The Best Game of 2010

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Bcha1101 (9 posts) -

Best game of 2010 Ever!!!!!!!!! I really beaten the over and over over again i really like so muuch

#2 Posted by Lemoncookie01 (1667 posts) -
#3 Posted by zombie2011 (4972 posts) -

No, this is why i don't like the endurance run.

#4 Posted by PerryVandell (2103 posts) -

Not really sure how you can say that since 2010 isn't over... and it's Deadly Premonition.

#5 Posted by trophyhunter (5800 posts) -

Well I think the game of the year is yet to come out. AC: brotherhood or fallout new vegas will most likey steal the title from DP.

#6 Edited by The_Tolman (432 posts) -

Its only good because it is SO bad and because our pals at giantbomb sat through the hours of shit. On a technical and gameplay perspective, it sucks balls. So game of the year? No. A funny side note in video game history. Probably.

#7 Posted by TheHT (11153 posts) -
@trophyhunter said:
" Well I think the game of the year is yet to come out. AC: brotherhood or fallout new vegas will most likey steal the title from DP. "
Brotherhood, really? I had no idea the game looked so promising. I shall look into this.
Online
#8 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -
@Bcha1101 said:
"

I really beaten the over and over over again i really like so muuch

"
What the fuck does that mean?
#9 Posted by trophyhunter (5800 posts) -
@TheHT said:
" @trophyhunter said:
" Well I think the game of the year is yet to come out. AC: brotherhood or fallout new vegas will most likey steal the title from DP. "
Brotherhood, really? I had no idea the game looked so promising. I shall look into this. "
Yeah go watch the last two dev dairies. it's pretty insane how awesome it looks, considering just a month ago I thought it was just some dumb side story.
#10 Posted by Animagess (157 posts) -
@ProjectMayhem said:
" Its only good because it is SO bad and because our pals at giantbomb sat through the hours of shit. On a technical and gameplay perspective, it sucks balls. So game of the year? No. A funny side note in video game history. Probably. "
I've lurked too many forums elsewhere that flatly contradict this statement to bother arguing this.  I can appreciate that, this being the Giant Bomb forums, that everyone here thinks the Endurance Runs are the end-all-be-all of DP, but I hate to break it to ya: It's not the case.  Not by a long shot.
 
I mean seriously, I'd like to know what Game God Deity you're referencing whose criteria for "GOTY" status objectively trumps the standards of all lesser mortal beings, because the number of gamers who genuinely would rather play this than Mass Effect 2 or RDR is a lot bigger than you people apparently think.  And anyone who criticizes someone for liking a game, simply because they themselves didn't find appealing, has no right to diss Ebert for being a narrow-minded sunovabitch. 
 
In short... I agree with the OP's sentiment.  But not his grammar.
#11 Posted by Chemi_ro (45 posts) -
@Animagess said:

" @ProjectMayhem said:

" Its only good because it is SO bad and because our pals at giantbomb sat through the hours of shit. On a technical and gameplay perspective, it sucks balls. So game of the year? No. A funny side note in video game history. Probably. "
I've lurked too many forums elsewhere that flatly contradict this statement to bother arguing this.  I can appreciate that, this being the Giant Bomb forums, that everyone here thinks the Endurance Runs are the end-all-be-all of DP, but I hate to break it to ya: It's not the case.  Not by a long shot.
Agreed! 
Watching the ER made me realize I should give the game another chance. I was very interested in the story but didn't feel like forcing myself through the oldschool gameplay. Once I got over the hurdle of controls I grew to really like the game on its own merits.

It may not be GOTY in terms of graphics or its game play but its make an impact with everything else it brings to the table! Personally,  I think it's one of the better plot driven games this year!
#12 Edited by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Chemi_ro:   If you ever watched Twin Peaks or any of David Lynch's works that its easier to accept Deadly Premonition for what it is. Controls, Graphics, Dialog, Sound design, Gaemplay, everything is carefully orchestrated exactly the way SWERY wanted it. I find very weird that everyone is having such a hard to understand or accepting this. I often compare it to Schindlers List being shot in Black and White or David Lynch shooting Inland Empire with a $1000 handheld digital camera, or when all the actors switched places in the final act of Mulholland Drive. These weren't accidents or side effects of design or programming. Deadly Premonition is the first game I've ever seen that utilized hardware and video game design instead of the other way around. Every game that is released every generation is limited by the hardware and is lacking cause of controller or graphical limitations. Deadly Premonition didn't have this problem at all. They chose an art style that perfectly portrayed the 80s/90s feel they were going for. Ridiculous controls and tech issues tongue in cheek to game design in general. Much like Demon's Souls the only time I ever died in this game is when I fucked around. I knew the reload times were long. I knew I had a 10 sec wait after breaking a melee weapon, and if my dumb ass kept swinging said weapon instead of getting out of harms way than I deserved to take buckshot to the face. I not only nominate this Game of the Year, but Game of the Ever. Not that its quality is supreme, but that it was perfectly stylized to portray what it was going for. Something no other game to date can claim.
 
Edit: sorry if it looks like I'm singleing you out. Yours was just the main comment that I read in this thread and those who don't like DP are just crazy. I catagorize you in the group who "likes DP in SPITE of its faults" instead of realizing "DP was great because of its design choices perceived as faults to the ignorant eye"
#13 Posted by Chemi_ro (45 posts) -
@TylDurden:   You are the second person to say something like that :)  Animagess said something similar over on the something awful dp forum.  Really the only thing that brought the game down for me at first was the controls. I love the characters, setting, dialogue and story!  But to tell you the truth the more I play the more I'm thinking it was a deliberate choice as well. I think my problem initially stemmed from the fact that I started on hard  and it was difficult for me to really get into the gameplay. I watched the ER and was really disappointed with myself that I let something like different controls stop me from finishing the game. So I picked it up from my last save and beat it over a weekend. Now that I'm used to it it's actually not that bad and I don't know why I found it so hard before! It also helped when I figured out  when to push start and run+a helped a lot of my frustrations as well lol :D
#14 Edited by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@TylDurden said:

" I often compare it to Schindlers List being shot in Black and White or David Lynch shooting Inland Empire with a $1000 handheld digital camera, or when all the actors switched places in the final act of Mulholland Drive. These weren't accidents or side effects of design or programming. "

Schindler's List was shot in black and white to give it a sense of timelessness, and to bring to mind actual films of WWII, all of which are monochrome. So the black and white improves the film.

Whether it's intentional or not doesn't matter (if you're served a burnt steak at a restaurant, it doesn't matter if the chef intentionally burned it; a burnt steak is a burnt steak): how exactly does extremely repetitive, clunky, sluggish combat improve Deadly Premonition?
 
@TylDurden said:

" Not that its quality is supreme, but that it was perfectly stylized to portray what it was going for. "

So what? Whether a game turns out exactly the way the developers intended is completely irrelevant; what matters is how it turned out, and nothing more. A great game is a great game, even if the developers intended it to be completely different. And similarly, a bad game is a bad game, even if the developers intended it to be just the way it is.
#15 Edited by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Chemi_ro:  Cool. You may remember me. I emailed you about your fan site a week or 2 ago, about the "Low Budget" thing. I put 2 and 2 together after I read your Fansite thread. I think me getting the game late and starting Twin Peaks just a few weeks before playing prepared me perfectly to play it. I was exstatic to see they went with RE4 controls and even giddier when the over the head cam popped in when you run into the dog in the first area or anytime your on stairs. All this clicked with me perfectly, probably cause I had just got used to being messed with by David Lynch that I couldn't believe someone was using widely considered technical draw backs to mess with me in a game, kinda how Silicon Knights did with Eternal Darkness and their mind-fuck-"technical"-issues only DP's are less apparent.
 
 

@Icemael

said:

Schindler's List was shot in black and white to give it a sense of timelessness, and to bring to mind actual films of WWII, all of which are monochrome. So the black and white improves the film.

Whether it's intentional or not doesn't matter (if you're served a burnt steak at a restaurant, it doesn't matter if the chef intentionally burned it; a burnt steak is a burnt steak): how exactly does extremely repetitive, clunky, sluggish combat improve Deadly Premonition?
 

So what? Whether a game turns out exactly the way the developers intended is completely irrelevant; what matters is how it turned out, and nothing more. A great game is a great game, even if the developers intended it to be completely different. And similarly, a bad game is a bad game, even if the developers intended it to be just the way it is. "


 Deadly Premonition was created with pastel colors, rediculous character animation and chalkboard sounds to give it a weird outlandish feeling. If you know someone likes their steak burnt (my  mom loves burnt food) than its a delicacy to them. Clunky repetitive sluggish combat further promoted the throw back feeling to 90's cinema with 90's gameplay aspects. It not only improved Deadly Premonition, the game wouldn't be the same without it. I say the game turned out exactly the way the developers planned it because everyone seems to think these design choices were accidents or effects of a limited budget or developer talent. David Lynch shot Inland Empire with a fresh script every day and a $1000 digital camera for the feel it would garnish with those two variables, much like DPs graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, ect all seem broken unless you understand and "get" it. Than you see a masterpiece, much like all forms of art, not to compare it to other masters but to further understand, most people don't understand a word of Shakespear or see modern abstract art and think that a 4 year old could finger paint better. That doesn't make any of these less valuable, in essence it gives them more value.
#16 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5816 posts) -

I may play and look like crap, but I had a ton of fun playing it from beginning to end, which is more than I can say for RDR or Mass Effect 2.

#17 Posted by NTM (7342 posts) -
@zombie2011 said:
"No, this is why i don't like the endurance run. "

Pretty much. I've never played Deadly Premonition, but from what I saw of it (as little as I saw) I can tell that I'm definitely not interested and the game just looks like junk.
#18 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

RED DEAD REDEMPTION 
Assassin's Creed 2 (PC) 
Just Cause 2 
Splinter Cell: Conviction  
 
i'm.. afraid thats it :|

#19 Posted by BjornTheUnicorn (356 posts) -

I don't feel like every part of Deadly Premonition was intentional, and had some pretty bad gameplay elements to it. But I loved how it utilized the video game format and the David Lynch hit-with-a-brick-while-on-acid storytelling to it as well. If, say a DP2 were made, It would almost definitely be more polished.

#20 Edited by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@TylDurden said:

" Deadly Premonition was created with pastel colors, rediculous character animation and chalkboard sounds to give it a weird outlandish feeling. If you know someone likes their steak burnt (my  mom loves burnt food) than its a delicacy to them. Clunky repetitive sluggish combat further promoted the throw back feeling to 90's cinema with 90's gameplay aspects. It not only improved Deadly Premonition, the game wouldn't be the same without it. I say the game turned out exactly the way the developers planned it because everyone seems to think these design choices were accidents or effects of a limited budget or developer talent. David Lynch shot Inland Empire with a fresh script every day and a $1000 digital camera for the feel it would garnish with those two variables, much like DPs graphics, sound, controls, gameplay, ect all seem broken unless you understand and "get" it. Than you see a masterpiece, much like all forms of art, not to compare it to other masters but to further understand, most people don't understand a word of Shakespear or see modern abstract art and think that a 4 year old could finger paint better. That doesn't make any of these less valuable, in essence it gives them more value. "

They decided at the very last minute to throw combat in, actually, so its poor quality was definitely a result of limited budget and talent, and not the careful planning I can't believe you seriously think the game went through.

And this "art" crap is extremely shallow. Modern abstract art is shit. "It has meaning" and "you don't get it" is the kind of stuff high-school students pull in art class to get away with being lazy (which is exactly the purpose for which "real" artists use it; the only difference is that because they have a degree or got their works shown in some shitty gallery, people take them seriously, and many of them have slipped so far down the slope of pseudo-intellectualism, they even take themselves seriously). The fact that anyone believes that bullshit is testament to just how much art has fallen. The sculptors of ancient Greece -- real, honest artists whose works, as all good art, speak for themselves -- would laugh at today's modern artists, with their abortions of sculptures and paintings and their ridiculous "meanings" and "messages"; they would despair in the knowledge that after thousands of years of what should have been progress, people appreciate pathetic junk produced by talentless hacks more than the beautiful illustrations, statues and animations of honest, talented, skilled artists.

"It's art" is nothing more than a cop-out used by people who don't understand one fraction of what they're talking about. "It's art" is not a reason, not an explanation, and certainly not an excuse. It's tantamount to saying "just because", or "I am a lazy bum who can't paint/sculpt/sing for shit, but I still want to feel proud and be loved, so can you please like my pathetic excuse of a painting/statue/song?" Of course, they can't say it that bluntly; they have to dress it up by using meaningless words like "art" (I am not saying that the word art is completely useless; however, in the sense in which the people I speak of use it, it has absolutely no meaning) so regular people don't understand what the fuck they're talking about, and nod or let out a "uh-huh" simply because they can't come up with a better response. And it's exactly that pseudo-intellectualism that leads to shit like this:

@TylDurden

 said: 

" It not only improved Deadly Premonition, the game wouldn't be the same without it. "

I mean, just look at that sentence. And this:
@TylDurden said:

" Not that its quality is supreme, but that it was perfectly stylized to portray what it was going for. "

It's comedy gold. And even worse, this:

@TylDurden

 said: 

" Something no other game to date can claim. "

Yes: the people behind masterpieces like Resident Evil 4 and Street Fighter II didn't know what they were doing, but SWERY, a complete amateur who can't design games for shit (and is probably laughing his ass off reading all the pseudo-intellectual bullshit people write about his game), he is a genius; he knew much better than the industry's luminaries how to properly design a game. It is him we should praise, rather than the people who push the industry forward; the people without which many genres would still be in extremely primitive stages, and many others not even exist -- the people who got video games to a point where Deadly Premonition was possible, and then went on to get them much further.

I fucking hate people like you. Were you to comment on food, you would probably call frozen pizza from Walmart sublime (because it was "perfectly cooked to achieve what it was going for" -- being cheap to produce, yet not so terrible as to be uneatable), and were you to comment on martial arts, you would probably praise this kid as the greatest martial artists in the history of mankind. The only difference is that since the "it's art" and "you don't get it" excuses don't work when it comes to food or martial arts -- for exactly the same reasons they shouldn't be acceptable when it comes to books, paintings, video games et cetera -- you would be ridiculed by everyone.
#21 Posted by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Icemael: What do you see?

#22 Posted by armaan8014 (5380 posts) -

I agree with you!

#23 Posted by RoboRobb (1051 posts) -

Incorrect. Starcraft II or RDR so far.

#24 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@zombie2011 said:
" No, this is why i don't like the endurance run. "
#25 Edited by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@TylDurden: "You don't get it" would not be a defense if someone called those paintings shit (just as it isn't a defense if anything is called shit) -- "if you look at it this way, it's a young woman/an old couple, but if you look at it this way, it's an old lady/a bunch of Mexicans", however, would be.

If you then, after saying that, started spouting some bullshit about "the reason these paintings are good is that they show that there are two sides to everything" that would, of course, still make you a fucking moron; if neither the young woman nor the old lady in the first painting were aesthetically pleasing, it would be a terrible painting, and anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit.
#26 Posted by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Icemael: Haha. What are you TALKING about?!?! I simply asked you what you see. You either see one thing or another. (or in this case its not hard to see both) I see a masterpiece with Deadly Premonition. Whether you see it or not is up to you but its there, and if you don't see it than you don't get it. Simple as that, but it's there.
#27 Posted by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -
@Icemael:  Your position is confused. What you are talking about re: game mechanics is what might be termed more technically as the 'poetics' of gaming. I don't mean anything metaphorical by this: it would mean the conventions, rules, etc. that determine how a game is made from a mechanical point of view, and the quality thereof. The aesthetics of gaming would concern the effect of the finished product on the viewer, whatever its quality might be from the poetics angle.
The two are not the same thing, as I hope I've made clear. So while I agree that some of the points raised in DP's defense are dubious, you're talking past your interlocutor and trying to foist a poetics on them as an aesthetics.
Your abrasive defense of objective quality is based on a category mistake.
#28 Posted by GT-Man (118 posts) -

God Of War 3  thats the only one I can think of that is really fun to play and in 2010
#29 Edited by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@TylDurden: My problem with you is not that you love Deadly Premonition, but all the mental diarrhea you try to justify that love with. If you can't properly put into words the reasons you love it (and it is clear that you can't), don't even try. "The best way to harm a cause is to defend it with false arguments" -- all stuff like "Not that its quality is supreme, but that is was perfectly stylized to portray what it was going for" does is make reasonable people want to hate the game simply to avoid association with that kind of pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

@owl_of_minerva said:
" @Icemael:  Your position is confused. What you are talking about re: game mechanics is what might be termed more technically as the 'poetics' of gaming. I don't mean anything metaphorical by this: it would mean the conventions, rules, etc. that determine how a game is made from a mechanical point of view, and the quality thereof. The aesthetics of gaming would concern the effect of the finished product on the viewer, whatever its quality might be from the poetics angle. The two are not the same thing, as I hope I've made clear. "
You don't know what you're talking about. Just read the bolded part. I mean, Jesus Christ: what you're saying is that a game's mechanical quality is independent from the the player's level of enjoyment. Do you realize how absurd that statement is?

@owl_of_minerva said:
" Your abrasive defense of objective quality is based on a category mistake. "
If you think I defended "objective quality", you completely missed the point of my post. I'm ready, willing and able to, right here and right now, debunk "objective quality". The point of my post was to attack the pseudo-intellectual bullshit people resort to when trying to defend things they don't understand -- nothing more, nothing less.
#30 Edited by PassiveKaerenai (326 posts) -
@Icemael: Are you by any chance an artist? I'm an artist. 
 
I don't think anybody deserves to be hated for doing art. It's your choice, as the viewer, to like it or not; look at it or not; play the game or ignore it. If it's bad art, so be it. But it's not your place to claim anything as 'pseudo-intellectual bullshit', as if you knew better than anybody about what really constitutes art. You don't. Throwing accusations of pretentiousness around is baseless, rude and unconstructive. Instead of complaining, why don't you start sculpting? Or, failing that, why not visit a gallery that's to your liking?
 
For the record, I don't enjoy modern art. But, at the same time, I recognise that something new is happening; that we are not the people of epic masterpieces anymore, of bold imaginations, of romance. Romanticism is done; Classicism is done; Grecian sculpture is done, and not because we've somehow failed, but because everything's different now. I can pine all I like, but the fact remains; there is no point in reproducing something artificially extracted from a dead culture. And however much you hate it, there is a point in doing something relevant to the time, however grotesque.
 
Unless you think that the Greeks existed in some kind of vacuum of genius. Which they didn't.
 
 And Deadly Premonition? My opinion is, it's poor quality being intentional interests me. And I like being interested. Moreover, like all art, it's doing no disservice by existing. So long as people are buying it, enjoying it, enjoying their interpretations of it (no matter how pretentious you think them), how can it harm anyone? Anybody harmed by it would presumably never play it, and, even at that, would stop at the first hour. I pass over Damien Hirst. I don't hate the man, I just don't like his art. In the same way, could you learn to respectfully differ, without throwing accusations of inherent inferiority at people who like certain things that you don't like? Or do you think art is born of dogma? Do you see the irony of claiming that people are insisting "you don't get it", while admitting that they're right, that you don't?
 
And may I just say that this sentence: "I fucking hate people like you." - is one of the most pompous, repulsive, sad things I've ever read. So much for the art of writing.
#31 Posted by Raymayne (1226 posts) -

It's definitely one of the best games of the year, and I don't mean that in a stupid 'ironic' way, or an elitist way, or a 'haha it's so bad it's good!' way...I literally mean that the game is one of the best I've ever seen. I've played hundreds, if not thousands of games, and there are only a handful that have ever made me care about the characters and story in the way DP does, it's definitely not the prettiest game of all time and the controls can be a bitch. But the story is undeniably brilliant imo, the world is immersive, there's a ton of stuff to do, the dialogue is witty, the characters are brilliant, and the ending is possibly the greatest thing ever. I love it. Reach is my goty of 2010 so far but DP is right up there in second place.

#32 Posted by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Icemael: If you want, I can explain most of the reasons I like the game, some of them are unexplainable, they're just inexplicably AWESOME. I have a feeling you don't really wanna hear why I like DP though, but have posted several times in this forum many great things I see in this game. Everything works. I've never encountered a single thing "wrong" with the game. Anything you call wrong or broken, I call uniquely put there to enhance the experience, from the frame rate of the zombies at 10+ yards the character animation. The dialog, the sound, the music, the combat, the enemies, the story, pacing, the outrageous benefits of what seem like mundane sidequests. Everything in this game just works and comes together to further enhance the atmosphere that SWERY was going for. I've been playing and watching Twin Peaks simultaneously and I'm starting to mix the 2 up. I have no idea how he was able to capture the feel of a early 90's TV show so well and make it feel modern at the same time.  That is what I mean by no other developer to date has pulled that off. I agree, DP did nothing to further game developement from a technical stand point, but from an artistic standpoint it did something usually only movies do, and the fact that very few can see it and the promoters of the "Games as Art" fight so hard for others to accept games as art yet totally disregard one of are most artistically unique pieces just annoys me.
#33 Edited by ProfessorEss (7323 posts) -

To each their own, just don't hold your breath waiting for the nominations to roll in. :)
 
(...unless you hang out around that dumpster of human waste that calls itself Destructoid I guess)

#34 Edited by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Raymayne Go watch a few episodes of Twin Peaks, you may think differently about the graphics. CBS.com hosts them. I say a few cause just like the picture of the young lady and the old hag it takes a little bit to catch the vision. I gutted 3 episodes of Twin Peaks before I liked it. I thought it was boring shit till I saw the beauty.  Once you see the pretty young girl, its hard to even find the old hag again, metaphorically speaking.  Than after my perceptions were realigned I was perfectly ready to play DP although it wasn't planned that way, I just got lucky.
#35 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Lol, no.

#36 Posted by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -
@Icemael:  I never said that at all, actually! Here again, I'm afraid you are confused: a conceptual distinction is not a real distinction, ie. what is divided in thought is not divided in reality. Like a human being is not simply a collection of organs, but forms a whole, a game's mechanics and the player's experience of them form a whole: aesthetics and poetics are inseparable, but nevertheless they are not the same. This should be obvious: there is no 1:1 relationship between objective quality and subjective quality. So no, what I'm saying is not absurd, what is absurd is to think objective quality = subjective quality when that is already refuted by the very existence of aesthetic disagreement.
#37 Edited by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@PassiveKaerenai said:

" But it's not your place to claim anything as 'pseudo-intellectual bullshit', as if you knew better than anybody about what really constitutes art. You don't. "

I don't need to "know what constitutes art" (which is impossible and pointless, since people use the word "art" to mean whatever the hell they feel like it should mean) to accuse someone of not knowing what the hell he's talking about. 
 
@PassiveKaerenai said:

" Unless you think that the Greeks existed in some kind of vacuum of genius. Which they didn't. "

Of course not. There are great artists even now, the difference being that they aren't nearly as respected as the great artists back then.

@PassiveKaerenai said:

" Or do you think art is born of dogma? "

Art is born from the desire to create something aesthetically pleasing. "Dogma", lol.

@PassiveKaerenai

 said: 

@Icemael: In the same way, could you learn to respectfully differ, without throwing accusations of inherent inferiority at people who like certain things that you don't like? "

@Icemael said:

" @TylDurden: My problem with you is not that you love Deadly Premonition, but all the mental diarrhea you try to justify that love with. "


@PassiveKaerenai said:

" And may I just say that this sentence: "I fucking hate people like you." - is one of the most pompous, repulsive, sad things I've ever read. "

It's called honesty
 
@TylDurden said: That's better. No bullshit, just "I like the game because it is the way it is" (though it would've been better if you summed it up that way). 
 

@owl_of_minerva

 said: 

@Icemael:  I never said that at all, actually! Here again, I'm afraid you are confused: a conceptual distinction is not a real distinction, ie. what is divided in thought is not divided in reality. Like a human being is not simply a collection of organs, but forms a whole, a game's mechanics and the player's experience of them form a whole: aesthetics and poetics are inseparable, but nevertheless they are not the same. This should be obvious: there is no 1:1 relationship between objective quality and subjective quality. So no, what I'm saying is not absurd, what is absurd is to think objective quality = subjective quality when that is already refuted by the very existence of aesthetic disagreement. "

You are confused. "Objective quality" does not exist -- it's an oxymoron. So there is no relationship at all, because there is nothing for the subjective quality (which is simply quality; the "subjective" is superfluous) to have a relationship with.
#38 Posted by TylDurden (68 posts) -
@Icemael: I think a game that is able to trigger so much art discussion must have something going for it, something much more than "oh that landscape sure looks nice" 
 
I explained all the reasons DP works and why I like it. You interpreted that as "diarrhea" I'm glad you've accepted my more recent answer although I find it no different than the previous ones. I feel no anomosity towards you and hope you can feel the same. DP is a passionate subject for me as I find it extremely annoying when people can't see the "young lady" whether or not they like it I understand but when they think the game has DC graphics or poor controls it drives me nuts when they don't realize that these were done intentionally to contribute to the overall atmosphere of the game. Lets get along.  We both worship the same god, GAMINGGGGG!!!!
#39 Edited by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -
@Icemael: No, the idea was not confused, although I agree that I used quality in two different senses. Objective quality = those mechanical aspects of a game that are constant regardless of who's playing and subjective quality being the judgment of taste resulting from the experience of said game. I should've stuck to poetics/aesthetics, although I thought the other terms might be more readily understood. Even if that's just getting caught up in semantics as quality has multiple meanings.  
Although some of the reasoning in defense of DP is faulty, I fail to see the pleasure in beating up straw men as nothing is proven by refuting weak arguments. Your posts lately have been increasingly mean-spirited, especially in regards to "art", which seems to be a pejorative codeword for the hateful reasons why people don't share your views. There's a difference between honesty and arrogant cruelty, or is that another confused distinction?
#40 Edited by TylDurden (68 posts) -

   
 

@owl_of_minerva

said:

Although some of the reasoning in defense of DP is faulty, I fail to see the pleasure in beating up straw men

Ok bear with me cause this is gonna sound really lame. It controls just like RE4 so no complaints there. They walk towards you all fucked up and give you a creepy feeling, bending over backwards is especially cool. When you nail a headshot you congradulate the voice in your head for such a "great shot" when the zombies get shot they all share the same demonic voice that cries "Noooooooo" and when they die they say "Don't wannt to diiiiiieeeee" Its so hilarious and cool. When you hit them blue (or purple, I'm mildly colorblind) flies off of them and makes you think "WTF" so you go into the options and see that their's an option to turn on/off blood color, so you toggle it off and try shooting someone again, and its Yellow (or green again, not 100% on the color) there is no red, just blue or yellow. I'm telling you man, every aspect of this game is there to fuck with you, kinda like when your insanity meter is gone in Eternal Darkness, except in this game is more topical and less apparent.  Also do me a favor and hold down left trigger until your pulse meter maxes out. Its awesome.
 
@all when I say that every aspect of this game was carefully planned to enhance the feel I don't mean that they had this massive budget and it was all preplanned. I mean that they rolled with the punches and made it work FOR them, not against them. My thread about possible dialog in development of DP kinda explains it but also these sort of things that happened in shooting of Twin Peaks. 
 

"During the filming of the scene in which Cooper first examines Laura's body, a malfunctioning fluorescent lamp above the table flickered constantly, but Lynch decided not to replace it, since he liked the disconcerting effect that it created. Also, during the take, one of the minor actors misheard a line and, thinking he was being asked his name, told Cooper his real name instead of saying his line, briefly throwing everyone off balance. Lynch was reportedly pleased with the lifelike, unscripted moment in dialogue, and kept the mistake in the final cut,
  
ATTENDANT: I have to apologize again for the fluorescent lights. I think its a bad transformer. 
COOPER: That's quite alright.

Or here where one of the extras broke character and through he was being called by his real name. 
 
COOPER (to attendant): Would you leavev us, please? 
ATTENDANT: Jim. 
COOPER: Uh...would you leave us alone, please?
ATTENDANT: Oh, Certainly. "
  

Sometimes I actually prefer this over careful preplanning, true genius is often recognized or stumbled upon and adapting to your production to continue to utilize the tools given to you to make what you want than the other way around. I don't see how this didn't happen during development of DP as I outlined in my "Possible Dialog" thread. 
 
 

#41 Posted by PassiveKaerenai (326 posts) -
@Icemael:
 
I don't know why you're so intent on fighting out this point, and being so aggressive in the process. There's honesty, sure, but could you, you know, not sound like such a total dickwad when you air your views? Because it's a lot easier to convince people when you're not demeaning/abusing them. And before you say 'I'm not trying to convince you', I'd be interested to know why you're otherwise writing.
 

 I don't need to "know what constitutes art" (which is impossible and pointless, since people use the word "art" to mean whatever the hell they feel like it should mean) to accuse someone of not knowing what the hell he's talking about.

So...if this is all the case, why are you arguing about art? Surely you've just defeated the whole idea of doing so? You're saying, 'All opinions are bullshit, here's mine'. Which is self-defeating. Second point...an accusation needs a grounding in solid evidence. If the conversation concerns art, then you need to know something about art. Thus, you are spouting bullshit about which you have a) denied yourself the right to have an opinion about, and b) have provided precisely zero evidence for beyond your own opinion, which you've already trashed as a concept in a). So...what are you doing? 
 
You know what? You coulda just said, 'Deadly Premonition sucks, I do not like it.' List reasons. But you went on the offensive, and started attacking the people who disagreed with you. You stopped giving an opinion, and started with the bullshit. Why did you do that? What purpose does it serve to lash out at people for liking something? That has nothing to do with art. That's just immature.
 
No bullshit version? I want to hear about why you hate Deadly Premonition, not why you hate other people.
#42 Posted by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@PassiveKaerenai said:

"

 I don't need to "know what constitutes art" (which is impossible and pointless, since people use the word "art" to mean whatever the hell they feel like it should mean) to accuse someone of not knowing what the hell he's talking about.

So...if this is all the case, why are you arguing about art? Surely you've just defeated the whole idea of doing so? You're saying, 'All opinions are bullshit, here's mine'. Which is self-defeating. "
My argument was that "it's art" is a bullshit defense since the word art, in the sense that the people who say "it's art" use it, doesn't mean anything. The fact that not even the people who say it know what they mean by it makes it valueless, and if the word is valueless, then so is the defense using it as its foundation. In no way does this idea defeat itself.

(When I say art, however, it is not valueless. I use it to mean "something designed to provide pleasure", and this, as I see it, is the only useful definition of the word. Why? Simple: for what purpose do we watch movies, or read books, or look at paintings, or listen to music, or play video games, if not the acquisition of pleasure; and for what purpose do artists create these things, if not to give us the pleasure we so desire?)

@PassiveKaerenai said:

" Second point...an accusation needs a grounding in solid evidence. If the conversation concerns art, then you need to know something about art. Thus, you are spouting bullshit about which you have a) denied yourself the right to have an opinion about, and b) have provided precisely zero evidence for beyond your own opinion, which you've already trashed as a concept in a). So...what are you doing? "

"Solid evidence", lol. All the evidence an accusation of idiocy needs is one or more flaws in logic. Flaws in logic such as the use of "it is this way because it's art" (which means nothing) as some sort of defense.
 
@PassiveKaerenai said:

" You know what? You coulda just said, 'Deadly Premonition sucks, I do not like it.' List reasons. But you went on the offensive, and started attacking the people who disagreed with you. You stopped giving an opinion, and started with the bullshit. Why did you do that? What purpose does it serve to lash out at people for liking something? That has nothing to do with art. That's just immature. No bullshit version? I want to hear about why you hate Deadly Premonition, not why you hate other people. "

This wasn't about my opinion of Deadly Premonition. It wasn't about people liking Deadly Premonition, either. It was about the manner in which people who like it explain why they like it.
 
@owl_of_minerva said: 

" Although some of the reasoning in defense of DP is faulty, I fail to see the pleasure in beating up straw men as nothing is proven by refuting weak arguments. Your posts lately have been increasingly mean-spirited, especially in regards to "art", which seems to be a pejorative codeword for the hateful reasons why people don't share your views. There's a difference between honesty and arrogant cruelty, or is that another confused distinction? "

What is honesty to me might be cruelty to you.
#43 Edited by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -
@Icemael: Your definition of art is an exceedingly bad one. It was destroyed by Kant 300 years ago, FYI. You can read the Critique of Aesthetic Judgement if you're interested in the details, but no contemporary definition of art would consider that for a moment. The aesthetic is not necessarily a hedonism, an "appetite":  this is usually how we refer to entertainment, but not art. In short, your definition excludes way too many things that are considered art for it to be workable. For instance, Duchamp's urinal. Or basically the entire history of modern art, where anything whatsoever can be made art, whether it is displeasing, challenging, banal, horrific and so on. I would not want to say watching a David Lynch film is pleasurable, or a Rothko painting, for instance, but they are stimulating and interesting expressions that are considered art. Have you never heard of the phrase "to shock the bourgeoisie?" That was pretty much the goal of art in the early 20th century. There are some movements in art that actually strive to completely destroy beauty, pleasure, etc. in the way they are constructed (ie. modernism).
I can appreciate your passion in debate, but if you're going to be arrogant, it should be backed up by a knowledge of the actual history or theory of art. And finally, you can slam an opinion or a viewpoint without attacking the person that holds it: I disagree with your definition of art, and the way you express it, but I'm not going to assume anything about your person from that. Normally, I don't bother commenting on posting I find problematic or offensive, but since you're one of the more interesting and intelligent users on here I feel compelled to, however futile that effort might be. Also, since you're fond of argument, consider this.
#44 Edited by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -
@TylDurden: I can see your point even if I would put it somewhat differently myself. This game is not Resident Evil 4, they don't have the money nor is it even likely that SWERY can make a game as good as that one if the conditions for making it were exactly the same. That's no slight, it's just one of the most excellent games ever made. My own argument in defense of Deadly Premonition is that it is constructed around a narrative and symbolic core that comprise a unity, even if many of the aspects of its execution are flawed. Many games do not have have this kind of personality, the mark of the 'auteur', because they are (to use Yahtzee's phrase) made by committee. No amount of mechanical polish can save games like Halo, Call of Duty (except 4), or God of War from artistic mediocrity, even if they are sublime games. Many people do not care about this, and that's fine: I'll just say for myself that mechanics go only so far before the market gets glutted with mediocre imitations, because mechanics are a necessary but not sufficient condition for an excellent game in many genres. Whether it is a more ambitious narrative, great use of environment and atmosphere, or in those rare cases a game that manages to reach a level of excellence in terms of design and narrative approach, these are some of the ways games can develop as a medium in a more interesting direction. 
People are probably just sick of hearing about DP after a dual endurance run, although I'd still like to play it personally, out of interest in the source material and genre.
#45 Posted by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@owl_of_minerva said:
" @Icemael: Your definition of art is an exceedingly bad one. It was destroyed by Kant 300 years ago, FYI. You can read the Critique of Aesthetic Judgement if you're interested in the details, but no contemporary definition of art would consider that for a moment. "
I don't care what contemporary definitions of art consider. Contemporary definitions of art are fucking stupid. I'm gonna take a look at this Kant essay, though.
 
@owl_of_minerva said:
" The aesthetic is not necessarily a hedonism, an "appetite":  this is usually how we refer to entertainment, but not art. In short, your definition excludes way too many things that are considered art for it to be workable. For instance, Duchamp's urinal. Or basically the entire history of modern art, where anything whatsoever can be made art, whether it is displeasing, challenging, banal, horrific and so on. "
"Where anything whatsoever can be made art" -- that is exactly the kind of shit that makes the word valueless. If anything can be art, the word art is completely pointless, as it simply means "that which someone wants to call art" -- in other words, whatever. What we have, then, are whatever critics going to whatever exhibitions, judging whatever based on whatever. In the case of modern art: idiots going to garbage exhibitions, judging garbage based on pseudo-intellectual bullshit they make up to seem highbrow.

And the aesthetic is always an appetite for pleasure. Not only that: life is an appetite for pleasure.

@owl_of_minerva said:
" I would not want to say watching a David Lynch film is pleasurable, or a Rothko painting, for instance, but they are stimulating and interesting expressions that are considered art. "
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. If you find something stimulating or interesting, you find it pleasing. Period. People who tell themselves that they like things that don't give them pleasure are deceiving themselves -- if they like it, they find pleasure in it.

@owl_of_minerva said:
" Have you never heard of the phrase "to shock the bourgeoisie?" That was pretty much the goal of art in the early 20th century. There are some movements in art that actually strive to completely destroy beauty, pleasure, etc. in the way they are constructed (ie. modernism). "
Art that truly strives to deprive you of pleasure is art that is harmful to you; art that you should avoidanti-art, and anyone who produces such a thing is, whether you realize it or not, your enemy.
#46 Posted by Brendan (7771 posts) -

Deadly Premonition zealots weird me out.  You people are like Dynasty Warrior fans:  Sure in the end it's subjective, but in no way does your opinion make any sense to 99% of sane human beings.
#47 Posted by Yummylee (21509 posts) -

I can safely assume it won't be my GOTY, even I finally get to play it for myself come October 29th.

#48 Posted by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -
@Icemael: Your notion of everything being pleasing is in the end as reductive as the concept of 'art' that you attack: when applied to everything, it becomes meaningless. Art can straddle the please-displeasure divide because its definition is not dependent on it being one or the other. That doesn't make the term meaningless, the definition of art is very exact: in our present stage of social development, art is what is institutionally defined as art. You are aware of this and decry it, but it is what is, there is no other form of art now. There isn't a canon of great and pleasurable works because those are the products of a dead culture. Modernism, the attack on pleasure and beauty in art, is the attack on art as an institution, but it failed. Now art is either wholly commercial (banal beauty and pleasure) or so radically uncompromising and conceptual that it cannot be sold: easy pleasure is the coopted and capitalistic option, which no self-respecting artist is going to go for.
Stimulating and interesting =/= pleasing. My mind can potentially be as stimulated by the contemplation of absolute horror, such as Auschwitz, as by a Beethoven symphony, and that is not the same thing whatsoever.
#49 Edited by jos4 (97 posts) -
@owl_of_minerva said:

" @Icemael: Your notion of everything being pleasing is in the end as reductive as the concept of 'art' that you attack: when applied to everything, it becomes meaningless. Art can straddle the please-displeasure divide because its definition is not dependent on it being one or the other. That doesn't make the term meaningless, the definition of art is very exact: in our present stage of social development, art is what is institutionally defined as art. You are aware of this and decry it, but it is what is, there is no other form of art now. There isn't a canon of great and pleasurable works because those are the products of a dead culture. Modernism, the attack on pleasure and beauty in art, is the attack on art as an institution, but it failed. Now art is either wholly commercial (banal beauty and pleasure) or so radically uncompromising and conceptual that it cannot be sold: easy pleasure is the coopted and capitalistic option, which no self-respecting artist is going to go for. Stimulating and interesting =/= pleasing. My mind can potentially be as stimulated by the contemplation of absolute horror, such as Auschwitz, as by a Beethoven symphony, and that is not the same thing whatsoever. "

This Icemael guy is just a DP hater, I wouldn't take him too seriously, he just attacks based in some "consensus" he once read or dreamed about. I gave up on him a long time ago, just ask him to post photos of polar bears, he's got a great collection (no kidding).  

Even though, I really enjoyed reading your comments, they are very constructive and enlightening. :-) 
You seem like a really cultured person, I agree with many of your ideas about the definition of art, thank you for posting them. 
 
edit: BTW, I'm an artist too and I often see people discussing about the definition of art, and I really can't see where the problem is.  
In my opinion, a piece of art is something created by someone, and this (a person or people) defines it at art. If the creator says so, it's art to me, even though I may see it and think it's a piece of shit- this doesn't change anything.  
I believe something like this happens too when the viewer considers it art: it becomes art, wether its creator defines it as art or not. 
 
Art is guided wholly by subjectiveness (yeah, everything can be art depending on how you look at it, that's the magic of the concept), so there's no point in arguing about what's art and what's not. The only possible argument you can have is with yourself, making an introspective process.
#50 Edited by Icemael (6316 posts) -
@owl_of_minerva said:

" @Icemael: Your notion of everything being pleasing is in the end as reductive as the concept of 'art' that you attack: when applied to everything, it becomes meaningless. "

Ah, but it cannot be applied to everything. Only things that are designed to give pleasure (as opposed to things designed to give displeasure, and things designed to be used to get things that give pleasure -- like, say, ladders (of course, a ladder can be designed to be functional as well as beautiful -- in this case, it is art, though probably not good enough (i.e. pleasing enough) to warrant being exhibited)).

@owl_of_minerva

said:

" Art can straddle the please-displeasure divide because its definition is not dependent on it being one or the other. That doesn't make the term meaningless, the definition of art is very exact: in our present stage of social development, art is what is institutionally defined as art. You are aware of this and decry it, but it is what is, there is no other form of art now. There isn't a canon of great and pleasurable works because those are the products of a dead culture. Modernism, the attack on pleasure and beauty in art, is the attack on art as an institution, but it failed. Now art is either wholly commercial (banal beauty and pleasure) or so radically uncompromising and conceptual that it cannot be sold: easy pleasure is the coopted and capitalistic option, which no self-respecting artist is going to go for. "

Exact, perhaps, but meaningless nonetheless. If I call something art using the current meaning of the word, I am saying precisely nothing, which means that the word might as well not exist -- should not exist, even. The only sensible things to do are 1) come up with a useful definition, or 2) kill the word (and, by extension, modern "art" and all the bullshit that comes with it).

@owl_of_minerva

said:

" Stimulating and interesting =/= pleasing. My mind can potentially be as stimulated by the contemplation of absolute horror, such as Auschwitz, as by a Beethoven symphony, and that is not the same thing whatsoever. "

If you find Auschwitz interesting, you want to think about it more. You want to think about it more because you find thinking about it stimulating. You want this stimulation -- as is apparent by your interest -- because stimulation is a form of pleasure. If you did not find it pleasing, you would not find it stimulating; if you did not find it stimulating (i.e. if you did not find it pleasing), you would not find it interesting. 
 
We (humans) do not take interest in things that will give us no pleasure, and we certainly don't find them stimulating. 
 
Oh, and one more thing: 
  

@owl_of_minerva

 said: 

" There isn't a canon of great and pleasurable works because those are the products of a dead culture. "

This is not true. We produce plenty of incredibly great and pleasurable works -- the thing is that modern "art"-"connoisseurs" (read: good-for-nothing hipsters) see these as below them (the irony being that they are, in fact, far above the junk they've deceived themselves into "appreciating"), and won't acknowledge them as valuable. 
 
@jos4: Man, I remember that discussion. 
 
Me: There is consensus on X.
You: Prove it.
Me: I can't. Moving on: there is consensus on Y, and here's proof.
You: What are you talking about? We were talking about the consensus X, and you still haven't provided proof of that!
Me: No. I already said I couldn't. We are now talking about consensus Y.
You: What? The consensus we were talking about wasn't actually the consensus we were talking about?
Me: What do you mean? First, we talked about consensus X. Then, we talked about consensus Y. Here, I'll quote the posts in chronological order to make this easier to understand.
You: AAAAH I can't understand this conversation LOL!
Me: *Grows tired and starts posting polar bears*
 
Good times. Have you still got that reading disability?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.