Quote:
Originally Posted by C Elegans  |
Ah, seems that I have missed that thread. That's what you get when you are too busy to check the forums well regulary.
Quote:
|
As I mentioned in that thread, the quality of art can be judged by for instance the skill demanded to produce the work, the degree of novelty, the degree of impact on the field of art and influence in other areas ie politics, society, development etc, whether it is genre creating or genre defining etc.
|
By those definitions, if we were talking about art (which, in some way movies and games could be counted as), wouldn't influence to large population in a way that that population forms a group of fans turn it to good art? Or at least mediocre? As I understood from that thread (made only quick overall look on it, reading it fully with better time) and as my mind tells me, even though not everybody likes something, if the thing, in this case movie, affect positively to population it can be claimed to be "good"? By this I mean that IMO something can't be claimed universally terrible if it has positive affection to part of the population, which then returns to the point that not all movies based on games can be labeled terrible, which then contradice the claims that movie based games are automatically terrible.
I hope the point I try to say above is understandable, as my mind ain't working even nearly full capacity. It's nearly 5 a.m. here after all...
