I tend to distrust monopolies and be instantly wary of anything that's too widely acclaimed. As such, it always bugs me when people are praising Valve for Steam. I think they're just as interested in making money as EA is- they just have different methods and way better PR- and definitely not some kind of champion of the players.
I have a soft spot for BioWare that often leads me to defend decisions they made that are widely seen as bad - yes, even that one.
Come to think of it, as a general rule I don't think we, as players, are
entitled to anything. To me vidya games stem from an artistic vision before anything else, as flawed as this vision can be. Of course we have every right to rant and argument if we think it sucks, but ultimately any incentive to modify things in a game should come from the creators themselves, and not be motivated by the audience.
I find Kaidan Alenko charming, and not annoying in the least.
I prefer Fallout 3 to Skyrim.
Intolerant atheists:
1) do in fact exist.
2) unnerve me at a very visceral level, as they do not even have the excuse of faith for being douches to people not thinking the same way as they do.
Windows 8 is still mostly useless as an OS, and I'm not optimistic about Windows 10.
There's no such thing for me as a 'bad opinion', and 'keep your opinion to yourself!' is one of the stupidest sentences one can tell in my book. I'd rather be shocked or dumbfounded than encouraging censorship.
Québécois French is damn sexy.
(That's an unpopular opinion where I'm from. And I think that'll be all.)
ETA:
El Camino of Rampage said:
Personally I've always thought that the reason for that isn't because games are so young, but because games are made by more STEM/right brained people. Filmmakers were figuring out ways to use film for artistic expression basically right away, and the same goes for photography. Games on the other hand were primarily just cool pieces of software, and the people creating them were more interested in making new, more complex systems than exploring any greater meaning. Basically, games are made primarily by engineers, not artists, whereas in basically any other art form it's the other way around.
That might have been true for games in the past, but what about nowadays? Several dev teams now have writers and artists as permanent residents, and a number of titles being released in recent years have had a definite artistic and/or narrative focus. One could argue that this distinction isn't so clear anymore.
Or am I misunderstanding you? Your point seems to be that games started (and still are, in a way) as products being made for a practical purpose (building software, creating intricate systems) rather than any explicit artistic value, but... it seems to me that it's been the case in a lot of other arts, as well. Many poems and plays we know where commandited by such-and-such patrons, and had the writer going through the motions. Most of the fugues we and concerti we listen to were composed as pure technical exercise. Not all of our art was or is intended as such, and I'm definitely certain that not all of the people others consider as being artists create with the purpose of a greater meaning.
(I'm not trying to fuel any controversy, or somesuch; I'm genuinely interested in your point of view and the reasons causing you to make this distinction, seeing that I myself am one of those people unable to hierarchise in any way when it comes to arts.)
