By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - The US government recognizes games as an art form

Doobie_wop on 10 May 2011
Gnac said:
Doobie_wop said:

Wow, your great at this, you make an argument as to why games can't be called art, I give you a rebuttal and now your being all butthurt about it. I'll end this now, but from now on, don't start an argument you can't fight for, you only look silly.

I didn't actually make that argument. Calm down, and read through this thread carefully.

It's interactive media, which just happens to require artistic processes in its creation. The end result is a product which is intended for mass consumption. To call that something so rare as art just feeds the egos of fools.

You did make that argument. 

The best you could have done was explain yourself in your first reply, if I was wrong, I'll admit to it, but you decided to be touchy on the whole thing from the get go.

We've taken this thread off course, just leave it, I don't intend to to have a back and forth with you for another few pages.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Around the Network
Gnac on 10 May 2011
Doobie_wop said:
Gnac said:
Doobie_wop said:

Wow, your great at this, you make an argument as to why games can't be called art, I give you a rebuttal and now your being all butthurt about it. I'll end this now, but from now on, don't start an argument you can't fight for, you only look silly.

I didn't actually make that argument. Calm down, and read through this thread carefully.

It's interactive media, which just happens to require artistic processes in its creation. The end result is a product which is intended for mass consumption. To call that something so rare as art just feeds the egos of fools.

You did make that argument. 

The best you could have done was explain yourself in your first reply, if I was wrong, I'll admit to it, but you decided to be touchy on the whole thing from the get go.

We've taken this thread off course, just leave it, I don't intend to to have a back and forth with you for another few pages.

And I admitted that I was wrong to make that argument. I even admitted, when confronted about it the first time, that I was naive to have done so. I even thought I'd accidentally shamed a very intelligent contributor. This is why I hoped that you would read through the thread and acknowledge others' (my) mistakes.

Sometimes I like to test my fellow man at the expense of my own nebulous internet reputation. Your attitude here, frankly, stinks.



WHERE IS MY KORORINPA 3

Doobie_wop on 10 May 2011
Gnac said:

I didn't read through the whole thread until after, but I gave a different and more detailed take on the topic, you came off as incredibly offended for being wrong. You could have avoided all this by admitting to being wrong on the first reply, instead of instantly going on the attack. I've posted things on the first page of threads, discussed many things over the next five pages, but then I'll get that first post quoted by someone new to thread, I don't act like an asshole to that poster, I continue my discussion with them.

If my attitude stinks for calling you out on a bad argument, then sure, I stink, but you should probably try and not be so offended when your proven to be wrong by multiple posters.

Once again, we've taken this off topic, so this will be my last post. You can have the final word if you want, I don't really care.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Gnac on 10 May 2011
Doobie_wop said:
Gnac said:

I didn't read through the whole thread until after, but I gave a different and more detailed take on the topic, you came off as incredibly offended for being wrong. You could have avoided all this by admitting to being wrong on the first reply, instead of instantly going on the attack. I've posted things on the first page of threads, discussed many things over the next five pages, but then I'll get that first post quoted by someone new to thread, I don't act like an asshole to that poster, I continue my discussion with them.

If my attitude stinks for calling you out on a bad argument, then sure, I stink, but you should probably try and not be so offended when your proven to be wrong by multiple posters.

Once again, we've taken this off topic, so this will be my last post. You can have the final word if you want, I don't really care.

I don't begrudge your take on the topic; I just didn't understand why you had to reply to my post as you did until this reply. You could have been a bit less aggressive, I think.

You admit that you replied in the heat of the moment ("I didn't read through the whole thread until after"); that is fine, and such strong emotions are often the igniting spark of great art. However, this thread appears to be heading towards a bad conclusion, and much like an artist has no right to declare his own work as art, I hope that people judge this thread and its contributors fairly.



WHERE IS MY KORORINPA 3

richardhutnik on 10 May 2011
wfz said:
osamanobama said:
theprof00 said:

but for subsidies, thats different. thats the government taking your money and giving it to someone else. meaning chosing winners and losers. thats not captalism. for things like alternative energy, im all for it. but right now most of it isnt viable alternative. if it was, the market would take care of it, and government wouldnt have to throw billions of dollars at it. the market chooses whats right for consumers, goverment doesnt. government creates artificial prices, and takes away jobs from other sources, that are proven. the day that solar, wind or whatever energy becomes an ecinomical alternative, trust me there will be thousands of people wanting to get a slice of the pie. the market determines when that comes. and ironically enough its also goverment that keeps us from being energy independent, and keeps us from using alternative energy. we cant drill our own oil, we cant make solar fields in the middle of the dessert, we cant make wind farms, miles of our coasts, and we cant make nuclear plants, all because of politicians. when government interfers with the free market they stop advancement in everything, including energy

Just wondering: how do you feel about the government giving money to poor families/individuals who can't sustain themselves (and perhaps their needed medications) due to mental illnesses, etc?

Hey, wouldn't the answer be that doing this prevents the market from picking the winners and losers in life?  Isn't having people die of starvation or lack of shelter or health care a simple way to thin the herd?



Around the Network
wfz on 10 May 2011
richardhutnik said:
wfz said:
osamanobama said:
theprof00 said:

but for subsidies, thats different. thats the government taking your money and giving it to someone else. meaning chosing winners and losers. thats not captalism. for things like alternative energy, im all for it. but right now most of it isnt viable alternative. if it was, the market would take care of it, and government wouldnt have to throw billions of dollars at it. the market chooses whats right for consumers, goverment doesnt. government creates artificial prices, and takes away jobs from other sources, that are proven. the day that solar, wind or whatever energy becomes an ecinomical alternative, trust me there will be thousands of people wanting to get a slice of the pie. the market determines when that comes. and ironically enough its also goverment that keeps us from being energy independent, and keeps us from using alternative energy. we cant drill our own oil, we cant make solar fields in the middle of the dessert, we cant make wind farms, miles of our coasts, and we cant make nuclear plants, all because of politicians. when government interfers with the free market they stop advancement in everything, including energy

Just wondering: how do you feel about the government giving money to poor families/individuals who can't sustain themselves (and perhaps their needed medications) due to mental illnesses, etc?

Hey, wouldn't the answer be that doing this prevents the market from picking the winners and losers in life?  Isn't having people die of starvation or lack of shelter or health care a simple way to thin the herd?

That's why I originally asked him - I wanted to see the response he'd give. Unfortunately, he looked right over my reply.



richardhutnik on 10 May 2011
wfz said:
richardhutnik said:
wfz said:
osamanobama said:
theprof00 said:

but for subsidies, thats different. thats the government taking your money and giving it to someone else. meaning chosing winners and losers. thats not captalism. for things like alternative energy, im all for it. but right now most of it isnt viable alternative. if it was, the market would take care of it, and government wouldnt have to throw billions of dollars at it. the market chooses whats right for consumers, goverment doesnt. government creates artificial prices, and takes away jobs from other sources, that are proven. the day that solar, wind or whatever energy becomes an ecinomical alternative, trust me there will be thousands of people wanting to get a slice of the pie. the market determines when that comes. and ironically enough its also goverment that keeps us from being energy independent, and keeps us from using alternative energy. we cant drill our own oil, we cant make solar fields in the middle of the dessert, we cant make wind farms, miles of our coasts, and we cant make nuclear plants, all because of politicians. when government interfers with the free market they stop advancement in everything, including energy

Just wondering: how do you feel about the government giving money to poor families/individuals who can't sustain themselves (and perhaps their needed medications) due to mental illnesses, etc?

Hey, wouldn't the answer be that doing this prevents the market from picking the winners and losers in life?  Isn't having people die of starvation or lack of shelter or health care a simple way to thin the herd?

That's why I originally asked him - I wanted to see the response he'd give. Unfortunately, he looked right over my reply.

If you end up answering like that, people think you are an inhumane monster, eventhough that is what you may think.  So long as it is theoretical, and doesn't involve real human suffering, it is all fun and games.  Of course, someone may not believe that though.  I am iffy on the funding of the arts by the government myself.