acknowledging my favorite Sonic games are bad while thinking the opposite

[Shadowlax]

There is no inherent value in art. Its the value we choose to give to it. Improving only really matters for the person who wishes to improve...whatever that reason maybe.Your responses seem to devovle into " it has to have meaning." It doesn't, its litterally just you.

 

You say its obsurd that I spent money on art school. Yet i say it has no inherit value.  No its acknowledging that even though I care about something. No one else does has to, and thats fine . Its being humble in ones own opinions having self worth in ones own ambition and abilities. Self confidence. Believing in yourself.

Your argument is " i put the work in, there is value here" to you. Whether some else cares or not is something else. You putting work in means nothing.

 

[Nepenthe]

My argument isn't that art has to have meaning, whatever you're even defining meaning as. My argument is that art literally consists of stuff that objectively exists in reality, either as physical objects, digital code, or some combination thereof. Thus art is measurable simply as a default consequence of existing, and the following result of something being measurable is that it can also be compared against other objects or against a defined set of standards. 

However, this ability to measure art doesn't positively correlate with the social popularity of that art, meaning that people are going to form their opinions regardless of the work that was put into it based upon their own point-of-view and personal tastes. This is why people enjoy bad stuff and hate good stuff, and vice versa. But the takeaway is that people forming their own opinions about art doesn't mean that that talent and hard work is meaningless as you put it. It just means sometimes people don't like what you have to offer, which is a healthier and more honest attitude than basically just saying "nothing matters."

[Tara]

See, my problem with the "no objectivity in art" and "theory was created by humans" argument is that it undermines how the theory was produced by humans in the first place.  The theory was produced by studying the habits of humans and considering how they will respond to certain stimuli.  Music, for example, has very rigid rules, but even less rigid genres like hard rock can still be theoretically analyzed because even if rockers like to advertise how against the grain they are, their music instinctively captures very basic music theory, and even in the areas where it DOES go against the grain, studying HOW it goes against the grain will tell you WHY it evokes a certain emotion or WHY it works despite not following said conventions.  As my instructor once put, once you know the rules of music, you'll know how to break the rules.  Meaning, even if it doesn't follow strict theory, you'll still have an idea of how to achieve a certain sound as opposed to just playing random notes in hopes of something eventually sounding good, or at the very least you'll be able to look at a piece of music and understand why it makes the sound that it does.

For example, music is all about tension and release, and so ending on a half cadence is not usually preferable for a classically-inspired piece because it does not offer resolution.  Rock music capitalizes on sheer tension, so it's not unheard of for rock music to sometimes end on a half-cadence.  In fact, it can be beneficial because rock music is supposed to be a little bit harsh and jarring, and because it's meant to entertain a wider audience, it makes sense that they'd leave you hanging on a note that's designed to make you want more.  See?  You don't need to have a degree in music to MAKE music, but it certainly helps and can very much help you understand WHY some songs illicit a good response and why some songs just don't.

The same can be said for any sort of art.  Visual art you consider good or art that is generally looked up to still adheres to some form of theory, even if the artist in question isn't even aware of it.  Hell, when my family walks past "modern art" and sees a bunch of random paint splotches on a canvas, they're quick to dismiss it as anything theoretically interesting, yet I've only taken a single college drawing course just to fill out degree requirements, and I can see things like color theory, proportion, space, and composition all evident within what appears to be a random mess, which is why I value Nepenthe's opinions on visual art a lot more than someone who just says "LOL IT'S JUST GOOD BECAUSE IT IS" while accusing someone of arrogance to mask their own.

Because how am I supposed to improve or even understand something if the only advice I get is "Well, it's all subjective."  Or how am I even supposed to analyze the subjectivity of it if I don't understand what MAKES it that way.  And yeah, obviously the objective qualities of a work don't entail the subjective meaning of the work to the individual viewer/listener/whatever, but it makes the conversation a lot easier when you have a basis other than "I just like it" or "in my opinion, it's just bad."  My music doesn't always abide strictly by theoretical conventions, but I always go back to theory when I'm stuck because at least then I can guarantee that it will sound musical and not like a random and disjointed chord progression.

And that's why every country has different theoretical philosophies on music.  Because 1) the culture is different and thus people respond differently, and 2) pretty much every country on Earth can see the importance of having a basis to start from when it comes to art, just like you would have a basis for non-artistic products like lightbulbs, computers, or literally anything else.

[Alienrun]

TO THE OP:

You need to stop letting other people's opinion's affecting your own, learn to discriminate others from yourself, and don't make a big deal about other people's opinions or your own. I learned all this the hard way, and basically, none of this is worth it. Anything you learn from trying to play the "opinion meta game" NEVER is statisfactory in the long run, it ALWAYS ends up going full circle, only for you to realize that your opinion's are your own and are subjective, and thus, in the grand scheme of things, don't really matter.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Kiah
Insensitive comments removed. Please don't be insulting while giving advice; it nullifies your efforts to be helpful

[caseykz]

I love Sonic Runners. 

Device technicalities may help or hinder your gameplay. Much of the additional features (buddies and characters) are luck-based, which frustrates many people.

Love the roulette and may the roulette love you back.

[Hyp3hat]

I mean, I think I actually like Sonic 06, because it's an absolute trainwreck on nearly every conceivable level and it's fascinating to watch trainwrecks, sometimes. The only thing I would say was objectively good about 06 is the quality of CGI cutscenes (their content.... not so much), the Final Fantasy jokes they provoked are quite telling. But otherwise... it's The Room of videogames. 

@Shadowlax Going ' your thoughts about art are all meaningless, because opinion and society and academia are all constructs' is fine and all, I remember my first year of Uni at an arty place, but what's the point then? It's not exactly a fun way to live. It's like you're spilling everyones popcorn at the cinema and standing in front of the screen screaming 'it's all worthless, because everything is' and... we, as a species, have always enjoyed creating and discussing art? That's the value! Interpretation, emotional and logical reactions, it's all valid as all art enriches us in several ways. Maybe the inevitable implosion of the universe will make it all moot, but so what? That doesn't mean we should stop performing Shakespeare or playing Sonic The Hedgehog. 

[Shadowlax]

That's my point? The value of art is what you give it. I like discussing and talking about it. Im just not going to pretend why i like talking about it, or how i do actually matters to someone who might not care. That there is an objective way to discuss arts qualities,  or that there are objective art parameters, other than one the i individual makes. My point is i like discussing art, some might not.

Its a fun way to live. I do what i like, enjoy what I do. Just acknowledge others don't have to respect my pursuits or me,  neither  I for theirs. Though i try to, its a nice to do.

Its all i have been trying to say. Like what you like others might not, what's good to you is good. And thats all it has to be. Enjoy your life. Folks think im trying devalue art. Im just saying the arts value is personal and inspire yourself to create and critique. It might not matter to another. Im sorry if it sounds harsh, but not everything blunt and harsh is bad. I find it freeying, i do what i like for me, i like what i like for me. Looking for flaws and retrospectively critiquing things is fine. Just dont think you are obligated to lean towards public opinion Vuce versa

Do you

 

18 hours ago, Tara said:

.  Music, for example, has very rigid rules,

It doesnt actually, the rules for what is or isn't music is broken all the time. Whole genres started this way. 

Just pointing that out.

[Tara]

3 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

It doesnt actually, the rules for what is or isn't music is broken all the time. Whole genres started this way. 

Just pointing that out.

And even those genres are laced in theory and structure.  See: 12-tone music and free form jazz, both of which were birthed of going against basic music theory but still managed to demonstrate it by inversion.

[Nepenthe]

A rule being broken doesn't mean the rule doesn't magically exist (otherwise it logically wouldn't be able to be broken in the first place). A rule- whether it ranges from a forum rule to an art principle to actual legal law- is not some scientifically-binding theory like gravity that humans are biologically beholden to. It's just an agreed-upon direction for the sake of standardizing behaviors, actions, and consequences.

[Shadowlax]

5 hours ago, Tara said:

And even those genres are laced in theory and structure.  See: 12-tone music and free form jazz, both of which were birthed of going against basic music theory but still managed to demonstrate it by inversion.

They created those rules via experimentation. Previously many of those genre rules for those genre's didnt exist. They were mad a bunch people with simular subjective tastes music, informed by their life experiences. In another reality rock music is problably way different. To suggest which you are  suggesting by the way, the rules of music were handed down by some rock god at the dawn of man who decided what type of rock each brand of it was going to be, is actually intellectually dishonest. What we have now is informed by our past, what we have now is because of what happened to us previously. They are subjective musical rules people created that pleased them in that moment. And others may choose not to follow them. Like opinions.

Theory is created, structure is created, the only reason those things have power is because people choose to give them such.

If you don't agree march to the beat of your own drum. Whether people are ok with that is another story. 

 

I think music was a really bad example for you to use. 

 

5 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

 It's just an agreed-upon direction for the sake of standardizing behaviors, actions, and consequences.

A bunch of people think its cool. Oh... almost like an opinion. And you don't have to follow it, almost like opinion. Whether people agree with that is here or there, like an opinion. 

It seems as though you actually agree with me but are continuing to argue with me actually. I ask you respectfully have you actually read anything I said when you are literally using my point as a means to argue my point. 

[Tara]

44 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

They created those rules via experimentation. Previously many of those genre rules for those genre's didnt exist. They were mad a bunch people with simular subjective tastes music, informed by their life experiences. In another reality rock music is problably way different. To suggest which you are  suggesting by the way, the rules of music were handed down by some rock god at the dawn of man who decided what type of rock each brand of it was going to be, is actually intellectually dishonest. What we have now is informed by our past, what we have now is because of what happened to us previously. They are subjective musical rules people created that pleased them in that moment. And others may choose not to follow them. Like opinions.

Theory is created, structure is created, the only reason those things have power is because people choose to give them such.

 

I think music was a really bad example for you to use. 

 

Are you really reading my posts?  Because either you're not or your knowledge on music history really doesn't extend past a basic music appreciation course level.  And also the fact that you're literally adding words that were never said in my original post in the first place shows that you're just making things up as you go along.  And even on the legit points you make, some of the points mentioned in your post are literally lampshaded in my post-

On 4/11/2016 at 10:06 PM, Tara said:

 As my instructor once put, once you know the rules of music, you'll know how to break the rules.  Meaning, even if it doesn't follow strict theory, you'll still have an idea of how to achieve a certain sound as opposed to just playing random notes in hopes of something eventually sounding good, or at the very least you'll be able to look at a piece of music and understand why it makes the sound that it does.

 

On 4/11/2016 at 10:06 PM, Tara said:

even if rockers like to advertise how against the grain they are, their music instinctively captures very basic music theory, and even in the areas where it DOES go against the grain, studying HOW it goes against the grain will tell you WHY it evokes a certain emotion or WHY it works despite not following said conventions.

 

On 4/11/2016 at 10:06 PM, Tara said:

And that's why every country has different theoretical philosophies on music.  Because 1) the culture is different and thus people respond differently, and 2) pretty much every country on Earth can see the importance of having a basis to start from when it comes to art, just like you would have a basis for non-artistic products like lightbulbs, computers, or literally anything else.

 

And OBVIOUSLY the rules were created via experimentation, .because that's literally the source of all science.  Just because I didn't know red and yellow made orange until after I experimented doesn't mean those two colors interacted differently beforehand

The theory rules for those genres have been fine-tuned, but they all started and largely still continue to make use of many of the same basic principles, even if they aren't aware of it.  The majority of modern pop music is based around a chord progression of tonic, subdominant, tonic, dominant, tonic.  The same chord progression is often found in rock and its sibling genre jazz.  By no coincidence, this is actually theoretically correct, which is why it's still used the world over, even today.  

The rules aren't subjective, because rather or not they are followed, they are still demonstrated.  If you wanted to actually make a good point for your case, you would have mentioned something along the lines of the interval of an augmented fourth, an interval that was considered dissonant and was rarely used in classical music because it was harsh to Baroque-era ears yet has become relatively common place to the point where modern ears have learned to filter it out.  But that still doesn't refute my point.  Even if we don't recognize it in modern times, that doesn't mean the fourth is no longer augmented, nor does it mean that the theory surrounding it is no longer valid.  It just means that we have found a use for something that always existed.  The same way that rock music doesn't negate classical rules, but uses them to a different advantage, rather it was pre-planned or not.  Hence I used the word "instinctively."

All this to even say that this has nothing even to do with subjective experiences, because it was literally established long ago that objective qualities aren't relevant to the subjective viewpionts and opinions about a piece of art.

[Nepenthe]

1 hour ago, Shadowlax said:

A bunch of people think its cool. Oh... almost like an opinion. And you don't have to follow it, almost like opinion. Whether people agree with that is here or there, like an opinion.

It seems as though you actually agree with me but are continuing to argue with me actually. I ask you respectfully have you actually read anything I said when you are literally using my point as a means to argue my point. 

Mangling my opinion doesn't constitute agreement. Regardless, it's hard to agree with an argument that constantly changes when it's convenient and ignores previously stated information and logical refutations. First you were saying rules literally don't exist, as in you could not actively point to any rules someone had written down anywhere because they were nonexistant. Ignoring that I pointed out you could find rules by simply Googling them- because why admit when one is wrong- now you're saying that they do exist but are now saying that because humans agreed upon them so for some reason they're not actually rules, and you are doing this without defining any terms in your arguments or laying out any logic that says a rule isn't a rule. You're just saying "no" to everything to continue arguing a position that, in all honesty, has no real-world working applications anyway much less any reasonable advice concerning the original topic of this thread. And frankly, I'm not about to sit here and continue wasting my time with someone who at this point wants to remain willfully ignorant about what a rule is. I'm fucking done.

[Regulus]

So, uh, yeah. Anyway

I like the core gameplay of Sonic Runners, even if the marketing and microtransaction element killed it for me.

[Shadowlax]

5 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

 

 

My argument has been consistent from the jump. I can quote myself if you like?

No im do...

6 hours ago, Tara said:

Are you really reading my posts?  Because either you're not or your knowledge on music history really doesn't extend past a basic music appreciation course level.  And also the fact that you're literally adding words that were never said in my original post in the first place shows that you're just making things up as you go along.  And even on the legit points you make, some of the points mentioned in your post are literally lampshaded in my post-

 

 

 

And OBVIOUSLY the rules were created via experimentation, .because that's literally the source of all science.  Just because I didn't know red and yellow made orange until after I experimented doesn't mean those two colors interacted differently beforehand

 

...music didnt exist in nature . Music isn't  light not being obsorbed and creating color. Light, and the perceptions of it, exists no matter what. Music is something we litterally created informed by experiences we litterally would not have the same music if things would have turned out differently. I litterally wouldn't even have the music i have heard in church, or alll the rap music i listen to if the horrific treatment of those of african decent in the America's . Whole genres of music not existant if that didn't happen. There would be no rules thing, because there would no catalyst.

You have yet to prove any actual objectivity, you just keep saying rules exist. Ignoring how they came into being, and then saying the creation of theory based on the goodness of something, quality , has nothing to do with ones own subjective condoning of it. 

If we go music goes, movies go, video games go, light doesn't go. The name we call it does.

Im sorry but litterally what, actually what. Did you just compare art to actual scientific element of the universe, that exists throughout the universe not needing people as a catalyst.

Im done. I am sorry for wasting your precious time if you would have compared artistic persuits to actual scientific elements of the universe as a comparable constant earlier. I would have ended this argument a while ago. I am so sorry for wasting your time.

[Tara]

I don't know what drugs you're on when you're reading my posts, but I want them so bad.

Like I've literally never seen such a blatant derailment of a point in order to desperately mask your inability to understand it.  Like, once again you're inserting words that don't exist into my posts and it's gotten to the point where I can literally only assume that you're either under the influence or just plain not reading the posts and just hoping that they fall within your predetermined narrative.

But go ahead, continue believing the sky is orange.  I know that's what you actually believe.  It says so in your posts.

[Shadowlax]

37 minutes ago, Tara said:

I don't know what drugs you're on when you're reading my posts, but I want them so bad.

Like I've literally never seen such a blatant derailment of a point in order to desperately mask your inability to understand it.  Like, once again you're inserting words that don't exist into my posts and it's gotten to the point where I can literally only assume that you're either under the influence or just plain not reading the posts and just hoping that they fall within your predetermined narrative.

But go ahead, continue believing the sky is orange.  I know that's what you actually believe.  It says so in your posts.

I have never made the argument that scientific elements are subjective. I litterally say in the post above you that light is constant, but the names we call it arent.  Actually read above you. Actually read.

I said art would change if our history was different. The rules around it would, which is true its something we created to communicate our perception of the world . And goes when we go and only has any validity because we choose to mentally invesr in it  How we exicute artistic principles isn't a scientific constant or those principles.

 

Blue is blue or aoi, or whatever you wish to call it will exist even if we weren't around  to name  it. The blues, and bluegrass  not so much.

 

Im not masking anything, you are failing to understand , like basic stuff.

 

But im sorry i said i was done. Sorry 

[Tara]

27 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

I have never made the argument that scientific elements are subjective. I litterally say in the post above you that light is constant, but the names we call it arent.  Actually read above you. Actually read.

I said art would change if our history was different. The rules around it would, which is true its something we created to communicate our perception of the world . And goes when we go and only has any validity because we choose to mentally invesr in it  How we exicute artistic principles isn't a scientific constant.

 

Blue is blue or aoi, or whatever you wish to call it will exist even if we weren't aren't  to name  it. The blues, and bluegrass  not so much.

 

Im not masking anything, you are failing to understand , like basic stuff.

 

But im sorry i said i was done. Sorry 

No, um seriously what.  Are we even having the same conversation?  Because again you're inserting words that aren't there.

Like, I've shown this topic to TWO non-SSMB friends and they're both convinced that you've gone mad and are imagining things that aren't there.

EDIT- Okay now that I've woken up a little, I have to say that I can see that my last two posts were extremely out of line.  My wording was quite harsh and it was maybe a little (a lot) immature to just have to off-site people look at the conversation just to see if they're as stumped as I am.  For that, I would like to apologize to everyone in this thread, as it was uncalled for and it was wrong of me to do so.  I accept responsibility for that.

But my point still stands that putting words in people's mouths is never appreciated nor a very good indication of an educated debate.  The supposed belief supposedly said by me that music was the result of some divine intervention (to put it in vastly tamer words than what was brought up) or comparable to the laws of physics doesn't even count as a strawman argument and you'd have to show me some very hard evidence to convince me that it wasn't a deliberate misinterpretation.  The only one I could even remotely vouch you for is that maybe you think the word "science" only has one definition, and thus you got confused with what I meant by that, but that's a really far-reaching assumption for me to make.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that's not cool, and that's an objective fact as stated by Abraham Lincoln himself.  So basically I have no interest in continuing this charade, either, and while I concede that having other people look at the thread was a very childish move on my part, I still value that apparently I'm not the only one who's picking up on the fact that the majority of this discussion has been based on a mindset that was deliberately misconstrued.  And all that to say that after several posts, I now realize this isn't even the topic for that, so I'm now asking everyone to get back to the topic at hand.  That is, the ability to acknowledge some games as bad even though you may like them.  I, once again, apologize for contributing to this derailment and will try my best to contain myself in the future.

[Shadowlax]

2 hours ago, Tara said:

Ok maybe we were mean and snarky. , can we just end this. There are some ideological clashes here and we may be talking way past each other. I think one thing you might not agree. Its whatever. I kind of want to just end this.  

 

To wrap this back around to the subject matter at hand i'm tired of mishandled blue hedgehogs taking a bit too much of my time. If there were a lot less mishandling maybe we wouldn't need threads like these, or general positivist threads. Anyways peace out.