what stone means is that the game isn't the art, but rather the interaction with it two people can come away with two different perspectives on one painting, but ultimately both views are derived from the same substance though video games can be broken down into pure code (if you consider coding an art form, totally up to you, lol) but the point is that nobody will ever play the same game exactly the same, therefore though they are both playing GTA4, because the art is the interaction itself, and not the actual game this form of art will NEVER be the same for any two people. lets look at a little philosophy to hammer the idea out, Jean Paul Satre and Albert Camus come to mind. they were two modern existentialist that believed one common thing. "existence precedes essence" this means that things are physically there before they have any meaning to it, that meaning is derived from existence, and not the other way around. an example of this is the idea that humans are born WITHOUT a soul, and that they CREATE the soul themselves through influences and reaction in their life. the idea is if i play a video game, and somebody else plays a video game how do i KNOW it is the same video game? sure it looks the same, plays the same, i can do all the same stuff in my version as my friend can in his, but the point is that i can't prove that my game is the same to me as it is to my friend. it started out the same, but then through the median of my actions vs. his actions it changed. my experience was different and thus the meaning to my game, the ESSENCE of my game is different. the object might as well be a cold shell, it is the essence that is what is important in art, art is the process of evaluating what something means to a person, what essence that person takes away from an object, in this sense art is a reflection of ourselves, we look at a painting and we see what wee take out of it, it's like a mirror. the painting will always guide the reflection somewhat, if it's a dark painting you may see your own essence in it's darker form, if it's a happy painting, you might see the lighter side of yourself, video games are a mirror that is always changing, dark to light, happy and sad it's fixed to a point, as a genera, but changes way more then anything static ever will, the mirror is altered by the reflection to show all sides and all shades possible. the Painting makes a statement, it might reveal a side of ourselves that we didn't know was there, we lose that control with video games as we adjust the picture to show a truer form of ourselves, what we lose in a statement or comment about ourselves, we gain in clarity of image. so in conclusion, the mirror of video games is always changing, but the reflection we see inside of it is always adjusted to show a truer form of ourselves, THAT is the Meta art of video games, and it's truly an AMAZING thing.
bringing crisis core to the PS2 would kill PSP sales, the only reason why the DS hasn't completely killed the PSP right now is because it has exclusive titles. it the same reason why the PS3 is enjoying increasing sales. exclusive titles give you an incentive to buy the system that is offering them, porting them over only gives you one more reason to stick with what you have (ie. "why buy the PSP when i can just get the game for PS2")
for all of you asking for a new FF7. i think you may be waiting for a while. it SEEMS like a good idea, a new FF7, everybody will love it right? it'll make lots of money, it's a shoe-in right? the problem is that it wont. sure it'll be acclaimed all over the world, IF they don't screw it up. now that's the problem, how do they remake the game and not screw it up? they could just re-do the graphics and leave it at that, if they don't change something great then it will stay great right? but what about the people who wanted more out of the game, just upping the graphics seems nothing more then a shallow grab at more money. What if they try a new combat system? no matter what merits it has, that would fail. in fact, any change would fail. if they don't change it, it'll suck because there is nothing different, if they do change it, people will argue that they should have never touched what was so great, it can't work. you could p[ose the argument that no matter what it will make money, which is probably true. there are two more things stopping them however. first off, money is useless when a crazed fanboy jumps through you window at night stabbing you in the throat because you had the AUDACITY to make yuffie USEFUL *GASP*. the second problem is that when the original game comes out, the money train ENDS. any other attempts at a spin off will be met with scorn along the lines of "oh, well they are just out to make more money, i'm sick of this". in short. remaking the game would be like trying to rewrite the bible. sure, you will get your fair share of followers. but how long will it be before the Spaniards get pi§§ed off and try to shove an armada down your throat?
the answeres are all CLEARLY in the game...... you just need an interest in philosophy and about 7 playthroughs to fully get it all...... jury is still out on wether or not it was worth it but really, the game isn't all that hard to understand, but it's pretty clear the dude in this video just didn't.
crystal chronicles 2, brawl, the new fire emblem game. i have alwayys mainteined that the time splitters series have ALWAYS been better then halo. halo jsut seemed A.) way too easy (in both single and multi player, grab a snipe or a banshee and you win) and B.) not developed enough. but i wish the best of luck too microsoft, hopefully they can add something new to the game this time round
Treifla's comments