You’re not. Leigh’s work is absolutely, completely irrelevant to this article and games-as-art discussion, in every possible and conceiveable way.

Please let this be the end of it.

“Seriously, let’s all maybe read a few more books, guys, let’s maybe watch a few more films, let’s try to gain some further cultural sophistication. Let’s try for real sexuality instead of just half-dressed celluloid constructs.”

How am I supposed to describe a writer whose work advocates that further cultural sophistication can be gained from reading books, watching films, and not living in the real world?

This is a child’s philosophy: that learning, intellect and the self are comprised of nothing more than digesting information and rehashing it; becoming what we consume rather than learning who we are.

In other words, debate politely, eloquently and intelligently, and we’ve no problem at all. But keep on the way you’re going and it’ll just get deleted.

“We’re not abandoning HS just on a whim because we want to go off and do something different – there’s a great huge raft of reasons behind us taking the direction we are – and it’s also the nature of the business that I’m not allowed to share any of those reasons with you.
As for the ‘you’re just not doing HS2 NOW’ comments – well one thing you learn in this industry is that you never say ‘Never’. So I’m not going to say we’ll “never” go back and make HS2 – but it’s something I personally see as extremely unlikely.”

Originality is seldom seen now days in games, but it does take a fair bit of bravery to develop something new with the financial risk involved, especially in a global recession.

Because we can’t grow by acting, living, feeling, experiencing, bettering ourselves and, by extension, others.

Honestly, there’s no real way to respond to what you wrote because it doesn’t make any sense.

Grow up.

There were no insults waged at Alexander, only a critical assessment of who she portrays herself to the world from the work she presents.

I leave you with another glowing quote:

“Ironically, Flower owes its brilliance not to some fantasy that it’s reinventing game mechanics, that it’s creating absolute belief, that it’s video game Zen, or that it’s a ‘video game that’s not a video game.’ In fact, its playability hinges squarely and mundanely on just how gamelike it is…”

It’s a whole lot of hot air that means absolutely nothing, like so much of this “videogames as art” writing.

Hot air from people who are trying to amount to something unachievable.

I’ll reset it now, though the comment *is* pushing it. Play nice, people, please. This is a really worthwhile discussion to have but a couple of people are straying close to spoiling it.