next »

[C.A. Sinner]

not unusual, no wonder game dev like nothing is a remix, they don't really understand

and i really don't understand this sentence

[caiys]

i'm probably late to the party but somebody started a tomb raider playthrough and it's 90% QTEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMMbC6mMh38

[Trystin]

Its my birthday today, yaay

and I have uni all day... shit

[Player Ʒ]

Its my birthday today, yaay

and I have uni all day... shit

Beats coming around General to see the flamewar/discussion of the day.

[Blademasterbobo]

discussion of the day:

why are you such a dumb babby?

[Gimym TILBERT]

http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=10245 game david cage should play

[Gimym TILBERT]

not unusual, no wonder game dev like "nothing is a remix", they don't really understand

and i really don't understand this sentence

"everythings is a remix" is a documentary about how creation is taking something old and making it new, but I disagree with the premise. While I don't believe in creation ex nihilo, the act of creation is not about being "derivative".

Influence can be seen mostly because new things need old idea to express themselves. For example depending on when or where the concept of car is created it would assume vastly different form. "everything is a remix" reduce the act of creation to similitude and a series of meaningless transformation (which are indeed tools to HELP but only help). And it is branded as an excuse to keep doing the same old without pushing it further.

In creation there is a huge part of "curation" where we review existing form and idea to express the new idea by analogy and composition, a bit like Chinese portraits. It is necessary because new idea are ... wait for it ... NEW! therefore there is no existing, word/form or any other existing representation for it yet, which mean conceptualizing it is done by transforming existing idea until it fit. But transformation alone is not enough, it must be "meaningful" not random, creation is about establishing relevant links (composition).

Which may lead to confusion which allow for branches (new idea that where not intended) and refinement (streamlining the core concept), For example look at art as an idea, it start as a mix of skills, social status, communication, sacred, representation, etc ... as it evolve some aspect became streamline (design) other get branched (craft), etc...

edit: >I misspell "everything is a remix" as "nothing is a remix" D:

[C.A. Sinner]

thanks, makes more sense now 

[nikki]

new things need old idea to express themselves. For example depending on when or where the concept of car is created it would assume vastly different form.

huh ?
Isn't that(cars) a prime example of new things evolving from the past instead of being all new and impossible to grasp ?

as in horseless carriage

as in the first cars (don't matter when or where) were just carriages where the horses/donkey/lamas whatever where taken off and a little engine was placed in instead.



where is that horse ?!

or am  perhaps missing your point completely ?

[Gimym TILBERT]

Yep the idea of car is even older, I think the first horseless carriage is traced back to greece but not sure (there was a huge missing opportunity for mankind to develop steam and gears at that time).

However that pretty much demonstrate my point, the idea of "horseless carriage" use an existing idea to express its difference: it's a carriage EXCEPT without horse, which is a re composition. Car is not immensely original by the way, the wheel is a much radical new idea, car fall more into refinement (streamlining an existing idea). And today car are so streamline that, while the idea remain, the form has changed and lost reference to the original influential form, showing that idea ISN'T in the form or influence. But that's not just car, horseless carriage as also given birth to most wheeled motor based transportation.

But the essence of an idea is so illusive it's not capture well by language, it's a bit more than a concept, it's meaningful but not for it's own sake. Some people define idea as solving a problem, but expression is not a "deep" practical problem yet art is creative, yet expression alone is not creativity.

And it's rare an idea is alone, it's generally a "complex of idea", ie an aggregation of idea, generally with a main idea supported by many small idea that allow this idea to be realized.

Creation is the process of taking a meaningful idea that exist as a potential and transform it into a realization when there is no obvious way to do it. Creation is more than often solving to realize, which mean searching and finding, to uncover what was not define.

Creating is defining what wasn't define yet by realization.

[Leonelc29]

Is Gimmy always say something this deep?

Anyway, what's the first thing/visual representation in your mind when you heard of the word like micro-organism or cell?

[nikki]

yeah I've heard the term "horseless carriage" the first time in art-theory to illustrate how you are unable to create fully new ideas, and even if you could how the world would not have it.
You would just be a crazy person.

People need to advance from stuff they know.

For example that wheel of yours.. probably there was a time where people used wet mud to move heavy stuff then someone figured you could use rolling tree trunks then the step to wheels wasn't as big as before. probably still took many generations though..

I personally always like the broomstick thing, I believe there was this hand duster for eons before someone finally figured you could just put a stick on it and save your back from aching as much.

For example look at art as an idea, it start as a mix of skills, social status, communication, sacred, representation, etc ... as it evolve some aspect became streamline (design) other get branched (craft), etc...

Depending on your definitions this is mildly wrong to completely wrong.
Art (for arts sake) is a rather new invention (19th century) where crafts and design go back much much further.(stoneage) Unless you mean something else with art?

I do like your original post (on borderlands ripping artstyle/artdirection/scens/shots) and it makes me sad people get away with it and be praised on their innovative ways, while they are just stealing styles. Usually the "good artists copy but great artists steal" Picasso quote isn't very far at that point. I once read where that quote originally came from (Picasso just copied it) but I cannot find it anymore (damn you steve jobs)

[Impmaster]

Art (for arts sake) is a rather new invention (19th century) where crafts and design go back much much further.(stoneage) Unless you mean something else with art?

What about all those Renaissance artists? The Renaissance happened in the 14th to 16th centuries, and from it, we have Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Botticelli.....

I'm sure they made art for art's sake as well.... Maybe a little bit for money.

[nikki]

All of which are great and even greater. And then even more  
But have nothing to do with art for art's sake

but this is what  I mean with my

Unless you mean something else with art?

I am not going down this route I've had these discussions before where different people have their own definitions. I already give up

[C.A. Sinner]

weren't at least the seeds for that planted in the renaissance tho, with the founding of the first art academies and consequently the shift in the role of the artist in society? (the artist as artisan vs the artist intellectual)

whatever, i disagree w/ more or less everything gimmy is saying but i dont feel like constructing an argument for it atm.