SomTervo

That's what I was saying before, you don't need to know anything about a musical instrument at all- that just makes it much, much harder. You could do it without any training, but with training it gets easier and easier to make good art.

Yeah man it's not worth saying that you'll buy all of a certain character's stories if it's a DC/Marvel mainstream one. They vary in quality far too much. I only buy the ones that are said to be great, and I do that for all comics. I completely understand, for years I only downloaded too. It's only recently that I've had the income to buy comics- plus I went to Kapow comic con where everything's extremely cheap. I'd argue that every comic is better handheld, even just the action of reading it will be better- but with some comics yeah, you don't lose much at all by reading digital.

No worries! It was my favourite comic for a long time. Unfortunately it stopped being my favourite comic at the end, but it's still goddamn great.

Yeah. Introduces absolutely everything you need to know in an interesting and efficient manner. So quirky. Love Ellis, even if he's quite a nut IRL. But then again, all these great comic writers are. Morrison, jesus. Moore, fuck. All so mad. Also, yeah I love reading from Trade's. They're the best. Is, indeed, like a proper book. I was gonna say, FLD, Phallus et al., reading comics on computers is good for the story and speed, but you miss out on 75% of the experience. It's so tactile and tangible on paper. Just amazing. AllStar Superman I recommend in trades. It's just gobsmacking how beautiful it is on glossy paper. Also, Hottie, you can get Ex Machina in 5 Deluxe Volumes. It's big, and beautiful, and I don't doubt you'd love it. (Weirdly on that page it displays the back cover as the front.)

Senator Davis = my reaction

Yeah, K Vaughan's good at making the moment to moment plot great, but having a very veiled overall story that you only really find out about in the last few issues. I'm obviously not going to spoil anything, but Y's ending is weird. I think a lot of people are divided in opinion about it, same with Vaughan's other comics. Still the stories are great. Ex Machina's like West Wing meets... I dunno, the superhero part's unique- but it's like political chat and character development, each arc being a political issue versus a character issue from Mitchel Hundred's background. But like Y, overall there's a really sinister semi-sci-fi (no spoiler, Y isn't sci-fi like EM) background plot that always culminates in disturbing and weird shit. Y ran to about 70 issues? Give or take a few, may have been 75. So Trade #4 is probably around issue 44, going by the '10-12 issues a book' deal. I love the theme of drama =D it's got that travelling thespian group straight out of Shakespeare right? And he's called Yorick, natch. EDIT: @Phallus: Yeah I loved that in Fell. I specifically recall the bit when Fell's approaching a maniac who's in a flat, and Ellis did this whole crazy diagram thing about Fell visualising the movements of the madman inside the flat, projected onto the closed door and wall from the outside...

Exactly, Phallus, the software is just the tool. Also jokes/puns etc., humour in general, is defined by a disconnect in meaning. On different levels for each type of humour, but that's what it is. Humans can see disconnects like this- algorithms or formulas can't.

Yeah, exactly. It's the human perspective on/ interfacing with the code that makes the art. Like in language, all it is is a very rigid form of linking articulated noises to human perception. But all most people care about is the 'human perception' part, not the 'system of articulated noises' part. In a game, all you care about is the experience that is entertaining you or making you think, not the underlying code. Though that's obviously equally important. The experience/ meaning is the art, not the code.

Hot Heart's right, Ellis' Fell is amazing. The only Templesmith work I've really loved, too, though 30 Days of Night was pretty good. Sorry Phallus I somehow missed your 'bizzaro' sucks post! Even though it was right before one of mine! I can understand the bizarro hate. I don't like bizarro. However I thought AllStar's take was funny and original- the Underverse planetary organism imitating earth and coming to get it, the Bizarro Justice League (that was hilarious, Flash who moves at two inches an hour, Green Lantern who can't do anything but can think of anything to do with it), and the tragically brilliant character that was Zibarro. Also it put Superman in a goddamn dire situation, which is always good. I love all the stories in AllStar. Sometimes the characters are a bit dodgey (I didn't like that P.R.O.J.E.C.T guy much), and the pace is a tad fast and loose, but that's just how comics go. I'd suggest re-reading AllStar Superman, it seriously gets better the more you look at it. Frank Quitely's art as well... Uhhh. How are you finding Y, Hottie? Amazing comic. Got a classec Brian K. Vaughan oddball ending though.

Yeah Duke have they not patched that into working correctly? Sucks otherwise.

this is one of the most retarded things I've heard. At most I feel you're making a reference to http://xkcd.com/435/ But even then it has jack all to do with programming or the topic at hand. Your hypothetical world is just that though, entirely hypothetical. Um, it's now pretty solid and widespread scientific theory, man. I've read a lot about it and seen a couple of documentaries- although really, they're talking more about reality and the universe consisting only of maths, and the end result being just like programming. Everything around us and in us can be reduced to predictable inputs and outputs. Art is our ability to try and make something unpredictable, something interesting, but we're still limited by those formulas and programs that restrict us. I was talking to my biologist flatmate about this last week; every living thing is a formula, and every non-living thing is a formula. And a formula, an algorithm, is what computer programming is. In some cases organisms propagate, in other cases they don't. Bacteria are essentially a program that reproduces, whereas a virus is a program that self replicates not for survival but as a malignant mutation that infects and destroys. I'm saying program because, just like a computer program, they can be coded by us. Scientists recently programmed a virus that deconstructs the malignant cells that cause cancer in monkeys. If that's not programming I don't know what is. The same goes for physics- you find the a good algorithm for gravity, you should be able to predict what happens when you drop a football. If not, the maths won't add up- it won't compile, or work in any way. This is true of everything, you're taking it for granted that everything works just as it does. If you changed a fundamental biulding block of the maths and coding of reality, it would all collapse. DNA? A code. One that, as we're learning, can be programmed to do different things, grow organisms in different ways- humans can be irreparably ruined by changing one integer in the code. We either won't compile (birth is impossible) or the output result wil be significantly damaged or altered. The argument is that everything in the universe is a program, even though you have to telescope in to a miniscule level to see it. This is perhaps getting a bit far out, but I'm saying that even rigid, immovable code can add up to something artistic. That's something that you seem to be missing, it's what a game would add up to that makes it art; when it becomes greater than the sum of its parts in a human mind. Sure, the code is the code, but it can have an influence that is more significant, artistic, when the output comes round. Art exists in the mind, not in the maths. And if a developer sat down to make an artistic game that has emotional or mental influence, and it did so for anyone, it would be artistic. As a linguist, definitively, I can tell you this is not true. (Not the coding bit. That is). Language is not malleable. You're taking it for granted- language, just like coding, is a series of inputs and outputs that you are taught from birth (just like I'm saying you could be taught in code). We can swap around the inputs and outputs in such a complex and intricate manner that it seems malleable, we can make inferred meanings and such (though this could be done with code as well, it would just be in a very different way). When you start messing with the actual structure of the language, it just doesn't make sense and won't work. You're looking at the high level effect of language- puns, figurative language- where I'm talking about the low level. Where it is basically just a program, and algorithm, that our brains (the most powerful computer in the world, right?) can run. We don't pick any language up naturally. The brain is just so complex and effective at learning that it can learn things like that. If, however, you had a child, and you left them in the woods for the first 15 years of their life with no human contact, and you met them then- they would not be able to speak anything. There is no 'natural' picking up of language. What's worse, the kid would find it incredibly difficult to even begin learning a language to the standard that we speak it now. Grammar wouldn't and doesn't come naturally. We have been speaking for, what, thousands of years? We've been evolving for millions. There are plenty of case studies showing this, cases of severe neglect with children etc. The fact that we pick up language so quickly is down to the fact that we learn it, generally, in the first 6 years of our lives- when the brain is still essentially crossing its own wires to survive, and imitate. That's how we learn through 'exposure', it's infantile imitation. My argument was that if we were taught computer coding at this stage, not a conversing language, we would pick it up just as fast. But we are not exposed to it until at least well after the first 6 years that are so great for learning, our brains get progressively worse at learning codification after that stage. Facts and figures and social rules, yeah that's fine, but learning complex codes to the level of language? Has to happen fast, it has to be intrinsic. Trying to learn programming as a teenager, is basically like trying to learn a first-time language as a teenager- it's like pulling teeth, and you won't learn it to such an intuitive standard. You can be good at it, seeing as it's far more mathematical and logical than spoken languages, and we are taught maths from a young age- but I think a child brought up to communicate through programming would be able to do things we couldn't imagine. It's all a program. For inside our brains. Playing a game isn't the same as understanding a language. You could study a language and know it's grammar and spelling and pronounciation, but not know anything about the meaning of it's words (that's a concept called a 'chinese room'). Conversely, you can know how to speak meaning through a language, but not know how it works, not know the code. That's what most language speakers do, and a person who is playing a game is understanding the meaning, but not knowing how it works. That's another issue with games- the coding is all support to create a detached simulation. Just like the coding of language is just support to convey real-world meaning. The coding of a game also comes from nothing, just like language. It's an entirely human construct. You're making a differentiation between the act of coding, and the output result of a game. I'm saying if that boundary is bridged (like it always is with language because we are taught it from childhood) then art will easily emerge, and to a large extent art has emerged. (Also, slight aside, but with a musical instrument, the fact that there's an instrument at all influences your ability to create art. It would be like having some programming software where you could only put in certain bits of code in certain places. An instrument is showing you, tunneling you to the notes that are on it. The voice is the only instrument without this, I think.) EPIC POST OVER

On the 'good and bad' and 'cant do' thing, I didn't make that kind of distinction, or at least I was trying not to. In my last post to Hottie I was saying it helps, but if you don't have training in something you could still produce something artistic or musical, it just takes vastly more ingenuity. Yeah see there is this issue where it's basically mathematics, this programming stuff. But what I was trying to argue was that everything is programming, and everything can be artistic- it just depends what we're trained to do. Biology is programming, physics is programming, the whole structure of the world is basically programming on different levels. With the book/English argument, I was suggesting that, seeing as we've been taught the 'code' of language from birth, we can use that language to make something artistic, in a book. If you haven't been taught the code, you can't use it or make the art- just like without knowing the programming you can't make it compile, even if you have an image in your head. (To clear it up, as I said in the first paragraph, you could still do it but it'd take thousands of years of ingenuity to build up the knowledge to do it ) Imagine, hypothetically, that instead of learning English we were all just taught everything in code and computer logic systems. As children, we just had computers and an adult showed us how to do it. We communicated by making programs, let's say specifically we did it through games. There'd be games for fun, games for learning, games for discussion- everything in the world represented through code- and just like with English- we'd make games for art. Just like how we use English, our communicating code to make jokes or discuss or learn- we can use this code to make art. Just like programming code. Nowadays, as you said yourself, only an extreme minority can do it, but that doesn't mean it isn't art, or it couldn't be art. It's like saying "only an extreme minority of people have been trained to stand on their head and shit out anything they want, and it's sometimes artistic, but seeing as the population as a whole can't do it, it's not art". I'm trying to say, there's technically a high entry level for everything. You say there's zero entry level involved in that stuff, but really there's no zero entry level for anything, it's just what we're taught to do from birth, and we intuitively make art with what we've got, what we've learned; it's part of what makes us human. And some people take the time to learn to do that with games- any human being could though. This doesn't remove the "it takes years and years of teaching to learn how to do it", but hey, it takes years and years, almost decades of teaching to learn how to speak your thoughts decently, let alone articulately, or play a guitar to a standard where you can make great art. Games obviously have a more immediate use as meaningless entertainment, and their roots are in meaningless entertainment. Art is meaningful entertainment, and some games most certainly have meaning. That's given by their developers, the people who put themselves in the game, their thoughts, feelings, insight- to a meaningful purpose.

It's the structuring of things to be thought provoking that makes the art- arguably you could have no musical ideas at all, and still try your darndest just to make something that sounds nice, and it might work, it might be artistic. Your chances are significantly lower though, seeing as you're not trained in how to make it easier.

I didn't say it has to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. I said it should reflect humanity, or reflect the world in which we live. Art can, indeed be anything, it doesn't even need to fit into what I just said, it can be solely beautiful or it can be not beautiful- as long as it is thought provoking, or aesthetically pleasing, in some way, it can be art. Then of course there's the whole issue of who sees art in what, so there's no real resolution to that argument. Also, 'installation' hasn't really got anything to do with whether it's art or not. Something can be a 'water installation', a 'government installation', an 'art installation'. I'd call that image you posted one of an 'art installation', which in the business is just referred to, indeed, as an 'installation'- but it's still an 'art installation'. In that example, yeah, beer isn't the art itself. But I'm doubting the artist made the beer. Like with programming, the artist doesn't need to know the craft of making a beer bottle and the box itself. I bet it 'takes hours of training and skill' to make a beer bottle that the artist doesn't have- he simply got the beer together, and piled it all up for anyone's consumption- as some sort of commentary on consumption itself (it's making me think, so it's clearly art, imho). They arranged it and gave it a thought provoking angle of approach, a perspective. It's hard to be 'very creative' with beer-bottle making at the most basic level. Obviously, right now in the industry, as you said, you have to have hours of training to even start making a game. But that doesn't stop it being art, that just limits who can do it. Say, ten years from now, a software manufacturer made a game engine that can be manipulated using day-to-day english. I, who completely suck at programming, could take this engine, and make an artful, fully crafted game. Nowadays obviously I can't, but that's not the point, the point is that it can still be art. Just now, you have to be trained to be able to start. But it can still be art. You're also arguing about the mathematics of it, that it has to compile etc, but that applies to any form of art. Write a book in English that doesn't have any grammar or correct spelling? It won't compile in people's heads. Make a film and accidentally film all the shots far too dark? It won't work. Anything can be art, bro. Said it yourself. Including games. Also, 'installation' is the word

I can't imagine much considering how widely they're going to be used in the near future. The DS has had great success, iPhone/Pad, NGP. Must be cheap enough to make it worth it.

In the face of great adversity- the Black King, a heavy and immobile, yet powerful mass, commands his intricately capable force of teleporting knights and moving castles, to foil... THE PAWN LET THE PAWNAGE BEGIN

In most cases, I totally agree with you, but the potential for games to be art is there, and it's been very much developed. What I said at the end of my last post- if a game is made with the intention of working as a piece of art, and it succeeds then it will be art. It's this intention aspect, if a developer just makes a game to be a bit or meaningless fun, like 95% of them do, then you're right, it's just excel- but if a developer makes it to function as art also, it counts as art because of the human thought they put into it. Like, Chess isn't art. You can argue that playing it is, and the models can be nice, but it isn't. The game isn't. However, if you made the pieces extremely ornate, artfully so, you could start to call it art. Then if you wrote a story for every possible movement and situation in the game, like if you made a move a page popped out telling you a story that reflected the move- and this story built up to and overall tale of humanity and reflection of life- it would be art. Right? Then if you started changing the game so that movements would reflect the story more, and vice versa, the art aspect is tied to the game. The game becomes the art.

I'd equate, as I've said before, games to Theatre. Not film, not books, but theatre. - In theatre, the audience watches, and doesn't control or influence, but enjoys and appreciates. An important role. - In theatre, the actor plays the role to his best ability, getting through the material, in his own style. - In theatre, the production group create a simulation of the play- the environment, the clothes of the characters, the makeup, the sound design. A director also tries to influence how the actor will play his role- how the actor will interact with the simulation, and/or audience. Now, when I talk about games: - In games, the player is both the audience and the actor, simultaneously. They're watching something and enjoying it- but at the same time playing out their characters role to their best ability, progressing through an experience, in their own style. - In games, the developer creates the simulation of the game- the environment, the models, the sound, and the interaction (how the player engages as an actor, with the work and simulation). So in that sense, in a game, the player is both the actor and the audience in a simulation. The developers take the middle-man role of the production group. And, uh, I'm pretty sure theatre is considered art, right? I also believe that if a developer thinks "I've got a great idea for a game that is creative or has artistic merit", and they succeed, it may be called 'art', regardless of what 'the man' thinks. P.S. Nice to see you on here Kovitlac.

I'm pretty sure the Wii 2 is primarily on a TV, though if you're moving around the house you can have the output on the controller screen, at a lower quality. Obviously that's just what 'the people' are saying though. But actually Yant, I agree with you on the inventory/secondary screen thing; it would be nice in, say, Resident Evil, to be able to look down and sort out your inventory on the fly, while the game continues on your main screen. Would add a lot of tension, and would make it easier in most games if it was a touch screen, too. However, I think it's unlikely that'll be the next control innovation in the Xbox/ PS3 domain.

I have to admit, when he was naked in the farmhouse and was running about the countryside, all sweaty...

Yeah the whole system seems extremely general, but I guess is good for loose guidelines.

Whatever floats your teabag, mate! Hey, at least it's not... "Cream". @Duke: That sounds good! I'd really like to get Brink, but it's just too low on my priorities list for games. The top 10 are like things I'd love to get, and Brink's somewhere there, but there are far too many above it. Still, we'll see how the Summer goes.

Well, Hottie, you know what that means... We gotta Power Level these Americans. I'll get the bumper bag of Earl Grey, you get the 20 litres of milk. Oh, wait, you meant... I'm pretty sure Brink's trying to do the opposite- it's about getting everyone to work as a team and it emphasises filling in gaps in the team's classforce. Almost no points rewarded for kills, significant points for helping teammates. The more precise and effective you are (not a mob), the more you'll win. Unlike most other team games- even in Killzone 2 and Team Fortress 2, which require objectives for winning, you can get to the top of the leaderboard simply by killing.

But there's no such thing as a lack of accent! (I do get what you mean though)