So in my own way I am trying to put my money where my mouth is, but who knows what will come of it. These projects are large and time consuming and real life demands take their toll you know? But I'm enjoying the process (particularly writing the story) so even if it doesn't go anywhere I'll have had fun with it.

Somehow, I don't imagine them getting along well enough to make a game. :P

Oh but if they could figure it out! Reach for the stars, yo

Well, we could at least get a reality show out of it.

Narrated by Korny.

If only Levi's version of Halo 4 had been made instead of the real one.

RIGHT? I forget I played that steaming pile of a game.

I think Cody and Levi should run a team and make a game. Madness, you say? Fortune favors the bold, friends.

Or even a concept work. Like what Levi did with Halo 4.

Perhaps people have spent so long in the virtual world they've forgotten how the real one looks.***

True of many many other things as well, both physical and emotional :-p

All of the best games that I ever worked on started as very small teams until the core engine, gameplay, story, and main missions were in place, and the side missions (depending on the game type) were at least decided upon. At that point the teams would expand from like 5 or 6 people to 150.

I'm not sure immersion is solely driven by graphical quality or better physics. More realistic? Sure. But there are a ton of games that are immensely immersive that don't rely on photo realistic graphics or making sure that shit bounces around in a realistic way.

Compare the visual richness of Frozen to Steamboat Whillie.

Similarly, graphical power in games (as well as what that implies about power for other systems) does not mean 'exactly like reality.'

There was a little thread on HBO about this. The video meanders a bit and isn't as effective as it could be, but the point is that a lot of the narrative of game visuals over the last decade has been towards this 'realistic' goal and not only is that a bit of a fool's errand, it's artistically limiting and not especially interesting.**

A game doesn't have to look exactly like the real world, but light bouncing around in a manner consistent with real-world physics can enrich the simulation and introduce interesting mechanics that simply couldn't be done before.

e.g. the game this forum is dedicated to has great real-time shadows that can serve as a tell for enemies coming around a corner before you see them. In Halo 1 you'd either have to hear them or stick your head out first.

EDIT:

**I saw a good comparison shot between a Ferrari in Forza 5 and the same model in real life. The one in Forza 5 was 'hyper-real' if anything: exaggerated shadows, perfect reflections and highlights that simply can't be seen in real life. Perhaps people have spent so long in the virtual world they've forgotten how the real one looks.***

***Anyone know the FreddieW/RocketJump channel on YouTube? They're known for short, special-effects focused videos. One of their videos features freddie with the palm of his hands on fire. Lots of comments decry the effect as 'cheap-looking' and 'fake', but it was actually real fire. :D

Name an "indie" game that has significantly advanced the artform or been extremely influential for the better.

Define "Significantly advanced the artform".

Is the advancement measured in meters? Seconds? Meters per second? Is there even an SI unit to measure the progress of art? Has the advancement of art been quantized? If one artist claims they have advanced the artform, can this be independently proven by other laboratories? Does the advancement of art have a journal, and is it subject to peer review?

Should I stop playing Dungeons & Dragons because I can imagine someone could run a campaign or play a character better than I?

In a sense. I would try to seek out the best DM you can find. You'd have to admit the experience is better with a good DM than with a bad one. I would definitely refuse to play with someone who is unimaginative.

I and my group were having fun when I DMed. I was nowhere near the best DM imaginable. I would say I was good, because it was fun, and the purpose was mainly just having fun. We might have had less fun with a better DM, because of a relative lack of camaraderie, or them wanting to run a campaign that wasn't as much to the players' liking. But if I was good because it was fun, and they were agreed to be a better DM because of experience, imagination, and storytelling acumen, which are agreed upon good qualities of DMs, but less fun was had because I was a better fit for the group, what's up with that?

The perceived quality of a DM is partly dependent on the players involved, too.

The perceived quality of a game is, I would say, similarly partly dependent on the player(s) of it.

Does any quality but the perceived quality matter? Can one truly judge something with no input from the way they perceive it?

Should I stop playing Dungeons & Dragons because I can imagine someone could run a campaign or play a character better than I?

In a sense. I would try to seek out the best DM you can find. You'd have to admit the experience is better with a good DM than with a bad one. I would definitely refuse to play with someone who is unimaginative.

I would say it's an interactive vehicle intended to lead to gratification of some kind. I'd imagine that gratification is generally enjoyment.

Games don't have to be immersive; many are. They don't have to seek a pinnacle experience; many are mediocre and fully aware of it.

I don't need to study art history because you are wrong on the very face of it.

On a tangent, one should gauge a game's quality on what it delivers, how it delivers it, and the variation (or lack thereof) throughout the game.

But because one of the ways you gauge a game is by the reaction it elicits, it means that a game's quality is, in part, subjective. So you can't just objectively state "This game is better than that one"; you just can't. So you can't say that Super Meat Boy is pointless because there's better or more influential games in existence; it's a game that plenty of people enjoy. That in itself justifies its existence. That's what it's doing for the medium.

It's existing, and being good. Hell, even if a game is just a big "okay", then that's fine. Someone out there will enjoy it. It isn't hurting the industry just because it isn't doing anything in and of itself to significantly help it. Because most games aren't incredibly innovative or commonly agreed upon to be the pinnacle of a genre or anything. But if none of them existed, the industry would suffer. Good, but not particularly remarkable games have to exist. Something has to be the bulk that makes up most of a type of artwork. The idea that they all have to be striving for the pinnacle is snobbish. Does every book have to aim to be the best in its genre? Should they even, when that is quite clearly not going to happen for most of them? Should someone who feels they can't write a better fantasy story than the Lord of the Rings just not write fantasy?

Should I stop playing Dungeons & Dragons because I can imagine someone could run a campaign or play a character better than I?

Have I done enough reductio ad absurdum via rhetorical questions yet?

I also don't think anyone agrees with you here because nobody here thinks of games strictly as an immersive artform seeking some pinnacle experience.

LOL. That's exactly what games are. If you think otherwise… I think you need to study art history more.

I either just realized you have a sense of humor, or you need to leave the house more often.

We live in hope!

I also don't think anyone agrees with you here because nobody here thinks of games strictly as an immersive artform seeking some pinnacle experience.

LOL. That's exactly what games are. If you think otherwise… I think you need to study art history more.