"ASK JJB" - Video PODCAST Q&As: See 1st post/1st page for full list

[InGroove2]

Originally Posted by Ashpolt

What I meant was that EULAs (generally) tell you that, legally, the software you're installing is a service, not a product. You may want to define it as a product, but the people selling - sorry, leasing - it to you don't.

no kidding? had no idea. despite any advantage they might get from defining it as such... seems like a tactic more than a straight definition. anyway. i see what you're saying. point taken.

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by VectorM

What about famous paintings, that were ordered by rich aristocrats?

It depends on whether those rich aristocrats made any decisions on how the painting was made, or if decisions about the painting were made specifically to appease the rich aristocrats.

Originally Posted by Jerion

I think James Swallow might like a word with you.

Really? Judging from his comments in his thread, I think he'd agree with me! He's said a number of times that his goal wasn't to create a fantastic work of art, just to create something enjoyable and readable - and get paid in the process.

[Jerion]

We're getting OT, so let's wrap this tangent up quickly.

I guess it depends on the use of the word 'art'. Is creating something enjoyable a- while getting paid -- mutually exclusive with creating art? It would seem by your comments that whether or not something is considered art depends on the purpose behind the nature of alterations to the creator's vision.

[Darthassin]

Kyle, please upload another "Ask JJB" video.

[Ashpolt]

In the interests of wrapping up, as you suggest, I'll summarise:

IMO, artistic vision is incompatible with decisions made on external factors, such as money. To be art, something needs to be have a purity of vision: it needs to be created solely out of the creator's desire to make the work and communicate through it. If decisions are made based on what's going to sell best, or what people want to see, then that vision is compromised and the work can no longer be art, even though it can still have elements of the artistic.

[Viktoria]

Originally Posted by Vladimyre

No bee costume yet though.
V

I know, I'm very sad.

JJB, be our honey bee.

[AgentOrange]

Before I saw JJB's podcast on Adam's name (when seeing the title), I already thought I knew the answer. Actually, I was sure it was a reference to "Shooter", the old version of Deus Ex. But then I learned that they got the name randomly

I read a document about how Warren Spector found his ideas and what stuff did he cut from Deus Ex maybe a year ago on internet. In this old version, the antagonist's name was Adam.

EDIT: I didn't found the exact link but I found a website link with the same document... But I guess it's getter for you since the original one was a "notepad" document with small font and without images making it hard to read after a while

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...ms_deus_ex.php

[-=fox=-]

Originally Posted by Zakka

Totally agree. Fox you're exegarating and taking things out of context. I just see some devs having fun, you see them laughing directly at you/the community.

Ok, first of all, my comments may come off more angry then I really am about the blue-comment. Nonetheless, I don't think I've taken anything out of context here - it was a comment meant to make fun of us people who keep criticizing their decisions, with the color palette as an example. Yeah, it was meant to be taken lightly but I didn't because it came at the wrong time.
I have seen pretty much all the stuff that has been released so far and based on that I still think it's going to be a real issue and I personally have a thing for the cold blueish DX1-style anyway. I think it fits the cyberpunk-setting way better so that's also a personal thing adding to the the more objective "it's going to be too unbalanced and artificial"-thing. And then there was the latest gameplay-trailer that left me very disappointed because it gave me with the impression of IW-like fail. That Ask JJB episode just came at a pretty inappropriate time for me and I'll feel free to comment whenever I feel they adressed matters, I had a part in.

[VectorM]

Originally Posted by Ashpolt

IMO, artistic vision is incompatible with decisions made on external factors, such as money. To be art, something needs to be have a purity of vision: it needs to be created solely out of the creator's desire to make the work and communicate through it.

Well, the Sistine Chapel isn't art then, since the only reason Michelangelo started the entire thing, was the Pope insisting on it (the Pope is one of the most powerful figures in Europe at the time, if not THE most powerful). Not only that, but Michelangelo didn't like painting and he thought it was an inferior medium. For him, sculptures were where the "real" art was at.

[Srosa]

Originally Posted by MyImmortal

I know, I'm very sad.

JJB, be our honey bee.

Don't tell me: you're gonna be the flower? LOL!!!

[H.D.Case]

Originally Posted by VectorM

Well, the Sistine Chapel isn't art then, since the only reason Michelangelo started the entire thing, was the Pope insisting on it (the Pope is one of the most powerful figures in Europe at the time, if not THE most powerful). Not only that, but Michelangelo didn't like painting and he thought it was an inferior medium. For him, sculptures were where the "real" art was at.

Darn, I forgot about this thread. Of course I am all with Ashpolt on this. They provide us entertainment, so they are entertainers. Such people provide services, of different kind. The game may have artistic elements, like how the world is painted, how the items look, how the guns look even, how the dialogues are contructed, how the game uses intetextualism etc. Games also have many non-artistic elements, like shooting, or the process of clicking and the like. I know that many compulsive gamers like to pretend they participate in high culture, it works on self-esteem all right, but the gaming industry is far from that. Plus, when you play, you rarely notice as much as you see on screenshots - you focus on the non-artistic gameplay, the background is not your focus, you can't deny that. You may do it, but usually you don't. And as Ashpolt already noted, even the makers themselves see their work as service, hence the form of the agreements.

About what you said Vector, there was only one receiver of the work, however powerful he was, and the maker painted the chapel according to the expectations. He didn't do something like, "Together with Adam, I will paint Satan instead of the God, hahaha, this is my painting, not yours! So I decide." No. He painted something that would gain the approval of the pope. AAAANNND, he didn't think "oh, the majority of people seeing this won't notice those subtle elements I put there. Here, lemme highlight it a bit, so that the dark matter will get it too! voila!" Do you imagine anything analogous? If an artist were to single out each element of his work, he would be treated condescendingly at best!

[Rainbow6Team]

Heres a question:Can we perform lethal and non-lethal on random NPCs just for lulz?

[VectorM]

Originally Posted by H.D.Case

About what you said Vector, there was only one receiver of the work, however powerful he was, and the maker painted the chapel according to the expectations. He didn't do something like, "Together with Adam, I will paint Satan instead of the God, hahaha, this is my painting, not yours! So I decide." No. He painted something that would gain the approval of the pope. AAAANNND, he didn't think "oh, the majority of people seeing this won't notice those subtle elements I put there. Here, lemme highlight it a bit, so that the dark matter will get it too! voila!" Do you imagine anything analogous? If an artist were to single out each element of his work, he would be treated condescendingly at best!

IMO, artistic vision is incompatible with decisions made on external factors, such as money.

Michelangelo would not have started the entire thing at all if it wasn't for the Pope. The entire thing would not exist today, if it wasn't for an external decision.

To be art, something needs to be have a purity of vision: it needs to be created solely out of the creator's desire to make the work and communicate through it.

You can't say that this applied to Michelangelo, since, he simply didn't like painting. You can't have a purity of vision, when you are accepting to do work that you don't like. He had NO desire to make paintings. The only reason the Sistine Chapel painting exists, is because Michelangelo was paid by a Pope, who usually got what he wanted (we are talking about a "War Pope" here, the type of guy you don't say "NO" to).

[Shralla]

I really hope that people realize that most of what is regarded as the best art to come out of the Renaissance was only done under the offer of money. Anything religious in nature was done for money, that's almost a 100% fact.

[mentalkase]

Originally Posted by Shralla

I really hope that people realize that most of what is regarded as the best art to come out of the Renaissance was only done under the offer of money. Anything religious in nature was done for money, that's almost a 100% fact.

I almost pointed that out, but actually I think in terms of the modern definition of art I think Ashpolt is actually pretty on the money.

[JCpie]

Originally Posted by Shralla

I really hope that people realize that most of what is regarded as the best art to come out of the Renaissance was only done under the offer of money. Anything religious in nature was done for money, that's almost a 100% fact.

I think that.... THAT'S A GREAT NUMBER.

[Viktoria]

Originally Posted by Srosa

Don't tell me: you're gonna be the flower? LOL!!!

Of course! What's the matter with you?!

[VectorM]

Originally Posted by mentalkase

I almost pointed that out, but actually I think in terms of the modern definition of art I think Ashpolt is actually pretty on the money.

And what is the modern definition of art?

[Ashpolt]

Originally Posted by Shralla

I really hope that people realize that most of what is regarded as the best art to come out of the Renaissance was only done under the offer of money. Anything religious in nature was done for money, that's almost a 100% fact.

I honestly didn't know that - I can't claim to have a huge knowledge of the history of art. To be honest though, I stick with my definition, even if that does exclude some of what are traditionally called "the greats" - if this topic has shown nothing else, it's that the definition of art is highly subjective!

[mentalkase]

Originally Posted by VectorM

And what is the modern definition of art?

Definition is the wrong term, it's more the modern perception of art. In the middle ages artists were regarded as nothing more than artisans, just another part of a team that would be involved in the production of a church etc, later in the renaissance they came to have more prominence, with the best in the service of kings and popes, still painting what they were expected to though, with little freedom to create whatever they wanted. It's only been in the last couple hundred years that artists have been free to paint whatever they choose to and have that be treated as important as their commissions, to the point that now an artists commissions are often treated as being their bread-and-butter and their more personal work being perceived as the 'real art'. I think it's fair to say that art created for solely commercial purposes with no personal vision involved is usually thought of as commercial art rather than high art.

[3rdmillhouse]

Originally Posted by BigBoss

My one and only question:

Will we have the option to toggle highlighting?

please say yes

Don't count on it.

[Neuromancer07]

Originally Posted by Pretentious Old Man.

My JC simply refused to rob the general public.

You're forgetting that the bank terminals were all owned by some subsidiary of Page Industries (I think Page Banking or something similar to that) and given identity theft, insurance and banking legislation you'd actually be depriving his corporation of income, 250 credits at a time...

"Sir, a dozen of your banking terminals are experiencing a statistically insignificant additional slippage."
"Then I must merge with Helios!"

[Viktoria]

Returning to topic, latest Tweet:

Ask JJB will return next week, but until then, here are all the episodes so far. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...2BD145FC8D2A74
34 minutes ago via TweetDeck

Any more questions to be added to the list on first page of this thread? Did you ask one but it was omitted (sorry)?
If so, fire away.

[Shralla]

Given the latest outcry from the fanbase regarding the highlighting of usable objects, have you considered changing the functionality of any features of the game in the five months before release?

[Viktoria]

Originally Posted by Shralla

Given the latest outcry from the fanbase regarding the highlighting of usable objects, have you considered changing the functionality of any features of the game in the five months before release?

Your question added to summary on first page.