|
On June 01 2010 23:35 Pholon wrote:
Also, from now on maybe we can focus on how you'd disagree with the original analogy and not go "no it's like this" and then have some other paint-related metaphor?
The problem we have with your original analogy is that it drastically undervalues Blizzard's role while similarly overvaluing the progamers' role.
The great artists of the Renaissance you use to make your point didn't deal exclusively with a specific composition of oil paint. They often worked in a variety of media, and enjoyed similar success in them.
Yet in the Blizzard/Korea dispute, to my knowledge no game has come within two orders of magnitude of the Starcraft's success. Starcraft is the linchpin.
Starcraft, a creative effort by artists certainly no less skilled than the programers you so admire, is far more responsible for the success of said progamers than your fictional paint maker is responsible for the success of the Renaissance artists.
|
Your metaphor is mind numbingly awful. Developing a game is nothing like making a paint. It is different in every single way with the exception that in both cases somebody created something. That you would even make this metaphor shows that you have no idea what it takes to design and create a game as well as a lack of respect for those who do.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 02 2010 04:20 KingPants wrote:
Your metaphor is mind numbingly awful. Developing a game is nothing like making a paint. It is different in every single way with the exception that in both cases somebody created something. That you would even make this metaphor shows that you have no idea what it takes to design and create a game as well as a lack of respect for those who do.
All I've done is praise the paint. It took years to develop, balancing the ingredients and the result is one of the greatest paint ever. Also, it is a METAPHOR. If I say "man, your room's as dirty as a pigsty" you don't go "WHAT, IT IS NOTHING LIKE IT THERE ARE NO PIGS IN IT DERP".
|
There is something in common between a dirty room and a pigsty in that both are dirty. There is nothing in common between a video game and paint. Your analogy is inane.
Furthermore I do not consider it a compliment to the developers to compare a video game to paint and then immediately compare somebody playing the the game to a painting, it suggests that playing the game is much more complex and respectable than making the game. You are belittling the game developers and their achievements. I know that you don't understand that but words do mean things and being a poor communicator is no excuse.
|
I think the metaphor was apt. It may not have been spot on (much to the chagrin of KingPants lol wtf is your problem dude?), but it did a damn fine job of making the point.
On June 02 2010 03:26 RiOrius wrote:
The problem we have with your original analogy is that it drastically undervalues Blizzard's role while similarly overvaluing the progamers' role.
Agreed that the metaphor might undervalue Blizzard, but really how popular would the game be were it not for the pro scene? I really don't think there could be such a thing as overvaluing the progamers in this case.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
I can compare it to whatever I like as long as I point out the common ground can't I? Also, I never did compare gamers to painters, this has been pointed out by me and other several times.
And fair enough, I'm not even asking to to agree with me on culturing the game being MORE complex than making the game, only that you acknowledge that to a certain degree (whatever degree) the Koreans contributed greatly to the success of StarCraft and consequently Blizzard.
|
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I'm sorry that I missed your explanation of what the painters represent. If the painters represent the entirety of the Korean scene what does the painting represent?
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
The product of their combined efforts.
|
oh very very well written.
i had to read this twice to understand the hidden meaning behind it
very very well written
|
Thanks for brushing me up on my art history circa 15th and 16th century! Nice post
|
On June 02 2010 06:18 Pholon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 04:20 KingPants wrote:
Your metaphor is mind numbingly awful. Developing a game is nothing like making a paint. It is different in every single way with the exception that in both cases somebody created something. That you would even make this metaphor shows that you have no idea what it takes to design and create a game as well as a lack of respect for those who do. All I've done is praise the paint. It took years to develop, balancing the ingredients and the result is one of the greatest paint ever. Also, it is a METAPHOR. If I say "man, your room's as dirty as a pigsty" you don't go "WHAT, IT IS NOTHING LIKE IT THERE ARE NO PIGS IN IT DERP".
Agreed. However that doesn't make it a good metaphor. Despite the pseudo-intelligence of this article it doesn't make it a good metaphor. Nor does it make it unique in that a number of other threads are already discussing this.
You just took an idea already being heavily kicked around in other threads and "painted" it with a new face. Bravo.
|
haha very nice! 
|
Holy shit
you guys are batshit insane, dont try to Analyze every single aspect of it, the metaphor is not the best, but is great and a deferent approach on this Blizz vs Kespa argument.
|
On June 02 2010 07:10 KingPants wrote:
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I really don't understand how people still think this way. Think of EVERY professional sport in the world. Who owns the rights to sell tickets and broadcasting rights? Either,
1) a body representing the players or
2) the tournament organizer.
Blizzard is NEITHER of these.
|
People getting vigilant on what constitutes a good or bad metaphor should probably note that this is an allegory, not a single isolated metaphor. And it's a good allegory at that.
Thanks, Pholon et al.
|
I don't understand why you said that Blizzard retracted the paintings, all the games played and all the vods made are still there. Also lets call it a frame for paintings instead of paint, then what just happened is that the frame manufacturer wants money for you to show off his frames. You say that it is the paintings that is the most important aspect but to totally ignore the frame is ridiculous. Of course the paintings is the biggest aspect but I don't think that Blizzard wants that big of a share... And the reason people are bitching now is since you can't switch the frames since there are no alternatives that are even comparable, a huge reason the painting community flourishes like it does is due to these excellent frames so why should the frame maker get totally ignored?
It is like, as it is now every artist bought one set of frames, then he painted a painting in it and shows it off. Then he removes the frame and paints another painting to show off etc. Only that with electronic things you don't remove, you copy.
It costs more to buy a movie than to go to the cinema, and even more to buy a movie that you are allowed to lease. It is exactly the same movie, you are just buying more rights. According to most people on TL if you are a cinema owner and buys a movie in a normal store and then sells tickets to that movie the movie maker would be out of his mind if he wanted compensation for that since all he did was the movie. You bought it legally in the store so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it and he didn't provide the cinema experience which is the biggest reason people go to a cinema instead of just renting the movie but still he comes and complains thinking that you stole his IP...
On June 02 2010 23:34 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 07:10 KingPants wrote:
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I really don't understand how people still think this way. Think of EVERY professional sport in the world. Who owns the rights to sell tickets and broadcasting rights? Either, 1) a body representing the players or 2) the tournament organizer. Blizzard is NEITHER of these.
A game is however also a lot like a movie, you are not free to broadcast movies however you please. In conventional sports the players is the only relevant thing but for E-sports both are equally important which is why no analogy like this will ever work.
|
On June 02 2010 23:34 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 07:10 KingPants wrote:
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I really don't understand how people still think this way. Think of EVERY professional sport in the world. Who owns the rights to sell tickets and broadcasting rights? Either, 1) a body representing the players or 2) the tournament organizer. Blizzard is NEITHER of these.
This is because professional sports don't involve someone else's intellectual property.
If, hypothetically, some pro sports team wanted to change its mascot to Spongebob Squarepants, they'd need to get Nickelodeon's okay on it.
Similarly, is some guys want to make money by broadcasting a game composed entirely of art and game mechanics created and owned by Blizzard, said guys should really have to get Blizzard's permission to do so.
Footballs and baseball bats aren't intellectual property. Zerglings and firebats are.
|
Pholon, wonderful post. I'm sorry to see people not seeing it for what it is, and narrowing it down to pot shots at the industry.
Apparently there is no praise for a creative soul when it involves a metaphor that questions corporate behavior, in an era where the modern fanboy can be heard, or read for that matter.
|
On June 03 2010 00:30 RiOrius wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 23:34 theSAiNT wrote:On June 02 2010 07:10 KingPants wrote:
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I really don't understand how people still think this way. Think of EVERY professional sport in the world. Who owns the rights to sell tickets and broadcasting rights? Either, 1) a body representing the players or 2) the tournament organizer. Blizzard is NEITHER of these. This is because professional sports don't involve someone else's intellectual property. If, hypothetically, some pro sports team wanted to change its mascot to Spongebob Squarepants, they'd need to get Nickelodeon's okay on it. Similarly, is some guys want to make money by broadcasting a game composed entirely of art and game mechanics created and owned by Blizzard, said guys should really have to get Blizzard's permission to do so. Footballs and baseball bats aren't intellectual property. Zerglings and firebats are.
This!
Plus, it seems that a lot of this stuff could be traced to the simple progression of technology, and how it impacts on quite dated copyright and intellectual property laws. The changes in the music industry, along with YouTube copyright 'infringements' are similar examples.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
On June 03 2010 00:26 Klockan3 wrote:I don't understand why you said that Blizzard retracted the paintings, all the games played and all the vods made are still there. Also lets call it a frame for paintings instead of paint, then what just happened is that the frame manufacturer wants money for you to show off his frames. You say that it is the paintings that is the most important aspect but to totally ignore the frame is ridiculous. Of course the paintings is the biggest aspect but I don't think that Blizzard wants that big of a share... And the reason people are bitching now is since you can't switch the frames since there are no alternatives that are even comparable, a huge reason the painting community flourishes like it does is due to these excellent frames so why should the frame maker get totally ignored? It is like, as it is now every artist bought one set of frames, then he painted a painting in it and shows it off. Then he removes the frame and paints another painting to show off etc. Only that with electronic things you don't remove, you copy. It costs more to buy a movie than to go to the cinema, and even more to buy a movie that you are allowed to lease. It is exactly the same movie, you are just buying more rights. According to most people on TL if you are a cinema owner and buys a movie in a normal store and then sells tickets to that movie the movie maker would be out of his mind if he wanted compensation for that since all he did was the movie. You bought it legally in the store so you should be allowed to do whatever you want with it and he didn't provide the cinema experience which is the biggest reason people go to a cinema instead of just renting the movie but still he comes and complains thinking that you stole his IP... Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 23:34 theSAiNT wrote:On June 02 2010 07:10 KingPants wrote:
I agree that Koreans contributed greatly to the success of Starcraft, I don't believe said Koreans should gain ownership of Starcraft because of that.
I really don't understand how people still think this way. Think of EVERY professional sport in the world. Who owns the rights to sell tickets and broadcasting rights? Either, 1) a body representing the players or 2) the tournament organizer. Blizzard is NEITHER of these. A game is however also a lot like a movie, you are not free to broadcast movies however you please. In conventional sports the players is the only relevant thing but for E-sports both are equally important which is why no analogy like this will ever work.
Stop creating different paint-like metaphors. If everyone comes up with new ones it'll jsut confuse. In stead focus on what's wrong with mine. So no, let's not call it that.
And to get to your post: No, the -games- are not the -paintings-. The paintings are the art created with the paint and therefore represent the "art" created from BroodWar. I'm not saying Blizzard is deleting VODs, I dunno where you got that, it's that they're taking the art away from the people responsible for having created the art which is a giant kick in the metaphoric balls.
Also I'm sorry if my shindig is too complicated. I really don't wanna go and spell it all out, but it pissed me off that people come in here and calling it weak and feeble while they don't understand what's going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
