Adventure Gamers - Forums

xxax - 18 April 2014 08:44 AM

I don’t think your Mona Lisa analogy works.

Just to clarify, it wasn’t my analogy. I didn’t bring it up originally but I started using it instead of repeating “a piece of art”.

Lambonius - 18 April 2014 02:39 PM

millenia - 18 April 2014 02:35 PM

Btw, I wouldn’t really want them to make a 2D remake of GK3. While the models weren’t exactly beautiful, the gameplay was great and I feel that changing it would take a lot from the enjoyment.

I agree that the later games should be left to stand on their own, though my opinion of the problems with the early 3D of GK3 is pretty much exactly the opposite as yours.  I didn’t have a problem with the aesthetics of the early 3D, it was the gameplay that I found tiresome and tedious.  Navigating slow characters through lifeless 3D environments that were about 3 times larger than they really needed to be felt like a real chore to me.  And yes, I’m aware of the ability to skip walking by moving the camera—still doesn’t do it for me. 

Nah, I didn’t have “a problem” with the aesthetics, it was fine. I never was a graphics nerd. But you know, your problem wouldn’t have been a problem if the environments were really beautiful . I just acknowledged that the models weren’t that great but they did what they needed to do. I could immerse myself into the game and actually the facial expressions etc. on the models were pretty good.

I agree that sometimes there was a bit too much walking around, but mostly it was nice to be able to take use of the space. These days I’m really used to the whole camera behind character movement from all the MMOs I’ve played and I like it. I like being able to look around instead of pixel hunting. And it gives an opportunity to make another type of puzzles.

Also, I don’t know a thing about Mona Lisa really, didn’t even Google it, but I have my views on art. And making new art from the old is in my opinion a good thing, almost every time.

millenia - 18 April 2014 03:37 PM

Also, I don’t know a thing about Mona Lisa really, didn’t even Google it, but I have my views on art. And making new art from the old is in my opinion a good thing, almost every time.

I’ll give you Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini as being a worthy new masterpiece derived from old. But you, or whomever started the Mona Lisa analogy implied that adventure games are an art form and thus a sequel, remake etc., are equivalent to my classical music example. I beg to differ.

Making new are from old starts with what constitutes old art. Roy Lichtenstein’s Soup Cans are art. But I doubt anyone thinks that the original soup can labels, from which the latter is derived, are art. He created new art from non-art.

And then we can look at movies, and/or television shows that attempt to recapture the magic of the original, and fail miserably. Too many to mention.

So, I think your statement that “.. making new art from the old is in my opinion a good thing, almost every time.” is way off base.

Lambonius - 18 April 2014 09:04 PM

rtrooney - 18 April 2014 09:02 PM

Roy Lichtenstein’s Soup Cans are art.

Warhol, you mean.

Correct. Lichhtenstein was initially more comic character revisit. But, in terms of the ‘argument’ does it really make a difference?

rtrooney - 18 April 2014 09:02 PM

millenia - 18 April 2014 03:37 PM

Also, I don’t know a thing about Mona Lisa really, didn’t even Google it, but I have my views on art. And making new art from the old is in my opinion a good thing, almost every time.

I’ll give you Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini as being a worthy new masterpiece derived from old. But you, or whomever started the Mona Lisa analogy implied that adventure games are an art form and thus a sequel, remake etc., are equivalent to my classical music example. I beg to differ.

Making new are from old starts with what constitutes old art. Roy Lichtenstein’s Soup Cans are art. But I doubt anyone thinks that the original soup can labels, from which the latter is derived, are art. He created new art from non-art.

And then we can look at movies, and/or television shows that attempt to recapture the magic of the original, and fail miserably. Too many to mention.

So, I think your statement that “.. making new art from the old is in my opinion a good thing, almost every time.” is way off base.

No it’s not. Not every piece of art has to be excellent or better than before. It’s not the destination, it’s the journey. I applaud even the crappiest pieces of work that people try to do, with their set of (creative) skills. We have so much wonderful art because so many people try (and fail).

I love my masterpieces but I can definitely enjoy the less perfect works too.

And to me every piece of entertainment is art in one sense. Games very much so, even the simplest ping pong ones.

TimovieMan - 18 April 2014 11:47 AM

Obvious proof that you never read the original book short story.

It may not be a better film but its a lot closer to the original short just because mars doesn’t play a pinnacle role in the environment. Also, I did read it and a lot of the major plot points mach the short story. Furthermore, short stories can be found in books. So…yeah, a little demeaning on your part, but I’m glad you at least saw my point.

Monolith - 19 April 2014 03:44 AM

It may not be a better film but its a lot closer to the original short just because mars doesn’t play a pinnacle role in the environment.

Please, name one element from the short short story that was in the remake but NOT in Verhoeven’s film.

but I’m glad you at least saw my point.

You made a good point. You just picked an imo really poor example to prove it…

Dear POS developers could you make color options (black-grey-brown) for Gabriel’s coat?