Nintendo are making games not art.....Iwata

#141Uru_ZephPosted 8/3/2013 9:43:02 PM(edited)
DaLagga posted...
Uru_Zeph posted...
So, if you're going to ignore the parts of my posts that at least partially answer your questions, I have nothing further to say to you. You're just thick-headed and less-than ignorant.


I'm not sure which parts you're talking about exactly. Frankly, you sound bitter that your arguments were so easily torn apart. As for your argument regarding writing, there are indeed certain mechanics involved in writing that are, to some degree, subject to a more objective analysis. A story shouldn't have plot holes or contradict itself, for example. And it shouldn't introduce new characters or concepts and then forget to give them a purpose in the narrative.

But even taking these things into consideration, who are you to say what is art and what is not? Are you telling me that story A, which contains a few plot holes, is objectively worse than story B which contains no plot holes? Aren't there a lot of other subjective factors to consider which render the drawing of an objective line between "high" art and "low art" impossible? The fact is, you want a nice, neat, and easy way to objective categorize art, and the real world just doesn't work that way.


Your whole premise is based upon understanding art simply and only as something someone appreciates or enjoys (subjective experiences). Your whole premise is wrong, and I've pointed out why several times, but you don't listen. You haven't torn apart my arguments, you've barely even listened to them. You just keep saying the same thing, beating the same horse, over and over again, until the point where I've simply grown tired of even arguing with you. However, if you want to take that as a "win," be my guest, victories are shallow when you're wrong and it's so easily seen. I'm done posting in here, have fun dancing on your own burnt fields that I've abandoned.
#142DaLaggaPosted 8/3/2013 11:38:27 PM
Uru_Zeph posted...
Your whole premise is based upon understanding art simply and only as something someone appreciates or enjoys (subjective experiences). Your whole premise is wrong, and I've pointed out why several times, but you don't listen. You haven't torn apart my arguments, you've barely even listened to them. You just keep saying the same thing, beating the same horse, over and over again, until the point where I've simply grown tired of even arguing with you. However, if you want to take that as a "win," be my guest, victories are shallow when you're wrong and it's so easily seen. I'm done posting in here, have fun dancing on your own burnt fields that I've abandoned.


In other words, you have no argument because you are unable to define any sort of objective standard upon which art should be judged. All you've argued is why you personally believe some art is better, but haven't provided much of an argument in support of your view. But sure, if claiming that I simply don't listen makes you feel better (even though I've refuted each and every one of your points), then so be it.