Modern trash.

I was talking in a general sense -- we don't get new amateur pieces which can touch the quality of the great games of the past much like we don't get new professional pieces which can do that, either. And the examples you gave seem to confirm it, even if the comparison there has to be much more... abstract.

I don't think you're being too kind on the European action games for the 8-bit/16-bit computers. They were horrid from the mechanics perspective (many of them even had to be played with a keyboard, so what could you expect), but they were (many times, though just in the early days) conceptually almost as great as the Japanese arcades they were trying to mimic and got amazing settings and scenography, making of any random theme something cool to experience. This personality just can't be found in the modern amateur scene from the West since they don't put even half the work into it nor have the talent, to begin with.

To make my position crystal clear, if given a choice between saving Far Cry 2 or the entire history of 2D games, the 2D stuff would all go in the trash without a second's hesitation, just as I'd trash all the paintings ever made to save a Heat, a Blade Runner or a Dark Knight. That doesn't mean I can't appreciate the primitive stuff -- it is part of the amazing depth and breadth of my tastes and aesthetic sensibilities that I can -- but the utter superiority of the advanced stuff has to be recognized, if not by everyone then at least by the highest arbiters of taste, otherwise we might as well agree with the artfags that progress in art is impossible and go back to cave paintings or splattered canvases.

That is not to say that I expect you to agree to this. But it would at least be a good idea for you to realize what my position is, simply for the purposes of whatever discussions we might have on this or related topics.

Recap, just in case you care, the reason you prefer games with scene development, as you call it, over stuff like Asteroids, and then again 16-bit games over 8-bit games, are exactly the same reasons that make me prefer 3D games over 2D ones. So the stuff you posted, about B-movies and the like, apply also to your favorite games. I can even quote you from this thread:

"amazing settings and scenography"

That was in reference to some childishly crap 2D eurotrash art, and to the accompanying C-movie plots.

Just in case you care to know how you look when you talk about stuff like this, you look exactly like Ebert when he's scribbling stupidities to justify his hatred of videogames, and the resentment he feels at his favorite art being superseded. Every little pseudo-argument, and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE, that is being constructed in order to support its author's incapacity, appears, to those who do not share that incapacity, retarded. So the best thing for Ebert to do would simply to remain silent...

I am not saying you should be too. I am just trying to explain to you how the situation looks like from where I am standing. And as it happens, I have 2,500 years of science and culture standing right here with me.

There's not a single gratuitous comment in any of my posts in this thread. If the substantiation that I offered is not enough for you, ask for more and I will provide it. As to your level of tolerance of my ideas and arguments, it has nothing to do with me, and you will of course take any action you deem necessary, whenever you deem it so.

I already have: because they are more immersive, i.e. as I have explained at length in my Genealogy (even just the parts of it that have been published on the internet so far), artistically superior. And I mean, besides all that (which is all there is, and all there needs to be, but perhaps some humor might help you see the ridiculousness of your position anyway), if you think that a retarded childish little 2D bitmap, or some variation of fucking Tetris or whatever (which is what all the 2D action genres boil down to in the end), or a fucking arcade stick or whatever, are the ULTIMATE POSSIBLE ACHIEVEMENTS OF DIGITAL ENTERTAINMENT, and that the purpose of the entire history of digital technology as it pertains to art had been achieved with these pathetic little developments, you are out of your fucking mind. Even if we put behind us all the theory and all the science and all the art, and just simply put a screen from Super Mario World or whatever (to demonstrate the graphics), and an arcade stick on a couple of pedestals and write beneath them: THE PINNACLES OF DIGITAL ART, we'd have even THE PEDESTALS THEMSELVES LAUGHING AT US, dude. The absurdity of your position is so obvious the moment we leave some early-90's obsessive's dedicated gaming room and go out into the street and get some goddamn air, that no arguments at all would be required to prove any of my points (quite aside from the fact that I HAVE ALL OF THEM WHILE YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING). Like, for reals dude. If you seriously think that the pinnacle of art is The Super Shinobi or Strider or whatever, you seriously need some goddamn air. Nor can you escape from this implication by hiding yourself inside the term "videogames" and claiming that art and videogames are two separate things, because that dichotomy has already been demolished in my Genealogy. Art and videogames are EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and as I explain in my article on Set Theory (and as you should be able to grasp without even reading it), videogames are basically a superset of all previous (and in fact even future) artforms. So if you say that some random 2D childish little game is the pinnacle of videogames you are saying it is the pinnacle of art, and no amount of muddling the waters or backpedalling can obscure that retarded insinuation.

As if all my writings weren't about aesthetics, lol.

There's nothing "plain" about beauty, Recap. It is an extremely complicated subject, and our understanding and pursuit of it hinges on an immense level to all the rules and guidelines art theorists like me have been expounding for millennia. The retort that "that is simply what I like" belongs on gamefaqs: at the level of art theory and criticism it is merely an ignorant childish gesture. And I am telling you why games with stage progression (i.e. scene development) "please your eyes" -- instead of having a game be a single glorified stage (however beautiful) -- because real life has scene development, which is why therefore it's more immersive.

It has everything to do with exactly those things, and your denial of this obvious simple fact is merely your way of attacking the theory which you can see eventually, in the long run, and from a higher viewpoint, denies the superiority (and therefore ultimately the relevance) of your tastes.

There's only one kind of immersion, and as far as 2D Japanese games go you are a downright ADDICT of it.

So now you know, people: art is games, video-games are about "immersion" and not challenge, stage progression is better than one single stage because it mimics real life, keyboards were conceived as gaming interfaces.

Banned so that I can save some patience.

Oh, I also must point out that I think Heaven Variant looks awesome and has a great atmosphere. Looks like they are totally inspired by the recent animation Redline in trying to create a very colorful and 80's style theme. The actual mechanics are obviously taken from Einhander and the analogue control doesn't sound good, but whatever its not like I'm looking forward to a shooting game like this anyway, but if I do eventually check it out it would totally be just to see if they maintain this momentum with the presentation aspects.