Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Also, a great way to explore the environment is to use 'noclip'.
Im scared.
its a very nice experience
Visuals are decent but I found the story on my play through very disjointed. One moment hes talking about 1700s, next a car accident, then about caves.
I appreciate the art style but I don't appreciate the sporadic storytelling. At times I'd be walking around in silence and I thought...isn't he going to say something? Perfect time to fill in more story. Yeah there is a time for silence and mood setting but there was some very long amounts of time between voiceovers.
I enjoyed the scenery though, the first 20mins of walking on the windswept hills was really immersive. But yeah, I hope they either make an actual game (which has well, choices) or they train hard on this whole storytelling thing.
In fact the chineseroom are working on another game an indirect sequel of Dear Esther called Everyone's Gone To Rapture which will have much more interaction and "gameplay". The story they were telling in Dear Esther was a story to make your own of, they leave out just enough story tad-bits you finish the story yourself where it may feel "incomplete".
Whether or not CoD is good art or interesting art or whatever, and all the reasons why or why not, are different questions. Call of Duty can be analysed and understood as a work of art like practically everything else made by human hands. And it should be, in the interest of understanding it, all our works and indeed ourselves more thoroughly. To treat "art" as an attribute innate to some objects but not others is pointless arrogance that serves only to reinforce biases and ultimately limit human understanding.
As an avid reader of RPS and fan of John Walker's articles, your definition of "art" would imply a fork, or a hammer would be a work of art. This is the 21st century in this day and age those tools have no "aesthetic principles of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"[according to dictionary.com], yes we may take them for granted but nevertheless it does not meet those terms. Neither does Call Of Duty meet any of these expectations of "art", yes Call Of Duty was made by human hands, but no does it have any more than ordinary signicance, intricacy, or appeal to anyone other than young children who also think war is fun and would like joining the army because it looked cool in Call Of Duty.
But, you know, whatever. I'm a big fan of people being allowed to have their own definitions - dictionary.com (or any other dictionary) is not an authority on meaning, they simply document common uses. If you want to take that definition of art, that's ultimately your business, as long as you understand that it is not for you to decide what's beautiful "in this day and age". Beauty, appeal, or something being "of greater than ordinary significance" are all entirely subjective concepts, and thus so is your stance on what is and is not art. By which I mean, please stop with the disbelief ("you can't honestly be saying this!") at the notion that others may consider CoD art - it makes it look like you don't even understand your own position, let alone ours.