There has been a lot of talk recently about the decay of method acting in Hollywood. It is now about ego, about visibly showing the dedication to acting, and such displays garner awards. But I think it extends to the audience too. Does knowing Leo went through hellish conditions color your view of his performance?

Let me ask you this. Imagine that you know nothing about No Man's Sky. You are completely unaware of the procedural generation. You have no clue there are 16 quintillion planets. You have no idea it was made by 4 people. All you know about the game is what's presented as you play… as far as you are concerned this planet you start on was created like any other space in video games.

Would you still be impressed?

Would you still be impressed?

I don't rent, buy, or go see a movie in theaters without knowing at least something about what it is about and who made it. Same for games. I don't play a game without first knowing something about it. So, for me, your question is pretty nonsensical as I would not even have the chance to be impressed if I didn't have the chance to learn about the game and its creators before hand.

Is it really so bad that maybe some people like a procedurally generated game? I kinda feel like your that guy in that one XKCD comic:

We don't view or judge things in a vacuum. It's impossible to know if I'd be impressed by No Man's Sky without knowing anything about it before I played. That's not a universe we live in.

But I'm not impressed anyway. My nephew shows me his drawings of pokemon, and they're really bad. I tell him, and he cried a little bit at first, now he just doesn't ask me. I mean, they're fine for a kid, but luckily, I take everything at completely face value, and expel all context, so I can see that his drawings are objectively terrible, and I let him know: he should see it as well.

Reminds me of my last girlfriend, too. All her cooking was horrible. I kept telling her "This is awful. It needs some milk," and so on, and asking for meat. It just doesn't make sense why she would cook such awful food. I mean, she told me she was a vegan and all we had was a microwave, but she was terrible. The worst part is that sometimes I'd go visit her house and she would have food ready, and it would be something I didn't want, like pilaf. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I don't like pilaf, nobody likes pilaf. I can't believe she would do something like that.

Anyway, I had to break up with her. She kept making this cheap food and lived in a tiny apartment and had a car that was too small. I kept telling her she needed to move to a bigger house, but she never did. Completely insane. She makes such awful decisions. She tried to explain it away as paying off student loans and not making enough money for good stuff like a house, but who cares? Why should I take that into account? Context is worthless.

If I could still fly from the surface, up into space. Yeah, I'd probably be impressed. Always wanted to do that in a game.

Does merely knowing the context allow you to suddenly enjoy your girlfriend's meal as much as you would a fine meal from a great chef?

What if you hired an artist and he gave you a picture on par with your nephew's?

What if you catered a meal and the chef gave you food as bad as your girlfriend's?

What if in both cases they charged as much as a master artist and a master chef?

No man's sky is not a freeware indie project.

No man's sky is not a freeware indie project.

Why are you so desperate to convince people that they shouldn't be having fun?

Why are you so insistent on arguing an off-topic subject across multiple unnecessary threads? Lurn 2 consolidate.

No man's sky is clearly a good game with a lot of potential and a forgivable lack of polish. People are happy paying full price for it, so you're not proving anything by whining about it.

This is a separate thread because the type of question I pose is relevant to games at large. For instance, ID games which many view as tech demos. It is not about just no mans sky, but a larger principle when it comes to art.

This is a separate thread because the type of question I pose is relevant to games at large. For instance, ID games which many view as tech demos. It is not about just no mans sky, but a larger principle when it comes to art.

"Relevant to games at large", but you specifically made the post about No Man's Sky.

But at least you admit through omission that your irrational desire to sway folks opinions about the game is wrong...

Still, I disagree with even this reply, because the new Doom has been praised as a fun game (and having played an hour or two of it, I agree that it is fun and fresh).

Does merely knowing the context allow you to suddenly enjoy your girlfriend's meal as much as you would a fine meal from a great chef?

What if you hired an artist and he gave you a picture on par with your nephew's?

What if you catered a meal and the chef gave you food as bad as your girlfriend's?

What if in both cases they charged as much as a master artist and a master chef?

No man's sky is not a freeware indie project.

Did you hire the artist or chef without investigating the quality of their work? If so, as cheapLEY said, your premise here simply does not match up with how people act in reality. Heck, even you sought out information about No Man's Sky before deciding it wasn't for you. That you're even posing these dumb questions that are contradictory to how you behave shows just how irrational you are being about this game.

I think the guy driving things was, by and large, relatively successful. He said recently:

"Sitting down to write the first lines of code five years ago, I had such a clear picture in my mind of an emotion I wanted you to feel. To wander around an alien planet, and to feel you had discovered it."

http://www.no-mans-sky.com/2016/08/what-do-you-do-in-no-mans-sky/

It's about creating an experience, and the team did a good job with it. It's not for everyone and it's not supposed to be.

I don't think it's just about the game. The question is whether things outside the game have a significant effect on your enjoyment of the game.

Watching the Revenant, there certainly was some appeal to watching knowing what happened off camera. You bring that with you and it does in fact enhance the experience in a certain way. But that is an 'outside' influence which nevertheless has an effect. But what is the value of such influence? Does it 'actually' make watching it better? Or will your grandchildren watch the film and wonder what the big deal was?

The hype surrounding No Man's Sky was massive. Did that not in some way help you enjoy the game? By playing and thinking to yourself, silently making comparisons in your brain to what you had expected and hoped? To what you already knew about the game?

What's the value in this? Is there value? Can it be a GOOD thing? Is it fair to judge art by what's 'outside' of it? Is there a price to tapping into this? Or do you just look at only what's right in front of you?

Personally, I fall into the same camp as others in that I rarely buy a game or watch a movie without learning a bit about it first.
So while I don't totally buy into the premise of your point, I do think the nature of "how something is made" is being used to unfairly market some games, movies, etc.

As I often due, I tend to place the majority of the blame on publishers and the media who often act as pawns of the publishers, but also on gamers and how we set expectations. When the first No Man's Sky trailer was released, every post on every site made a huge deal about the 4-person dev team and the procedurally generated content. And rightfully so. For gaming industry "insiders" (anyone who makes or plays games and has an interest in how they're made), the nature of No Man's Sky's development is noteworthy. The problem is that the media (and readers) often seem to confuse "noteworthy" with "HYPE". Rather than treat NMS as an interesting game worth paying attention to, it got blown into "the next big thing". Even when the media made supposed efforts to calm expectations, they did so in sensational ways. I've lost track of how many times I read phrases like "we'll have to wait and see what the gameplay loop actually entails", while the developers had already been very open about the scavaging/survival oriented gameplay loop. The media treated NMS as some sort of mystery even as the developers were clearly and plainly telling people what kind of game they were making. Even after launch, the lack of any true multiplayer component is treated like a discovery, when the devs openly told us months ago that you can't meet other players.

Finally, I think there is 1 element of No Man's Sky that is actively misleading: the price point. Let's say I'm just an average gamer who doesn't read articles and watch a bunch of preview coverage. I saw a couple trailers and thought "that looks really cool!", so I buy NMS. Videogames have a sort of built-in "expectation calibrator": selling price. Even if I know absolutely nothing about a new game, I can look at the price and get an idea of the sort of game I'm buying (in terms of size, complexity, and polish). With a $60 game, I expect a certain level of polish and production value. In this regard, No Man's Sky is very misleading. I'm not going to get into issues of value proposition or "hours of fun" or anything like that, because I don't ultimately think that stuff can or should be used to determine selling price. I've had more hours of fun with many $1 mobile games than some $60 blockbusters. To me, the real determining factor of price point is the scale of production and polish.
No Man's Sky is a massive game in terms of "theoretical content" (although the actual gameplay is mostly identical from planet to planet). But it is absolutely NOT a $60 in terms of presentation, mechanical depth, or polish.

So in that regard, I do think some of the "conflict" around the reception of NMS could have been entirely avoided. Ultimately, Sony and the gaming media did a disservice to the game.

Personally, I fall into the same camp as others in that I rarely buy a game or watch a movie without learning a bit about it first.
So while I don't totally buy into the premise of your point, I do think the nature of "how something is made" is being used to unfairly market some games, movies, etc.

That's what I mean. "What the game is about" is inside the game. "How was the game made" is outside the game. I don't buy games without knowing a bit about what they are about and how they play either.

I don't think it's just about the game. The question is whether things outside the game have a significant effect on your enjoyment of the game.

They do.

For instance, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is probably my favorite of the MCU movies. I loved it from the first time I saw it in theater. But I also loved the director commentary the Russo brothers did for the Blu-Ray. They gave a lot of insight into the influences and thought processes behind the movie. Brad Bird and John Walker's commentary on The Incredibles is similarly good in that it was two people who knew their movie and who loved their movie and who did a great job talking about the whys and how's of making their movie.

I do feel that knowing more about those movies has increased my enjoyment of them significantly. When I watch these movies I'm reminded about the extra information I know and enjoy them all the more.

On the other hand, Aquaria, one of my favorite indie games of all time, feels very tightly put together as you play it. Its music links very strongly into its world which is very strongly linked to its story which hides some very strongly dark secrets that you have to really look for to find. If I only played the game I'd conclude that Aquaria was a masterpiece.

But I also happen to know that the game went through utter development hell. That last I heard (which admittedly was several years ago) the two friends who made it ended up very alienated from each other not the least of which because the one who did the programming and story and music either strongly threatened to commit suicide or actually tried to commit suicide. I also know that the venerable Mac shareware company Ambrosia Software published Aquaria on the Mac after having provided a significant amount of code to help with audio, widescreen support, and after having spent a significant amount of money on advertising only to have the programmer guy request they stop selling it under their shareware system and give him the improved code base so he could turn around and sell it on Steam and as part of one of the Humble Bundles.

When I play Aquaria I focus on the art and music and gameplay and tightly woven themes and do my best to ignore everything else I know about it. I enjoy the game immensely despite the trouble in the background.

In both cases, however, it's the works themselves that are the basis of my enjoyment. With you, it feels like the fact alone that much of No Man's Sky was procedurally generated is what has made your decision of whether it can even possibly be enjoyable. I see that as a very broken way of thinking. As someone once said, "You are a sad strange little man and you have my pity."

I'm enjoying the game immensely for whatever reasons. Should it matter whether the circumstances surrounding its development and release color my opinion? I'm having fun, and that's all I care about.

I think games are art, but when it turns into these sorts of "you can only look at it like this" attitudes and we forget that, art or not, games are mainly just about providing "fun" (however you define that), I tune out.

- No text -

What's the value in this? Is there value? Can it be a GOOD thing? Is it fair to judge art by what's 'outside' of it? Is there a price to tapping into this? Or do you just look at only what's right in front of you?

This is a pretty standard question, when discussing art - why would videogames be different?

What's the value in this? Is there value? Can it be a GOOD thing? Is it fair to judge art by what's 'outside' of it? Is there a price to tapping into this? Or do you just look at only what's right in front of you?

This is a pretty standard question, when discussing art - why would videogames be different?

Video games are the most technologically dependent art. Therefore, issues regarding the technology are generally at the forefront. Not many people paid attention to the tech of film stock (after color was introduced of course), but many people are aware of the underlying technical aspects and issues in games.

Case and point: people being impressed with the number of planets in No Man's Sky, the graphics in Doom 3, etc, and having that drive enjoyment.

All art is commentary on the context in which it was written. Some art just has a longer period of resonance or the thing that made it special gets changed and produces new meaning in a different time period.

Halo CE was groundbreaking because of the way it combined technology to tell a story on a consol. Halo is still a fun game today (maybe my favorite) but kids today just see it as a fun game. Nothing earth-shattering.

The Beatles invented a lot of the sounds we are accustomed to hearing today but Seargent Pepper doesn't sound groundbreaking anymore- just a great collection of songs.

The first preserved art we have on cave walls served a functional and aesthetic purpose, but it had nothing to do with why we appreciate it today.

Also, I'm pretty skeptical about this notion of progressive evolution for a medium. This idea of pushing something forward feels a bit naive. Art has served purposes I will never understand in the past because I'm not acquainted with the context. Moving forward suggests that what was that in the past is somehow lesser. Early art may have been better at conveying meaning to a culture than I could ever hope to assess due to my unfamiliarity with the context. What I'm saying is that I don't trust your premise of moving the medium forward as something that can be adequately measured in any meaningful way.

I do get your point about being wowed by something because of the process of creation vs the final disconnected product. I'm just not sure I care what a kid 20 years from now will think of no mans sky. It was not written for him or her. We can't judge art by how we think it will be interpreted in the future because of the same limitations that prevent us from adequately analyzing historic art.

The hype surrounding No Man's Sky was massive. Did that not in some way help you enjoy the game? By playing and thinking to yourself, silently making comparisons in your brain to what you had expected and hoped? To what you already knew about the game?

I'm in an interesting position because I tuned out the hype a long time ago. I knew that from the information being trickled out, there wasn't a whole lot to go on about what the game would be or what it would feature. A lot of people's expectations were born out of speculation; I'd been here through the days of Halo 2 and 3's development and I remembered what that did for my enjoyment of the game.

The hype it self was a lot of fun. The speculation and theories were great. But in the end, what we got, in many ways, did not live up to the hype. The games might've been less disappointing had I not engaged in the hype machine (to be fair, they weren't usually THAT disappointing, I'm just hi-lighting this aspect of the hype machine and expectations). The Halo games, when experienced outside of the hype, the advertising, and expanded universe, were likely completely differently received by the player than by one who engaged in one or more of the above.

What you want from the game and what you expect from the game will color how you receive it. That's a given. In my opinion its our responsibility to temper our expectations and its the developers' to not oversell them. Unfortunately in the business world, overselling expectations is how games are sold and budgets are met.

A revolution in the industry aside, it is left to the individual to decide what to consume to form their opinions and expectations. I think its important to remember this fact, especially when reading reviews and criticism; a person's opinions on a subject are inextricably linked to their preconceived notions.

Personally, I think No Man's Sky delivered on exactly what they aimed to deliver, as far as substance is concerned. Could the product be improved by better mechanics? Absolutely. Are there some technical fumbles? Sure, most games do. (doesn't excuse it, but context matters) Play the game if its something you can enjoy for what it is, don't play it if it's not. What I do think what can be said by most everyone is that NMS does open the door to a genre and to technology that can greatly improve future works by game devs.

Which is why you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

The context of a piece of art, be it, social, technical or political is often far more important to the meaning we derive rather than the art object itself.

Which is why you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

- No text -

you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

If you are incredibly pretentious.

- No text -

Excuse me, Korny said "+1" earlier. I'll say this may be the third, possibly even second, best, but come on. Open your eyes. 117435 FTW.

- No text -

Man, I’m with you. I’ve got a contrarian streak and the more people seem to like a creative work, the more suspicious I am that it’s an emperor’s new clothes situation. This is especially true, in my case, with movies. For example, I think many “art house” movies are just as insipid and manipulative of their intended audience as anything at the cineplex (Captain Fantastic is one recent example). And every Oscar season I believe at least half the movies are nominated not because they’re all that, but because a) it’s this or that actor or director’s “turn” (they were snubbed in years past when they should not have been—the Oscars are always playing catch-up), b) the cult of the Actor’s Studio (Leo fits this mold) overly influences everyone, or c) so-and-so adequately depicts an afflicted or downtrodden person or political icon (playing to the Academy’s sympathies).

As others have pointed out, context and culture do affect the perception of any art—it’s a little useless to stop it from happening, and believe you me, I spent a large portion of my academic career arguing the point of view that, if we’re going to consider culture, the contemporaneous culture is what should be considered first (just stating where my sympathies lie). Author’s intent also matters to me, and I think in the case of No Man’s Sky, if we consider the creators’ intent, the game fairs pretty well. The problem comes where people’s expectations don’t match what the creators set out to create, and I think that’s the biggest problem with No Man’s Sky, but that’s a context problem that cuts both ways. Regarding me or anyone else enjoying the game in part because of extra-game knowledge, I confess I am grading it on a curve, and I’m also admitting how my extra-game knowledge affects my immersion in a positive way. It’s inarguable that immersion is something the game is going for, and it’s hard to deny that this game is different in a crucial way that gives it an advantage over a traditionally designed game. To answer your question, though, I think I’d still be impressed knowing nothing about the game, but I would wonder two things—how big is it, and how did they do this? There’s no freaking boundaries and everything is seamless! I mean, WTH? I think anyone would deduce it was procedurally generated if they know of the concept.

And this is an argument about what people know. You can’t stop people from knowing things, whether it’s “this game is made by the same team that made LIMBO” or “this is what constitutes Halo’s canon up until Reach.” I said I was with you, but I’ve realized that the “the art by itself isn’t that good” argument is attractive to me when I’m not fond of something, but I usually find that all the stuff surrounding the art endlessly fascinating if I like the work (can’t get enough of that Last of Us documentary). Given two things of equal merit, I will often detract from the thing I see as overpraised and praise the thing I see as underappreciated. Recognizing my own hypocrisies I find that I have less energy to spend trying to tell people why they’re wrong to like what they like. (My motivation to do the latter probably hasn’t ever matched yours, though--I’ve never spent money on a domain for that purpose.) You ask interesting questions about the fairness of considering what’s outside the game, but these questions are undercut by two things a) the impossibility of art speaking solely for itself, and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.

and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.

Ha. Good point. Imagine how differently we all might have treated an unknown poster's musings. I know some of the admins 'round here. Maybe I can arrange a debate month where all our names are scrambled (or set to variants of Taylor Swift songs, most likely) so we can see how these kinds of discussions would go with less history and bias dragging them down. :p

and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.

Ha. Good point. Imagine how differently we all might have treated an unknown poster's musings. I know some of the admins 'round here. Maybe I can arrange a debate month where all our names are scrambled (or set to variants of Taylor Swift songs, most likely) so we can see how these kinds of discussions would go with less history and bias dragging them down. :p

Heh. Don't think it would work. We know each others' voices.

and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.

Ha. Good point. Imagine how differently we all might have treated an unknown poster's musings. I know some of the admins 'round here. Maybe I can arrange a debate month where all our names are scrambled (or set to variants of Taylor Swift songs, most likely) so we can see how these kinds of discussions would go with less history and bias dragging them down. :p

Heh. Don't think it would work. We know each others' voices.

This was my response, too. :)

- No text -

Another player who can't forget what he knows.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-i-m-loving-no-man-s-sky-1785309425

I guess when you see a custom Subject you can assume it's me...

That one is always easy to spot.

- No text -

and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.

Ha. Good point. Imagine how differently we all might have treated an unknown poster's musings. I know some of the admins 'round here. Maybe I can arrange a debate month where all our names are scrambled (or set to variants of Taylor Swift songs, most likely) so we can see how these kinds of discussions would go with less history and bias dragging them down. :p

Heh. Don't think it would work. We know each others' voices.

This was my response, too. :)

I would bet that I could alter my style enough to hide :-p

and b) our foreknowledge of your usual agenda. I find the irony of b funny.

Ha. Good point. Imagine how differently we all might have treated an unknown poster's musings. I know some of the admins 'round here. Maybe I can arrange a debate month where all our names are scrambled (or set to variants of Taylor Swift songs, most likely) so we can see how these kinds of discussions would go with less history and bias dragging them down. :p

Heh. Don't think it would work. We know each others' voices.

This was my response, too. :)

I would bet that I could alter my style enough to hide :-p

Well, with you it's not so much your style as your obsessions. We'd be like, "Hey Cody! We see you under there!" ;)

- No text -

Read the first post in any thread, then try to guess how the conversation goes just by reading the usernames of those responding :)

Thanks for ruining my life. Can never unsee.

Kermit's reply is kind of like an anti-summary. He takes the best thoughts of those who disagree with Cody and adds more words.

- No text -

you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

If you are incredibly pretentious.

I say as someone who went to art school...

Of course it is, it's art!

Which is why you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

But is that art momentary, or lasting? Seems to me once you know the gimmick of the urinal it's fun for two seconds but then ceases to be. Context can be important, but the things that give the most pleasure are the ones where that comes from the work itself mostly.

You can know nothing about the politics of the 1930s and 1940s and still enjoy a good film noir.

Which is why you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

But is that art momentary, or lasting? Seems to me once you know the gimmick of the urinal it's fun for two seconds but then ceases to be. Context can be important, but the things that give the most pleasure are the ones where that comes from the work itself mostly.

You can know nothing about the politics of the 1930s and 1940s and still enjoy a good film noir.

Is anybody arguing that NMS is a game for the ages? Feels like you're moving the goalposts.

Which is why you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

But is that art momentary, or lasting? Seems to me once you know the gimmick of the urinal it's fun for two seconds but then ceases to be. Context can be important, but the things that give the most pleasure are the ones where that comes from the work itself mostly.

You can know nothing about the politics of the 1930s and 1940s and still enjoy a good film noir.

that damn toilet was from 1917 and we still talk about it... so sure!

- No text -

Which is why you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

But is that art momentary, or lasting? Seems to me once you know the gimmick of the urinal it's fun for two seconds but then ceases to be. Context can be important, but the things that give the most pleasure are the ones where that comes from the work itself mostly.

You can know nothing about the politics of the 1930s and 1940s and still enjoy a good film noir.

that damn toilet was from 1917 and we still talk about it... so sure!

Oh shit…

If the can is empty, is it more or less artistic than if the can is actually full?

you can take a urinal, put it in a museum and it becomes art.

If you are incredibly pretentious.

I say as someone who went to art school...

Of course it is, it's art!

It's also something! YAY ART*!

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Rant. On. Internet. on. Art. ....*gerrbrele*

*The Buzzword

I'm sorry.

There has been a lot of talk recently about the decay of method acting in Hollywood. It is now about ego, about visibly showing the dedication to acting, and such displays garner awards. But I think it extends to the audience too. Does knowing Leo went through hellish conditions color your view of his performance?

Let me ask you this. Imagine that you know nothing about No Man's Sky. You are completely unaware of the procedural generation. You have no clue there are 16 quintillion planets. You have no idea it was made by 4 people. All you know about the game is what's presented as you play… as far as you are concerned this planet you start on was created like any other space in video games.

Would you still be impressed?

I would be fucking FLOORED. Seriously, you can just point yourself in a direction and walk. For hours. And there will constantly be new things popping up all around you to explore. Designing a single world of that size in the traditional way would have taken someone years upon years to complete. And then you go into space and there aren't just more worlds in your system to visit, but billions of other systems!?!! Holy fuck. Ho-leee fuuuuuuck.

This game is a watershed moment in video game design. It's a landmark. A triumph. An incredible achievement.

And - contrary to the very loud hype monsters - it's really, really fun.