Posts by Izuno

Um...movies are usually shot on 35 mm film and go through a lot of processing and editing that takes a long time. That is why they look way better than your video camera. Celluloid film is very high res and infinitely better than video...

...for now. Eventually I expect a digital recording technology to surpass film, but who knows how the hell long that will take.

All those things you mention do impact the quality of your home movies, but the most fundamental issue is the fact that you're recording footage on a video camera.

What kind of camera? In general, a pimpen HD video camera is better than a simple DV camera. I'm sure there are more informed people here who can go into more depth.

well I don't mean to be so cynical.

I agree that art is what you make of it. But games are more than just art or more than just "interactive movies."

Games are virtual worlds where drama, action, adventure etc can unfold and let you do what you could not otherwise easily, typically or possibly do, and they don't rely mostly on your imagination. Sure it is virtual, but they do have a visceral feel, just not physical to touch (other than maybe vibration in a controller or something.)

Art, as in paintings and scupture and etc, is usually something just to look at. Maybe you can touch it. Maybe it is "environmental" like a vast field of funky sculptures or umbrellas or something. They can "take you away" to some other place, but you are really dependent on your imagination for that to happen, or drugs!

But coming back to games, they really are in a class of their own. They are like giant puzzles you have to interact with to solve...be the puzzle racing around a track ahead of other cars, navitaging a lanscape, surviving a shootout with mutants, chainsawing your way through a field of mutants...

Are they art? No. They are in a class by their own, and I think it's a very good class.

Oh...the 2D and 3D art that people make that go in games, yeah, i can see that as art...at least compared to the days of 2600 graphics which were, what, 4 bit or something?

"Ah friggin sweet!"

i admit, I played the E.T. game once when I was little...i think it was a bit after it came out and bombed.

what a complete turd of a game. Such a good movie though.

best of luck on your mod, though you have to understand that They Hunger from HL1 days is being remade in HL2 engine and will sell for fairly cheap, 5 bucks as I recall.

Any zombie mod will have to compete with that, which I predict to be a tough thing.

Also, your map shot says "or_dawnville.bsp" ...which I find funny because the name makes me think of the classic CoD level "Dawnville"...which was both singleplayer and mutliplayer.

Anyway, I suggest researching "They Hunger" for HL2 to get a good sense of your most direct competition. Still, I do think you could be coming up with some interesting features that could be really fun, just not the only zombie mod in HL2 out there.

Best of luck.

Priceless.

Ah...I dated an artist for almost a year. I was exposed to many forms of art and met many artists and went to art opening. I kinda hate art now, at least the art scene, but I do appreciate art like Zuniga, Elizabeth Fischer and other stuff (mostly through seeing their work on walls of my parents house).

Generally speaking, people only consider something art for selfish reasons. Let me break it down by scenarios.

1. You are not an artist and you don't really follow the art world. Are video games art to you? It's probably not going to matter. You're not going to think that much or care about it.

2. You are a "traditionally trained artist" who paints or sculpts or something. Are video games art to you? YES if the following is true: the art you do is struggling to be recognized because it is sort of "out there" and not traditional. For selfish reasons, you will believe video games are art because by popularizing their acceptance, you might also convince people to accept your work as art.

2-again. You are a "traditionally trained artist" who paints or sculpts or something. Are video games art to you? NO if the following is true: you feel that video games are somehow competing against the acceptance of your art. Many many artsist feel this way. They feel that if video games become "art" then it takes overall mindshare away from their art.

3. You are a consumer/collect of art with deep knowledge but not an "artist" in any sense of the word. Are video games art to you? Probably not. If somehow their acceptance as art hurt the value of your collection, you'd for sure think they're not art. If you had stock in Nintendo and suddenly art galleries started selling Nintendo related paintings etc. and Nintendo shot up in value because of it (crazy stupid example here) then sure you'd switch stories and say "video games are art", even though that doesn't exactly relate to the act of playing games.

4. You work in the video game industry as an "Artist". More than likely what you do is art. Whether it is 2D or 3D, you make stuff that looks like stuff that goes into video games. The cooler the design or more realistic, the better, in general. It takes years of training, lots of hardwork and talent to get these jobs and produce the required output.

But does it matter if your work is considered "art" or not? It only matters if there is some kind of threat to your livelihood. For example, suppose a proposed anti-video game law threatens to limit sales of your game. If the counter arguement is that games should be protected as "art", then you will probably go around saying "yeah what I do is art."

My opinion: Video games in themselves are not art in the same way most movies and TV are not art. Video games are entertainment. Right now they are tests of reflexes, logical thinking (like solving puzzles) and understanding of programmer/designer intentions. They are damn fun and often stir our imagination the films often do. But most games have very little spiritual impact the way "fine art" often does. Art is often considered something to meditate with. You look at a still life or a statue and it just sits there, persistant and unchanging. By meditating on it, you are forced to deal with your own issues and concerns, and perhaps gain a new perspective to allow you to change your life in big or small ways.

Video games are interactive. You aren't there to stare and appreciate a game, you are there to play it and solve it and interact with other people and have fun.

Are there video games that can stir emotion and make you think long after you play it? Of course. Most of us have played great games that has us think about them when we're not playing them the way we think about movies. But rarely do video games have messages that "high concept" films have like recent movies "Crash" or "Brokeback Mountain" blah blah blah.

So where am I going with this? As with almost all human debates, the core issue is who gets what. There is no inherent measure of whether something is art. It is only art if we say it is. So video games will be debated as art or not soley because the people debating have something at stake which is usually money, respect, credibility or etc, but ultimately that translates into money in the long run.

It's all about money.

lol I've been watching Ghostbusters on my iPod in my spare time (like waiting in line at retail stores to buy shit).

That poster is from GB II...which I feel like I need to see again to see if I actually like it or not... first Ghostbusters was best comedy ever.

I'm curious as to how people do cool stuff like that with digital cameras. I have a simple digital (old canon powershot 2.1 MP) and I just use it for taking pics of friends/family at parties and such. I'd like to get into real photography but need some schoolin.

Kami and Zilla sharing kickball together is proof that peace is possible in our time.

http://live.xbox.com/member/IzunoMapper

just need a 360 at home and some good games

Wow sounds like Crytek is once again doing some amazing work. I wasn't the biggest fan of FarCry simply because back when I was playing it, it was annoying about the lack of save anywhere feature and I didn't have time to figure out the a manual patch for it that was floating about the internet, nor did I have the time to push through and play it to the end. I do recognize it as a great game, though...

Anyway, this game sound interesting and I'm impressed at the aggressive technology you're pushing. I really hope it does well. A few comments/questions:

1. Wow that's some serious technology. Late 2006...will there be enough consumers world wide with good enough specs to enjoy it? Will min-spec really be enjoyable/feasible? Trust me, I know all too well about working with a developer pushing technology to the limits, then having game delay after game delay. It's not the end of the world, but you want a realistic vision for when your product will actually ship. Given FarCry did ship and not after repeated broken promises, I suspsect Crytek will manage themselves appriately to actually finish it.

2. No cutscenes...sweet. Tell a story in the game and keep the player in the game the whole time.

3. So are there levels? Load screens?

Overally I'm interested to hear more and see published screenies on line and not just mag scans.

Quote from The Postman

Hey, I've seen all the movies they used to splice together to make this movie.In short: This looks like utter ass.

like i said....this movie looks purely derivative. felt like commitee thinking.

FYI update log is found here for those who forgot:

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki ... ease_Notes

Personally, I have found Hammer 4.1 very stable so far. Way fewer crashes and lockups. It doesn't exactly run that fast, but my aging Athlon 3400+ and meager 1 gig of ram probably contribute to the slowness.

Quote from Bluestrike

I don't see what the giant changes are there and this map seems to go 2 steps further anyway.

Too many new routes...too much going on. Felt the map lost it's focus...and for a while a few years ago Inferno was one of my favorite CS maps.

man i've seen it written so many ways over the years I don't what the hell it is.

This was created by the ACLU, so obviously you can know their bias. It goes to the extreme, but it's an interesting thing to watch.

http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927

Here's an article that is related to it:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ ... lines-oped

24 is now my 2nd favorite show, second only to Lost.

Kosmo, based on everything you said, I think you will greatly enjoy Lost.

holeman = Jonathan

Quote from Kosmo

Where did they left the imaginative shows where writers actually picked their brains to come up with something more than "I think he shoots a guy with a bazooka, and then proceeds to shoot down a dozen helicopters with a flamethrower, just because it makes no sense."

Point taken. I think 24 is a little better than just senseless violence. The presentation is pretty killer (I think anyway) and the twisting, innerwoven plot keeps people guessing what's going to happen next. Also, people like the characters like Chloe and of course Jack, but then you've got a questionable President. No one has done this kind of crazy 'real-time' drama before so I think it will stand the test of time.

McGuyver...man I used to be hooked on that show when I was little. If you ever find yourself thinking "what would McGuyver do?" now you can also ask "What would Jack do?".

Quote from RD

izuno, you mean its not original enough?

Well, most action or effects movies today are derivative. That doesn't mean the movie is going to be horrible, just have a lot of borrowed ideas. I guess I don't really care that much about that as long as her character is unique and interesting. Right now all we know is she is a sexy deadly assassin type with a cool as ice attitude. Sort of like Uma Thurman in Kill Bill (no not the same, just reminds me of that) and maybe even Kate Beckinsdale in the Underwold movies, though I found her character a little too cool and kinda boring. (wow what do i expect from just a trailer? :roll: )

My point is this: really great action/sci-fi movies have great action, effects and etc, but the best ones have interesting characters that resonate with fans somehow, even if they don't necc with critics. That's why Star Trek was so succesful in the big picture even though the most recent movies blew asswads. Ever see a Star Trek movie get critically acclaimed for acting? HA! or the Matrix? HA! But in Star Trek, you had characters that fans absolutely loved (Kirk, Spock, Data, Worf, Picard etc). And in the Matrix the concept/story blew you away, even though the acting was rubbish...explaining why the 2nd and 3rd movies were horrible cause the stories were weak and had no characters good enough to carry it. Meanwhile, Ripley in Aliens wasn't really a sexy character, just an ordinary woman dealing with a horrible, extraordinary situation where she had to overcome her deepest fears in life. And she even got nominated for an Oscar. Her performance elevated an already great action/sci-fi movie into a classic of the genre.

So all I'm seeing out of this Ultraviolet character is a sexy deadly chick who kicks ass. Sure, not bad. Seen it in other forms many times before. Kinda growing tired of it. Make her an interesting character (which I don't think the trailer proves one way or another) and I'll be really psyched about it. So far...kinda mehness.

I'll watch it again. Feel free to start throwing fruit at this post.