Bodhesatva said:
ckmlb said:
Bodhesatva said:
ckmlb said:
tabsina said:
ckmlb said:
People who watch crappy movies carry the movie industry, should they get respect?
Same with people who listen to crap music. |
offtopic addition: ... or watch reality shows |
Reality show watchers contribute to tv stations making money, should I respect the people who watch that garbage? |
Gears of War, God of War, Killzone, and so forth are simply no better. They're violent fantasy lands for young males.
Your suggestion that these games are sophisticated, while Reality shows are for philistines, is patently and obviously false. Educated adults don't watch many reality shows, I agree with that. Nielson has consistently shown that the primary audience for these types of shows are in the 15-30 year old range. And guess what? The games you apparently think are way more sophisticated attract the exact same people. Just as adults tend to prefer Law and Order (or don't watch T.V. at all), adults tend to prefer Wii Sports to Metal Gear, The Sims to Gears of War, and Civilization to God of War. Again, what does this tell you? It tells you that you have it backwards. It's YOUR games that target younger people. It's YOUR games that are equivalent to "crappy movies", and it's YOUR games that target the same demographic as reality shows. So please, stop. |
First of all, don't call them my games. Second of all: what demographic does Wii Sports target? It targets people who treat games as little meaningless passtimes and little kids. Who else targets little kids? The teletubbies. So should I go around saying that these games are the equivilant of the teletubbies? Your point is pretty ridiculous. Who cares what demographic they target? The idea that it is targetting this demographic meaning it is by default non artistic is wrong. So there's no one who likes artistic stuff in this demographic? You are making yourself feel good by claiming that you are playing the 'adult' games because you swing a wii mote as a tennis racket rather than a sword... pretty BS if you ask me. |
Demographics are really the only possible way to clearly define art. Otherwise, you can claim that Lord of the Rings is as deep and serious a work as Shakespeare, and I literally have no way to argue against it, other than to say that well educated people tend to disagree. What else do I say? Other than writing a thesis paper, I have nothing else. Simple example! Find any fine artistic medium -- Opera, Classical Music, or heck, even Bob Dylan, Art House Movies, Great Literature, Sculpture, Painting, Architecture -- any one that is preferred by 15-23 year old males and shunned by adults. Guess what, they don't exist! Now, let's name the "crappy" arts, as you put it. I can find a ton -- reality shows, action movies, horror movies, pop music. Guess what? These all target the same audience as God of War. 15-25 year old males.
Again, there's absolutely no way to "prove" that Shakespeare is more sophisticated than, say, Uwe Bole movies. What do I say, other than "obviously, it is?" The only thing we have to go by is who tends to be attracted to these different mediums, as well educated adults would, in general, greatly prefer Shakespeare to "Blood Rayne." The fact that reality shows and "crappy movies" that you so demean are enjoyed by the SAME DEMOGRAPHIC that likes God of War is the best possible objective evidence one can give that these are analogous. |
