Then make your film with nothing but black accompanying the audio.

lol

Ok, valid.

I'm sure there quite a few good radio stories that are excellent exactly because the listener can't see exactly what is going and relies only on description. Kind of like books.

Then make your film with nothing but black accompanying the audio.

A-hem

Just to make sure you know, when Cody said "2.5D FPS", he was referring to games like Doom and Marathon. The Z axis is semi-faked in those engines. Modern FPS engines based on fully 3d geometry can easily be used to emulate Doom and Marathon, but the reverse isn't true. Marathon may feel very 3d in-game, but there's a lot of stuff it flat-out can't process; you'll notice that no Marathon levels have bridges in them, for instance (or at least not bridges where the people on the bridge can look out at people walking under the bridge).

These ancient 2.5D portal-based engines do have one advantage, in that they have completely native support for placing rooms on top of each other. This allows you to do some silly "non-Euclidean" stuff if you so choose. But there are a number of reasons that people very rarely use that functionality, and you can emulate it seamlessly in modern engines anyway.

A-hem

Oh dear, that's both awesome and something I want to stay far away from… assuming my world has depth… :p

So, radio plays may exist, but they aren't on the cutting edge.

I agree there, but only because I know no particular modern radio stories. Maybe if I did I could weigh in my opinion better.

Look up the BBC's Drama of the Week podcast. One new modern radio drama with decent sound effects and voice acting per week. Beyond that discounting radio stories strikes me as wrong because some of my favorite stories of all time were radio dramas. HHGttG was an awesome radio drama. So were ilovebees and Sadie's Story. Just because something isn't popular with the general public doesn't mean its not good.

Sure they are still around, but none of them are on the cutting edge of art anymore, simply because better more capable forms came to replace them. The folks actually pushing the boundaries of art are naturally choosing the mediums that allow them to do so.

Mostly agree there.

Film is better than radio, since film can do everything radio can PLUS MORE.

I'm sure there quite a few good radio stories that are excellent exactly because the listener can't see exactly what is going and relies only on description. Kind of like books.

3D first person shooters are better than 2.5D first person shooters, because a 3D FPS can do everything a 2.5D FPS can do PLUS MORE.

A-hem

So, radio plays may exist, but they aren't on the cutting edge.

I agree there, but only because I know no particular modern radio stories. Maybe if I did I could weigh in my opinion better.

Games and film will never replace each other, since each can do things the other can't.

Now, you know that's not true. Refer to Metal Gear Solid 4 for explanation.

3D first person shooters are better than 2.5D first person shooters, because a 3D FPS can do everything a 2.5D FPS can do PLUS MORE.

Games and film will never replace each other, since each can do things the other can't.

Your analogy is shooting itself in the foot. Horribly. All these examples of media which include all of the technological capabilities of another medium and therefore stamp it out?

Games can play back scripted imagery in sync with scripted sound. Real-time graphical power considerations aside (and even that is rapidly becoming a smaller and smaller gap), their capabilities completely encompass those of film, while also allowing interactivity to affect things.

The reason that games won't stamp out films is because those weirdo non-interactive games that people call "films" aren't intrinsically inferior on account of reducing the technical features. Not because each medium can do things the other cannot.

If you really want to argue that a distinction arises on account of techniques used by developers in each field tending to be somewhat different to better suit the different capabilities available, I'd reply by pointing out that that's true of literally every single example you've brought up. Like, in practical terms, people developing within Doomlike shooter engines tend to use totally different design techniques than people developing within newer engines.

Few old art forms ever really die out, but they can become much less attractive business propositions.

Seriously? When was the last time you heard a radio drama? It died out, because film is superior in that it can do all of what the radio drama does AND MORE. Photography killed realistic painting. Art forms are replaced by things all the time.

And then:

Sure they are still around, but none of them are on the cutting edge of art anymore

This has been: Quotes in which Cody Miller rails against Claim A only to turn around and make Claim A.

Every single one of your examples still exist. The only "however" is exactly what narc said: "[they've] become much less attractive business propositions".

Sure they are still around, but none of them are on the cutting edge of art anymore, simply because better more capable forms came to replace them. The folks actually pushing the boundaries of art are naturally choosing the mediums that allow them to do so.

Film is better than radio, since film can do everything radio can PLUS MORE.
3D first person shooters are better than 2.5D first person shooters, because a 3D FPS can do everything a 2.5D FPS can do PLUS MORE.

So, radio plays may exist, but they aren't on the cutting edge.

Games and film will never replace each other, since each can do things the other can't.

All of those artforms still exist and are still active in one form or another. Though Video "killed" the Radio Star, Radio, someone still loves you.

Art is very much self-referential and inspires itself and other forms of art.

Artform != the sum of it's parts

Few old art forms ever really die out, but they can become much less attractive business propositions.

Seriously? When was the last time you heard a radio drama? It died out, because film is superior in that it can do all of what the radio drama does AND MORE. Photography killed realistic painting. Art forms are replaced by things all the time.

Remember the 2.5D FPS, such as doom and marathon? They got replaced with real 3D FPS games and we never looked back.

Lol. More evidence for Hollywood envy in the game's industry. The ESRB rating thing in the beginning is even done up like the MPAA ratings before trailers, green background and all…

It's even cut like a movie trailer! A lot of cutscenes in there for a 'gameplay' trailer!

if you're saying ACTIVISION might have Hollywood envy, you may be right. Although mostly I think what they have is a desire to be seen as much more responsible for the creative content of the games they publish than they really are, not necessarily a desire to be seen more like films. That game trailers should ape the techniques of film trailers just seems to be like low-hanging fruit, not evidence of some deep insecurity.

It's projection. The film industry would like to think of the video game industry as deeply envious.

I can easily imagine that when film itself started to incorporate dialogue and linear narratives instead of just being clips of people sneezing and horses running, critics exclaimed that these pretentious twats should just go write a book.

Few old art forms ever really die out, but they can become much less attractive business propositions. It's not hard to imagine someday when Hollywood blockbusters are the entertainment industry equivalent of trade paperbacks.

...what the balance of power is in the Bungie/Activision relationship.

Cus as far as I'm concerned, Bungie doesn't really need help doing marketing for their games. So why are Activision making trailers and running social streams for them?

Activision has control over marketing (not what Bungie does but putting out any marketing they want) from what I understand that's about all they have control over. Bungie has complete control over the game and Activision can market it as they want is how I understand what I've read.

Cus as far as I'm concerned, Bungie doesn't really need help doing marketing for their games. So why are Activision making trailers and running social streams for them?

I'm so proud of everything the Bungie team has created and produced. The trailer was made by Activision marketing, not Bungie.
- Marty O'Donnell (@MartyTheElder)
June 11, 2013

I love it when a dev calls out their publisher like that.

But we're not even talking about games specifically in this case. This wasn't a game. This was a game TRAILER. The amount of times these have been interactive is very, very small, so they made it look as visually appealing as possible, in a manner which is very, very common. There's only so much gameplay which pushes a world and a "feeling" of a game to players. Usually this is in the form of explosions. I don't see where the problem here is.

A new meaning to POV pr0n

Why do that WHEN YOU CAN JUST DO IT. GAHHH.

Haha.