Which is why there are those parentheses at the end of that sentence.

To some extent, I agree with you, but honestly, it's sort of a "once you get it, you never go back" sort of thing.

I guess it may seem "unintuitive" at first, but really it's all about learning the shortcuts and practicing. Once you know them, modeling in Blender is faster and more satisfying than any other modeling program that I've tried.

So... should UI's of a specialized program be designed to be easy to learn, or very efficient once learned? There are definitely arguments for each of those (and others, probably), but I find it very slow going modeling in other programs now. If you're just going to throw together a really simple model, using Sketchup is great, but if you're actually looking to get into 3D modeling, learning a nice tool like Blender will be worth it.

Windows actually comes with "ISO Image Burner" integrated into 7. It'd be realllly easy.

But... even when the manufacturer TELLS people straight up to burn the backup DVD with the provided software, most people just don't do it. I don't see why they'd be more likely to burn an image that they'd have to download it.

Are still frames from a movie (that someone else made) art? I'd probably argue not so much... it's the creation of somebody else. Now if you were able to edit those pictures in a way that communicates something, then maybe we can start talking.

I'd say that taking a "cool looking" screenshot can't really be art in the sense that this article wants it to be. Sure, with video games you have a bit more freedom of where to "take your picture" from than you would with a film, but it's the same idea. That scene from Bioshock was created by the developers, and it's THEIR art, not somebody who's just found a cool place to take a shot. The developers set up the lighting, made the textures and models, and provided the entire atmosphere.

Of course, once you get into modding and/or things like Gary's Mod, where you can actually create some really cool things, maybe those "screenshots" would be a bit closer to "art." But simply taking a cool screenshot of a game doesn't (IMO) constitute "art."

Sex doesn't necessarily "harm nobody." While the harm with violence is much more direct (people injured/killed) the harm from sex can be quite large and unpredictable. I'm talking, of course, about pregnancy... though I'm sure that you could argue for other "harms" of sex.

So... video games can't have a message AND be fun at the same time? Moreso, you don't think that the "message" can EVER add enjoyment?

To me, your post sounds like "No violence, no fun." That's like saying the only movies worth watching are action flicks, and the only "emotion" you should ever use while watching movies is the "HOLY CRAP HOW AWESOME AND SWEET" one.

It's that attitude towards games (the one that denies the possibility of a "serious" use of games) that is holding the medium back.

You're right! Your "I don't think anybody finds it funny" argument is flawless. Now I realize that I only found their comics funny because I thought that, somewhere, SOMEBODY else thought they were funny. Eager to fit in, I quickly forced and tricked myself into enjoying it. THANK YOU for showing me the light.

I mean, why would I ever find awkward phrases like "Do you have snakes that come in sometimes? Don't stand for that shit!" hilarious?

All webcomics, hell all COMEDY is hit and miss. I cannot say that because one thing a person does is funny, everything else that that person does must necessarily be funny or else the first thing becomes unfunny. I find Penny-Arcade to be more often funny than not... so I like it. You might disagree.

That's an interesting claim... good luck ever actually getting that sort of experiment approved though. I guess that's why it's such an easy claim to make... things that are impossible to justify are also usually impossible to disprove, and you can hide behind that wall alllll day.

Ah, Pascal's wager. Such a common argument... but it's a bit silly. I mean, even the christian God is a jealous one that doesn't want me to worship other gods. What if the god that I choose isn't the "true" one, and the "actually true" god would rather I was an atheist than worship a false god? In that scenario, you, having "wagered" on the christian god, would be in a much worse situation than some atheist. Pascal's wager paints things as a 50/50 chance, but it seems pretty clear that that's not the case.

Also, is that sort of thing really belief? I don't think that I could force myself to "believe" in the christian god in the same way that "He" would want me to if I were basing my belief solely on the benefits of getting into heaven and avoiding hell.

Bias creeps into "facts." You can be reporting the "facts" but still be demonstrating a slight (or, like Fox News, blatant) bias. Of course religion is and SHOULD be mentioned in History... it's an extremely influential force that, like it or not, changes the world. It explains peoples' motivations. It's how you present that data that's the issue.

And moreso, usually people don't get upset about history books with religion in them... it's mostly the "intelligent design" argument, which wants to be presented alongside scientific theory even though, by nature, it's not scientific.

Did you even play the game? Of course flash games exist... Do we need a new acronym, PTFG instead of RTFA?

The point isn't even that it's a "retro" game recreated in a browser. It's just that it uses browser windows as the paddles, which is kind of cool and fun. You can even resize the height of the windows and it'll give you, in effect, a bigger paddle.

To echo Brian's point... did you watch the video? You walk out of the elevator with a group of 4 people, walk out into a normal scene, pull out a gun, and start unloading into the crowd.

As the scene progresses, you see whoever is controlling the player shoot civilians that are writhing on the ground in pain. I don't think that anybody starts shooting back at the player until the end of the scene

I have to admit that this seems MUCH more uncomfortable to me than simple observation... say if you were in the role of a civilian who's witnessing this. Putting the player in the terrorists' shoes at the beginning of the game and basically forcing them to commit these acts before they can get to the "real" game is... intense. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who aren't bothered by this (because it's a game, duh), but I am not one of them. However, this seems like an interesting setup for the game, and it does show that the game may be trying to... you know, influence people. The closer a game gets to stirring up emotions, even if it is fear or horror, the closer we're getting to seeing games as art.

Of course, whether or not this is real is another question. No doubt it LOOKS like the real game, but the quality of the video/sound was bad enough that it could be some sort of mod somebody made for the original COD4. If it is real, Infinity Ward is definitely going to take some intense heat.

I'd say that it probably has something to do with the incredible importance of the Internet in the modern world.

Seriously, imagine how disadvantaged you'd be without internet these days. Should you be forced to use snail mail or drive an hour to be able to communicate with someone just because you live outside of where an ISP has decided to offer service? What other motivations can the government provide to private companies to expand their networks? While I really have no idea, I'd doubt that their government isn't going to help pay for the cost of these expansions.

Being denied internet essentially cuts you off from the rest of the world. While some people don't care, there are plenty of others that can't move to a place where it IS available, yet need a somewhat accessible connection to be able to function.

Come on now, there's no point to having a term "art" when you use it as a synonym for "almost everything that anybody does." When you refuse to define art specifically you're really just saying "oh look, EVERYTHING is beautiful, ART is beautiful, thus EVERYTHING is ART!" It's a very feel-good definition... but what's the point of having the term in the first place?

I tend to think of art as something that is purposefully created with the intent to express some aspect of the human experience. Art should invoke emotion... and that emotion should match (somewhat) up to what the artist intended. I say somewhat because the interpretation of art is subjective, and not everybody can get at the artist's intention... but they still form a seemingly close reaction.

I think that the motion/intention matching is important in order to distinguish art that succeeds, art that fails, and everyday objects created. Yes, a pencil is beautiful and it allows us to do so very much... but was its creator's intent to move us? Not likely, they were probably just a factory worker (and even the designer of the first pencil probably was doing it for a functional purpose). Similarly, the movie "Date Movie" is not something I would consider art... the creators intended it to be funny, and all I could feel is disgust. My emotion and the author's (probable) intention happened to be polar opposites.

This "definition" has issues... yes. How do we know the author's intended meaning? How close should an audience's reaction be to the intent? Obviously interpretations of famous pieces have changed in some ways... and a lot of the time we interpret art in relation to current times and subjective feelings... and it's hard to account for that in a "definition" of art. I think that that's why people have such a hard time defining art and want to state it as broadly as your cited Scott McCloud. Maybe art is something that has a definition, but that definition is undefinable or incomprehensible. However, there has to be a distinction between "art" and "everything else", otherwise the term is meaningless.

On a side note - I have NOT studied art... only thought about it :).

Another route is advertising in game *GASP!*

Of course, everybody seems to be terribly against that for any game that also has a initial purchase fee. I myself have no problem with unobtrusive ads that can help get the developers the money that they deserve.

Um... comprehension fail?

Good thing you're posting as an AC.

I feel like you didn't read the entire post, and it seems like you're missing the point.

I clearly stated that I was talking about mouse lag. Your examples are clearly things that are expected... when I press a button to swing my sword, it should take time for my character to swing the sword.

However, there shouldn't be a delay (as little delay as hardware will allow) between the time you press the button and the time that your character STARTS to swing the sword.

"Realistic" is NOT the same as "laggy." We're trying to represent view rotation with a mouse... a movement of the mouse should equate to movement of the head. You're not supposed to be instructing the character, you're supposed to BE the character.