IGDetail's forum posts
I haven't read the open letter but this what I wrote to someone else about the issue earlier today: I am still thinking about that argument. He does have a point that games are about rules and boundaries, whereas art is continually interpretable and symbolic. I think some people mistake 'art' for simply being 'artistic' in a visual sense. I don't think the narratives in games are strong enough to be regarded as art (yet), except for Bioshock perhaps. Not saying this about you but I don't think people should take this to heart as a means of saying games are stupid etc. (Argument could be subject to change..)biggest_loserPlay Silent Hill 2 or 3 and then tell me that games cannot be symbolic.... there have been some deep discussions about these two games that go well beyond what the game simply shows the player. Alternatively, I could argue against the artistic value of most movies, most of which I'm sure Ebert critiqued. One can find artistic relevance in anything, even the most mundane; It just takes an open mind. To close one's eye to art in games is simply a generational unacceptance to a change in media.
If you're so worried about the economy, why not get a job that has agrueably the world's greatest security; you'll receive promotions plenty fast, play with a lot of big toys, and you can only get fired if you really really **** up. Go enlist in the Army, they pay for a lot of things, including insurance, and yet they also give you a free "gym membership." It's a win-win!felixzelphynYou can't have a job without a strong economy. I was listening to a news program yesterday on Iraq Vet job rates.... only a handful can actually find a job with what the army 'teaches' them.
[QUOTE="The_Solid"]if u didnt go to iraq this never would have happened......just saying.
a couple of billions a day to keep an army running thats just stupid.
OBAAAAAAMAAAAAAA
kenshinhimura10
True, but there were also hidden interests behind this. USA created a new economic system that its called the "War Economy" (no, it has nothing to do with MGS 4) where they would go to war to increase the peoples trust in the goverment and the local economy. It was partially a sort of brain control and from the outside, its a cruel way of benefiting. After each war that the US went by, their economy grew. So, when I try to think why did G.Bush did this, aside from the fact that they wanted Oil, it was to give a boost to economy. I cant believe politicians still play the terrorist car, and that people buys it.
I'm not sure how hidden 'oil interest protection' really needs to be. The entire world wouldn't run the same if we didn't have set oil prices. If all the people in the world realized their dependency on oil instead of damning Bush for a war, we probably wouldn't have had one. It would have been solved semi-peacefully under a popular vote. Why is it always up to America to bail out the world? Paulson wants the billions not only to bail OUR banks out, but OTHER country's banks as well. Who made America the workhorse of the world? All these money lenders want is the world to be in debt forever. OF COURSE they want to bail out the home mortgage industry... govt money backed by tax payers is much better than bad homeowner debt. This was a scam from the beginning to make American more indebted to the FED. We all need to seriously start saving instead of spending unless we don't like living in a house or eating.
Log in to comment