying, well a game would never even be if it were never created, to which I say, yeah, of course. I agree with that a hundred percent. But what's more important, making a hammer, or knocking in nails with it? Is there a point to making a hammer that will never hit a nail? To be honest with you, I actually find this aspect of our conversation to be much more interesting than the games/art part. I just really don't AT ALL think that the point of a game has anything to do with the creator.

Quote:

Why does interactivity automatically mean that the game is trying to entertain?

Not interactivity. Interactivity as it exists in games. When you take interactivity and add a challenge, I just feel that there is entertainment. And that's what I think games are all about. So I suppose I don't think of your definition that much differently than I do my own.

So if interactivity+challenge=entertainment, then why don't I just say games are about interactivity and challenge? Because I think games are much more ABOUT entertainment than interactivity. People play them to be entertained.

Quote:

Terrible Games Contest. While there are many games in those contests that are trying to be terrible in a funny way, there are also many that are just bad for the sake of being bad.

I don't think I've played many of the games from the contest but I'll take a crack at this anyway.

UNCOMMON:

Quote:

Then why in the bleeding HELL did you bother quoting it? I certainly got an I'M-RIGHT-YOU'RE-WRONG vibe out of that whole parargraph.

Wow, a lot of hostility there. Really though, I'd like it if we could keep the debate as civil as possible. You could've asked that question without being so hostile. I was simply debating my point and offering the dictionary definition as support of my claim. This is why I said I didn't expect it to be the end-all-be-all. I didn't expect it to finish you guys off and then I'd ride off into the sunset, victorious. It was just support for my claim. In debates, people often used definitions as evidence, and that's all I was doing.

I'd also like to add that I'm not looking for a definition of games. I'm wondering what games are "about." The reason I used the definition as evidence was because the first two concepts mentioned were entertainment and competition, which I feel is support for my claim, and not undeniable proof that my claim is right and yours is wrong.

Quote:

I'd like to second Iblis' point here. A game may not always be a piece of art, but it is an artform. Just because textbook isn't usually entertaining doesn't mean books can't be a valid artform and recognized as such. The problem here is that you've created a barrier between games (electronic games, in particular) and other artforms, where it must suddenly fulfill specific and limiting roles that other artforms wouldn't. That, I believe, is the basis of this debate.

My point is that games aren't an artform. Most games aren't art. A lot of computer games might be. But tag, hide-and-seek, solitaire, monopoly, and baseball are not art (in my opinion). Most games aren't artforms. Like when you make a game out of cleaning the house, that's not art. So when you say that games are an artform, you're "limiting the medium," as you would say. When you talk about games being art, you're excluding a whole lot of games.

Basically, this is how I feel. If not all games are art, to say that the point of games are about the same thing that art is about, that is ignoring what tag is about, or what hide-and-seek is about.

Quote:

Just because textbook isn't usually entertaining doesn't mean books can't be a valid artform and recognized as such.

What? You must be greatly misunderstanding me. Please tell me where that came from. I never said that something lacking entertainment makes it not an artform. I never said anything even like this. Summary:

Games to me are about entertainment and competition. Games are not necessarily art. I never said that games can't be art. I also never said that art must be entertaining.

Quote:

The problem here is that you've created a barrier between games (electronic games, in particular) and other artforms, where it must suddenly fulfill specific and limiting roles that other artforms wouldn't. That, I believe, is the basis of this debate.

And I think that the problem with your argument is that you're considering all games to be art even when you agree that not all games are art. I don't know what you think games are about, but it seems that you think games are about the same thing as art. (If I am wrong, please tell me what you think they are about) But I don't think tag and hide-and-seek are about the same thing as art. If you do, please explain how. It just seems like you are thinking only of computer games and not of the more simple games that people play.

You gave the definition of interactivity then said

Quote:

And how is it that interactivity suddenly means it's trying to be entertaining? What is it that makes it fundamentally enjoyable?

Are you kidding me? This is doesn't even make a claim against me. Pretty much every time I said interactivity in my statement I said, "as it applies to games" or something like that. Not every time, but it's almost assumed.

Quote:

And I still don't understand why movies must always be entertaining, either.

I never said they must always be entertaining. Believe you me, I'm in film school, and I've seen my fair share of duds. But film is ABOUT entertainment. When I say something is ABOUT something, I don't mean that every game is entertaining, I mean exactly what I said: games are ABOUT entertainment. This doesn't mean every game is entertaining, but that the point of playing games is to entertain yourself. Many games fail to entertain me. Many games bored me out of my mind and were totally easy time-wasters where there really was no competition because I could've played the game while I was sleeping. But the reason that people play games is to be entertained and challenged. Just like the reason people watch movies is to be entertained.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

Uncommon
His legend will never die

Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 2503

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:12 pm Post subject:

The Drizzle wrote:

When you take interactivity and add a challenge, I just feel that there is entertainment.

A feeling is a poor thing to support an argument with.

The Drizzle wrote:

Pretty much every time I said interactivity in my statement I said, "as it applies to games" or something like that. Not every time, but it's almost assumed.

Apparently not, since neither Iblis or I got that.

TheDrizzle wrote:

Wow, a lot of hostility there. Really though, I'd like it if we could keep the debate as civil as possible.

I'm not known for being a nice guy.

TheDrizzle wrote:

Quote:

The problem here is that you've created a barrier between games (electronic games, in particular) and other artforms, where it must suddenly fulfill specific and limiting roles that other artforms wouldn't. That, I believe, is the basis of this debate.

Might I put an emphasis on electronic games? I'm pretty sure I already have (see the boldened words), but you might've missed that. The fact is, I have been talking about electronic games this whole time. The whole thing was about electronic games. We are designers of electronic games, this is a community centered around designing electronic games. Using non-electronic games in this debate is pretty much arguing semantics, since we never really touched the subject. And, yes, I do consider electronic gaming to be an artform, and I guess that would make all electronic games art, as far as I care. Note, of course, that bad art is still art.

Non-electronic games, eh, it's a whole other argument.

The Drizzle wrote:

Quote:

And I still don't understand why movies must always be entertaining, either.

You're arguing semantics here. Must always implies that it fails if it isn't entertaining. And just because people see movies to be entertained doesn't mean that movies are made to be entertaining or that movies are about entertainment.

Display posts from previous:

	Castle Paradox Forum Index -> The Arcade	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum