The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Games as Art?
Anticipation
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I read an interesting post recently where a rather rabid PS3 fan was discussing video games as art: his belief is that the PS3, with it's computational power, would be able to get us closer to this goal, and his fear was that the Wii would take us farther away from it. He used a very specific example -- he suggested that Wii games were like crappy summer movie blockbusters, and what he wanted were serious, artistic flicks. This post struck me, mainly because I have the exact opposite view.
I assume we can agree that any attempt to define "Art" is hopeless from the start. As an example, even if we can agree that Dostoevsky is a more sophisticated artist than John Grisham, how do we prove it? What can we say besides: "Obviously, he is?" I suppose we could write a thesis paper.
But really, all we have to go on are concrete, tangible evidences. The best example of this: what is the target demographic of a piece of art? Generally speaking -- generally, mind you -- works of art that attract 15 year old males are not going to be the most sophisticated, while art that generally attracts college educated 45 year olds tend to be less fantastical. Unless someone would like to argue that Dragonball Z is a more serious work of art than, say, "The Departed," or "Brothers Karamazov." If someone has a better way to define art on an internet forum, I'm all ears. "Yuh huh" and "nuh uh" do not qualify.
Which leads me to why I was so shocked at the posters comparison. Wii games like crappy, blockbuster movies? But it's the PS3/360 games that have monster budgets (the quintessential ones, such as God of War, Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy) and the Wii games that have smaller ones (especially the quintessential ones, such as Wii Sports). It's the PS3 games that tend to be more violent and action packed, like your average Blade or James Bond. It's the PS3 games that tend to attract 15-23 year old males, like those summer action movies, and it's the Wii games that tend to attract more adults.
In fact, these games fit the analogy perfectly -- except in the complete opposite roles than the poster had given. I concluded that the Wii was the best console to give me adult experiences, not the PS3 or 360.
Okay, first real post on these forums. I have no idea if this will be discussed at all, but I'd love to receive any comments or criticisms on my musings!
I assume we can agree that any attempt to define "Art" is hopeless from the start. As an example, even if we can agree that Dostoevsky is a more sophisticated artist than John Grisham, how do we prove it? What can we say besides: "Obviously, he is?" I suppose we could write a thesis paper.
But really, all we have to go on are concrete, tangible evidences. The best example of this: what is the target demographic of a piece of art? Generally speaking -- generally, mind you -- works of art that attract 15 year old males are not going to be the most sophisticated, while art that generally attracts college educated 45 year olds tend to be less fantastical. Unless someone would like to argue that Dragonball Z is a more serious work of art than, say, "The Departed," or "Brothers Karamazov." If someone has a better way to define art on an internet forum, I'm all ears. "Yuh huh" and "nuh uh" do not qualify.
Which leads me to why I was so shocked at the posters comparison. Wii games like crappy, blockbuster movies? But it's the PS3/360 games that have monster budgets (the quintessential ones, such as God of War, Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy) and the Wii games that have smaller ones (especially the quintessential ones, such as Wii Sports). It's the PS3 games that tend to be more violent and action packed, like your average Blade or James Bond. It's the PS3 games that tend to attract 15-23 year old males, like those summer action movies, and it's the Wii games that tend to attract more adults.
In fact, these games fit the analogy perfectly -- except in the complete opposite roles than the poster had given. I concluded that the Wii was the best console to give me adult experiences, not the PS3 or 360.
Okay, first real post on these forums. I have no idea if this will be discussed at all, but I'd love to receive any comments or criticisms on my musings!
Anticipation on
0
Posts
If movies or TV shows can be considered as art, I see no reason for games to be excluded from this. Games roll aspects of movies, literature, design, architecture and other artforms into one package. I dont think the fact that they require user input detracts from their artistic nature.
Now, I guess the real meat of your question is what makes a game more "artful" than another game. It's kind of an odd question really. Some games push the imagination, and have a more artistic feel like Shadow of the Colossus. Some don't try to tell a story, or twist the imagination like Madden. So, I'd say Shadows would be a more creative endeavor, but rendering a lifelike figure of a Madden football player is no less art to me then creating a giant stone monster.
The question should be is X title considered an artistic achievement and why?
But as you point out, there are others factors that come in to play. Personally, I'm most concerned with intellectual, emotional and thematic sophistication; I'm aware art doesn't need to fit this description, but it certainly is my favorite type. This is a definition and style that I think video games are still years away from, as the dialog available in even the most popular of hardcore titles is still woefully lacking (Otacon in MGS: Snake, do you think love can bloom on the battlefied? Ugh.).
The biggest obstacle, in my opinion, is simply the traditional way that games are built. For instance, the creators of Gears of War compared their work to Shakespeare (seriously, they did). We're certainly getting into very subjective territory here, but for goodness sakes, it's a game about a super soldier blowing up hundreds of space aliens. And this is the problem: can you honestly imagine "serious art" that involves killing hundreds of aliens, or nazis, or zombies? I wouldn't say it's utterly impossible, but it's close. Again, just my opinion.
I don't see how videogames can't be considered art if one is well-crafted.
Planescape: Torment, have you played that? Because that is most genuinely art.
This is one viewpoint, and certainly a stereotypically modern one. I have some misgivings about it: first, I think it's used as a crutch or an excuse for bad artists. Art critics don't like your work? It's all relative! Your opinions do not affect the merit of my accomplishments! Secondly, I believe that it utterly destroys all discussion when taken to its logical extreme.
If one were to be really, really picky, everything is relative and subjective, not just art. Time. Space. Even existence; it's theoretically possible that this post you are reading isn't being typed by a person, but by wind in a gusty room that happens to be opening up a browser and pushing down keys in the precise order necessary to type this post. That's possible -- it's just incredibly and hilariously unlikely. If we insist on making no assumptions or conclusions, then we can never agree that anything is true, because nothing is, in any absolute sense. Instead, we can say that reasonable people can reasonably agree that I exist, and that this post is being typed by an actual human.
Similarly, art can be broken down into nothingness, if you'd like. You can insist that no art is greater than any other, and that there is no such thing as "good" or "bad" or "sophisticated" or "puerile" art. This effectively ends all discussion, organization, or categorization, and in their place creates a lack of understanding and chaos. So again, I'd say that reasonable people can reasonably agree that "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" is, in fact, an inferior work of art to "Citizen Kane" or "MacBeth." If we get in to the nitty gritty -- is "The Great Gatsby" better than "For Whom The Bell Tolls?" Is "Spider Man 1" better than "Spider Man 2"? -- then I'd agree that nothing can be said concretely.
Instead, I suggest measured, reasonable certainty, and measured, reasonable fluidity. "Good" art and "bad" art are not absolute or concrete terms, but they also are not completely lacking meaning.
I absolutely agree with everything you just said. Yes I've played Planescape, and yes I agree.
It's why I'll never trust rants like that one from Roger Ebert not too long ago, because he discussed gaming from a cinematic perspective, without mentioning gameplay. Doing that is like trying to weight the artistic merits of cinema purely by listening to soundtracks.
I don't know, games contain a lot of art, and I include things like puzzle design and sound/music in that as well as the visual stuff, but I don't know if a game as a whole is. Maybe stuff like Myst, but not, say, Quake.
I absolutely agree, just as I'd agree that there is artistry to the costume design and Computer Graphic work in "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End." But saying that it technically fits the definition of art doesn't mean it's particularly high quality art, when the sum of its parts is considered.
In short, I think a better title (although a far too long one) would be: "Are video games ever good art, when the sum of their parts is considered?" Which itself raises a great deal of questions, including unanswerable questions. I'm aware of that; but the given title is so easy to answer that it really doesn't lead to much discourse.
I disagree with all of that.
What you're doing by comparing two works is rating them, not deciding if they are art or not. It doesn't get us anywhere, and ultimately it doesn't tell us much about either work.
Art is what you make it. For example, look at Dadaism. It is widely regarded as a sophisticated art movement. I, personally, think it is shit. Art is just so subjective, if you see it as art then it is.
This ties in to my previous answer to Shoggoth: I think this discussion is often used as a defense mechanism. Specifically, people who feel criticized or ridiculed use these types of debates to imply that everything is subjective, and that no one should look down on their chosen pleasures. As extreme and awful as this may sound, it's very similar to what some pedophiles suggest: my urges are just as normal as yours, it's simply a matter of opinion. You have no right to judge me.
Again, I think this notion of games as art is too often used as a crutch to obfuscate critical -- or in the case of Rockstar, legal -- scorn. How can authorities denounce your work, when you denounce the existence of authorities in the first place?
Roger Ebert be damned, games are as much a work of art as cinema. We don't have as many classics as film, but we've not been around for over a century. For Citizen Kaine we have Planescape, for Bridge Over the River Kwai we have Deus Ex. I could go on, but the amount of games that are artistic increases every year. Games like Deus Ex, Half-Life, Planescape; these games serve to challenge not only the way we think about games but indeed the way we think about the world itself, and if that's not art I don't know what is.
I actually agree that the point of comparison isn't to reveal a great deal about the works of art individually, but I think it does tell us a great deal about the mechanisms that create great art in general. It suggests which cultures were particularly rich in artistic development; it suggests which topics are most salient to sophisticated thought and feeling; it assists the old in educating the young.
Simple example: if we were simply to denounce all comparisons in art, a Super Intendant in rural Nebraska could decide that he didn't want to teach Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or Fitzgerald anymore, and that he instead wished to teach John Grisham and Dean Koontz. If no comparisons can be made, what is to stop him? There are no legal obstacles to such a move. The only thing stopping it is the collective consensus of reasonable people, who believe this would be a poor choice.
If you'd like to argue that there is nothing wrong with teaching Koontz instead of Dostoevsky, I'd simply disagree strongly, and we should leave it at that. If not, then please elaborate.
A tremendous amount of effort goes into creating games. A tremendous amount of effort goes into creating oriental rug. If something has a new style and can't be easily reproduced or imitated, does that make it high art? Or does a group of art critics have to deem it high art?
First of all, that example doesn't make any sense because the teacher has a curriculum to follow and that is decided by the district.
Secondly you wouldn't argue for the teaching of Koontz by comparing it to Dr. Seus, you'd discuss it on it's own. They didn't decide that Shakespeare is a good book to study by comparing it to cave paintings, they discussed it as a self contained work.
And again, what happens if they decide Koontz is worth teaching, and choose not to teach Shakespeare? Let's say it's their opinion that Koontz and Grisham should be taught exclusively, for whatever reason. In your world, how is that decision rescinded? Or should it be?
That's essentially just a question of law now, which has nothing to do with the validity of a piece of art or why comparative analysis in the context of video games is the best way (or even a coherent way) to discuss them.
Frankly I don't know how exactly they decide on a curriculum, I would assume there is some kind of panel. A lot of things are taken into account I would assume, more than just the artistic merit of the work, like the cost of supplying the books etc. It's a poor example in many ways.
Oh, there's no law saying they have to teach Shakespeare instead of Koontz, so you're wrong on that front. That I'm sure of, as both my parents are teachers. I do know, for certain, that the central hub for most of a District's curricular decisions are channeled through the Super Intendant, so it's reasonable to conclude that he is the primary figure for these decisions as well, unless you have other evidence.
Regardless of the title of the man who actually makes the decision -- the decision is made by people to teach certain books over others to children. If the District chooses to teach adventure novels instead of Hemingway, the only thing stopping them is the will of the people. Because many or most people value Hemingway over adventure novels, Hemingway is taught instead.
Please note that I'm not asking for a definitive scale or rating system. As I've said, I don't want this to be absolutely concrete, but I also believe that it's not absolutely amorphous, and the example I've given shows why this is true.
Since you've dodged my question repeatedly, I'll answer it for you. What stops a School District from teaching Koontz instead of Shakespeare? Answer: the fact that any District that made such decisions would likely be fired or removed by the people they served. Because reasonable people can reasonably agree that Shakespeare has more artistic and cultural value than Dean Koontz does, he is taught instead, even if the Super Intendant personally believes that Koontz is the greatest man to ever put pen to paper.
Artistic comparisons and evaluations give structure to our education and our understanding, which I believe has inherent value.
The real discussion should be is if they are good art, because well, anything can be art.
In theory, Communism works. In theory.
No, it doesn't.
--
My point is this: The status of art is nigh-meaningless, it just means something was crafted. WHOO.
If games are art: so what?
Just play that shit.
HOW TO ASSESS ART
by jacobkosh, age 27
It seems to me that art needs to do something to make it worthy of the word, otherwise the word is useless and we may as well be asking "are games alskfdhjdsalfaptf?" So if we want to answer that question, we need to figure out what art is - which, in turn, should give us a way to assess its relative quality.
So yeah. What does art do? I've thought about it, and here are the purposes to which I think it is generally put. And with this system, we can rate a work with each of these metrics and see how it stacks up overall.
MIMETIC - Does the work depict something in the real world, and how well does it do so? A sculpture of a figure or a painting of a fruit bowl are clearly mimetic works - but literature can strive to be mimetic as well, both in terms of having "realistic" plots and themes, and in trying to reproduce people's speech and behavior as faithfully as possible. Photographs are obviously mimetic, but they can be put to other uses as well.
DIDACTIC - Does the work attempt to inform, enlighten, or educate the audience? Does it attempt to sway the audience to a certain point of view? This is a broad category: a documentary film is didactic, but so could a faithful historical film like Eastwood's recent WWII movies. A passionate political statement like Picasso's Guernica is didactic, but a simple news photo could be as well. Religious art falls into this category, as do nonfiction books. In any case, we have to look at it and ask, what is it trying to communicate and how well is it doing so?
EXPRESSIVE - Does the work reflect or communicate its creator's inner state? This can overlap with other categories - like Guernica, above, is obviously expressing something that was on Picasso's mind. An example of something that's almost purely expressive would be, say, a Pollock painting, or certain pieces of music. Poetry often does this as well.
AESTHETIC - all other considerations aside, is the work pleasing to the senses? Does it entertain, does it enthrall, does it command attention? We know what a building's purpose is, but does it look good? This standard is important enough that it sometimes elevates things we wouldn't otherwise consider art - a Louis XIV chair or a Ming vase, for instance. Broader issues of craft, which is to say "competence" go in here as well: the direction, cinematography, and editing of a movie, or the skill and style with which a musician plays someone else's work (adding a bit of their own art in the process).
There's a fifth metric as well, "ORIGINALITY", but its importance is mainly limited to scholars or enthusiasts of the field in question: The Jazz Singer is an utterly forgettable movie except for its importance as the first talkie - but that importance is real, even if unapparent to the casual viewer. If you want to really claim to be an expert at the subject, it behooves you to know this stuff. God knows I get annoyed at gamers who praise a title to the skies for doing something that some other game was doing a decade ago.
But so yeah. "Are games art?" Well, do they fulfill one or more of those tasks above? I'd say yes. Not all of them, and not always well, but that wasn't the question, was it? But the idea that there's something inherent in the medium that keeps them from being beautiful and expressive and relevant is absurd - and moreover, refuted by the mere existence of a Deus Ex or a Prince of Persia.
You need new batteries in your sarcasm detector, or you need to watch more Simpsons. Either one would have assisted you here.
There's too many people stupid enough to think that communism works on paper for me to assume you're not one of them.
Again, it's a direct quotation from the Simpsons. I wasn't just being deadpan. But it's cool, I know not everyone is quite the afficianado I am
To me, what we appreciate in "art" fits into three categories.
1. Artistry. Is this technically impressive? This is the way we appreciate things such as the intricate counterpoint of Bach or the sheer finger dexterity of Jimi Hendrix or the way a realist painting manages to capture the subtleties of its subject.
2. Emotional impact. Does this move you emotionally? This category lends itself to more escapist entertainment, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. When Romeo and Juliet both lose their lives because of a simple misunderstanding, you (should) feel something. At the same time, when the girl and the guy end up together in a sappy romantic comedy, you feel something. Emotional connection is a vital part of the human existence.
3. Intellectual impact. What does this work of art mean? Works of "art" that try for this point try to communicate something universal about the human condition. To some bitchy art snobs, this is the defining characteristic of "art". This is what you will find present in novels that are considered "great" and in pretentious indie films. The artist is trying to convey something other than a simple show of talent (#1) or to just entertain you (#2); there was in fact a higher purpose.
It goes without saying that video games fit my first category. Many games are able to forge an emotional connection between the player and the on-screen characters. I can think of the number of games that fit the third criteria on one hand; it's very rare when I'm playing a game that I get some great insight into what it means to be a human being, as I might from reading a great work of literature or something to that effect. That doesn't mean it isn't possible - to drudge up an oft-used examples, Shadow of the Colossus has +in my opinion proved that it is possible. But it just isn't what most game developers are shooting for.
I personally would rather see more games that strive for this third category, and it is this intellectual impact that most art critics see as lacking in video games when they deride the art form. But, ultimately, as everyone keeps saying, the definition of "art" depends on the person.
I never said there was a law stating they have to teach X.
This and the entire thought process before it is a question of law/policy and not a philosophical or relevant question.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as this place tends to surpass even my veneration for Torment, but dammit, beaten to the punch.
I was going to say, "Planescape: Torment. Thread over."
I was going to say, "Deus Ex. Thread over." But that one was mentioned already, too.
Seriously, people. Once those two are mentioned, let alone a host of other astoundingly good games--SMAC(X), Baldur's Gate series, Fallout series, hell, even franchises like TIE Fighter for the thrill of playing the "bad guy"--the thread should be over.
Games can be as much art as anything, and the sort of art that engages your brain directly, rather than bid you sit passively and simply absorb. The "debate" is like the debate between creation and evolution--to people whose opinions actually count for anything on the top (i.e. scientists), there isn't a debate. There's just questions like "how does it happen" and "what qualifies".
But apparently there is a law that compels you to be a pedantic asshole who contributes nothing to discussions and just generally sucks the fun out of the room. You should maybe try petitioning that.
Anyway, I think jacob's post was exceptional, and staggeringly close to my own opinions on art. Art can indeed be evaluated, just like anything that has a goal and sets out to achieve it. And indeed your categories are essentially identical to ones I had myself concocted. It's actually a little scary how similar the ideas are, here.
I wasn't sure from your post if you believe that more is better, however. I assume not, though, since you seem to be mentioning Guernica as an example of good art, which obviously does not set out to be mimetic.
For example, there are plenty of works of art out there that in no way set out to be didactic. It seems like, these days, critics refuse to take anything seriously unless it includes a didactic element, and I think this is indeed the primary argument leveled against videogames (and a false one, if certain games are examined). I have personally watched and enjoyed some damn good mindless thrillers or action flicks, and played some damn good mindless game. If it doesn't set out to be didactic, can we fault it for failing in that respect? It seems to me that that would be equivelant to faulting Guernica or Starry Night for not setting out to be mimetic.
On the other hand, a movie or a book with a didactic element is often far, far more satisfying than one lacking such an element. Is this because there is no value to being mimetic, but there is to being didactic? I think there might be some truth to this. After all, there are essentially no works that are considered "great" or "classic" in literature or film that are without a didactic element. And certainly a didactic element challenges the mind, maybe even makes you a more informed, or educated person. Maybe it triggers you to think. These are obviously worthwhile and satisfying/pleasurable effects.
And so maybe we come to a distinction between "high" and "low"/"commercial" art. My dad is a graphic designer. They did the DVD cover art for Shrek 3. Is it art? They certainly think so. They all went to art school for a reason. They use innumerable artistic techniques and concepts. But it is also unreservedly pandering and commercial. And yet there is great craftsmanship invovled. But you wouldn't put it in a museum, either, now would you?
What is that distinction between "high" and "commercial" art? I don't know. It's a tricky one. And I think people frequently and incorrectly drop the "high" and just say "art" when they mean high art, and that's some bullshit and it confuses people.
I'm not saying you can't define high art against commercial art -- and sometimes it's certainly obvious -- but there is definitely a lot of legitimate disagreement about what is or is not high art. I personally don't think a great deal of much visual art. I think frequently it fails utterly at a didactic element, and it irritates me when people talk about "what the artist is trying to say." At some point I feel like "well, he should have written a goddamn treatise or some shit." But on the other hand I'm perfectly willing to accept a didactic element from film and literature, and endlessly delve into symbolism and try to figure our what the author said. Personal opinion, or is it because language simply is a much more fertile ground for thought, and purely visual art is often just too vauge to have meaning, because it invites such a wide array of interpretations as to be meaningless?
I think most games are commercial art. And there's no shame in that. Some are really excellent commercial art. Halo comes to mind. No didactic element, but all the others are sure there. And it doesn't set out to have a didactic element, so it's hard for me to fault them.
I do think it's utter bullshit that countries that wouldn't dare ban a book or a film think it's perfectly fine to ban a game, because games are art. It's just that they're usually commercial art.
And frankly, I think games will always be dominated by commercial art (well, so are all art forms, but I think with games it will be to a far greater extent). This is because a game can be utterly, utterly enjoyable without that feeling of high art. Not only that, but the focus of a game is fun! Games are meant to be fun. That's why we invented the damn things. And I don't just mean videogames. I mean all the way back. Games have historically been about pleasure and competition.
And that's OK. I don't think games should be obligated to produce great quantities of high art. I don't think games should be demeaned for lacking a didactic element. I think Halo is some well-crafted stuff, and worthy of praise.
And, by the way, anticipation -- welcome to the forums. We can always appreciate new smart folks around here. And just so you know? You don't have to take pendantic fucksticks like Shoggoth seriously. In fact, it's perfectly acceptable to call them fucksticks. Or fuckwits. Shit-heel. Shitkettle. Retard. Fucking retard. Official member of the PA Fucking Stupid Club.
Enjoy your stay!
And yeah, it is perfectly acceptable to call people names. That's a really valid and constructive thing to tell newcomers. If you don't like that guy who comes in here disagreeing and spouting shit you find offensive in some way yell at him! Call him names! That's how we do things around here!
Actually that is the way we do things around here. If you don't like it, you should probably go to another forum, because we definitely come here in part for the freedom to throw in some measure of flamage with our posts. It is specfically part of the appeal that the mods here trust us enough to argue informally without worrying that all the threads will turn into baseless flaming and incoherence. How is being honest about the forum a bad thing to tell a newcomer? He will find out eventually, you know.
And while you haven't been outright hostile, you've been passive-agressive, pedantic, and you've contributed approximately jack and/or shit to the conversation. This, in turn, by the unwritten social codes of D&D, allows me to call you a fuckwit. Deal.
At the risk of sounding ridiculous, I think my process of mentally rating art is like those itemized review scores games magazines used to do - 4/5 for graphics, 3/5 for story, 3.5/5 for interface, and so on - only my categories have no upper bound. So like Guernica gets 1 point for realism, 10 for politics and 10 for personal expression, whereas, say, The Count of Monte Cristo gets 4 for realism (not very), 7 for insight into human nature and French history and so on, and like 15 for being awesomely entertaining - there's a lot of skill involved in making a thousand-page novel that gripping.
Not that I actually assign point values or anything of the sort, I'm just sort of dramatizing what goes on inside my head when I think about these things. To get at your question the long way round, I do generally think that the more categories a work can excel in, the better, but in practice that can be easily matched by a work that does one thing really well.
I can deal.
I fully realize we are free to say pretty much whatever here, but holy shit I felt the debate was fairly cool up until now. I might have been short earlier, MAYBE pedantic but jesus dude why does D&D need to be a place where we resort to being downright mean? We have the right to be complete pricks if we want here, but that doesn't mean we should be complete pricks all of the fucking time.
The more I lurk in D&D the more I find the atmosphere completely negative and cruel. Rather than say, hey man I think you're being pedantic and you've said nothing of substance maybe you care to elaborate? you feel the need to be incredibility hostile right off the bat. Whatever the fuck happened to discussing things with a modicum of respect and humility?
Oh I forgot this is D&D we're supposed to exercise our right to be complete asses at the drop of a hat.
That makes way more sense than it should.
It definitely fits with why I love Crime and Punishment so much. It gets good points for didactic, decent in mimetic (the dialogue is not terribly real feeling, but who the fuck cares it's so awesome), hella points in aesthetic (which I think might also be called "craftsmanship"? C&K is staggeringly well-written. Not that the images that are conjured in your mind are aesthetically appealing (who doesn't love a good scene of drunken, beaten whores hoping to make a buck in a stinking, boiling city of inescapable filth, external and internal?) but that the writing itself is so beautiful and skillful), and so many points in expressive it's just fucking ridiculous. I literally became dizzy the first time I read that book. Being inside Raskolnikov's head is almost intoxicating, it's so immersive.
Anticipation gave you plenty of time to shape up, but you were relentless in your refusal to acknowledge his points, contribute to the discussion, or make even a single constructive post. At least the last four of your posts before the one I made were taking pot-shots at anticipation's responses to you, without any kind of constructive response to what he said. No putting forth claims, evidence -- nothing. Just nit-picking at shit that was mostly irrelevant to the discussion.
I may not have given you warning, personally, but the forum as a whole let you continue on way longer than most people get. You had plenty of time to stop being a douche, and you failed to do so. I'm not the one who was in the wrong here.
I don't see any pot shots, I'm responding when I feel Anticipation is misrepresenting my point.