AngelCityOutlaw

Honestly, Daisy Ridley could beat me up any day. I'm pretty sure she friend-zoned Finn, though. Didn't she refer to him as "my friend" as she kissed him on the forehead upon leaving? While he was unconscious and unable to experience it? Damn. People talk about Link, but Finn traveled across the galaxy to other planets, including a giant, laser-weapon planet and winds up in a coma to rescue Rey and he got "Thanks, buddy! We'll hang out again some day."

Whoever made this needs to learn 2 grammar, but relevant all the same.

Slimy said he/she isn't familiar with arranging for genres outside of orchestral music and asked what genres this is. You claim it's sort of "80s rock" in composition. So why not give him/her tips that apply to that genre.

I agree with what's been said, but honestly, it doesn't really sound like "80s rock" at all. I'm quite familiar with said genre so maybe I can provide at least one point of useful advice. - A defining feature of a lot of 80s music, is gated reverb on the drums. Basically, you run the toms and snare through a HUGE reverb, but use a noise gate or similar device to chop off the sound of the reverb just enough so that it doesn't sound messy. Also, see if you can get a hold of some retro drum machine samples. There is a soundfont out there called "ultimate drums", the "power kit" contained within sounds quite 80s. - Saws - Heavily reverbed chords played by a synth with two detuned saw waves is common. Kinda like what you hear in Van Halen's "Jump" - Electric guitars with lots of delay and chorus - Roland Juno-60 was extremely popular for basslines and the Juno-106 had arguably the quintessential synth brass sound of the 80s. Your bass isn't too far off, though. See if you can emulate or find an emulation of those synths. - Synth bells...synth bells everywhere. Maybe use those in place of the marimba? A recent VGM track that totally nails it, is this That is so fucking 80s, l grew a mullet just listening to it. I think if you follow the others advice and apply some of the concepts like what you hear in this tune to what you already have, you'll be sounding straight out of the "golden age of pornogra-err...music, in no time!

@Brandon Strader That is a good album! and Brandon Strader does make good remixes. I specialize in bad ones.

I don't know how I can quote you with a straight face, @Neblix Great job not only deleting the previous "post" you made quoting Servbot twice, but also cherry-picking a section of the quote and then failing to elaborate on it or talk about the other sections. When you do that, it makes it look like you don't have a counter-argument. His point, in this article and elaborated in his first one, is that games have more in common with sports than art and that the dressings of the game are art, but not the game itself. At the same time, he acknowledges that anything can be art so if you want to believe games are art, go ahead. The best part here is that the only people being unreasonable are those who are clearly offended by the notion that games aren't art. I mean, I can see the arguments his opponents make and agree with them and at the same time agree with his argument. I'll let you guys fight it out from here since I have better things to do than worry about whether or not all the Star Wars games I just got on Steam are "art" or not.

I found a follow up that Ebert wrote after Clive Barker responded to his suggestion that video games aren't art. I'll put a link to it, but I'll cut out the most important parts here because I think it summarizes it all well: "A year or so ago, I rashly wrote that video games could not be art. That inspired a firestorm among gamers, who wrote me countless messages explaining why I was wrong, and urging me to play their favorite games. Of course, I was asking for it. Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it. How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports." Barker is right that we can debate art forever. I mentioned that a Campbell's soup could be art. I was imprecise. Actually, it is Andy Warhol's painting of the label that is art. Would Warhol have considered Clive Barker's video game "Undying" as art? Certainly. He would have kept it in its shrink-wrapped box, placed it inside a Plexiglas display case, mounted it on a pedestal, and labeled it "Video Game."

The end game here should be to make your guitar sound like a kitty :3

Yes, this basically

Honestly, your best bet would be to get a "whammy pedal" vst. They make whammy pedals that simulate whammy bar dives for guitars that don't have a tremolo arm. It's as close as you'll probably get without legit whammy samples...Lol "Whammy samples" Whatever you do though, don't over-use the whammy. Much like overusing the wah pedal, it is one of those unwritten guitarist codes.

To be fair, the movie is already over two hours and it could be difficult to squeeze too much more into it. I still think it's a believable scenario that he'd get out of there as fast as he possibly can. Armies are really really good at dehumanizing the enemy and a great amount of research has been done on PTSD and how normal people can become merciless killers pillaging towns and raping people when placed in a warzone. If you worked in sanitation and simply heard about all the "good" the First Order is supposedly doing, but then suddenly witnessed what is really happening out there in the war, and what YOUR people are doing, I think it's likely that you'd either partake or get out of there as soon as you can.

Fair enough

The point of the discussion here, as said by servbot, is that rules can be art too. The rules you guys keep claiming are art, always seem to be considered such because of the art attached to it and not the underlying thing. If rules are art, demonstrate it. Speaking of contradictions. "Games are art because they're emotionally impactful, but Pac-Man isn't." So Pac-Man is a game, but it's not art then? I thought games were inherently art? So only some games are art then? If only some games are art, then how can such a broad statement as "games are art" be true.

If you want to convince me that I'm wrong, all you have to do is on paper, design me a game but explain nothing but the mechanics and rules to your game, without describing any characters, setting, sound or story. Take it down to the micro level - its core. If, without those things, it remains something that resembles a work that emotionally moves people in the same way that paintings, music and movies do, then you're right - rules really are art. Because "get this object into this specific containment zone, guarded by an individual who is the only player allowed to use their hands", which is the basic idea of soccer, doesn't make me feel quiet the way I do watching Star Wars or listening to Mozart or reading poetry. If you want me to believe rules are art, then demonstrate that the rules are art without relying on things we already agree are art. The way I've seen it, they're usually categorized as being a game like any other. Seems to be more like a genre categorization when people are shopping for games. It's kind of like how "edutainment" is sometimes specifically labeled as such. Most still would say art games are games like any other though, and often developed by people who make games "for fun" as well, though art games can still be fun. I don't think games "should" be going in any particular direction, but I don't think it would be sacrificing what previously made games fun if it did, because that's an extremely subjective thing.

Well I mean, logically the lack of clearly defined rules and no mandatory participation I've been talking about for two pages and it seems like everyone except you understands at this point would be the very thing art "has" that games don't. You are that guy and you are very good at your job. BUT ANYWAY. To Neblix's original question I'd say the first one. The emergence of "art-games" are probably what people mean and want when they say games are art. I'd say that seeing as how they're the most frequently mentioned examples as far as I can tell.

and I did right after Your platypus example is bad because as I explained they are mammals because they share the trait that is basically the quintessential element of a mammal. This is not nearly as abstract a concept as something like "art" and "creativity" so therefore I'd even say your example is outright false-equivalence. Are you the guy who runs the part of hell where the torture is they repeatedly ask the same questions over and over and over?

Painting, sculpting, dancing, music, story-telling, writing, acting, movies, theater, drawing, cooking, architecture and probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting at the moment. I say again - In the creation of all of these things, the traits they all share is that they are ultimately governed by no rules (except if you count physics) and it's impossible to win or lose at them in either making or observing them. It is also true that none of these things require their viewers to participate at all. An improv play can build from audience ideas, but it doesn't require them. A concert can have audience participation, but it doesn't have to. Even if the perspective in my drawing is completely off or my painting is little more splatters of paint on a canvas that I claim represents the soul, it will still be considered "art" even by academia and art galleries. They might not consider it as "good", but would still acknowledge that "good" is subjective. They would agree, I'd bet on it, that it is still art - no one would say that I'm not allowed to create my pieces in this way. Games though, are all about rules. Whether it's Street Fighter saying I can't link this move to that move, blackjack saying I can't go over 21, or Pac-Man saying I can only eat the ghosts after I've got the big pellet, it's all about rules and those rules inevitably decide a winner and a loser by some definition. If I take those away from the game, the game doesn't function. Also, at least one person MUST participate in actually playing the game in order for it to work. If I just turn the game on and look at it and say I'm going to appreciate it, I'll be stuck on the title screen unless someone picks up a controller. These things are mandatory and must happen in a game if one is to enjoy it even by proxy, but such is not the case in anything else widely regarded as art currently. You can say games are art by arguing about varying definitions and what not and you may be right in those instances, but I personally feel this way of categorization is as close as I've seen in reaching an objective or at least agreeable answer.

Depends what you mean by scary. Tremolo samples playing dissonant chords is an old trick. East West Symphonic Orchestra and many other libraries come with a myriad of string FX like scratches, psycho style rips and loads more.

While I have no interest in further arguing since I'll just inevitably be asked questions I feel I've already answered, I have to say People keep going on about definitions, but the source of my frustration in this thread is that people keep arguing semantics to circumvent my point. This isn't about "definitions" of words - it is about simple categorization. Your example of the platypus actually speaks more to my point than yours. Platypuses have traits that make them different, but they still have the important traits shared by only mammals, so it makes sense to put them in that category. Games lack important features shared universally among the other art forms, so critics argue that this puts games in a different category. Arguing semantics to such critics just makes it look like you're trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

"The voices of dissent are greatly outnumbered, however" It seems to me, especially with those Twitter posts, the "inevitable backlash" is coming from people who were probably naysayers from the moment the film was announced - before anything was known about it.

Let me ask you a question Just what do you people NOT consider art? This discussion is utterly pointless unless you define SOME objective criteria of what is art beyond the abstract concept of "something that makes me have feels". If you believe "anything" can be art, why bother arguing since I obviously couldn't convince you even if scientists were to mix some shit in a beaker and published "nope it's not art" in a science journal. Films are literally just a audio-visual representation of a story - that is their purpose. Storytelling, by itself, is among the most ancient of art forms. Rules in a game are not. Video games are not art because EVERYTHING else that we've called art for thousands of years does not have clearly defined rules and does not have winners or losers. Everything that we have called a "game", from poker to street fighter requires those things. If it has those things, it's not art. If it doesn't have them, it's not a game. It's just a story you can interact with. That is my stance, I'm not saying it again - It is profoundly simple to understand. I'd wager even to those with zero interest in this subject, this sounds far more reasonable than most of the absurdly long posts you guys keep leaving talking about how the mechanics of the game are art because they have emotional impact, yet somehow fail to realize that in your own posts, the things everyone has used as an example of this, the "artistic" impact comes directly from "art" that gives meaning to the mechanic in context of the game's story and these are all things that can exist independently of the game's mechanics. GOOD DAY

No, eating isn't fucking culinary art. Don't edit other people's posts so that they suit your viewpoint instead of you know, actually arguing their viewpoint. This thread is basically a platform for you and those who share your opinion to jerk themselves off about how games are "art", a word with connotations of high-class and culture, because they're so desperate to prove to themselves that this hobby, historically stereotyped as being for lonely nerds, is on the same level as Michelangelo and Beethoven. Literally no one I know who is actually making games even cares. Ebert simply came along and said "Wait a minute, this thing you guys are saying is art. It doesn't have literally the only traits or lack thereof, universally shared among the radically different things we've called "art" since the dawn of human history. Maybe it's not actually art, then?" Which I think is a pretty damn valid point to anyone who isn't out to prove something. I mean, even Hideo Kojima agrees that games aren't art. Granted, his reasoning doesn't make nearly as much sense, but still.

I'm saying that any of the examples of game mechanics I've seen so far which are being touted as more than "just mechanics for function" do not actually appear that way at all. Everything that is being described as a mechanic that creates emotional impact is not a result of the mechanic, but the narrative or whatever else applied to it. Just because the game might not have a particular effect on you if that mechanic weren't present, doesn't favor the argument of "games are art" when the other assets that make up the game and are applied to the mechanic are actually what creates the emotional impact or narrative itself. It's a package deal. An emotional response is also not enough to justify something as "art". Eating a bowl of chili makes me feel happy. Would you then say the act of eating chili is an art because it elicits an emotional response? Allow me to cite the second half of Ebert's argument. In art, like music, dance, books and movies, outside of creating them you are simply an observer. You watch a movie, dance, concert; You read a book, comic, or short story, you look at a painting or sculpture and you listen to music. You must always "play" a game and be a direct participant in the events. So I would agree that movies are indeed art.