Cassiel wrote:Interesting. I was only disgusted by writing code until I actually started writing code. Then it gave me a hard-on. There are parallels here to girls* and cooties, I think.
* Or boys. Whatever boats your float.
Oh, don't you worry 'bout me, make the best out of it for yourself, I enjoy that thought. Frankly, I can't imagine how I'd factor in that way, my talents are whimsical and irresponsible, I don't trust/rely on myself, how would you, it would break my heart if I was in the way of your success; i'm sure I would. Whatever I had to tell technically fundamental, I probably could within a day, and it is likely you already know, at latest by that time, even something better, since you have no reason to isolate competence. I'm convinced you'd have an easier time and more promising outlook starting out on your own than fiddling with my shit. And in terms of general ideas I'm sure you have already more than you could possible do. Also, at my 31 years, I feel settled and at peace, even if it is on nothing and alone. You should really save that money and effort for someone qualified, instead of throwing it into the bonfire of an old dog who's not about new tricks in a new world. =))Cassiel wrote:Yeah but if I get my own company off the ground I'll drag you over on an H1B.
Cassiel wrote:Other than the way they marketed the SC2 editor and the idea of an app store for mods, I can't recall any transparently evil behavior from Blizzard. So despite their many recent shortcomings, I'd like to see them succeed (creatively, that is -- they're doing just fine financially).
RAV wrote:I spoke earlier of how some of the "inaccuracies" that are so easily possible in the freedom of pixelart are what I see as its defining strength, relative to voxels. Isn't it funny how often doing it "wrong" is precisely the right thing to do to make it look oddly good? These things are defined by being exceptional decisions, sometimes deliberately towards a higher purpose, sometimes inexplainably made from the gut feeling of the artist. Like, "maybe this lightning here on this part of the image is not as perfectly as it 'should' be, but it looks much better breaking it differently" or "I want to repurpose this form here". Basically the true brilliance of an exceptional judgement is what can't be replicated technically when lightning must be done dynamicly, because the computer does not have the human sensibility, only use simple rules of "truth", and apply it everywhere the same.
After a fight tooth-and-nail for forty years, he did succeed in knowing an apple, fully; and, not quite as fully, a jug or two. That was all he achieved. It seems little, and he died embittered. But it is the first step that counts, and Cezanne's apple is a great deal, more than Plato's Idea. . . .
If Cezanne had been willing to accept his own baroque cliché, his drawing would have been perfectly conventionally "all right," and not a critic would have had a word to say about it. But when his drawing was conventionally all right, to Cezanne himself it was mockingly all wrong, it was cliché. So he flew at it and knocked all the shape and stuffing out of it, and when it was so mauled that it was all wrong, and he was exhausted with it, he let it go; bitterly, because it was still not what he wanted. And here comes in the comic element in Cezanne's pictures. His rage with the cliché made him distort the cliché sometimes into parody. . . .
He wanted to express something, and before he could do it he had to fight the hydra-headed cliché, whose last head he could never lop off. The fight with the cliché is the most obvious thing in his pictures. The dust of battle rises thick, and splinters fly wildly. And it is this dust of battle and flying splinters which his imitators still so fervently imitate. . . . I am convinced that what Cezanne himself wanted was representation. He wanted true-to-life representation. Only he wanted it more true-to-life. . . .
Try as he might, women remained a known, ready-made cliché object for him, and he could not break through the concept obsession to get at the intuitive awareness of her. Except with his wife -- and in his wife he did at least know the appleyness. . . . With men Cezanne often dodged it by insisting on the clothes, those stiff cloth jackets bent into thick folds, those hats, those blouses, those curtains. . . .
Where Cezanne did sometimes escape the cliché altogether and really give a complete intuitive interpretation of actual objects is in some of the still-life compositions. . . . Here he is inimitable. His imitators imitate his accessories of tablecloths folded like tin, etc. -- the unreal parts of his pictures -- but they don't imitate the pots and apples, because they can't. It's the real appleyness, and you can't imitate it. Every man must create it new and different out of himself: new and different. The moment it looks "like" Cezanne, it is nothing.
Ryzel wrote:Coincidentally, have you heard of Chain World? What are your thoughts on that?
Cassiel wrote:RAV, D.H. Lawrence on Cezanne:
Ryzel wrote:It seems to me from what I've read that what you're looking for in a game is similar to what others look for in art forms everywhere; the spark of humanity. That's a pretty profound concept to be motivated by, especially in the world of gaming that is becoming more and more overrun by the tenets of our current generation. Not only that, you seem to be looking for it anywhere in the process you can find it; from game theory to game design to game experience. You definitely are putting in the effort to look for it, and I wish you the best in finding it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest