Shawn Gordon's Commentshttp://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/default.aspxShawn Gordon's Commentsen-USTelligent Community 1.5.134.12297 (Build: 5.5.134.12297)yohttp://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxWed, 02 Nov 2011 00:49:16 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:d828a101-9f50-4132-995d-e720f51f735awhat is ityowow so many blog posts nice (:http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxMon, 31 Oct 2011 20:15:27 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:dbfe1c9d-5a51-45b2-a3d1-6363663fc0a5SomethingPokemonwow so many blog posts nice (:I've read quite a few of your blogs and I love them. How's your book on Video Game violence coming?http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxMon, 31 Oct 2011 02:47:37 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:4209fe4c-73ed-4ee9-a0f5-18f2eb56c1cblmvalleI've read quite a few of your blogs and I love them. How's your book on Video Game violence coming?"Essentially, your argument finds foothold in asserting that the definition of art is the prevailing norm. It forgoes the idea that within art and the definition of it, there is some knowable, objective truth. Stating "for me" is an objection to my opinion without refutation - it's a waste of time and effort." No, by far it isn't an objection to your opinion. You seem to ignore that I mentioned that there is some system that can be used more successfully to games as an "artform" due to their interactivity and other basic technical functions. Stating "for me" is simply an acknowledgment that my interpretation of such a means to identify art is exactly that- *my interpretation* based on the knowledge and understandings I've acquired. It doesn't refute yours. "Essentially, your argument finds foothold in asserting that the definition of art is the prevailing norm." That isn't how I defined "art", let alone have I attempted to, so this is at best an interpolation. To the contrary, I specifically said that there can be many definitions of "art", which as you've noted, coincide with established criterion of that particular group. In that aspect do I suggest it can be relative, nor have I suggested there aren't any objective definitions of it- I'd look pretty moronic to say so and then cite Langer or Bell. The prevailing norm, if anything, only enriches our understandings of what "art" can be considered as. "Your statement implies that because we have a new interpretation, the duality exists when in fact it is the other way around" Your example is prudent, but can't be applied here successfully, since "art" doesn't exist tangibly, unless we pretend it does based on certain rules that those before us postulated. There were never any ojective pre-existing conditions or truths that existed outside of our minds prior to our invention of the notion. That doesn't mean that we can't get an objective form of knowledge by examining art, of course. Also, I'm in no way suggesting that new understandings change an object's function, but to the contrary, our perception of how or why the object functions can change. "How do you know what rules apply to what genre? Is your statement based on perception or an absolute?" All we have to do is examine the primary basics for each- such as, fighting, shooters, rpg's, platformers, etc. Each of those types of games follow specific formulas and perform differently according to those design rules. I believe that there are certain aspects of each which are in fact absolutes, and that the ultimate goals of any features of those particular genres is to maximize that singular experience. "That aside, it seems hair-splitting to subclassify games from art to successful art, to high art, etc. There's no deterministic value to give games any recognition as art other than perception, thus generalizing the games to fit into a generalization of art must be the first step on the road to some deterministic value." Hair-splitting? Compared to subclassifying and establishing criterion for art that extends back thousands of years compared to a few gaming generations, I'd say it would be a breeze. Especially since most of the games you'll play will either be immediately enjoyable as a product or tedious due to faulty programming. I would argue differently, since games have a measurable social impact- which you've blogged about, and which GIO occasionally discusses- that goes beyond personal perception. "Clearly there are people who want to consider games as art, but that's not enough to make them art - to, for, from, or of, anything. Hell, I have retinal scars that float around my eyeballs and as much as I'd like to consider them dead space-worms that lost the battle to take over my body, they're not." Retinal scars are tangible; the concept of "art" isn't, and similar things have been said of other controversial mediums or movements that the mainstream public and academia were resistant to, especially if you examine American history. Yet, here we are buying Pollock's ("Jack the Dripper," they called him) paintings for millions of dollars or fawning over the prolific work of Van Gogh or even admiring compositions that incited riots during their debut. Art just is, as you've said.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSun, 09 Oct 2011 22:27:19 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:c314dd6a-3d7f-49ba-8114-a188fc4c0f6clmvalle"Essentially, your argument finds foothold in asserting that the definition of art is the prevailing norm. It forgoes the idea that within art and the definition of it, there is some knowable, objective truth. Stating "for me" is an objection to my opinion without refutation - it's a waste of time and effort." No, by far it isn't an objection to your opinion. You seem to ignore that I mentioned that there is some system that can be used more successfully to games as an "artform" due to their interactivity and other basic technical functions. Stating "for me" is simply an acknowledgment that my interpretation of such a means to identify art is exactly that- *my interpretation* based on the knowledge and understandings I've acquired. It doesn't refute yours. "Essentially, your argument finds foothold in asserting that the definition of art is the prevailing norm." That isn't how I defined "art", let alone have I attempted to, so this is at best an interpolation. To the contrary, I specifically said that there can be many definitions of "art", which as you've noted, coincide with established criterion of that particular group. In that aspect do I suggest it can be relative, nor have I suggested there aren't any objective definitions of it- I'd look pretty moronic to say so and then cite Langer or Bell. The prevailing norm, if anything, only enriches our understandings of what "art" can be considered as. "Your statement implies that because we have a new interpretation, the duality exists when in fact it is the other way around" Your example is prudent, but can't be applied here successfully, since "art" doesn't exist tangibly, unless we pretend it does based on certain rules that those before us postulated. There were never any ojective pre-existing conditions or truths that existed outside of our minds prior to our invention of the notion. That doesn't mean that we can't get an objective form of knowledge by examining art, of course. Also, I'm in no way suggesting that new understandings change an object's function, but to the contrary, our perception of how or why the object functions can change. "How do you know what rules apply to what genre? Is your statement based on perception or an absolute?" All we have to do is examine the primary basics for each- such as, fighting, shooters, rpg's, platformers, etc. Each of those types of games follow specific formulas and perform differently according to those design rules. I believe that there are certain aspects of each which are in fact absolutes, and that the ultimate goals of any features of those particular genres is to maximize that singular experience. "That aside, it seems hair-splitting to subclassify games from art to successful art, to high art, etc. There's no deterministic value to give games any recognition as art other than perception, thus generalizing the games to fit into a generalization of art must be the first step on the road to some deterministic value." Hair-splitting? Compared to subclassifying and establishing criterion for art that extends back thousands of years compared to a few gaming generations, I'd say it would be a breeze. Especially since most of the games you'll play will either be immediately enjoyable as a product or tedious due to faulty programming. I would argue differently, since games have a measurable social impact- which you've blogged about, and which GIO occasionally discusses- that goes beyond personal perception. "Clearly there are people who want to consider games as art, but that's not enough to make them art - to, for, from, or of, anything. Hell, I have retinal scars that float around my eyeballs and as much as I'd like to consider them dead space-worms that lost the battle to take over my body, they're not." Retinal scars are tangible; the concept of "art" isn't, and similar things have been said of other controversial mediums or movements that the mainstream public and academia were resistant to, especially if you examine American history. Yet, here we are buying Pollock's ("Jack the Dripper," they called him) paintings for millions of dollars or fawning over the prolific work of Van Gogh or even admiring compositions that incited riots during their debut. Art just is, as you've said."I'll just simply ask if you're aware just how faulty relativism is as a logical argument, right? It refutes itself, which was the point I was drawing a line to all along. Dr. Steve Kumar wrote a good brief essay on the flaws of Relativism about four years ago. In it he says, 'To tolerate contradiction is to be indifferent to truth.'" Relativism only seems contradictory if we pretend that there actually is some substantiated metric that exists beyond our own preconceptions let alone our imagination, and this simply isn't nor will ever be true. The things we define as "art" are things that we have identified based on our own mutually agreed aesthetics which are largely influenced by our culture. There's nothing illogical about acknowledging this. It simply shows that there are varying aspects of art that an individual will be drawn to more than others. Accepting all forms of games as an artform only generalizes it if context is removed, and it's human nature to group things, so dismissing the acceptance of gaming as an art on that basis is at best a facade. Aside, there are lot's of logical things which actually seem contradictory in real life - such as light's ability to act as both a particle and a wavelength- and the key to understanding those complexities lies in the ways we interpret them and how they function. Saying I consider all games to be art belies their potential; it does not indicate that I believe all games will be successful art- we've undoubtedly both played terrible games before- and evaluating a game's success is far easier than evaluating the success of a painting, given that a large part of a game's effectiveness depends heavily on not only formal aspects, but also technical aspects such as its playability and cohesiveness, along with the general rules associated with the genre it may represent. This aspect is what I referred to when I spoke of games as "art". Still, what I determine will always remain my opinion, regardless of the metric that is established or whether some scholar mentions it in a journal. But indeed, your position is one I respect nor was it ever my intention to convert you. As for casual games, from a Formalist approach, they'd probably be considered high art.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSun, 09 Oct 2011 16:26:22 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:652ac4af-c328-4639-91fd-9e6ab41f30a7lmvalle"I'll just simply ask if you're aware just how faulty relativism is as a logical argument, right? It refutes itself, which was the point I was drawing a line to all along. Dr. Steve Kumar wrote a good brief essay on the flaws of Relativism about four years ago. In it he says, 'To tolerate contradiction is to be indifferent to truth.'" Relativism only seems contradictory if we pretend that there actually is some substantiated metric that exists beyond our own preconceptions let alone our imagination, and this simply isn't nor will ever be true. The things we define as "art" are things that we have identified based on our own mutually agreed aesthetics which are largely influenced by our culture. There's nothing illogical about acknowledging this. It simply shows that there are varying aspects of art that an individual will be drawn to more than others. Accepting all forms of games as an artform only generalizes it if context is removed, and it's human nature to group things, so dismissing the acceptance of gaming as an art on that basis is at best a facade. Aside, there are lot's of logical things which actually seem contradictory in real life - such as light's ability to act as both a particle and a wavelength- and the key to understanding those complexities lies in the ways we interpret them and how they function. Saying I consider all games to be art belies their potential; it does not indicate that I believe all games will be successful art- we've undoubtedly both played terrible games before- and evaluating a game's success is far easier than evaluating the success of a painting, given that a large part of a game's effectiveness depends heavily on not only formal aspects, but also technical aspects such as its playability and cohesiveness, along with the general rules associated with the genre it may represent. This aspect is what I referred to when I spoke of games as "art". Still, what I determine will always remain my opinion, regardless of the metric that is established or whether some scholar mentions it in a journal. But indeed, your position is one I respect nor was it ever my intention to convert you. As for casual games, from a Formalist approach, they'd probably be considered high art.Sorry if this is a double post, but the original comment won't load on Hist's blog. I thought the conversation was nice, so I figured I'd continue it here if you don't mind. Feel free to post responses on my page. "Contextual redefinition suffers at the hands of the fickle and devalues any form of collective subjective opinion." Not necessarily, because it has no inherent value that can be substantiated, as you said yourself. Thus, any worth supposedly inherent in a work of art is only what we have imagined. "The problem with a socially relevant construct is its periodic relevance and variance in interpretation." I don't see this as a problem, but merely a fact of life. Humans aren't psychically linked and thus will interpret works differently as new perspectives and the social climate changes, for the exact same reason Birth of a Nation is seen for the propaganda it was instead of the classic its contemporaries praised it as. Of course, for sake of argument, all games are "art". The question then is not developing through our grade school philosophizing some metric to classify them as such, but to recognize embodied aspects of the art form we are most receptive toward (various design and art styles, gameplay and story composition, for example) and those we discourage (faulty mechanics, porn, kitsch). For me, all games are a form of "art" regardless of whether I like them or not; the key difference for myself is identifying those which I feel are largely successful and those which fail in execution. You raise some interesting points about the Games debate, but I think it fails to address certain key weaknesses in the debate overall. First, it's well known that there are positive and negatives to games and potential influences, so critiques of it being considered art on this basis are moot. The real meat of the so-called "debate" on the effect of games has a causal nature which cannot be corroborated. For instance, there's a difference between saying video games can make a person sad or angry and saying that video games increase the occurrence of "rape" or are directly related to hyper violent behavior and actual crimes that have been committed. The the roles gamers take on in simulated experiences are not the same as the actual roles they have in normal life- not to forget that most gamers are adults. The same is true for other art forms in which role play is important- dance, and acting for instance. This doesn't mean there won't be people who have problems distinguishing these roles, but that's why we have rating systems and parental guardians. This is not to say they aren't influential, but to point out the utter banality of mainstream attempts to blame video games instead of the social environment and personal responsibility.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSat, 08 Oct 2011 19:32:34 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:15c57cda-7dc2-461c-978b-7910a0785ce7lmvalleSorry if this is a double post, but the original comment won't load on Hist's blog. I thought the conversation was nice, so I figured I'd continue it here if you don't mind. Feel free to post responses on my page. "Contextual redefinition suffers at the hands of the fickle and devalues any form of collective subjective opinion." Not necessarily, because it has no inherent value that can be substantiated, as you said yourself. Thus, any worth supposedly inherent in a work of art is only what we have imagined. "The problem with a socially relevant construct is its periodic relevance and variance in interpretation." I don't see this as a problem, but merely a fact of life. Humans aren't psychically linked and thus will interpret works differently as new perspectives and the social climate changes, for the exact same reason Birth of a Nation is seen for the propaganda it was instead of the classic its contemporaries praised it as. Of course, for sake of argument, all games are "art". The question then is not developing through our grade school philosophizing some metric to classify them as such, but to recognize embodied aspects of the art form we are most receptive toward (various design and art styles, gameplay and story composition, for example) and those we discourage (faulty mechanics, porn, kitsch). For me, all games are a form of "art" regardless of whether I like them or not; the key difference for myself is identifying those which I feel are largely successful and those which fail in execution. You raise some interesting points about the Games debate, but I think it fails to address certain key weaknesses in the debate overall. First, it's well known that there are positive and negatives to games and potential influences, so critiques of it being considered art on this basis are moot. The real meat of the so-called "debate" on the effect of games has a causal nature which cannot be corroborated. For instance, there's a difference between saying video games can make a person sad or angry and saying that video games increase the occurrence of "rape" or are directly related to hyper violent behavior and actual crimes that have been committed. The the roles gamers take on in simulated experiences are not the same as the actual roles they have in normal life- not to forget that most gamers are adults. The same is true for other art forms in which role play is important- dance, and acting for instance. This doesn't mean there won't be people who have problems distinguishing these roles, but that's why we have rating systems and parental guardians. This is not to say they aren't influential, but to point out the utter banality of mainstream attempts to blame video games instead of the social environment and personal responsibility.Glad to hear. You've always been one of my favorite bloggers on here. Your participation means a good blog section will be even better.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxTue, 06 Sep 2011 04:28:43 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:32881fed-2a35-4fb4-8fcc-20435b55fef0Demon RagnarokGlad to hear. You've always been one of my favorite bloggers on here. Your participation means a good blog section will be even better.You say they are "lacking" in their journalistic integrity, but I guess I am just not seeing it. From what I have seen, GIO has been nothing if not truthful, and has not reported anything they did not believe in or know to be true. Was just curious to know what you see that I do not.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxFri, 29 Apr 2011 14:57:18 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:5e5c0be2-b04d-4d90-9322-b5cd86dd7d07SirenForeverYou say they are "lacking" in their journalistic integrity, but I guess I am just not seeing it. From what I have seen, GIO has been nothing if not truthful, and has not reported anything they did not believe in or know to be true. Was just curious to know what you see that I do not.I left a rather heated comment on someone's blog where the entirety of the content was a list of 10 games. After I did, he edited the blog, making my comment seem a bit extreme for what he then had. It was still a crap blog, but they banned me.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxWed, 30 Mar 2011 22:17:29 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:7fd44860-3d84-47ee-b1d8-b74b321a1085Demon RagnarokI left a rather heated comment on someone's blog where the entirety of the content was a list of 10 games. After I did, he edited the blog, making my comment seem a bit extreme for what he then had. It was still a crap blog, but they banned me.have he staff comented to you about the jurnlistic stuff yet or no or do you still even come back here? cus i am very curious about the issuehttp://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxTue, 18 Jan 2011 23:32:48 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:b6c6ce12-fa56-4725-a253-2f6b8002162cgamelizardhave he staff comented to you about the jurnlistic stuff yet or no or do you still even come back here? cus i am very curious about the issueWell actually I'm in college xD. I'm going to look into joining one if there is one at my school come this fall semester. Anyway, that debate idea sounds pretty cool. But yeah....where would we hold it? And since obviously I've still got a lot to learn on the art, you and perhaps a few of the other guys will have to help with the judging lol. Maybe we can make a blog announcing it and see if we get some good feedback on how it can be held? That would probably also give us an idea on who would even be interested too. I think if GIO ever manages to hash out their live chat system, we'd probably have more options on the site. But I dunno...http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSat, 07 Aug 2010 14:06:46 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:d38978b0-2f84-4a44-b431-388c15c68cccEuphoricEnnuiWell actually I'm in college xD. I'm going to look into joining one if there is one at my school come this fall semester. Anyway, that debate idea sounds pretty cool. But yeah....where would we hold it? And since obviously I've still got a lot to learn on the art, you and perhaps a few of the other guys will have to help with the judging lol. Maybe we can make a blog announcing it and see if we get some good feedback on how it can be held? That would probably also give us an idea on who would even be interested too. I think if GIO ever manages to hash out their live chat system, we'd probably have more options on the site. But I dunno...Man you're insanely smart lol. I'm glad I befriended you. One of the ways to better yourself is learning from those better than you, right? Seriously, thanks for all the input on my recent blog and I'll take a look at your chapter on semantics as soon as I can.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxFri, 06 Aug 2010 22:41:55 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:9e6f53b2-51a5-4f17-bb02-8efd50353509EuphoricEnnuiMan you're insanely smart lol. I'm glad I befriended you. One of the ways to better yourself is learning from those better than you, right? Seriously, thanks for all the input on my recent blog and I'll take a look at your chapter on semantics as soon as I can.Thanks for commenting on my blog. I'm sure you already expected me to disagree though on your points. However, I'd be lying if I said it didn't give me something to consider. Your remarks are always well thought out so I do intend to take the time to ponder what you wrote.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxFri, 06 Aug 2010 15:26:30 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:517251e3-8390-4e00-9930-05b8eaf7f5b0EuphoricEnnuiThanks for commenting on my blog. I'm sure you already expected me to disagree though on your points. However, I'd be lying if I said it didn't give me something to consider. Your remarks are always well thought out so I do intend to take the time to ponder what you wrote.I see he can't answer your question.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxMon, 19 Jul 2010 19:03:17 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:63be1bc5-feb2-4485-9d53-1d72f2245e9cDemon RagnarokI see he can't answer your question.I don't see how pointing out how far outside the mainstream I am relative to a loser who listens to Marilyn Manson (oh, and nice job yourself on listening to all the really sh*tty Metalcore bands. Lacuna Coil+Chimera=Epic fail) constitutes a fail on my part. Additionally, you don't seem to realize that just because Resistance was published by Sony doesn't make it any less unique than anything on your list (if anything, RFoM is better than most other shooters today, since at least Insomniac had the courage to put a system that screams old school awesomeness into a game made in the post-Halo era of two weapon loadouts).http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxMon, 19 Jul 2010 18:14:05 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:1be7666e-7e73-4f55-8c3d-a628b15b5a90InfectedCrypt666I don't see how pointing out how far outside the mainstream I am relative to a loser who listens to Marilyn Manson (oh, and nice job yourself on listening to all the really sh*tty Metalcore bands. Lacuna Coil+Chimera=Epic fail) constitutes a fail on my part. Additionally, you don't seem to realize that just because Resistance was published by Sony doesn't make it any less unique than anything on your list (if anything, RFoM is better than most other shooters today, since at least Insomniac had the courage to put a system that screams old school awesomeness into a game made in the post-Halo era of two weapon loadouts).Yea, well I guess we all could complain, Ill dig around to find said article, knowing you it wont be too hard, just click the blog or fairchild right? Im doing fairly well, running into difficulties as usual, but they havent bested me yet. Still holding you to our conversation on devolving by the way.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxMon, 12 Jul 2010 07:16:31 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:b1a6b5db-720c-450e-8d61-90b4bc98d818thompsonxd90Yea, well I guess we all could complain, Ill dig around to find said article, knowing you it wont be too hard, just click the blog or fairchild right? Im doing fairly well, running into difficulties as usual, but they havent bested me yet. Still holding you to our conversation on devolving by the way.Yeah, I'm a bit lazy right now (just woke up), so I'm not going to go back and try to find his thread about how stupid the mario games are. The only thing he had against them was the lack of violence. The kid definitely has a warped perception of quality in gaming. That's part of the reason I find it funny that he took offense to my joke about Michael Jackson (http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/09/michael-jackson-the-experience-detailed.aspx).http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSun, 11 Jul 2010 13:31:12 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:757e0c1d-f891-4080-be14-a84177cd4ac9Demon RagnarokYeah, I'm a bit lazy right now (just woke up), so I'm not going to go back and try to find his thread about how stupid the mario games are. The only thing he had against them was the lack of violence. The kid definitely has a warped perception of quality in gaming. That's part of the reason I find it funny that he took offense to my joke about Michael Jackson (http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/09/michael-jackson-the-experience-detailed.aspx).You wasted a good comment on a 13 year old and got tl;dr'd.http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSun, 11 Jul 2010 04:22:54 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:81d3def6-3a77-4b47-96ce-e85b26c30855Demon RagnarokYou wasted a good comment on a 13 year old and got tl;dr'd.I love my typos...they show up in all the wrong places. So then I have to double post and then it just starts this vicious circular sh*tstorm that will suck me in for days.....I figured that was better than just double posting *how* xDhttp://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSun, 11 Jul 2010 04:06:43 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:0128f84b-f80e-4f2d-82e5-6ae2a7cfab41thompsonxd90I love my typos...they show up in all the wrong places. So then I have to double post and then it just starts this vicious circular sh*tstorm that will suck me in for days.....I figured that was better than just double posting *how* xDhey hoe have you been?http://www.gameinformer.com/members/ejronin/comments/default.aspxSun, 11 Jul 2010 04:05:02 GMT79ef0c18-1c65-4225-984f-fdaeab0f0862:ff81038d-75ab-4e18-af20-7a631f308768thompsonxd90hey hoe have you been?