AngelCityOutlaw

Because anything I can possibly think of that has been considered a game before and even when video games became a thing have had that requirement. Even here you're saying a requirement is a "goal". If you fail to achieve the goal in the game, have you not lost? If you do achieve the goal, have you not won? In things like Until Dawn, Heavy Rain etc. the choices you make and whether you do the quicktime events or not is entirely inconsequential. You will reach the goal as long as you continue to at least participate where required. This is not what I mean. You can't "win" at playing/making music, or painting, drawing, acting or anything like that - you just do it. You might say that there are contests for these things and that's true, but that is a subjective means of deciding who did one of these things exceptionally well rather than objectively determining a victor. You can however "win" and "lose" or "draw" at playing a game in a completely objective manner. Sure, you can mess with the stats and create new play styles but you'll find anything taken seriously by esports still remains fair and logical as possible. Saying, "this character is going to be a support character, so you have to play them like this..." and then adjusting their stats so they're a bit squishy in health, maybe faster moving and deal less damage in attacks but have higher mana stats and better spells isn't really "creative" as I see it, it's the logical way to make the character's numbers fit the role you want them to play. League of Legends was born of a Warcraft III mod that became its own distinct game as I recall. I'd be interested to read sometime about how exactly it was built. Did it start with the modder creatively inventing rules and mechanics, or is it more likely they had a concept for a game in mind and carefully examined how mechanics of Warcraft could be re-balanced and changed to suit the concept? I suspect the latter is the case and I'd again say the creativity there is in the concept of the game, not the mechanics of it.

I vehemently disagree with this. Evolution of language happens organically and so far as I'm aware, gamers are currently the only people actively arguing that interactive computer software in which you only experience a story rather than win or lose at it still counts as a game. I'm not convinced the noun "game" has evolved anything beyond what it has always meant. If Gone Home is as much a game to you as walking dead is a comic, which no one would argue Walking Dead is indeed a comic, then I'd say you're definition of a game is far too liberal. The distinction is not artificial - it is obvious because people are debating whether it should be a distinction at all. "Interactive software" as I call it, already exists in places like museums. "Virtual tours", and the like. It's interactive, you can control it, it tells you a story or gives you some sort of information, possibly stimulates you emotionally, but you cannot win or lose at it. I've never heard someone argue that such software is a "game", but people do argue that Gone Home, Beyond Two Souls and Journey are despite the fact that all the same details are true of them.

The man was a writer by profession and primarily known for critical analysis of what was and (arguably) still is, the most popular narrative medium and was open to having his opinion swayed on video games. I think that in a discussion of what "art" means and is, his opinion counts for something. Especially when you're talking about games as a narrative medium. I can see where you're coming from in all this and you said there is a distinction between mechanics for function and mechanics for narrative, but I don't feel they're as separate as you suggest. While I've played both Dark Souls and Journey, though not in their entirety, what you're describing about them to me seems like a case of either mechanics that inspired narrative or narrative that inspired mechanics. In either case, if these events emotionally effect the player, I see that as a credit to the writers and artists. Would Journey have had the same emotional impact on you if the narrative and other assets applied to the mechanics were different? You said that taking damage changes your perception of the world around you - what if that world wasn't a very compelling one? Here is an example that I feel perfectly illustrates my view on this whole thing: I'm a fan of the Fire Emblem series and the games are noted for their "perma-death" mechanic. Especially in Awakening, it really sucked when I lost a character I had grown to like. The characters are all unique and you really get a sense of who they are, how they speak, what their hobbies are, quirks etc. It seems like a friend died when you lose someone who has been with you for a long time. The mechanic supports the narrative and vice versa, but the fact remains the mechanic primarily adds an extra layer of challenge and risk to the game. The characters could have been boring and little more than faceless recruits I didn't care about. If that were the case, the mechanic could remain and serve its purpose all the same. If the mechanics (the game) were truly art, I feel that on its own it would elicit emotional responses from players. Feelings you get from simple victory and defeat don't count in my opinion, because naturally humans like to win instead of lose. I'm unswayed in agreeing that games themselves aren't art, but narrative, sonic and visual elements that are present in games are. At the end of the day though, it doesn't really matter to me whether games are art or not. I think this whole discussion that's been going on since the 80s is more about gamers and developers seeking unnecessary validation from the film industry. Games have already eclipsed movies in sales and are a mainstream hobby enjoyed by millions - that should be validation enough.

Just because mechanics are "different' doesn't necessarily mean it's because of art. To the bold text - Well, that's what I'm asking you to prove. Yes, a game does have to be fair. You're example of re-arranging white noise is different because you can still make something we'd refer to as "music". No rules or challenge required. Name me a game without rules. Like I said in response to Slimy in a more abstract way, "Because humans make mistakes" is not the same as "rules are creative." This is demonstrable as fact in the case of Street Fighter since Capcom has released literal "balance updates". If the rules were creative choices and not something that keeps the game fair, they wouldn't fix the rules. The "more to the game" part you guys keep talking about, are all arbitrary. Dark Souls: The Art: The story, the music, the sound, the voices, the characters, etc. In essence, the assets that are applied to the game mechanics. What the assets are, are ultimately arbitrary. The Game: "Make it to the end and defeat final boss". Countless games have this same goal. You "win" when you make it to the final bonfire (checkpoint) and beat the last enemy. You "lose" when you die and are sent back to the last checkpoint. When you "lose" all of your souls are gone and the enemies are reset. The enemies are reset because the game would be far too easy if the enemies stayed dead - you would inevitably beat the game simply by repeatedly trying. Not to my knowledge. In fact, on his official website, he even sat down with a woman who was convinced she could prove him wrong by showing him games like Flower and I think Heavy Rain and stuff. All she wound up doing was proving his points by example. That's why I came to agree with him. Because the more people try to argue and prove him wrong, the more you realize he's right. I would say it's evident that interactive software has outgrown the need to be a game.

Roger Ebert argued that video games themselves are not art because unlike literally everything else we refer to as "art", video games have rules and challenge - winners and losers. Anything we've traditionally called a "game" requires both of those things. Now that I've thought more about it, I agree with him. I would also agree with those who criticize or outright reject the "art game" label. In a game, the rules do not arise out of creativity. They come about as a logical way to ensure that the game (challenge) in deciding who wins and loses remains fair. Ryu only being able to throw one fireball at a time isn't a creative choice - it's because the game wouldn't be fair without it. There are "games" in which you can't win or lose and therefore there is no true challenge. Thus, not a game. None of the things you are describing, especially with Journey makes a game "art", in my opinion. Writing, acting, music, sound design, symbolism, visual art etc. all go into a video game, but they stand by themselves as "art". Strip all of that away and you're left with what the game really is - a logical set of rules regarding a challenge to decide who wins and who loses. If nothing is left, then it is not a game.

I know this is subjective, but personally I think that lead guitar sounds terrible. If it has that "woo" sound as I call it, I wouldn't aspire to sound like it. This likely is due to choice of pickups, EQ and lack of, good, wide, speed-modulating vibrato that suits the tempo. The lack of the latter why most sample libraries are garbage for lead guitars. Here are some lead guitars I think sound great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTKfWnXCAwg https://youtu.be/jNU3cz5eXPQ?t=3m19s https://youtu.be/u9_SEr-ORyk?t=2m25s The key to getting good lead "tone" comes in getting a "warm" sound from an amp sim based on a valve amp, often with only as much gain as is require to get a pinch harmonic. Also, it's a good idea to pinch sustained vibrato notes. Try a set-up based on an old peavy, mesa, marshall or soldano with a tube screamer in front of it and not a "distortion pedal" of the metal zone variety. Also make sure you have plenty of mids and use a good stereo delay to give it all a sense of space. After that, the most important part is to play with bends, harmonic and noticeable vibrato. The occasional palm-mutes on faster runs on the low strings is also a good technique. Also, use the bridge pick-up unless you want a "bluesy" sound on the high notes - then use the neck pick up. Most sample libraries don't let you switch pick ups though as far as I know.

Lemmy wasn't allowed into Heaven until it got its liquor license is all. It also just got a whole lot louder up there \m/

I enjoyed the prequels, but my problems with it are as follows: - Arguably the most mysterious and badass villain, Darth Maul, had next to no lines and was killed right away. I can still remember when the movie was coming out how everyone was pretty excited about this Sith and it wound up being really anti-climactic. - They tried to make the force all scientific and stuff. I liked it better when it wasn't. - The fights and dialogue are at times way too cheesy even by Star Wars and other fantasy film standards. (Yeah, Star Wars isn't sci-fi, I said it. Fight me) - CGI. Possibly the biggest complaint about the prequels was that they relied more on CGI than practical effects that the series is known for. - "She's lost the will to live" in Revenge of The Sith. Really, George? Like wtf kinda excuse is that. The droid may as well have said "Padame's plot armor has been stripped away at the request of Mr Lucas so she simply must die." - Virgin-birth Anakin. For religious symbolism/parallel points and so we don't have to explain who Anakin's father was. Darth Plagueis supposedly created him, but my bet is that Anakin's mom was a party girl. - NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Right after you paste the link, press enter.

Congrats on the mix-post! This is really good! It's super-relaxing and I really do love the acoustic guitar. I also did not find it repetitive at all. Not much else I can say except I enjoyed the hell out of it!

Just thought I'd add that ProjectSAM actually do a lot of great little demos/tutorials for their products on YouTube. Check them out.

I honestly prefer the lightsaber duels of the original trilogy and episode VII. They're more like legit sword fights rather than live-action anime with flips and shit.

Yeah, like T said there is no way Slayer will sound like the real deal. Guitar players are everywhere though, so it shouldn't be hard at all to collaborate with one. Shreddage IBZ as a good last resort.

He does this in almost every thread. You express an opinion he disagrees with and so he proceeds to basically say why you're a dumbass who couldn't possibly know what you're talking about though he's no authority on the matter at hand himself in 9/10 scenarios and just turned 20 this year according to his page. Just let it happen. In relevant discussion: I've decided the only thing I was slightly disappointed by with the movie is how they didn't show much of Captain Phasma despite the hype for her. I know it's more or less confirmed she's going to be a much bigger character in episode VIII, but I still wish she got just a bit more screen time.

In not-so-shocking news, JJ Abrams regrets not signing on to direct VIII

Because you have so much experience with the "world of film scoring". Rey's theme, which I keep seeing regarded as "the only stand out track" on the soundtrack itself is far more musical and memorable than just about anything coming out of most modern film scores. Williams is one of the few guys still scoring blockbuster films where his music isn't just a bunch of ambience, ostinatos and loud percussion. Hell, Williams is one of the only guys still using entirely live percussion on most of his scores.

Yeah I know, like, with actual melody and shit right? Instead of BWWWWAAAAAMM Anyway, people keep criticizing the score and saying it's not as good as John's older scores, but I mean, he's 83 and has been at this for half a century and has composed the most iconic movie themes ever. He's allowed to have one score that's "not as good" as the others.

Just saw it and loved the crap out of it. The people complaining must be the "fun" people at parties. The new trilogy is going to be the best trilogy come at me bro.

I thought Chernabogue had Shreddage?

What!? No orchestra? That's a sin here. Anyway, I like it, but I would say I'm not a huge fan of the guitar tone. On the extended mutes around 1:08 it doesn't sound "metallic" enough for how breakdowns like that usually go. It might need to be choked a bit more and maybe a bit more gain or something.

I am fine with more Fire Emblem characters. I am not even the slightest bit biased.

Right and it's clear that it's supposed to be that. I'm saying that releasing FFVII in parts gives you the opportunity to play full segments of the game in sequence rather than waiting an eternity for the whole thing.

God damn it, I need to buy a Wii U again.