Game Devs on Ebert's Put-Downs 183
Gamsutra has a writeup of a recent Austin Game Developers meeting. Damion Schubert, Allen Varney, and Scott Jennings took the stage to discuss games as art and Roger Ebert's opinions. From the article: "McShaffry then asked the panel to consider whether Ebert was picking on youth culture in general, and assuming technology wasn't an issue, whether popular games like Grand Theft Auto would be played 500 years from now, like the works of Shakespeare are enjoyed today? Jennings didn't want to speculate that far into the future, but he admitted to still playing and liking the Final Fantasy games released for the Super Nintendo."
Gonna say "No" (Score:5, Interesting)
Five hundered years from now, we don't know what the technology will be like. Maybe they'll be calling "Quantum Computing" old and busted. Maybe they'll revert to Zip drives. Will the Playstation 128 be able to play Playstation 2 games? Will Sony even exist?
But there will always be paper.
Well, until we deforest the entire planet, but at that point I doubt playing video games from a half dozen generations back will be on our minds. So, while the concept may remain (assuming we don't have a Demolition Man-like future), the game will likely not be played except by the handful of "hardcore" hobbiests who procure working-condition units of the PS4. Don't rule out it being taught in game design classes, though.
Mario is an entire other matter.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:5, Insightful)
Shakespeare's plays were the prime assets of his theatrical company.
He was part owner of the Globe theater, remember, and he functioned under a patronage system that settled teritorial disputes privately.
Shakespeare's plays were never published in his lifetime.
The idea that plays could be read for pleasure, that English drama was something more than disposable popular entertainment scarcely exists before the death of Shakespeare.
-1, It Just Ain't So (Score:3, Informative)
On the contrary, the majority of his plays were published in his lifetime, and often very soon after they were first written. Hamlet, for example, was probably written some time between 1599 and 1601: the first authorised printed edition was published in 1604, at most 5 years after the work was written, and some 12 years before Shakespeare's death.
(Hamlet is an interesting example, actually, because it's thought to be a remake of a previous play by s
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:5, Insightful)
In this day and age, exact duplicates of a work are insanely easy to mass produce. That is the biggest difference between the past and the present.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:5, Funny)
To keep it from happening again, Cervantes wrote part III and killed him.
Oh yeah, baby. A pointless degree in Spanish Lit finally pays dividends on Slashdot!!!!
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
You might wonder why you stuck around and finished college in the first place though. Looking back I have to wonder if the whole point wasn't just to train me to say "yes, sir" for four years.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering there's controversy over whether or not Shakespeare wrote those plays or if it was someone else that was the real author(Bacon, IIRC), things haven't changed.
Perpetual copyright is bad, agreed. But it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand
If Rockstar exists, and doesn't want people to port GTA III to the new platforms since it will interfere with the sales of GTA XXII
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Again, copyright limitations on the work have no affect on it's artistic merit. If it's good enough, people will find a way to play it. It's not like laws stop anyone now...
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
In fact, re: Hamlet, the way things usually worked was that printers
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Plus, there was a lot more emphasis on performance as the means to make a living from your work.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
There was probably almost zero market for the scripts; the money was from theatrical performances. He also wrote sonnets, the income there mostly up front from patrons, rather than sales of the printed pamphlets I think.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
If "paper vs. digital media" is relavent to the question of whether today's video games will be enjoyed as "classic art" hundreds of years in the future, then I have to think that copyright law in the coming years is also pertinent. Copyrighted work would seem less likely to be preserved via redundancy in media than content that can be shared freely without any fear of litigation.
Thin
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
I'm just tired of people here blaming copyright laws for everything. My apologies that I jumped to conclusions.
Personally, I would be very suprised to see copyright laws in their current form survive in our lifetime, let alone 500 years. The way we handle creative works has dramatically and fundamentall
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Agreed.
I'm just tired of people here blaming copyright laws for everything. My apologies that I jumped to conclusions.
No problem, as long as you don't mind the fact that your response is what elicited the typical anti-copyright slashdot rant. ;) I didn't initially intend on going off into a whole spiel, I was just adding to the parent's observation/opinion with what I thought was a related one of my own.
Personally,
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
If this is true, why is it that the Disney archieves are complete, and Disney films in pristine digital restoration, can be purchased anywhere in the world, at nominal cost. Something that can be said aboult almost no other studio or production house.
I thought the idea behind copyright was to grant limited protection from copying, with the understanding th
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Find me a DVD copy of the old black & white Zorro TV series. It's owned by Disney, but they've apparently buried it.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
>If this is true, why is it that the Disney archieves are complete, and Disney films in pristine digital restoration, can be purchased anywhere in the world, at nominal cost. Something that can be said aboult almost no other studio or production house.
That would make sense if Disney were unique in being copyright protected. The problem is almost E
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
I doubt a CD or DVD left untouched would be 1000 years from now. Perhaps the gold master would be if it was kept.
Also with film old they often go to the original and clean up the output (there was an article about how they did it on
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:3)
I never played the Final Fantasy games on the NES (despite being more than old enough to have done so, if I had wanted to), but I've played their ports on my GBA.
Likewise, I haven't owned a Super Nintendo in years, but I've been having a blast playing some of my childhood favorites on an SNES emulator on my brand-spanking-new state-of-the-art workstation with a USB gamepad.
The oldest of computer games are still playable in some fo
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Now the real question is, will the work still be relevant, and interesting many many years from now? Great art is timeless. Shakespear will always be read and taught, because it's some of history's best literature, and there's a lot that
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:4, Insightful)
Random dude 1000 years ago: "But there will always be parchment."
Random dude 2000 years ago: "But there will always be papyrus."
Random dude 3000 years ago: "But there will always be clay tablets."
Hmmm.
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:5, Insightful)
Shakespeare's works are only scripts and stage directions, requiring countless other artists and performers to flesh out the material into a finished product. Something like that evolves rapidly over time and in countless directions thanks to the talents of the people currently involved.
What Shakespeare on saw Hamlet's opening night may have been nothing like a recent performance by the Royal Shakespeare Company, the film version with Mel Gibson, the bunch of guys in jeans and t-shirts with Brooklyn accents who performed it in Central Park, or the mental imagery of the story experienced by someone reading the play out of a book. Those wildly different concepts were all Hamlet, but anyone playing "Vice City" now or in a ROM downloaded from future version of theunderdogs.org will hear the exact same music and voices, and see the same graphics.
Ah, but this raises the question: (Score:3, Funny)
You lack reading comprehension skills. (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Pretty much the first thing ported to any hardware platform is game emulators. You can get them for your iPod! I think that as we go forward, content will continually be adapted for new media. In fact, the cynic in me says that's one of the driving forces behind new media - the ability
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a difference, but it's not the fundamental one. The fundamental one is that one is passive and the other is interactive. According to Ebert, interactive media cannot be considered art in terms of narrative. You can read his entire comment (about half way down) [suntimes.com], but the critical bit (and not quoted in TFA) is:
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, book based interactive adventures.
According to that quote from Ebert, this kind of books are "inferior to film and literature" since "by their nature [they] require player choice
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
For example:
There are numerous routes through a given level of Super Mario Brothers, but they all end at the flagpole (or the mushroom retainer, or the Princess, you nitpickers. And let's ignore the minus world for the sake of argument...)
There are many ways to arrange the blocks in Tetris, but the screen always eventually fills.
There are lots of optional "plot cul-de-sacs" in Final Fantasy 7, but Ae
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
"Film and games are so OBVIOUSLY different!" (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if Mr. Ebert expects expects films to be viewable in their original media in 500 years. What with periodically-changing film sizes and speeds, and now digital video codecs, Ebert's own favorite art form doesn't seem particularly "eternal" either. In fact, just like video games, the only ways to appreciate old films are to 1) preserve the associated film player, or 2) convert the film to the new format. Sure, you could bust open the film reel, hold it up to a light, and look at it frame by frame, but that goes against the artist's intended viewing scenario, something Ebert considers extremely important.
Perhaps Ebert realizes all this, but thinks that the contents of the film (if not the physical medium) is safe from the ravages of time. After all, there are works 100 years old which can be enjoyed by film buffs even to this day!
Mr. Ebert might notice other points where video games are plainly different and not-at-all-identical to film:
Which brings me to my point: does Ebert intentionally ignore the obvious similarities between film and video games, or is he simply too ignorant of the history of video games to see them in the first place?
Re:"Film and games are so OBVIOUSLY different!" (Score:2)
Some of the early animation movies remain funny.
Charlot films are still comic.
If for the so-called classics you pick-up films that where successful at a time when that style of movie was were fashionable (for example picking up dance movies from the early 80s or love movies from the early 50s) you will probably find most of them boring for the current standaards - after all they were their age's film equivalent of boys/g
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:2)
Re:Gonna say "No" (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost literally true (3000 BC, but who's counting).
Get back to me on how good your CDR backup is after 5000 years.Have to agree the answer is No (Score:3, Insightful)
So, given that I've got some Apple II+ computers sitting in my garage with floppy disks that are probably melted to goo now, I'd guess that the chance that any game from today will exist 500 years from now is close to nil.
of course, most movies won't be around then either.
Re:Have to agree the answer is No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Have to agree the answer is No (Score:5, Insightful)
However, as to which game? Not GTA, not Final Fantasy. It'll be Tetris. That game will never go away, it's made the transition to every new platform that has come out since it's conception, and it will contiue to do so indefinitaly. Tetris' combination of simplicity and addictivness will give it staying power well into the time where GTA's game mechanic looks antiquated and silly.
Well the answer is No, but Tetris will survive (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well the answer is No, but Tetris will survive (Score:2)
Re:Well the answer is No, but Tetris will survive (Score:2)
Yes, it is. I never finished it, but I came quite close. Probably half of the time I was playing that game was The Pit version of Tetris, watching the bodies dissolving into goo, as they cried out in agony during the Black Death.
Very Evil. And Very Fun.
Re:Well the answer is No, but Tetris will survive (Score:2)
I had to start the game over.
Re:Well the answer is No, but Tetris will survive (Score:2)
Re:Well the answer is No, but Tetris will survive (Score:2)
Re: Tetris (Score:2, Interesting)
The tetris released with the original gameboy is probably still the best version out there. Great music. Great gameplay. No silliness. The MS Entertainment pack version is also pretty good. Tetrisphere for the N64 is probably the furthest thing from the original that is still really good.
Tetris Worlds for the GBA is better than the gameboy version only because it is in color, which is nice, and because the cartridge doesn't stick out the bottom.
You also lack reading comprehension skills. (Score:2)
Man, the first two posts I see make the same basic only-skimmed-the-article error. You guys are so anxious to throw your voice in... Well, I have no problem posting basically the same comment twice.
Re:You also lack reading comprehension skills. (Score:2)
My point was that your initial comment didn't follow from the story. The story is about games being artful enough to survive the test of time. It posts a question that explicitly excludes technological concerns, and your answer consists of nothing but technological concerns.
Are you arguing that you are intentionally off-topic?
Re:Have to agree the answer is No (Score:2)
If they're not actually goo, I wouldn't be surprised if they worked. Low density magnetic media can last a really, really long time. I haven't had a 5.25 drive hooked up in quite a while (got a
Art != Entertainment ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, how many movies are art? Very few, fewer in reality than in the minds of those who made them for certain.
Third, who cares? Unless you are trying to get in some university liberal arts curriculum, whether games fall under "art" or "entertainment" is purely academic. As long as any of the above entertains me, I'm interested. Art for art's sake has never appealed to my sense of functional technology. If it doesn't entertain me, I won't pay for it, and I won't go out of my way to see it. Worthless is a word that comes to mind.
In terms of what time will view of any of these things, we just don't know. Movies aren't even old enough to achieve immortal status. How many people have seen "the classics" of movies? Probably only the older crowd (when they were first run), film students or movie buffs. Video games are in a more difficult position of sometimes being positively inaccessible due to technological means, in addition to only being 30 years old.
Finally, do games matter? Do sports matter? Does gambling matter? Does drinking till you puke followed by casual sex matter? Yes, obviously. A sufficient number of people feel games are so powerful that people kill over them (not just video games, remember the Dungeons & Dragons nonsense?) They're in the media, a lot of money is spent on them. They matter. Will they matter in 100 years? It's hard to imagine there won't be video games then. Will they be the same games? Probably not in their original 8-bit NES implementation. However, is Romeo and Juliet a brand new work, or a from-scratch-rewrite of older books, the oldest of which I have read dates back to ancient greece?
Worthless, my ass. (Score:2, Insightful)
Dick, sure. But inferior? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Art != Entertainment ? (Score:2)
Third, who cares? Unless you are trying to get in some university liberal arts curriculum, whether games fall under "art" or "entertainment" is purely academic.
Until some legislator decides that, since games aren't art, they can be banned.
Honest-to-God question (Score:3, Interesting)
Are Shakespeare's works seriously "enjoyed" today? How many people who have to study his works today in school enjoy doing it vs. playing GTA? And what's the deal with the "500 year standard", it's circular and self-fulfilling. We read/view performances of Shakespeare 500 years later, because they're so great, as evidenced by how people still read/view it 500 years later! Go us!
How many people, as a fraction of the population, go to Shakespeare plays *purely* for the joy of seeing it, irrespective of the buzz behind them? How will that compare to the fraction who plays Rockstar games 500 years from now?
(And it's more like 400, but whatever.)
Older than America (Score:2, Funny)
And what's the deal with the "500 year standard"
Double the age of the United States of America, rounded up to the nearest century, is one conception of an upper limit on what constitutes "limited Times" under the Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Re:Honest-to-God question (Score:3, Insightful)
What have we created recently that will be remembered
Re:Honest-to-God question (Score:4, Insightful)
Are Shakespeare's works seriously "enjoyed" today?
Yes. Next question?
How many people who have to study his works today in school enjoy doing it vs. playing GTA?
I recall having to study many things in school that I didn't enjoy versus playing any game. Including Shakespeare. Interestingly, after I'd gotten several years out of school, I came to appreciate his works much better, and yes, enjoy them.
And what's the deal with the "500 year standard", it's circular and self-fulfilling. We read/view performances of Shakespeare 500 years later, because they're so great, as evidenced by how people still read/view it 500 years later! Go us!
No, it's not that they're 500 years old, it's that they're great works that speak to common themes in the human condition. Just as Don Quixote is still read and enjoyed, even though it's almost as old. Even as Beowulf is read and enjoyed, even though it's far older. The Odyssey, the Iliad. They're great stories, which deal with human conflicts and actions that are still going on. The themes carry on throughout the generations. That's what makes them great. We read them because they're great, they aren't great because we still read them.
Re:Honest-to-God question (Score:2)
How many people even understand more than half the lines?
How many people can understand more than half the lines of 133t speak without recourse to a dictionary? Suprisingly, while English has changed more than many other languages in the same time frame, a considerable percentage of Shakespeare's words are comprehensible - and particularly if spoken.
Genuine devotion to Shakespeare is confined to small circles who perpetuate him for its own sake, rather than because of a genuine passion for it.
Yet
Re:Honest-to-God question (Score:2)
Let's start with your straw man that truly appreciating Shakespeare means only reading him in his original english dialect. Please. Shakespeare isn't still performed today because of the awesomeness of the language he uses. It's because, as someone else already pointed out, his themes still resonate today with people today. His language might have
Re:Honest-to-God question (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh........... no. You're just reciting the ivory tower story that gets repeated over and over until it's finally accepted as common knowledge. Think about this claim for once. "identical" to what we speak today? REALLY? Could we lay off the hyperbole? "identical" would imply mutual comprehensibility. Now, can you imagine the average person following a few lines from Shakespeare without guidance, let alon
Re:Honest-to-God question (Score:2)
GTA will be remembered, like SMB and Shakespeare. (Score:2)
No one will give a shit about GTA in 10 years let alone 400. This is due to the fact that GTA really isn't anything special at all - although it is still art.
I disagree. In retrospect, I don't think Super Mario Bros is that great either. It's definitely been surpassed. But it will be played. Why? Because it was the ground-breaking. The colorful worlds, the side-scrolling non-repetitive play... It will be remembered and played.
Same with GTA. Super Mario 64 was arguably the first big step in the 3
Head-scratcher (Score:2, Funny)
Is chess art? (Score:2)
Many or most video games are simulations (art immitating life?). The lifespan of a simulation ends when we can do a better simulation.
Excluding simulations, I would compare video games to other games like chess, which people have been playing in one form or another
Re:Is chess art? (Score:2)
Excluding simulations, I would compare video games to other games like chess, which people have been playing in one form or another for thousands of years. I have to believe that people will probably still be playing some form of tetris a hundred or more years from now.
Ebert is wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there are lots of good games. Even if you don't agree that Ultima 4 was a classic, there WILL be classics.
Video games have been around for 40 years or so. Saying there won't be any profoundly classic games at this point is like saying there would never be classic literature 40 years after writing was first invented.
Also "making ourselves more cultured, civilized, and empathetic" is self-righteous and pretentious. Way to congradulate yourself, Ebert. Your entertainment doesn't just entertain, it makes you better than the rest of us. Bravo.
Re:Ebert is wrong (Score:2)
Ebert? What does he know about video games? (Score:5, Insightful)
He mentions that video games are typically just a waste of time; I would posit that movies are just as much a waste of time. It's like asking a classical music critic to judge whether or not a certain modern sculpture is art -- don't ask a movie critic about video games.
I've had plenty of "oh wow" moments in video games. I've also been affected emotionally in video games (which, I'm sure, was intended by the designers). I've also been stimulated to think critically about a topic by video games. All these things indicate that video games *can* be art.
Yes, there are artless videogames, just as there are artless movies and artless novels. There is also "bad" art out there, in every media. I believe that as video games continue to be developed, very many more of them will be intended as art pieces, and will succeed in being considered art.
Also, keep in mind that the movie industry is losing $$ to the videogame industry -- video games are eating away at film's cultural mindshare. Ebert, as a part of that industry, has a professional interest in promoting movies over video games.
Re:Ebert? What does he know about video games? (Score:2)
This oft quoted statistic actually only refers to domestic box office, not including DVD sales, TV sales, rental releases, etc, all of which add up to significantly more than the box office. Generally speaking, movies are still much bigger than games.
But other than that, I agree with what you're saying. One can waste a lot of time with a bad novel. One generally wastes a heck of a lot of time with Bad TV. But there are goo
Re:Ebert? What does he know about video games? (Score:2)
Re:Ebert? What does he know about video games? (Score:2)
Hanlon's Razor (Score:2)
Basically don't assume that Ebert necessarily is part of a conspiracy, when the same happens every day even with people without a vested interest. The fact is, in every generation there will be a resistance to what's new, and snobs arguing that the old ways were better. Even when there's really very little conceptual difference, there will be some snob going nostalgic about how in his day people were going to the th
Re:Hanlon's Razor (Score:2)
I'm just saying that someone who depends on a certain media for their career, and possibly their major interest in life, is much less likely to be accepting of competing media.
Thinking about financial implications !
Ok, bad choice of words (Score:2)
People can act just as retarded -- if not even more retarded -- for ego masturbation reasons (think "I'm elite because I watch artsy pretentious movies, you're all a bunch of
DRM killed the digital star (Score:2)
So, all movies, music, and video games created today will eventually cease
Re:DRM killed the digital star (Score:2)
Mostly no (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mostly no (Score:2)
500 years from now, I'd say "maybe" (Score:3, Insightful)
However that doesn't mean that games from today will be completly forgotten. Such games as Tetris or Pong will survive in mobile phones or other portable devices for a long long time. There simply isn't a reason why they would disappear, they are cheap to produce, simple and basically perfect at what they do. Graphic improvments won't help and the gameplay is also so simple that there is little room for improvment. Games such as SuperMarioBros are similar, even so a lot more complex, they do what they do almost perfectly. A totally different kind of game that will probally survive for quite a while are some adventure games, those LucasArts games, while quite old, are still among the best, if not the best, of the genre. And again, they do what they do close to perfection and new technologie can't do much to improve the game experience those games provide.
So in the end many of the games released these days will probally completly forgotten in a few years, since there will be newer games that do, what they did, but simply a lot better. But all those games that focus on something that isn't limited by todays CPU power, be it pure gameplay or story, are here to stay Will they survive 500 years? Some might, especially those that broke new ground. But 500 years are a long long time and I doubt that many/any movies of today will survive for that amount of time.
Ebert is definitely wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
The real question becomes whether true art is possible when there is a level of interaction with the viewer. The answer to this is clearly yes, in fact it is one of the key characteristics
One exception to His Pronouncement (Score:2)
Think of:
War Games (would you like to play Global Thermonuclear War)
3D Chess (Star Trek, many others)
and let's not forget the one in the movie Big.
Some speculation (Score:2)
Art doesn't necessarily mean good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Art doesn't necessarily mean good. (Score:2)
Different Beasts (Score:2)
So there's no point in contending that games can be like Shakespeare; they can't, and you don't want them to be. To make a game like what Shakespeare does, narratively, is to cripple what makes a game worthwhile.
Ebert says "video games represent a loss of those preciou
Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (Score:2)
Let's face it... (Score:2)
Every year, dozens, maybe even hundreds, of films discussing the human condition, controversial topics, and important figures of the past, are released that, rather than providing simple entertainment, actually broaden the minds of the viewers and takes the taboo and makes it discussable.
And what do we have?
Halo 2's commentary on religous extremism, Final Fantasy's many, many, many discussions on what makes a person "human", Starcraft's look at the depths of evil and how it takes advant
Re:Let's face it... (Score:2)
But is this even the type of criterion we should be looking at? A still-life painting is art, and it doesn't have a whole lot to tell us (explicitly) about the human condition. Expecting the EXACT same type of aesthetic experience from a game as you woul
Absolutely! (Score:2, Informative)
I mean, except chess, which was also a product of the rennaisance. [wikipedia.org]
And checkers [indepthinfo.com] which by some accounts predates the Epic of Gilgamesh by about a thousand years.
And go [wikipedia.org], mancala [wikipedia.org], tic-tac-toe [adit.co.uk], golf, of course... [wikipedia.org]
Shakespear isn't backwards compatible (Score:2)
Sure you can claim that a lot of stuff is based on the works of Shakespear, but if it wasn't for shakespear someone else would have thought of it. It could even be possible that Shakespear based his works on lesser known people who were lost in h
invalid comparison (Score:2, Interesting)
What percentage of literature produced today will still be read in 500 years? Not much, I'm guessing. And publishing sensation Dan Brown sure as hell isn't going to be - unless post-humans want to marvel at our primitiveness.
And, oh yeah,
He Was Right About The Not-Art Bit (Score:2)
What they're generally not, though, is art.
At least, not at the level of Shakespeare. One person's art is another person's garbage, but you'll find the proportion of people prepared to state that Shakespeare and other works of literature are Art with a capital 'A' than you'll find people who actually play pretty much any single game on Earth. You think ten million people
"Rare example" of making you play good guy. WTF?!? (Score:2)
Are you fucking kidding me?!?! It's more rare to see a RPG that *DOESN'T* make you play the good guy.
-Eric
Re:Roger Who? (Score:2)
Re:Longevity (Score:2)
Cheers
VikingBrad
Re:Longevity (Score:2)
The first example that came into my head was the sequence in Windwaker where Link is sent to the Hyrule that's frozen in time. It filled me with a sense of loss, seeing it static and muted. When it was unfrozen, it took my breath away and I longed to explore it.