If he did something with his time other than thinking about and dwelling upon a medium he obviously loathes, he might actually be able to have something to show with his life.
Classifying everything as political, and then chiding works for having the wrong political messages isn't going to convince Square Enix to join the revolution.
The assertion that player agency should be constrained (because not doing so is immoral) illustrates the underlying desire for art to be an instrument of moral instruction. The real world itself is not like a morality play, and bad choices do not necessarily result in the actor being de-powered or suffering negative consequences; sometimes they are even rewarded for their decisions. To merely capture this reality and express it in the outcomes of player choice is "immoral." You have to put the player in video game handcuffs.
I am curious if he realizes that his metric is so under-specified as to be useless. Just as one example, what degree of say would the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands have in the Industrial Revolution, having no way of knowing the future threat of global warming raising sea levels, and how would that degree of say compare to that of all of the people able to eat due to increased agricultural production?
Classifying everything as political, and then chiding works for having the wrong political messages isn't going to convince Square Enix to join the revolution.
The assertion that player agency should be constrained (because not doing so is immoral) illustrates the underlying desire for art to be an instrument of moral instruction. The real world itself is not like a morality play, and bad choices do not necessarily result in the actor being de-powered or suffering negative consequences; sometimes they are even rewarded for their decisions. To merely capture this reality and express it in the outcomes of player choice is "immoral." You have to put the player in video game handcuffs.
There's an interesting problem with vision here on his part. Art is a product of a society, society isn't a product of the art. Trying to change art to change society doesn't work, it just makes the art unpalatable to the society it's meant for. You have to change the society first.
There's an interesting problem with vision here on his part. Art is a product of a society, society isn't a product of the art. Trying to change art to change society doesn't work, it just makes the art unpalatable to the society it's meant for. You have to change the society first.
Government attempts to influence the course of artwork have constantly backfired, because it's a luxury good and people aren't going to put money down on luxuries that don't hit every note. The government of France has been subsidizing local film production for decades, the end result being French films that don't need to cater to audiences to avoid bombing. Which in itself resulted in a never-evolving glut of films that appeal to no one besides the filmmakers and art critics.
Likewise, the Chinese government restricts the number of foreign films that can be released domestically, in addition to subsidizing chinese film production. The goal is to build up a domestic film industry and prevent the Chinese people from thinking that America is superior at anything. By limiting the number of foreign films to get released, Hollywood only sends over the best ones, resulting in a selection bias. One that gives Chinese audiences the impression that all American movies are oscar-winning blockbusters, and that Chinese films are over-hyped disappointments, the exact opposite of the intended outcome. Good job CCCP
