So, once again, you can't do it. Yeah, that's what I thought.Nope. Evidence is self-explanatory.
So, once again, you can't do it. Yeah, that's what I thought.Nope. Evidence is self-explanatory.
Thank you for once again talking about yourself. You're once again extending the goal post. The people on this forum can decide for themselves. They already know the answer. You can have fun with fantasy all you want, but I'll be kicking it back with reality. Careful not to delve into fantasy too much, because reality will always be around the corner. Hanging around in a fantasy too much, might make it your final fantasy, when reality comes crashing super hard.So, once again, you can't do it. Yeah, that's what I thought.
Yes they can.The people on this forum can decide for themselves
What? The entire crux of your "art with versus art to push" seems to rest entirely on creator intent, yet how or even if we know this intent is irrelevant?Doesn't matter. How it is or isn't know is irrelevant.
You've been asking "how can it not be known and still be objective?" and I keep saying that whether or not something is objective is not defined by whether or not it is known. That's why I'm saying it doesn't matter and that it's irrelevant.What? The entire crux of your "art with versus art to push" seems to rest entirely on creator intent, yet how or even if we know this intent is irrelevant?
...wait...this started here:You've been asking "how can it not be known and still be objective?" and I keep saying that whether or not something is objective is not defined by whether or not it is known. That's why I'm saying it doesn't matter and that it's irrelevant.
It's objective because it CAN be known. The creator had an intent to their art. Sometimes they tell others about it, sometimes they keep it to themselves, but it's true that they had an intent. That's all that matters, and that's why it's objective.
How you and I are supposed to find out what the intent is for any given piece of art is out of scope.
To which you responded:Well...it seems to me like the distinction between art with a message and art to push a message is a subjective one, no?
...but your "what was the artist's intentions when making this?" isn't the objective statement/question. That would be "DID the artist have an intention when making this?", and your own one is the actual subjective statement/question, because therein lies the main argument of "art for art or art to push a message".It's objective, in that there is an objective answer to "what was the artist's intentions when making this?"
Just because the audience doesn't know the answer for certain, it doesn't make it subjective.
No, this isn't a subjective distinction. What the artist had in mind is objective. Either the artist had one intention of the other, and they know which it is.Well...it seems to me like the distinction between art with a message and art to push a message is a subjective one, no?
Well, yes obviously they know, but unless they explicitly tell us, we don't. And this is where it gets subjective, as we try and suss out their intentions, such as with this;No, this isn't a subjective distinction. What the artist had in mind is objective. Either the artist had one intention of the other, and they know which it is.
where the criteria were based upon personal experience with the game in question.Test it by this criteria:
- Did you feel that the gameplay took a backseat to the message?
- Is the message "crammed in" so that it comes off as out of place or poorly written?
- Do you get a "both sides" look at things or are otherwise encouraged to think critically, or is there only "one right answer"?
Yes, I agree.Well, yes obviously they know, but unless they explicitly tell us, we don't.
I've seen user reviews for video games bash said games for being political because the game used Climate Change as part of the setting.Apparently taking a stance on vaccinations is seen as political in video games. People must love really being stupid.
THEY DO!!!!???? What the fuck? Where!?God forbid games more complex then Super Mario Bros exist.
Kirby of course which masterfully displays the inherent horror of extreme gluttony.THEY DO!!!!???? What the fuck? Where!?
I’ll just post what I did in the comments -Apparently taking a stance on vaccinations is seen as political in video games. People must love really being stupid.
Well Said.I’ll just post what I did in the comments -
Here’s what sucks: If they ever make this expedited vaccine mandatory - for a virus that has a fraction of 1% mortality rate for everyone younger than senior citizens -
You can’t sue Pfizer or Moderna if you have severe Covid vaccine side effects. The government likely won't compensate you for damages either
Companies like Pfizer and Moderna have total immunity from legal liability under the PREP Act if something unintentionally goes wrong with their Covid vaccines.www.cnbc.com
The whole thing is a bad joke at best, and a nightmare for anyone with young kids at worst. Their lives haven’t even truly started yet and could be fucked from some political rush job. And all the agencies responsible for enforcing it would say is, “too bad.”
Isn't Kirby an ode to capitalism. Consumption is the ultimate action and if anything stands in your way all you have to do is take it into yourself and use it to defeat its counterparts until only you are left alive. Gluttony is celebrated, it's how you get more powerful and how you beat your enemies, who again only serve to feed your gluttony.Kirby of course which masterfully displays the inherent horror of extreme gluttony.
Everything needs an idiot-proofing disclaimer now. Blame McDonald’s I guess. Or more specifically, blame the legal team who entertained and followed through on compensation for idiocy.The problem with the whole politics argument is it's being combined with death of the author so people can complain that things are problematic because of an interpretation of the things and it's now somehow deemed fine to accept that as true and the author saying no they didn't intend said thing is wrong.
Worse we're seeing the attitude of "Depiction = endorsement" where anything shown without it literally having a character explain it as bad suddenly ends up with people claiming that clearly it's an endorsement. You know like when Jim Sterling was being accused of being a Nazi because he didn't explain in every video the whole Norsefire flag and dictator look was a deliberate joke.