splinter cell

I’ve been resisting posting about Roger Ebert ever since he’s become as silly as those Epic-Verse aficionados Aristotle dissects in Poetics but following. I decided it was inevitable I’d have a crack. Except I now realise I don’t have to. Following - where I steal Dapple’s splendid line for this post’s title - The Bag links to. Which despite dating from August. I hadn’t read before. I probably should have because it’s extensive elegant and intricate. Also - whisper it - agreeably bolshy. “If Haggis’ Best Picture winning Crash was 100 hours long and contained 100 different interconnected plots all echoing the same themes of racial tension from different perspectives would it suddenly lose its status as art? It probably wouldn’t be a very good movie because 100 hours of movie is painful. In any case no matter how long you make Crash you will never fully explore the domain of the themes of racial tension in modern America. 100 hours is just 50x what the movie already offers and is no closer to the infinite depth of the theme than is the existing 2 hour film. GTA: San Andreas on the other hand – which I played for a good 100 hours or so gave me such a world transforming view of racial tension and inequity in early 1990’s California that I have been shaken to the core and have been forced to re-examine a huge part of my world view.” On the same topic which I think still stands up and explains that Poetics bit in the intro if you’re wondering if That Gillen Guy has gone and went a bit funny in the head again. I have very little experience with Hitman and I haven’t seen the movie but I found two things very interesting about that review. First if Tom Francis’s wonderful “Blood Money and Sex” article is to be believed (http://www kfj f2s com/index php/2006-09-23-blood-money-and-sex) then all the aspects of 47’s character that Ebert praised are lifted straight from the games. Second. Ebert criticises the movies for the high body-count and blames it on the franchise’s game heritage. Since Hitman is a stealth game that generally encourages you to avoid or at least temper extraneous killings might the load of killing be an attempt to pander to action movie people and not game fans? ‘Other scenes which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors an automatic weapon in each hand,…/…These scenes are no doubt from the video game.’ ‘He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he’s going to land and that feels like he’s cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game.’ For those unenlightened. Hitman is about none of these things. It is about killing as ‘few’ people as you can before getting the target not wracking up a massive kill count. Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you. Ever heard of ‘professional research’? Because I don’t think you have. “If you can go through “every emotional journey available,” doesn’t that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion not a smorgasbord of choices.” Oh that infuriates me. Tolkien would’ve shredded him for that. Inevitable conclusion? That’s ridiculous. I wonder if he really meant to say something so inane. “Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you.” As far as art is concerned though lots of very popular games really are just violent and destructive drivel - including Hitman. Gears of War. Unreal 3. Manhunt. Crysis gets a 9 in Edge and all kinds of praise on here yet where is the appeal if you take away its adolescent fixation on entertaining violence and destruction? Look at what videogames do to the likes of The Godfather. Reservoir Dogs and John Woo (in Stranglehold) - awful awful games bastardising highly respected works of cinema with no redeeming features other than guess what? Brainless videogamey violence. I think these kind of debates always end up with too many defensive gamers whipping out the rose-tined specs. People like Ebert are obviously in the wrong regarding the potential of the medium but to be honest I don’t completely blame them for their mistake. The games industry is still churning out way too much embarassing drivel to give the real substance and art any mainstream attention. You say that yet look at the types of films that are released each year. The mere fact that there *is* a Hitman is testimony to the comparison that is inevitably drawn against the two mediums. Hitman is the game equivalent of an action film and it is an above average one in my own personal opinion as it has a complex story line and deviates from the typical ‘go in with guns blazing approach’. Despite this there are good films being made and likewise there are good games being made. The only reason that there is perceived to be a difference at the moment is because games have not yet been recognised. If games were considered an art form something like Bioshock would have received much more attention and praise and as it was it did very well critically. Arguably due to the large amount of films being made every year in comparison to games there is more crap in the film industry than there is in the game industry but that’s a whole other topic. Clint’s article is quite interesting and well written. However it seems to me that in Crash he picked a pretty easy target to compare negatively to games. In fact. I don’t think it should even be necessary to include comparisons to specific movies. All that is needed is the analysis (which he does very well) of games as art. Yet again. Kieron your article expresses a point I’ve been trying to make to a number of my friends for quite some time (and far more eloquently than I’ve ever been able to). More mass-emailing material methinks. I’m sadly disappointed with Mr. Ebert’s stance on games. For a man with such an excellent grounding in film he’d make a seriously impressive opponent for a game’s-as-art debate if only he’d take the whole thing seriously. As it is he’s just whitewashing and generalising and clearly hasn’t done his homework on the matter. Shame really. One of the more thought provoking articles on the whole “are games art” issue. Good read and thanks for posting. Kieron. Though I’ve often felt that this need of ours to have our hobby recognized as an art form stems more from insecurity than from anything else. After all once “interactive media” (puke) get recognized for art won’t we at last be part of society again? Will we at last get the respect we deserve for beeing so passionate about our hobby? Games are enterainment pure and simple. That in itself should be merit enough. If you believe Huizinga all aspects of our culture have their roots in games. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about redefining the word “game” than trying to tack on yet another word to it? Let Game be a word tha stands for itself. Talk about all the great things games can do how they can be used to train to explain to experiment. Show people how the basic rules that underly all games can be applied to look at the world around us. Games predate art. Before there was any kind of art we played games every art there is evolved from people playing. Our systems of law and governance have their roots in games theater and sports evolved from games. Religious practices have their foundation in games. Mammals are different from other animals because they play. And humans are different from other mammals because we continue to play games after we’ve grown up. Ebert and the rest can debate about wether games are or aren’t art until hell freezes over. The best thing you can say about games is that they are games. (Note to self: Improve my written english skills so I don’t have to bite my keyboard in frustration because I’m not able to get my point across the way I’d like to. But I hope you get what I’m trying to say). Anyway while Ebert clearly deserves respect. I doubt he plays modern games much if at all thus largely invalidating his opinions on the matter I’d think. Back when Bioshock came out trying to package this very debate for digestion by a non-geek audience. Needless to say. I don’t think it was terribly well read. Anyhow. I’m only posting the link for the sake of full disclosure as Clint shoots down most of the ideas I thought were “totally rad” with the nonchalance expected when shooing away an insect. In other words you really shouldn’t bother wading through it. The point I’d still stand by though is that games are ultimately designed for no other reason than to make money. While I absolutely agree with his “paintmaker” thought experiment any kind of artistic content a game has is there for one reason only: to help it sell copies. It’s like an appealing label on a cereal box designed to catch the eye of children of a certain age demographic. But why can’t there be a kind of artistry in that? Well maybe there can but it’s certainly not “high art,” which I think is what this debate (and Clint definitely) is stabbing at. Oh and if you do (for some reason) decide to read my pabulum know that it was rather brutally “edited for length,” and “contains spoilers.” The one edit I feel the need to point out is near the end where I crib a Keaton/Bergman analogy from somewhere (I think it was Clive Barker but can’t remember anymore) and my acknowledgment of that was axed apparently because I didn’t steal enough of it. Hmm. I’ve read the rebuttal from Clint Hocking and I’m not so sure that its any more logically sound than the arguments he rebuts. Its late and my little girl sounds like she’s going to want feeding so I’m not going to take it apart line by line but heres a small example: “I think it would remain clear that I was an artist for having created ‘paints that constrained the set of possible paintings achievable to those that dealt with a set of themes I had chosen’. ” I don’t think that this is clear at all. The act of placing constraints of what can be accomplished with your creation does not per se makes it art. Its not a direct causal relationship by any means. To use a subset of his own symphony analogy. The creator of a musical instrument say a violin has made something that can be used for creation within some fairly rigid constraints imposed by the nature of the violin. Yet not all violins can be seen in themselves as an expression of art. A Stradivarius maybe a work of art whole and entire in and of itself. But most violins are not. They are at best works of great craft and skill. At worst mass produced tat. a) Games can be art just as any act of creation can be but aren’t automatically so b) the vast majority of games are not art c & d) repeat a and b with the word ‘films’ in place of ‘games’. I’m just not convinced that Mr. Hocking actually did anything to actually rebut the equally floored arguments of Ebert. Which is a bit of a shame. Were I are to take Ebert to task. I would think that there is a case to be made that interaction is a primary essential facet of what we call art. That interaction may be as simple as looking or as complex as drawing the bow just so across a strad or even crafting the flow of Darwinians across the face of the fractal maps but the interaction with the user/audiences is. I would argue essential to something being seen as art. And that just for starters. I’m left in the rather annoying position of agreeing with Gillen again (damn it). His take on this was much sounder than Hockings. Although again. Anna Karenina as simulation? Good grief… Great Article. I would throw out a word of caution though; as the Poetics largely explores art as imitation of nature and it’s effects upon the soul the inclusion of Poetics in a discussion of games as art implies that games do in fact have a psychological impact on their audiences. A game which requires or encourages the player to make morally repugnant choices would fulfill the Aristotelian function of habit as expressed in Nichomachean Ethics. Interestingly enough if a game is a simulation rather than art it simply could not have that kind of impact on the human soul. If the game is a simulation then the ratings are unnecessary. If it is art then it is subject to first amendment protection. Huh. I’m thinking that we need people like Ebert telling us that games aren’t art. Every art movement that ever came about started with people saying “no no no you’re wrong” and the other people just argue back trying to prove that they’re right. In a way it’s kind of exciting to even have this argument. I have a tiny peeny weeny sneaking suspicion that Ebert thinks games ARE or could be art and just wants to get people to argue it out until the games are elevated to the highest level… but prooooobably not. It’s like we get to experience the dawning of a new art movement… Maybe they’ll write about it in art history books 50 years from now. Games are in a phase that can be compared to the golden age of cinema: with movie producers having the most control over story setting actors etc. The current situation have a lot in common with the Studio System. Now what we have? a lot of bandwidth some almost affordable game engines a chance to build a studio without actually renting an office thanks to internet and some direct download services that can cut the Ubis and the EAs out of the picture entirely. We have a nicer situation than most of the independent moviemakers of the last century. Also. I think we need our Cahiers du cinéma a relevant game magazine that actually changes the way games are made. But this will be waaaay harder. I always love this chestnut and Kieron you’re right to bring in Harry (Heck. I bring in Harry even when he’s not welcome). Art does not have to involve some bourgeois ideal of making you think Deep Thoughts. The most interesting part of Hocking’s essay is that Ebert’s arguments as represented there could equally be applied to unmistakably artistic films if anyone bothered to do it. (bonus! that discusses a first-person perspective movie with a title derivative of a film penned pseudonymously by Ebert) On the other hand exploitation has a proud tradition in movies too. Hitman’s not any less art than say. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Just as some genres of video games have their little arms races in scenarios (a few years back didn’t half the FPSs on the market have a scene involving a 747?) and contrived plots to match the technology (err we need a supersuit of some kind) so do movies (and they’re neatly summarized for you in any number of “making of” features). But the continual comparison of cinema and video games gets irritating especially for those who don’t know their history. Cinema today is not what cinema was before television. Before television. “going to the movies” meant not just features but cartoons travelogues newsreels even musical interludes. So games don’t have to be the analogue of feature films. And like movies there will be a bulk of “genre pieces” that follow the fashions and make a bunch of the money. But there are also short features concept pieces and quasi-ludic experiences to be had. Bickering over the definition of art has no point. I love this discussion because it’s so utterly pointless the majority of the people who claim something anything to be Art (capitalized but of course) are really rather in fact just lost in their search words to exhibit their appreciation. Art. I happen to study it as practitioner is absolute bullshit it is about artificial- the name inherently implies- anything that is not nature but created by human practise. Some games are some are not. Some paintings are some are not. Quite simple do the world a favor and never refer to something as Art. It devalues the word. Just explain why it’s good according to your opinion.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=650

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I’ve been resisting posting about Roger Ebert ever since he’s become as silly as those Epic-Verse aficionados Aristotle dissects in Poetics but following. I decided it was inevitable I’d have a crack. Except I now realise I don’t have to. Following - where I steal Dapple’s splendid line for this post’s title - The Bag links to. Which despite dating from August. I hadn’t read before. I probably should have because it’s extensive elegant and intricate. Also - whisper it - agreeably bolshy. “If Haggis’ Best Picture winning Crash was 100 hours long and contained 100 different interconnected plots all echoing the same themes of racial tension from different perspectives would it suddenly lose its status as art? It probably wouldn’t be a very good movie because 100 hours of movie is painful. In any case no matter how long you make Crash you will never fully explore the domain of the themes of racial tension in modern America. 100 hours is just 50x what the movie already offers and is no closer to the infinite depth of the theme than is the existing 2 hour film. GTA: San Andreas on the other hand – which I played for a good 100 hours or so gave me such a world transforming view of racial tension and inequity in early 1990’s California that I have been shaken to the core and have been forced to re-examine a huge part of my world view.” On the same topic which I think still stands up and explains that Poetics bit in the intro if you’re wondering if That Gillen Guy has gone and went a bit funny in the head again. I have very little experience with Hitman and I haven’t seen the movie but I found two things very interesting about that review. First if Tom Francis’s wonderful “Blood Money and Sex” article is to be believed (http://www kfj f2s com/index php/2006-09-23-blood-money-and-sex) then all the aspects of 47’s character that Ebert praised are lifted straight from the games. Second. Ebert criticises the movies for the high body-count and blames it on the franchise’s game heritage. Since Hitman is a stealth game that generally encourages you to avoid or at least temper extraneous killings might the load of killing be an attempt to pander to action movie people and not game fans? ‘Other scenes which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors an automatic weapon in each hand,…/…These scenes are no doubt from the video game.’ ‘He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he’s going to land and that feels like he’s cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game.’ For those unenlightened. Hitman is about none of these things. It is about killing as ‘few’ people as you can before getting the target not wracking up a massive kill count. Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you. Ever heard of ‘professional research’? Because I don’t think you have. “If you can go through “every emotional journey available,” doesn’t that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion not a smorgasbord of choices.” Oh that infuriates me. Tolkien would’ve shredded him for that. Inevitable conclusion? That’s ridiculous. I wonder if he really meant to say something so inane. “Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you.” As far as art is concerned though lots of very popular games really are just violent and destructive drivel - including Hitman. Gears of War. Unreal 3. Manhunt. Crysis gets a 9 in Edge and all kinds of praise on here yet where is the appeal if you take away its adolescent fixation on entertaining violence and destruction? Look at what videogames do to the likes of The Godfather. Reservoir Dogs and John Woo (in Stranglehold) - awful awful games bastardising highly respected works of cinema with no redeeming features other than guess what? Brainless videogamey violence. I think these kind of debates always end up with too many defensive gamers whipping out the rose-tined specs. People like Ebert are obviously in the wrong regarding the potential of the medium but to be honest I don’t completely blame them for their mistake. The games industry is still churning out way too much embarassing drivel to give the real substance and art any mainstream attention. You say that yet look at the types of films that are released each year. The mere fact that there *is* a Hitman is testimony to the comparison that is inevitably drawn against the two mediums. Hitman is the game equivalent of an action film and it is an above average one in my own personal opinion as it has a complex story line and deviates from the typical ‘go in with guns blazing approach’. Despite this there are good films being made and likewise there are good games being made. The only reason that there is perceived to be a difference at the moment is because games have not yet been recognised. If games were considered an art form something like Bioshock would have received much more attention and praise and as it was it did very well critically. Arguably due to the large amount of films being made every year in comparison to games there is more crap in the film industry than there is in the game industry but that’s a whole other topic. Clint’s article is quite interesting and well written. However it seems to me that in Crash he picked a pretty easy target to compare negatively to games. In fact. I don’t think it should even be necessary to include comparisons to specific movies. All that is needed is the analysis (which he does very well) of games as art. Yet again. Kieron your article expresses a point I’ve been trying to make to a number of my friends for quite some time (and far more eloquently than I’ve ever been able to). More mass-emailing material methinks. I’m sadly disappointed with Mr. Ebert’s stance on games. For a man with such an excellent grounding in film he’d make a seriously impressive opponent for a game’s-as-art debate if only he’d take the whole thing seriously. As it is he’s just whitewashing and generalising and clearly hasn’t done his homework on the matter. Shame really. One of the more thought provoking articles on the whole “are games art” issue. Good read and thanks for posting. Kieron. Though I’ve often felt that this need of ours to have our hobby recognized as an art form stems more from insecurity than from anything else. After all once “interactive media” (puke) get recognized for art won’t we at last be part of society again? Will we at last get the respect we deserve for beeing so passionate about our hobby? Games are enterainment pure and simple. That in itself should be merit enough. If you believe Huizinga all aspects of our culture have their roots in games. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about redefining the word “game” than trying to tack on yet another word to it? Let Game be a word tha stands for itself. Talk about all the great things games can do how they can be used to train to explain to experiment. Show people how the basic rules that underly all games can be applied to look at the world around us. Games predate art. Before there was any kind of art we played games every art there is evolved from people playing. Our systems of law and governance have their roots in games theater and sports evolved from games. Religious practices have their foundation in games. Mammals are different from other animals because they play. And humans are different from other mammals because we continue to play games after we’ve grown up. Ebert and the rest can debate about wether games are or aren’t art until hell freezes over. The best thing you can say about games is that they are games. (Note to self: Improve my written english skills so I don’t have to bite my keyboard in frustration because I’m not able to get my point across the way I’d like to. But I hope you get what I’m trying to say). Anyway while Ebert clearly deserves respect. I doubt he plays modern games much if at all thus largely invalidating his opinions on the matter I’d think. Back when Bioshock came out trying to package this very debate for digestion by a non-geek audience. Needless to say. I don’t think it was terribly well read. Anyhow. I’m only posting the link for the sake of full disclosure as Clint shoots down most of the ideas I thought were “totally rad” with the nonchalance expected when shooing away an insect. In other words you really shouldn’t bother wading through it. The point I’d still stand by though is that games are ultimately designed for no other reason than to make money. While I absolutely agree with his “paintmaker” thought experiment any kind of artistic content a game has is there for one reason only: to help it sell copies. It’s like an appealing label on a cereal box designed to catch the eye of children of a certain age demographic. But why can’t there be a kind of artistry in that? Well maybe there can but it’s certainly not “high art,” which I think is what this debate (and Clint definitely) is stabbing at. Oh and if you do (for some reason) decide to read my pabulum know that it was rather brutally “edited for length,” and “contains spoilers.” The one edit I feel the need to point out is near the end where I crib a Keaton/Bergman analogy from somewhere (I think it was Clive Barker but can’t remember anymore) and my acknowledgment of that was axed apparently because I didn’t steal enough of it. Hmm. I’ve read the rebuttal from Clint Hocking and I’m not so sure that its any more logically sound than the arguments he rebuts. Its late and my little girl sounds like she’s going to want feeding so I’m not going to take it apart line by line but heres a small example: “I think it would remain clear that I was an artist for having created ‘paints that constrained the set of possible paintings achievable to those that dealt with a set of themes I had chosen’. ” I don’t think that this is clear at all. The act of placing constraints of what can be accomplished with your creation does not per se makes it art. Its not a direct causal relationship by any means. To use a subset of his own symphony analogy. The creator of a musical instrument say a violin has made something that can be used for creation within some fairly rigid constraints imposed by the nature of the violin. Yet not all violins can be seen in themselves as an expression of art. A Stradivarius maybe a work of art whole and entire in and of itself. But most violins are not. They are at best works of great craft and skill. At worst mass produced tat. a) Games can be art just as any act of creation can be but aren’t automatically so b) the vast majority of games are not art c & d) repeat a and b with the word ‘films’ in place of ‘games’. I’m just not convinced that Mr. Hocking actually did anything to actually rebut the equally floored arguments of Ebert. Which is a bit of a shame. Were I are to take Ebert to task. I would think that there is a case to be made that interaction is a primary essential facet of what we call art. That interaction may be as simple as looking or as complex as drawing the bow just so across a strad or even crafting the flow of Darwinians across the face of the fractal maps but the interaction with the user/audiences is. I would argue essential to something being seen as art. And that just for starters. I’m left in the rather annoying position of agreeing with Gillen again (damn it). His take on this was much sounder than Hockings. Although again. Anna Karenina as simulation? Good grief… Great Article. I would throw out a word of caution though; as the Poetics largely explores art as imitation of nature and it’s effects upon the soul the inclusion of Poetics in a discussion of games as art implies that games do in fact have a psychological impact on their audiences. A game which requires or encourages the player to make morally repugnant choices would fulfill the Aristotelian function of habit as expressed in Nichomachean Ethics. Interestingly enough if a game is a simulation rather than art it simply could not have that kind of impact on the human soul. If the game is a simulation then the ratings are unnecessary. If it is art then it is subject to first amendment protection. Huh. I’m thinking that we need people like Ebert telling us that games aren’t art. Every art movement that ever came about started with people saying “no no no you’re wrong” and the other people just argue back trying to prove that they’re right. In a way it’s kind of exciting to even have this argument. I have a tiny peeny weeny sneaking suspicion that Ebert thinks games ARE or could be art and just wants to get people to argue it out until the games are elevated to the highest level… but prooooobably not. It’s like we get to experience the dawning of a new art movement… Maybe they’ll write about it in art history books 50 years from now. Games are in a phase that can be compared to the golden age of cinema: with movie producers having the most control over story setting actors etc. The current situation have a lot in common with the Studio System. Now what we have? a lot of bandwidth some almost affordable game engines a chance to build a studio without actually renting an office thanks to internet and some direct download services that can cut the Ubis and the EAs out of the picture entirely. We have a nicer situation than most of the independent moviemakers of the last century. Also. I think we need our Cahiers du cinéma a relevant game magazine that actually changes the way games are made. But this will be waaaay harder. I always love this chestnut and Kieron you’re right to bring in Harry (Heck. I bring in Harry even when he’s not welcome). Art does not have to involve some bourgeois ideal of making you think Deep Thoughts. The most interesting part of Hocking’s essay is that Ebert’s arguments as represented there could equally be applied to unmistakably artistic films if anyone bothered to do it. (bonus! that discusses a first-person perspective movie with a title derivative of a film penned pseudonymously by Ebert) On the other hand exploitation has a proud tradition in movies too. Hitman’s not any less art than say. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Just as some genres of video games have their little arms races in scenarios (a few years back didn’t half the FPSs on the market have a scene involving a 747?) and contrived plots to match the technology (err we need a supersuit of some kind) so do movies (and they’re neatly summarized for you in any number of “making of” features). But the continual comparison of cinema and video games gets irritating especially for those who don’t know their history. Cinema today is not what cinema was before television. Before television. “going to the movies” meant not just features but cartoons travelogues newsreels even musical interludes. So games don’t have to be the analogue of feature films. And like movies there will be a bulk of “genre pieces” that follow the fashions and make a bunch of the money. But there are also short features concept pieces and quasi-ludic experiences to be had. Bickering over the definition of art has no point. I love this discussion because it’s so utterly pointless the majority of the people who claim something anything to be Art (capitalized but of course) are really rather in fact just lost in their search words to exhibit their appreciation. Art. I happen to study it as practitioner is absolute bullshit it is about artificial- the name inherently implies- anything that is not nature but created by human practise. Some games are some are not. Some paintings are some are not. Quite simple do the world a favor and never refer to something as Art. It devalues the word. Just explain why it’s good according to your opinion.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=650

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I’ve been resisting posting about Roger Ebert ever since he’s become as silly as those Epic-Verse aficionados Aristotle dissects in Poetics but following. I decided it was inevitable I’d have a crack. Except I now realise I don’t have to. Following - where I steal Dapple’s splendid line for this post’s title - The Bag links to. Which despite dating from August. I hadn’t read before. I probably should have because it’s extensive elegant and intricate. Also - whisper it - agreeably bolshy. “If Haggis’ Best Picture winning Crash was 100 hours long and contained 100 different interconnected plots all echoing the same themes of racial tension from different perspectives would it suddenly lose its status as art? It probably wouldn’t be a very good movie because 100 hours of movie is painful. In any case no matter how long you make Crash you will never fully explore the domain of the themes of racial tension in modern America. 100 hours is just 50x what the movie already offers and is no closer to the infinite depth of the theme than is the existing 2 hour film. GTA: San Andreas on the other hand – which I played for a good 100 hours or so gave me such a world transforming view of racial tension and inequity in early 1990’s California that I have been shaken to the core and have been forced to re-examine a huge part of my world view.” On the same topic which I think still stands up and explains that Poetics bit in the intro if you’re wondering if That Gillen Guy has gone and went a bit funny in the head again. I have very little experience with Hitman and I haven’t seen the movie but I found two things very interesting about that review. First if Tom Francis’s wonderful “Blood Money and Sex” article is to be believed (http://www kfj f2s com/index php/2006-09-23-blood-money-and-sex) then all the aspects of 47’s character that Ebert praised are lifted straight from the games. Second. Ebert criticises the movies for the high body-count and blames it on the franchise’s game heritage. Since Hitman is a stealth game that generally encourages you to avoid or at least temper extraneous killings might the load of killing be an attempt to pander to action movie people and not game fans? ‘Other scenes which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors an automatic weapon in each hand,…/…These scenes are no doubt from the video game.’ ‘He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he’s going to land and that feels like he’s cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game.’ For those unenlightened. Hitman is about none of these things. It is about killing as ‘few’ people as you can before getting the target not wracking up a massive kill count. Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you. Ever heard of ‘professional research’? Because I don’t think you have. “If you can go through “every emotional journey available,” doesn’t that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion not a smorgasbord of choices.” Oh that infuriates me. Tolkien would’ve shredded him for that. Inevitable conclusion? That’s ridiculous. I wonder if he really meant to say something so inane. “Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you.” As far as art is concerned though lots of very popular games really are just violent and destructive drivel - including Hitman. Gears of War. Unreal 3. Manhunt. Crysis gets a 9 in Edge and all kinds of praise on here yet where is the appeal if you take away its adolescent fixation on entertaining violence and destruction? Look at what videogames do to the likes of The Godfather. Reservoir Dogs and John Woo (in Stranglehold) - awful awful games bastardising highly respected works of cinema with no redeeming features other than guess what? Brainless videogamey violence. I think these kind of debates always end up with too many defensive gamers whipping out the rose-tined specs. People like Ebert are obviously in the wrong regarding the potential of the medium but to be honest I don’t completely blame them for their mistake. The games industry is still churning out way too much embarassing drivel to give the real substance and art any mainstream attention. You say that yet look at the types of films that are released each year. The mere fact that there *is* a Hitman is testimony to the comparison that is inevitably drawn against the two mediums. Hitman is the game equivalent of an action film and it is an above average one in my own personal opinion as it has a complex story line and deviates from the typical ‘go in with guns blazing approach’. Despite this there are good films being made and likewise there are good games being made. The only reason that there is perceived to be a difference at the moment is because games have not yet been recognised. If games were considered an art form something like Bioshock would have received much more attention and praise and as it was it did very well critically. Arguably due to the large amount of films being made every year in comparison to games there is more crap in the film industry than there is in the game industry but that’s a whole other topic. Clint’s article is quite interesting and well written. However it seems to me that in Crash he picked a pretty easy target to compare negatively to games. In fact. I don’t think it should even be necessary to include comparisons to specific movies. All that is needed is the analysis (which he does very well) of games as art. Yet again. Kieron your article expresses a point I’ve been trying to make to a number of my friends for quite some time (and far more eloquently than I’ve ever been able to). More mass-emailing material methinks. I’m sadly disappointed with Mr. Ebert’s stance on games. For a man with such an excellent grounding in film he’d make a seriously impressive opponent for a game’s-as-art debate if only he’d take the whole thing seriously. As it is he’s just whitewashing and generalising and clearly hasn’t done his homework on the matter. Shame really. One of the more thought provoking articles on the whole “are games art” issue. Good read and thanks for posting. Kieron. Though I’ve often felt that this need of ours to have our hobby recognized as an art form stems more from insecurity than from anything else. After all once “interactive media” (puke) get recognized for art won’t we at last be part of society again? Will we at last get the respect we deserve for beeing so passionate about our hobby? Games are enterainment pure and simple. That in itself should be merit enough. If you believe Huizinga all aspects of our culture have their roots in games. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about redefining the word “game” than trying to tack on yet another word to it? Let Game be a word tha stands for itself. Talk about all the great things games can do how they can be used to train to explain to experiment. Show people how the basic rules that underly all games can be applied to look at the world around us. Games predate art. Before there was any kind of art we played games every art there is evolved from people playing. Our systems of law and governance have their roots in games theater and sports evolved from games. Religious practices have their foundation in games. Mammals are different from other animals because they play. And humans are different from other mammals because we continue to play games after we’ve grown up. Ebert and the rest can debate about wether games are or aren’t art until hell freezes over. The best thing you can say about games is that they are games. (Note to self: Improve my written english skills so I don’t have to bite my keyboard in frustration because I’m not able to get my point across the way I’d like to. But I hope you get what I’m trying to say). Anyway while Ebert clearly deserves respect. I doubt he plays modern games much if at all thus largely invalidating his opinions on the matter I’d think. Back when Bioshock came out trying to package this very debate for digestion by a non-geek audience. Needless to say. I don’t think it was terribly well read. Anyhow. I’m only posting the link for the sake of full disclosure as Clint shoots down most of the ideas I thought were “totally rad” with the nonchalance expected when shooing away an insect. In other words you really shouldn’t bother wading through it. The point I’d still stand by though is that games are ultimately designed for no other reason than to make money. While I absolutely agree with his “paintmaker” thought experiment any kind of artistic content a game has is there for one reason only: to help it sell copies. It’s like an appealing label on a cereal box designed to catch the eye of children of a certain age demographic. But why can’t there be a kind of artistry in that? Well maybe there can but it’s certainly not “high art,” which I think is what this debate (and Clint definitely) is stabbing at. Oh and if you do (for some reason) decide to read my pabulum know that it was rather brutally “edited for length,” and “contains spoilers.” The one edit I feel the need to point out is near the end where I crib a Keaton/Bergman analogy from somewhere (I think it was Clive Barker but can’t remember anymore) and my acknowledgment of that was axed apparently because I didn’t steal enough of it. Hmm. I’ve read the rebuttal from Clint Hocking and I’m not so sure that its any more logically sound than the arguments he rebuts. Its late and my little girl sounds like she’s going to want feeding so I’m not going to take it apart line by line but heres a small example: “I think it would remain clear that I was an artist for having created ‘paints that constrained the set of possible paintings achievable to those that dealt with a set of themes I had chosen’. ” I don’t think that this is clear at all. The act of placing constraints of what can be accomplished with your creation does not per se makes it art. Its not a direct causal relationship by any means. To use a subset of his own symphony analogy. The creator of a musical instrument say a violin has made something that can be used for creation within some fairly rigid constraints imposed by the nature of the violin. Yet not all violins can be seen in themselves as an expression of art. A Stradivarius maybe a work of art whole and entire in and of itself. But most violins are not. They are at best works of great craft and skill. At worst mass produced tat. a) Games can be art just as any act of creation can be but aren’t automatically so b) the vast majority of games are not art c & d) repeat a and b with the word ‘films’ in place of ‘games’. I’m just not convinced that Mr. Hocking actually did anything to actually rebut the equally floored arguments of Ebert. Which is a bit of a shame. Were I are to take Ebert to task. I would think that there is a case to be made that interaction is a primary essential facet of what we call art. That interaction may be as simple as looking or as complex as drawing the bow just so across a strad or even crafting the flow of Darwinians across the face of the fractal maps but the interaction with the user/audiences is. I would argue essential to something being seen as art. And that just for starters. I’m left in the rather annoying position of agreeing with Gillen again (damn it). His take on this was much sounder than Hockings. Although again. Anna Karenina as simulation? Good grief… Great Article. I would throw out a word of caution though; as the Poetics largely explores art as imitation of nature and it’s effects upon the soul the inclusion of Poetics in a discussion of games as art implies that games do in fact have a psychological impact on their audiences. A game which requires or encourages the player to make morally repugnant choices would fulfill the Aristotelian function of habit as expressed in Nichomachean Ethics. Interestingly enough if a game is a simulation rather than art it simply could not have that kind of impact on the human soul. If the game is a simulation then the ratings are unnecessary. If it is art then it is subject to first amendment protection. Huh. I’m thinking that we need people like Ebert telling us that games aren’t art. Every art movement that ever came about started with people saying “no no no you’re wrong” and the other people just argue back trying to prove that they’re right. In a way it’s kind of exciting to even have this argument. I have a tiny peeny weeny sneaking suspicion that Ebert thinks games ARE or could be art and just wants to get people to argue it out until the games are elevated to the highest level… but prooooobably not. It’s like we get to experience the dawning of a new art movement… Maybe they’ll write about it in art history books 50 years from now. Games are in a phase that can be compared to the golden age of cinema: with movie producers having the most control over story setting actors etc. The current situation have a lot in common with the Studio System. Now what we have? a lot of bandwidth some almost affordable game engines a chance to build a studio without actually renting an office thanks to internet and some direct download services that can cut the Ubis and the EAs out of the picture entirely. We have a nicer situation than most of the independent moviemakers of the last century. Also. I think we need our Cahiers du cinéma a relevant game magazine that actually changes the way games are made. But this will be waaaay harder. I always love this chestnut and Kieron you’re right to bring in Harry (Heck. I bring in Harry even when he’s not welcome). Art does not have to involve some bourgeois ideal of making you think Deep Thoughts. The most interesting part of Hocking’s essay is that Ebert’s arguments as represented there could equally be applied to unmistakably artistic films if anyone bothered to do it. (bonus! that discusses a first-person perspective movie with a title derivative of a film penned pseudonymously by Ebert) On the other hand exploitation has a proud tradition in movies too. Hitman’s not any less art than say. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Just as some genres of video games have their little arms races in scenarios (a few years back didn’t half the FPSs on the market have a scene involving a 747?) and contrived plots to match the technology (err we need a supersuit of some kind) so do movies (and they’re neatly summarized for you in any number of “making of” features). But the continual comparison of cinema and video games gets irritating especially for those who don’t know their history. Cinema today is not what cinema was before television. Before television. “going to the movies” meant not just features but cartoons travelogues newsreels even musical interludes. So games don’t have to be the analogue of feature films. And like movies there will be a bulk of “genre pieces” that follow the fashions and make a bunch of the money. But there are also short features concept pieces and quasi-ludic experiences to be had. Bickering over the definition of art has no point. I love this discussion because it’s so utterly pointless the majority of the people who claim something anything to be Art (capitalized but of course) are really rather in fact just lost in their search words to exhibit their appreciation. Art. I happen to study it as practitioner is absolute bullshit it is about artificial- the name inherently implies- anything that is not nature but created by human practise. Some games are some are not. Some paintings are some are not. Quite simple do the world a favor and never refer to something as Art. It devalues the word. Just explain why it’s good according to your opinion.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=650

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I’ve been resisting posting about Roger Ebert ever since he’s become as silly as those Epic-Verse aficionados Aristotle dissects in Poetics but following. I decided it was inevitable I’d have a crack. Except I now realise I don’t have to. Following - where I steal Dapple’s splendid line for this post’s title - The Bag links to. Which despite dating from August. I hadn’t read before. I probably should have because it’s extensive elegant and intricate. Also - whisper it - agreeably bolshy. “If Haggis’ Best Picture winning Crash was 100 hours long and contained 100 different interconnected plots all echoing the same themes of racial tension from different perspectives would it suddenly lose its status as art? It probably wouldn’t be a very good movie because 100 hours of movie is painful. In any case no matter how long you make Crash you will never fully explore the domain of the themes of racial tension in modern America. 100 hours is just 50x what the movie already offers and is no closer to the infinite depth of the theme than is the existing 2 hour film. GTA: San Andreas on the other hand – which I played for a good 100 hours or so gave me such a world transforming view of racial tension and inequity in early 1990’s California that I have been shaken to the core and have been forced to re-examine a huge part of my world view.” On the same topic which I think still stands up and explains that Poetics bit in the intro if you’re wondering if That Gillen Guy has gone and went a bit funny in the head again. I have very little experience with Hitman and I haven’t seen the movie but I found two things very interesting about that review. First if Tom Francis’s wonderful “Blood Money and Sex” article is to be believed (http://www kfj f2s com/index php/2006-09-23-blood-money-and-sex) then all the aspects of 47’s character that Ebert praised are lifted straight from the games. Second. Ebert criticises the movies for the high body-count and blames it on the franchise’s game heritage. Since Hitman is a stealth game that generally encourages you to avoid or at least temper extraneous killings might the load of killing be an attempt to pander to action movie people and not game fans? ‘Other scenes which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors an automatic weapon in each hand,…/…These scenes are no doubt from the video game.’ ‘He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he’s going to land and that feels like he’s cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game.’ For those unenlightened. Hitman is about none of these things. It is about killing as ‘few’ people as you can before getting the target not wracking up a massive kill count. Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you. Ever heard of ‘professional research’? Because I don’t think you have. “If you can go through “every emotional journey available,” doesn’t that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion not a smorgasbord of choices.” Oh that infuriates me. Tolkien would’ve shredded him for that. Inevitable conclusion? That’s ridiculous. I wonder if he really meant to say something so inane. “Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you.” As far as art is concerned though lots of very popular games really are just violent and destructive drivel - including Hitman. Gears of War. Unreal 3. Manhunt. Crysis gets a 9 in Edge and all kinds of praise on here yet where is the appeal if you take away its adolescent fixation on entertaining violence and destruction? Look at what videogames do to the likes of The Godfather. Reservoir Dogs and John Woo (in Stranglehold) - awful awful games bastardising highly respected works of cinema with no redeeming features other than guess what? Brainless videogamey violence. I think these kind of debates always end up with too many defensive gamers whipping out the rose-tined specs. People like Ebert are obviously in the wrong regarding the potential of the medium but to be honest I don’t completely blame them for their mistake. The games industry is still churning out way too much embarassing drivel to give the real substance and art any mainstream attention. You say that yet look at the types of films that are released each year. The mere fact that there *is* a Hitman is testimony to the comparison that is inevitably drawn against the two mediums. Hitman is the game equivalent of an action film and it is an above average one in my own personal opinion as it has a complex story line and deviates from the typical ‘go in with guns blazing approach’. Despite this there are good films being made and likewise there are good games being made. The only reason that there is perceived to be a difference at the moment is because games have not yet been recognised. If games were considered an art form something like Bioshock would have received much more attention and praise and as it was it did very well critically. Arguably due to the large amount of films being made every year in comparison to games there is more crap in the film industry than there is in the game industry but that’s a whole other topic. Clint’s article is quite interesting and well written. However it seems to me that in Crash he picked a pretty easy target to compare negatively to games. In fact. I don’t think it should even be necessary to include comparisons to specific movies. All that is needed is the analysis (which he does very well) of games as art. Yet again. Kieron your article expresses a point I’ve been trying to make to a number of my friends for quite some time (and far more eloquently than I’ve ever been able to). More mass-emailing material methinks. I’m sadly disappointed with Mr. Ebert’s stance on games. For a man with such an excellent grounding in film he’d make a seriously impressive opponent for a game’s-as-art debate if only he’d take the whole thing seriously. As it is he’s just whitewashing and generalising and clearly hasn’t done his homework on the matter. Shame really. One of the more thought provoking articles on the whole “are games art” issue. Good read and thanks for posting. Kieron. Though I’ve often felt that this need of ours to have our hobby recognized as an art form stems more from insecurity than from anything else. After all once “interactive media” (puke) get recognized for art won’t we at last be part of society again? Will we at last get the respect we deserve for beeing so passionate about our hobby? Games are enterainment pure and simple. That in itself should be merit enough. If you believe Huizinga all aspects of our culture have their roots in games. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about redefining the word “game” than trying to tack on yet another word to it? Let Game be a word tha stands for itself. Talk about all the great things games can do how they can be used to train to explain to experiment. Show people how the basic rules that underly all games can be applied to look at the world around us. Games predate art. Before there was any kind of art we played games every art there is evolved from people playing. Our systems of law and governance have their roots in games theater and sports evolved from games. Religious practices have their foundation in games. Mammals are different from other animals because they play. And humans are different from other mammals because we continue to play games after we’ve grown up. Ebert and the rest can debate about wether games are or aren’t art until hell freezes over. The best thing you can say about games is that they are games. (Note to self: Improve my written english skills so I don’t have to bite my keyboard in frustration because I’m not able to get my point across the way I’d like to. But I hope you get what I’m trying to say). Anyway while Ebert clearly deserves respect. I doubt he plays modern games much if at all thus largely invalidating his opinions on the matter I’d think. Back when Bioshock came out trying to package this very debate for digestion by a non-geek audience. Needless to say. I don’t think it was terribly well read. Anyhow. I’m only posting the link for the sake of full disclosure as Clint shoots down most of the ideas I thought were “totally rad” with the nonchalance expected when shooing away an insect. In other words you really shouldn’t bother wading through it. The point I’d still stand by though is that games are ultimately designed for no other reason than to make money. While I absolutely agree with his “paintmaker” thought experiment any kind of artistic content a game has is there for one reason only: to help it sell copies. It’s like an appealing label on a cereal box designed to catch the eye of children of a certain age demographic. But why can’t there be a kind of artistry in that? Well maybe there can but it’s certainly not “high art,” which I think is what this debate (and Clint definitely) is stabbing at. Oh and if you do (for some reason) decide to read my pabulum know that it was rather brutally “edited for length,” and “contains spoilers.” The one edit I feel the need to point out is near the end where I crib a Keaton/Bergman analogy from somewhere (I think it was Clive Barker but can’t remember anymore) and my acknowledgment of that was axed apparently because I didn’t steal enough of it. Hmm. I’ve read the rebuttal from Clint Hocking and I’m not so sure that its any more logically sound than the arguments he rebuts. Its late and my little girl sounds like she’s going to want feeding so I’m not going to take it apart line by line but heres a small example: “I think it would remain clear that I was an artist for having created ‘paints that constrained the set of possible paintings achievable to those that dealt with a set of themes I had chosen’. ” I don’t think that this is clear at all. The act of placing constraints of what can be accomplished with your creation does not per se makes it art. Its not a direct causal relationship by any means. To use a subset of his own symphony analogy. The creator of a musical instrument say a violin has made something that can be used for creation within some fairly rigid constraints imposed by the nature of the violin. Yet not all violins can be seen in themselves as an expression of art. A Stradivarius maybe a work of art whole and entire in and of itself. But most violins are not. They are at best works of great craft and skill. At worst mass produced tat. a) Games can be art just as any act of creation can be but aren’t automatically so b) the vast majority of games are not art c & d) repeat a and b with the word ‘films’ in place of ‘games’. I’m just not convinced that Mr. Hocking actually did anything to actually rebut the equally floored arguments of Ebert. Which is a bit of a shame. Were I are to take Ebert to task. I would think that there is a case to be made that interaction is a primary essential facet of what we call art. That interaction may be as simple as looking or as complex as drawing the bow just so across a strad or even crafting the flow of Darwinians across the face of the fractal maps but the interaction with the user/audiences is. I would argue essential to something being seen as art. And that just for starters. I’m left in the rather annoying position of agreeing with Gillen again (damn it). His take on this was much sounder than Hockings. Although again. Anna Karenina as simulation? Good grief… Great Article. I would throw out a word of caution though; as the Poetics largely explores art as imitation of nature and it’s effects upon the soul the inclusion of Poetics in a discussion of games as art implies that games do in fact have a psychological impact on their audiences. A game which requires or encourages the player to make morally repugnant choices would fulfill the Aristotelian function of habit as expressed in Nichomachean Ethics. Interestingly enough if a game is a simulation rather than art it simply could not have that kind of impact on the human soul. If the game is a simulation then the ratings are unnecessary. If it is art then it is subject to first amendment protection. Huh. I’m thinking that we need people like Ebert telling us that games aren’t art. Every art movement that ever came about started with people saying “no no no you’re wrong” and the other people just argue back trying to prove that they’re right. In a way it’s kind of exciting to even have this argument. I have a tiny peeny weeny sneaking suspicion that Ebert thinks games ARE or could be art and just wants to get people to argue it out until the games are elevated to the highest level… but prooooobably not. It’s like we get to experience the dawning of a new art movement… Maybe they’ll write about it in art history books 50 years from now. Games are in a phase that can be compared to the golden age of cinema: with movie producers having the most control over story setting actors etc. The current situation have a lot in common with the Studio System. Now what we have? a lot of bandwidth some almost affordable game engines a chance to build a studio without actually renting an office thanks to internet and some direct download services that can cut the Ubis and the EAs out of the picture entirely. We have a nicer situation than most of the independent moviemakers of the last century. Also. I think we need our Cahiers du cinéma a relevant game magazine that actually changes the way games are made. But this will be waaaay harder. I always love this chestnut and Kieron you’re right to bring in Harry (Heck. I bring in Harry even when he’s not welcome). Art does not have to involve some bourgeois ideal of making you think Deep Thoughts. The most interesting part of Hocking’s essay is that Ebert’s arguments as represented there could equally be applied to unmistakably artistic films if anyone bothered to do it. (bonus! that discusses a first-person perspective movie with a title derivative of a film penned pseudonymously by Ebert) On the other hand exploitation has a proud tradition in movies too. Hitman’s not any less art than say. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Just as some genres of video games have their little arms races in scenarios (a few years back didn’t half the FPSs on the market have a scene involving a 747?) and contrived plots to match the technology (err we need a supersuit of some kind) so do movies (and they’re neatly summarized for you in any number of “making of” features). But the continual comparison of cinema and video games gets irritating especially for those who don’t know their history. Cinema today is not what cinema was before television. Before television. “going to the movies” meant not just features but cartoons travelogues newsreels even musical interludes. So games don’t have to be the analogue of feature films. And like movies there will be a bulk of “genre pieces” that follow the fashions and make a bunch of the money. But there are also short features concept pieces and quasi-ludic experiences to be had. Bickering over the definition of art has no point. I love this discussion because it’s so utterly pointless the majority of the people who claim something anything to be Art (capitalized but of course) are really rather in fact just lost in their search words to exhibit their appreciation. Art. I happen to study it as practitioner is absolute bullshit it is about artificial- the name inherently implies- anything that is not nature but created by human practise. Some games are some are not. Some paintings are some are not. Quite simple do the world a favor and never refer to something as Art. It devalues the word. Just explain why it’s good according to your opinion.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=650

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I’ve been resisting posting about Roger Ebert ever since he’s become as silly as those Epic-Verse aficionados Aristotle dissects in Poetics but following. I decided it was inevitable I’d have a crack. Except I now realise I don’t have to. Following - where I steal Dapple’s splendid line for this post’s title - The Bag links to. Which despite dating from August. I hadn’t read before. I probably should have because it’s extensive elegant and intricate. Also - whisper it - agreeably bolshy. “If Haggis’ Best Picture winning Crash was 100 hours long and contained 100 different interconnected plots all echoing the same themes of racial tension from different perspectives would it suddenly lose its status as art? It probably wouldn’t be a very good movie because 100 hours of movie is painful. In any case no matter how long you make Crash you will never fully explore the domain of the themes of racial tension in modern America. 100 hours is just 50x what the movie already offers and is no closer to the infinite depth of the theme than is the existing 2 hour film. GTA: San Andreas on the other hand – which I played for a good 100 hours or so gave me such a world transforming view of racial tension and inequity in early 1990’s California that I have been shaken to the core and have been forced to re-examine a huge part of my world view.” On the same topic which I think still stands up and explains that Poetics bit in the intro if you’re wondering if That Gillen Guy has gone and went a bit funny in the head again. I have very little experience with Hitman and I haven’t seen the movie but I found two things very interesting about that review. First if Tom Francis’s wonderful “Blood Money and Sex” article is to be believed (http://www kfj f2s com/index php/2006-09-23-blood-money-and-sex) then all the aspects of 47’s character that Ebert praised are lifted straight from the games. Second. Ebert criticises the movies for the high body-count and blames it on the franchise’s game heritage. Since Hitman is a stealth game that generally encourages you to avoid or at least temper extraneous killings might the load of killing be an attempt to pander to action movie people and not game fans? ‘Other scenes which involve Agent 47 striding down corridors an automatic weapon in each hand,…/…These scenes are no doubt from the video game.’ ‘He also jumps out of windows without knowing where he’s going to land and that feels like he’s cashing in a chip he won earlier in the game.’ For those unenlightened. Hitman is about none of these things. It is about killing as ‘few’ people as you can before getting the target not wracking up a massive kill count. Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you. Ever heard of ‘professional research’? Because I don’t think you have. “If you can go through “every emotional journey available,” doesn’t that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion not a smorgasbord of choices.” Oh that infuriates me. Tolkien would’ve shredded him for that. Inevitable conclusion? That’s ridiculous. I wonder if he really meant to say something so inane. “Mr. Egbert this is why video games aren’t considered art. Not because they aren’t but because they are dismissed as violent drivel by idiots like you.” As far as art is concerned though lots of very popular games really are just violent and destructive drivel - including Hitman. Gears of War. Unreal 3. Manhunt. Crysis gets a 9 in Edge and all kinds of praise on here yet where is the appeal if you take away its adolescent fixation on entertaining violence and destruction? Look at what videogames do to the likes of The Godfather. Reservoir Dogs and John Woo (in Stranglehold) - awful awful games bastardising highly respected works of cinema with no redeeming features other than guess what? Brainless videogamey violence. I think these kind of debates always end up with too many defensive gamers whipping out the rose-tined specs. People like Ebert are obviously in the wrong regarding the potential of the medium but to be honest I don’t completely blame them for their mistake. The games industry is still churning out way too much embarassing drivel to give the real substance and art any mainstream attention. You say that yet look at the types of films that are released each year. The mere fact that there *is* a Hitman is testimony to the comparison that is inevitably drawn against the two mediums. Hitman is the game equivalent of an action film and it is an above average one in my own personal opinion as it has a complex story line and deviates from the typical ‘go in with guns blazing approach’. Despite this there are good films being made and likewise there are good games being made. The only reason that there is perceived to be a difference at the moment is because games have not yet been recognised. If games were considered an art form something like Bioshock would have received much more attention and praise and as it was it did very well critically. Arguably due to the large amount of films being made every year in comparison to games there is more crap in the film industry than there is in the game industry but that’s a whole other topic. Clint’s article is quite interesting and well written. However it seems to me that in Crash he picked a pretty easy target to compare negatively to games. In fact. I don’t think it should even be necessary to include comparisons to specific movies. All that is needed is the analysis (which he does very well) of games as art. Yet again. Kieron your article expresses a point I’ve been trying to make to a number of my friends for quite some time (and far more eloquently than I’ve ever been able to). More mass-emailing material methinks. I’m sadly disappointed with Mr. Ebert’s stance on games. For a man with such an excellent grounding in film he’d make a seriously impressive opponent for a game’s-as-art debate if only he’d take the whole thing seriously. As it is he’s just whitewashing and generalising and clearly hasn’t done his homework on the matter. Shame really. One of the more thought provoking articles on the whole “are games art” issue. Good read and thanks for posting. Kieron. Though I’ve often felt that this need of ours to have our hobby recognized as an art form stems more from insecurity than from anything else. After all once “interactive media” (puke) get recognized for art won’t we at last be part of society again? Will we at last get the respect we deserve for beeing so passionate about our hobby? Games are enterainment pure and simple. That in itself should be merit enough. If you believe Huizinga all aspects of our culture have their roots in games. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about redefining the word “game” than trying to tack on yet another word to it? Let Game be a word tha stands for itself. Talk about all the great things games can do how they can be used to train to explain to experiment. Show people how the basic rules that underly all games can be applied to look at the world around us. Games predate art. Before there was any kind of art we played games every art there is evolved from people playing. Our systems of law and governance have their roots in games theater and sports evolved from games. Religious practices have their foundation in games. Mammals are different from other animals because they play. And humans are different from other mammals because we continue to play games after we’ve grown up. Ebert and the rest can debate about wether games are or aren’t art until hell freezes over. The best thing you can say about games is that they are games. (Note to self: Improve my written english skills so I don’t have to bite my keyboard in frustration because I’m not able to get my point across the way I’d like to. But I hope you get what I’m trying to say). Anyway while Ebert clearly deserves respect. I doubt he plays modern games much if at all thus largely invalidating his opinions on the matter I’d think. Back when Bioshock came out trying to package this very debate for digestion by a non-geek audience. Needless to say. I don’t think it was terribly well read. Anyhow. I’m only posting the link for the sake of full disclosure as Clint shoots down most of the ideas I thought were “totally rad” with the nonchalance expected when shooing away an insect. In other words you really shouldn’t bother wading through it. The point I’d still stand by though is that games are ultimately designed for no other reason than to make money. While I absolutely agree with his “paintmaker” thought experiment any kind of artistic content a game has is there for one reason only: to help it sell copies. It’s like an appealing label on a cereal box designed to catch the eye of children of a certain age demographic. But why can’t there be a kind of artistry in that? Well maybe there can but it’s certainly not “high art,” which I think is what this debate (and Clint definitely) is stabbing at. Oh and if you do (for some reason) decide to read my pabulum know that it was rather brutally “edited for length,” and “contains spoilers.” The one edit I feel the need to point out is near the end where I crib a Keaton/Bergman analogy from somewhere (I think it was Clive Barker but can’t remember anymore) and my acknowledgment of that was axed apparently because I didn’t steal enough of it. Hmm. I’ve read the rebuttal from Clint Hocking and I’m not so sure that its any more logically sound than the arguments he rebuts. Its late and my little girl sounds like she’s going to want feeding so I’m not going to take it apart line by line but heres a small example: “I think it would remain clear that I was an artist for having created ‘paints that constrained the set of possible paintings achievable to those that dealt with a set of themes I had chosen’. ” I don’t think that this is clear at all. The act of placing constraints of what can be accomplished with your creation does not per se makes it art. Its not a direct causal relationship by any means. To use a subset of his own symphony analogy. The creator of a musical instrument say a violin has made something that can be used for creation within some fairly rigid constraints imposed by the nature of the violin. Yet not all violins can be seen in themselves as an expression of art. A Stradivarius maybe a work of art whole and entire in and of itself. But most violins are not. They are at best works of great craft and skill. At worst mass produced tat. a) Games can be art just as any act of creation can be but aren’t automatically so b) the vast majority of games are not art c & d) repeat a and b with the word ‘films’ in place of ‘games’. I’m just not convinced that Mr. Hocking actually did anything to actually rebut the equally floored arguments of Ebert. Which is a bit of a shame. Were I are to take Ebert to task. I would think that there is a case to be made that interaction is a primary essential facet of what we call art. That interaction may be as simple as looking or as complex as drawing the bow just so across a strad or even crafting the flow of Darwinians across the face of the fractal maps but the interaction with the user/audiences is. I would argue essential to something being seen as art. And that just for starters. I’m left in the rather annoying position of agreeing with Gillen again (damn it). His take on this was much sounder than Hockings. Although again. Anna Karenina as simulation? Good grief… Great Article. I would throw out a word of caution though; as the Poetics largely explores art as imitation of nature and it’s effects upon the soul the inclusion of Poetics in a discussion of games as art implies that games do in fact have a psychological impact on their audiences. A game which requires or encourages the player to make morally repugnant choices would fulfill the Aristotelian function of habit as expressed in Nichomachean Ethics. Interestingly enough if a game is a simulation rather than art it simply could not have that kind of impact on the human soul. If the game is a simulation then the ratings are unnecessary. If it is art then it is subject to first amendment protection. Huh. I’m thinking that we need people like Ebert telling us that games aren’t art. Every art movement that ever came about started with people saying “no no no you’re wrong” and the other people just argue back trying to prove that they’re right. In a way it’s kind of exciting to even have this argument. I have a tiny peeny weeny sneaking suspicion that Ebert thinks games ARE or could be art and just wants to get people to argue it out until the games are elevated to the highest level… but prooooobably not. It’s like we get to experience the dawning of a new art movement… Maybe they’ll write about it in art history books 50 years from now. Games are in a phase that can be compared to the golden age of cinema: with movie producers having the most control over story setting actors etc. The current situation have a lot in common with the Studio System. Now what we have? a lot of bandwidth some almost affordable game engines a chance to build a studio without actually renting an office thanks to internet and some direct download services that can cut the Ubis and the EAs out of the picture entirely. We have a nicer situation than most of the independent moviemakers of the last century. Also. I think we need our Cahiers du cinéma a relevant game magazine that actually changes the way games are made. But this will be waaaay harder. I always love this chestnut and Kieron you’re right to bring in Harry (Heck. I bring in Harry even when he’s not welcome). Art does not have to involve some bourgeois ideal of making you think Deep Thoughts. The most interesting part of Hocking’s essay is that Ebert’s arguments as represented there could equally be applied to unmistakably artistic films if anyone bothered to do it. (bonus! that discusses a first-person perspective movie with a title derivative of a film penned pseudonymously by Ebert) On the other hand exploitation has a proud tradition in movies too. Hitman’s not any less art than say. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Just as some genres of video games have their little arms races in scenarios (a few years back didn’t half the FPSs on the market have a scene involving a 747?) and contrived plots to match the technology (err we need a supersuit of some kind) so do movies (and they’re neatly summarized for you in any number of “making of” features). But the continual comparison of cinema and video games gets irritating especially for those who don’t know their history. Cinema today is not what cinema was before television. Before television. “going to the movies” meant not just features but cartoons travelogues newsreels even musical interludes. So games don’t have to be the analogue of feature films. And like movies there will be a bulk of “genre pieces” that follow the fashions and make a bunch of the money. But there are also short features concept pieces and quasi-ludic experiences to be had. Bickering over the definition of art has no point. I love this discussion because it’s so utterly pointless the majority of the people who claim something anything to be Art (capitalized but of course) are really rather in fact just lost in their search words to exhibit their appreciation. Art. I happen to study it as practitioner is absolute bullshit it is about artificial- the name inherently implies- anything that is not nature but created by human practise. Some games are some are not. Some paintings are some are not. Quite simple do the world a favor and never refer to something as Art. It devalues the word. Just explain why it’s good according to your opinion.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/?p=650

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Transcend 4GB USB Flash Drive High Capacity Portable Storage at a Great Price! $9 Instant Savings! Canon 7.1MP Digital Camera3x Optical. 3-Inch LCD. Great Canon Quality analyse at $198! CompUSA is not responsible for typographical or photographical errors. Prices and specifications are subject to change without notice.*determine after manufacturer mail-in rebate. Restrictions apply. Click MORE INFO button next to your selected product above then click "Rebate Terms and Conditions" for terms and conditions.†This product is factory recertified. Copyright © 2008. CompUSA com. 7795 West Flagler St. Suite 35. Miami FL. 33144 Your Priority Code is: COMPUSA >Desktop Computers>>category_tlc asp?CatId=6^D>>Monitors>>category_tlc asp?CatId=12^D>>Laptops>>category_tlc asp?CatId=17--> >Ultra 1024MB PC3200 DDR>>EdpNo=1071020^D>>Transcend 2GB SD Card>>EdpNo=2315933^D>>A-Data PD9 1GB USB2.0 Flash Drive>>EdpNo=1955428-->

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?product_code=342715

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

video games psp games xbox games online video bet game consoles … share splinter cell images and splinter cell pictures and splinter cell videos online. … splinter cell images | view newest results. Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell … Splinter Cell takes you into the world of Sam Fisher a top-secret specialist … Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell Double Agent. Explore similar items … Play as a double agent spy for the first time ever in Ubisoft’s Tom Clancy’s break Cell Double Agent. … Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell saga takes on … … Splinter Cell … of the best selling Splinter Cell novel series about the next … for the Best Buy Splinter Cell manifold Agent Xbox 360 … Official site. Features movies cover screenshots and more. © 2007. tour these other alter sites..

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://vgamelink.com/splinter-cell/splinter-cell-images-splinter-cell-pictures-and-splinter-cell-videos.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

On the back of news that Ubisoft has Haze on the PlayStation 3 and Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 now reports that the French-based publisher has also delayed the channel of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Conviction. As move of its fiscal first-half financial report. Ubisoft announced that it was rescheduling Splinter Cell Conviction for release in fiscal 2008-09 which starts in April 2008. No exact release go out for the game was provided. The slip marks the back up decelerate for the new Sam Fisher adventure originally slated for release this Christmas. Taking place after the events of Splinter Cell Double Agent. Conviction places Sam Fisher on the run from Third Echelon the spymaster's previous employer. Ubisoft is promising to revolutionise the latest game in the acclaimed spy series by providing a completely different style of gameplay - one that is more akin to Assassin's Creed then previous installments in the spy franchise. advance the fifth break Cell call will only be available on the Xbox 360 and PC. Stay tuned to PALGN for advance information on the game's release date as it comes in. In the meantime analyse out the media panel below for screenshots of Splinter Cell Conviction.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=9642&rss=1&title=Splinter+Cell+Conviction+delayed

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Tom Clancy's break Cell: Chaos TheorySolo mode [normal] voor playstation 2Zowel voor beginner als ervarenGeschreven door SixthDawnEmail: sixthdawn@live nlEerste versie: 21 november 2007Copyright 2007 Nathasja ObdamVersie 1.15 Laatste update: 26 november 2007|----------------------------------------------------------------------------||----------------------------------------------------------------------------|| TOM_CLANCY'S___ _____ ______________ ____________ __ || / ___/ _ ) / / / . |/ /_ _/___/ . ) / ____/___/ / / / || _(___ / /__/ /__/ / /| ' / / //__// _/ / (___/___/ /__/ /__ || (_____/_/ /_____)/_/ |__/ /_//___/_/\_\ (_____/___/_____)____) || || /||||||||| ||| |\ /||||||\ /||||||||| /||||||||\ || /|||||||||| ||| ||\ /||||||||\ /|||||||||| /||||||||||\ || ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| || ||| ||||||||||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||||||||||\ || ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||| ||| ||| |||||||||||\ || ||| ||| ||| |||||||||||| ||| ||| ||| || \|||||||||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||||||||||/ |||||||||||/ || \||||||||| ||| ||| ||| ||| |||||||||/ ||||||||||/ || ||| || ||||||||||| ||| ||| /|||||||||| /||||||||| /||||||\ /| |\ || ||||||||||| ||| ||| /||||||||||| /|||||||||| /||||||||\ /|| ||\ || ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| || ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||||| || ||| ||||||||||| |||||||||| ||| ||| ||||||||||/ |||||||||||| || ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||| ||\ ||| || ||| ||| ||| \||||||||||| ||||||||||/ ||| ||\ ||| || ||| ||| ||| \|||||||||| |||||||||/ ||| ||\ \|/ || ||| || ||| || ||/ || |/ || / copyright 2007 nathasja obdam ||----------------------------------------------------------------------------||----------------------------------------------------------------------------|==========I.1 INHOUD==========Gebruik de 'search on page'/'zoeken op deze pagina' en zoek op onderstaande nummers om enjoin naar dat gedeelte van de walkthrough te gaan. Alle objectives zijn opschreven in het engels zoals in het spel zoek je een bepaalde objective om op te lossen gebruik dan de zoekfunctie zodat je niet hoeft te pluizen tussen alle delen. I.1 INHOUDII.2 RECHTEN II.2.1 COPYRIGHT II.2.2 toestemmingen voor publicatieIII.3 INTRODUCTIEIV.4 Het spel spelen IV.4.1 Controller bediening van Sam en zijn wapens IV.4.2 Basis- en Geavanceerde bewegingen/acties IV.4.3 Inventory IV.4.4 On check info IV.4.5 Algemene tips voor 100% mission ratingV.5 Walkthrough V.5 De algemene richtlijnen in deze walkthrough Zelf vind ik dit belangrijk genoeg om even door te lezen hierin staat wat ik 'bedoel met' in de walkthrough. Ook staan er andere richtlijnen in waaraan je je het beste kunt houden om mijn walkthrough goed te kunnen begrijpen en volgen. V.5.1 Lighthouse V.5.2 Cargo Ship V.5.3 Bank V.5.4 Penthouse V.5.5 Displace V.5.6 Hokkaido V.5.7 Battery V.5.8a Seoul V.5.8b Seoul Part Two V.5.9 Bath accommodate V.5.10 Kokubo SoshoVI.6 Update informatie VI.6.1a update 1.10 VI.6.2 geplande updates============II.2 RECHTEN============----------------II.2.1 COPYRIGHT----------------(c) procure 2007 nathasja obdam>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CopyrightThis walkthrough and all its art may be not be reproduced under anycircumstances object for personal private use. It may not be placed on anyweb site or otherwise distributed publicly without go writtenpermission. Use of this guide and its art on any other web site or as a partof any public display is strictly prohibited and a violation of copyright. AuteursrechtenDeze walkthrough en alle kunst erin mogen onder geen omstandigheden wordengebruikt behalve voor persoonlijk prive gebruik. Het is niet toegestaan hette herpubliceren in welke vorm dan ook zonder uitdrukkelijke toestemming vande auteur. Gebruik van deze walkthrough op elke andere site of als deel van een publicatie is strikt verboden en is een strafbare schending van auteursrechten.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>---------------------------------II.2.2 Toestemming voor publicatie---------------------------------Iedereen die een walkthrough heeft geschreven heeft er veel tijd in gestopt,het spel meestal keer op keer gespeeld om de beste methode's te vinden enal klinkt dat als een leuke besteding van tijd het KOST ook tijd. Behalvehet spelen is er nog het schrijven en vooral dat kost veel tijd enaandacht. Het is dus zeker niet fijn als je ziet dat een ander zijn eigen naam boven jouw walkthrough zet waar je zo hard aan hebt gewerkt. Bovendien wil ik weten waar mijn walkthrough te vinden zal zijn ik wil die volledige controle hebben dus heb ik strikte procure op mijn walkthroughen de bijhorende ASCII kunstwerkjes/logo's/teksten. Hou je hieraan. Wil je hem publiceren ik ben 1 telecommunicate verderop en toestemmingaanvragen is zo gebeurt. Voor toestemming voor publicatie kun je mij een email sturen. Zodra jetoestemming krijgt komt je website in de lijst hieronder in een nieuweupdate te staan. Je krijgt een telecommunicate wanneer dit gebeurd is daarin voeg ikook meteen de recentste versie bij waarin jouw website ook in vermeld staat,pas vanaf dat moment heb je toestemming. Publiceer hem dus niet (door te kopieeren) voordat je van mij de e-mail met recentste versie hebt gekregen!Het kan zijn dat toestemming geweigert wordt om wat voor reden dan ook. Ik hoef geen reden op te geven het is nog altijd mijn walkthrough met mijnnaam in de copyright. Mocht dit gebeuren ga dan niet kopieren vergeet decopyright niet en ga mij niet zwart maken dat is totaal niet nodig en jewint er zeker niets mee je maakt alleen jezelf belachelijk. Vooralsnog denk ik dat ik zelden een website zal weigeren ik zal me tochalleen maar vereerd voelen dat je MIJN walkthrough weaken plaatsen. Laat je erdus niet van weerhouden mij te mailen voor toestemming. Mocht je mijn walkthrough op een andere website zien dan de websites hierondervermeld dan verzoek ik je om mij een email te sturen zodat ik een vriendelijkverzoek kan doen hem te verwijderen en des noods stappen te ondernemen. announce het vooral als je ziet dat mijn walkthrough onder een andere auteursnaamgepubliceerd staat. Dit geldt niet alleen voor de woordelijke walkthrough maar ook de bijhorendekunst dit heb ik zelf gemaakt en ook hierop zit copyright. Wil je de logo's en ASCII art gebruiken send mij dan eerst voor toestemmingen zet mijn naam er duidelijk bij ook daar zit veel tijd in. Lijst van websites die toestemming hebben mijn walkthrough te publiceren:List of authorized websites: - http://www gamefaqs com - http://faqs ign com - http://www neoseeker com=================III.3 INTRODUCTIE=================Hi en welkom bij mijn eerste walkthrough eindelijk een Nederlandse walkthrough met alle tips en adviezen die je nodig hebt!Ik ben Nathasja alias SixthDawn verslaafde break Cell speelster en werd tijdens het spelen van de spellen zo gek van alle andere walkthrough's dat ikbesloten heb er zelf maar een te schrijven met MIJN methodes erin. Andere walkthrough's bleken regelmatig incompleet en lieten belangrijke informatie achterwege ook zijn Nederlandstalige walkthrough's lastig te vinden en als je ze vind zijn ze meestal niet volledig missen er missies,zijn de oplossingen op lastige situaties vaak slechts beperkt of is er maaréén methode beschreven om door een bepaald stuk te komen. Ik hoop dit beter te gaan doen en daarmee encircle ik anderen te helpen door desoms erg lastige missies heen te komen met methodes die voor hun zelf goedwerken en die ook voor beginners goed te doen zijn. Je kunt mij mailen voor tips en trucs opmerkingen of vragen over bepaalde delen van de walktrough ik kan onmogelijk alle e-mails.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://feeds.ign.com/~r/ignfeeds/faqs/~3/190961988/837462p1.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

So last measure I was in the US I took the opportunity to visit a bet store. Bought SC double agent and Oblivion. Took a desire look at Bioshock and Halo 3 but well too expensive. So far I’m impressed with SP Double Agent but more due to the plan than with the game. I undergo a feeling that I enjoyed Chaos Theory more though. Nevertheless the trust aim is really fun. A few mission were really nice too the one on the journey and the other that you have to prevent the captain from setting the ship on blast was also lots of fun. I wish that Xbox didn’t act so long to load and save. Why do I have to decide the storage device if there’s only one? Clearly not designed by Apple Oblivion was a disappointment. Honestly played for 15 minutes and got tired of it. Maybe I be to give it a second try… Oblivion demands a lot of measure (more time than I have right now actually). But if you are at all interested in RPGs it’s just fantastic. If you only played 15 minutes you’re probably comfort stuck underground in the tutorial. The bet doesn’t really start until you get above fasten. It takes about a half hour to get out. And then you appear into the outdoors in a most spectacular fashion. You walk around for awhile drooling at the scenery and then sight cram to do for real. I would keep a save game right before you get the sewars around — You will probably want to remake your character after you evaluate out the odd levelling system and realize your character levels way too abstain. The save bet lets you start w/o the tutorial SP:DA is one of those games that seems to undergo gotten easier as of late. Still the believe thing. I thought added a new level of excitement to the game. Stealth games are more mental or emotional to me which is why I apply them. Oblivion is actually a great bet. I usually am not a fan of RPG but this one gets under your skin. The controls/menuing are kinda hokey and could be made much easier. Loads are definately a pain. My first attempt at playing it over a year ago. I was dark elf theif atronoch write - anyways went the dark brotherhood route and open little enjoyment in the bet… I quit playing. A few weeks ago I started a new player (high elf) and undergo open the game much more enjoyable. The key is to fasten to your major skills so that you progress faster in level. Gameplay aside the graphics are awesome. I hope that one day we’ll see another release that improves on the current faults. <a href="" title=""> <abbr call=""> <acronym call=""> <b> <blockquote have in mind=""> <code> <em> <i> <touch> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://hammett.castleproject.org/?p=222

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam