SR V: To boldly go where no room has gone before

KoS wrote: http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2008/future-of-video-game-design-1208 reading material

Rather.

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists, and composers...video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized, and empathetic."

Found this a rather bold statement, given that the 'great' dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers are themselves often clearly unequal in quality, influence, and importance.

Moreover, if you put up Pride And Prejudice against Planescape: Torment, the former is clearly less philosophically interesting and challenging: all in all, a pleasant romantic novel... maybe a well-written one and a 'classic', but still, that's what it is. Same goes, in my view, for Dumas and Aeschylus' The Suppliant Maidens or The Persians. Now, why would reading Austen, in that context, be more cultured, empathetic or civilised?

The biggest problem with computer games, in my opinion, is that unlike a book or a film, you can influence the content. Heck, that's the whole point of the form, that you are making decisions which the game's reacting to. The problem is, whenever a decision involves receiving less content, you are effectively getting less out of the game, which limits or at least alters the value of your freedom of choice in making said decisions, which undermines the game's artistic integrity.

James wrote: A few minor gripes re: that interview with Max. 1. why use Coheed and Cambria in that three-way collage? 2. the article is slightly inaccurate: there are 7 Admin but they most certainly do not run the genre teams and decide which bands should be added.

Bump.

I did say they were minor gripes.

Overall the interview was great and a hearty well done.

Coheed and Cambria aren't prog at all...

James wrote: Epignosis wrote: James wrote: James wrote: A few minor gripes re: that interview with Max. 1. why use Coheed and Cambria in that three-way collage? 2. the article is slightly inaccurate: there are 7 Admin but they most certainly do not run the genre teams and decide which bands should be added. Bump. Well, re: 1: Coheed and Cambira are not Crossover prog.  No problem there. 2: I caught that, but so what.  Interviewers don't always get it right (as M@X himself has said). Freudian slip? Co&Ca are Crossover Prog according to P.A.

Damn James.  I'm drunk.  Leave me alone, k? 

James wrote: Epignosis wrote: James wrote: James wrote: A few minor gripes re: that interview with Max. 1. why use Coheed and Cambria in that three-way collage? 2. the article is slightly inaccurate: there are 7 Admin but they most certainly do not run the genre teams and decide which bands should be added. Bump. Well, re: 1: Coheed and Cambira are not Crossover prog.  No problem there. 2: I caught that, but so what.  Interviewers don't always get it right (as M@X himself has said). Freudian slip? Co&Ca are Crossover Prog according to P.A.

They are prog according to other sources too. A lot of the music you listen to, James, would not be considered prog by other people. I wonder why we can't learn to tolerate things we disagree with...

I can hardly even tolerate the name crossover prog. I like to think genres are self-evident, not amounting to corralling a herd into a defined area. It doesn't matter, though. If anyone thinks he knows what progressive rock really is, he doesn't know what he's talking about...

Eclectic Prog was an idea of mine, and I'm sorry if you don't like it. Same for Xover Prog. Unfortunately, it seems you will have to live with both of them. 

Nu-Prog as a definition is unfortunately tainted by its similarity with the notorious 'nu-metal'. Speaking personally, I don't care too much for that 'nu' prefix, and I'd rather go for something like 'modern prog' - though I am perfectly aware that the term 'modern' is quite ambiguous, if not inaccurate. However, I believe a new category for the bands you mentioned, and others as well, would not be a bad idea, though there is a lot of resistance in the Collab ranks.

Raff wrote: Nu-Prog as a definition is unfortunately tainted by its similarity with the notorious 'nu-metal'. Speaking personally, I don't care too much for that 'nu' prefix, and I'd rather go for something like 'modern prog' - though I am perfectly aware that the term 'modern' is quite ambiguous, if not inaccurate. However, I believe a new category for the bands you mentioned, and others as well, would not be a bad idea, though there is a lot of resistance in the Collab ranks.

I agree with you, Raff. Nu-prog probably wouldn't be a good term, but it's one I've seen used before, which is probably why I used it.

I guess my main issue is it would prevent some of the modern bands added to this site from being pigeon-holed into PR or Xover as I already mentioned. Thanks for answering my question!

Any genre with "Nu" in it is automatically bad. Therefore Nu-Prog is not a genre. Crossover is a good one though and a suitable home for Coheed.