Nosebleed

Please, no spoilers! XD Hell, what do you think of Silent Hill? There are so many stories to tell.

I made a mistake with the nickname; the comment was referring to 47. I apologize!

Yes Brat, but yours is a somewhat elitist conception of the work of art, if not outright mistaken. There are tons of examples that contradict you. Architecture is one of them. So, is architecture not art? Isn’t Alberti an artist? Think of the Art Nouveau style, for example, the classic example of the aestheticization of the everyday (and the useful). The work of art itself doesn’t originate as something exclusively contemplative and "ends in itself." There’s an abyss between Kojima and Picasso, but what about between Kojima and Kubrick? Or Welles? Or Kurosawa?

Bleh, I heard it! What a big idiot XD "Diiiiiiiiick!" "Friiidonnnnnn!" And the second time, I think Nick heard it too.

Anyway, just to clarify, we are not trying to compare Super Mario to the Mona Lisa, for heaven's sake. However, we are talking about a phenomenon that has long crossed into the realm of art. The quote from Matrix is spot on in this regard.

Dear 47... these, I repeat, are the same criticisms that were directed at cinema back in the day. "You read a good book or listen to a good record, which are on another level" seems a bit Catholic as a statement... anyway, I repeat once again, I realize that the conception I propose is very progressive. It must be that I’ve spent centuries on Silent Hill forums, and my archetypal video game is just that :-)

Yes, but Blixa hasn't been around since 2003... that's why I'm saying it wasn't a revolution. There's no point in saying that I miss both of them too.. Anyway, St. Vincent was really boring but the girl was really cute and had one of the sweetest voices I’ve ever heard.. even when she thanked the audience XD "Tenc Iuu!" Arf!

Anyway, for the Interior ones, the concept isn't very different either: there are those who have reviewed the recipes of Sister Germana and those who have reviewed Wuthering Heights.

Among the aspects, there’s also gameplay, but I personally have never judged a video game solely based on that. It’s undeniable that it’s a reductionist view. Who would have the courage to discuss Silent Hill or Metal Gear by only mentioning gameplay? Your clarifications are valid, but let’s remember that when you come across lists of the greatest games of all time, Silent Hill and Metal Gear Solid are at the top. Gameplay certainly plays a significant role, but there is also—and above all—the rest.

We are not talking about an artistic aspect of certain titles but about video games in general; the option to review whatever one pleases is absolutely valid. It's just more evident in some cases due to their similarities with other artistic genres and a predominance of the aesthetic aspect over the playful one. GTA and Medal Of Honor seem to fit firmly among the latter, by the way. Then there are always idiots; there will be those who sign up to say that ISS Pro is amazing, just as there are those who do it just to throw some harsh words at "Death Magnetic." What's the difference? Furthermore, I strongly doubt the "nerds' field" hypothesis: if you sign up for Debaser or do it in the aforementioned cases, then you are a human case, or you take in the entire site as a whole, of which the De-Ludiche would be an infinitesimal percentage. It’s like those who enter a venue just to use the restroom: surely they exist, but I doubt they are the majority.