Tetsuo Time

I haven't been updating much these past couple of days because I actually started on what will hopefully end up being a nice book\other project. I'm not revealing too many details about it yet and I don't want to get anyone's hopes up too high yet (even my own). But I feel good about this project and I'm not letting anything discourage me from going through with it. If all goes well I will be announcing it here of course. I have actually been toying around with the idea for a while but haven't had the motivation\drive\etc. to actually go through with it. I think I may have that now though so I'm going for it.

( It's my MP3 Player )
I made it for when I hook the player to my computer and it shows up on the desktop.

Here it is in action:


I uploaded it to Deviantart and already I got four +fav's.

( It's my MP3 Player )
I made it for when I hook the player to my computer and it shows up on the desktop.

Here it is in action:


I uploaded it to Deviantart and already I got four +fav's.

I don't have Leopard yet but I figured I'd try my hand at a Leopard icon anyway for the Application "PalaceChat". The icons on Leopard are 512x512. This could also be used to make a Windows Vista icon as the max size there is 256x256. I haven't made it into an .icns file (OS X) or an .ico file (Windows) though because I don't have an appropriate tool to do it. You'd need to use iconcomposer on Leopard or Axialis Iconworkshop on Windows... well anyway ( here it is )

Which do you like better?

There's one thing I have noticed when looking up "tutorials" that give tips to drawing anime. They all seem to deal with the stereotypical anime look. Big eyes, long hair and female. It seems like people have a hard time wrapping their mind around the fact that not all anime is the same. Especially when you are talking about artwork coming from different artists. Some artists draw their characters to be more stereotypically "anime" than others. Also, the big eye look actually is a feminine look and you may notice the more masculine a character is the smaller the eyes are or vice versa. Big eyes are typically for feminine or child like looks. Just take a look at the men in Ghost in The Shell for example. None of them have big eyes and a lot of male characters in that series have bigger noses than most people usually think of when they think of anime. A lot of the background characters in that movie probably wouldn't even look like anime to people expecting stereotypical features if seen on their own. Even the females eyes in that series aren't like saucers. I thought of this when I was looking at a video on youtube of a person attempting to draw a male anime face and people critisized it for the eyes not being "big enough" or the nose being too big. Some anime artists even draw their females very different than what you'd typically think and things like the eyes can be different sizes depending on the situation. I think Anime falls prey easily to stereotypes. Point is.. there's not just one way to draw anime.

There's one thing I have noticed when looking up "tutorials" that give tips to drawing anime. They all seem to deal with the stereotypical anime look. Big eyes, long hair and female. It seems like people have a hard time wrapping their mind around the fact that not all anime is the same. Especially when you are talking about artwork coming from different artists. Some artists draw their characters to be more stereotypically "anime" than others. Also, the big eye look actually is a feminine look and you may notice the more masculine a character is the smaller the eyes are or vice versa. Big eyes are typically for feminine or child like looks. Just take a look at the men in Ghost in The Shell for example. None of them have big eyes and a lot of male characters in that series have bigger noses than most people usually think of when they think of anime. A lot of the background characters in that movie probably wouldn't even look like anime to people expecting stereotypical features if seen on their own. Even the females eyes in that series aren't like saucers. I thought of this when I was looking at a video on youtube of a person attempting to draw a male anime face and people critisized it for the eyes not being "big enough" or the nose being too big. Some anime artists even draw their females very different than what you'd typically think and things like the eyes can be different sizes depending on the situation. I think Anime falls prey easily to stereotypes. Point is.. there's not just one way to draw anime.

Recently I was talking about how Roger Ebert was saying that Video games are not art. Well something that a person mentioned in a comment was how it seems that Ebert has fallen into the "No True Scotsman" trap. Saying that games can be art but they can't be high art. That theory is pretty interesting to me because it also makes me think of what some people define to be a casual\non gamer and a true gamer\ hardcore gamer. Replace Scotsman and True Scotsman with those.

"This person plays games on PC, Mac, Handhelds and Arcade", "Ah, so this person doesn't own any home consoles? Then this person is not a gamer!" "But they play quite a few games on those systems and get quite a few new ones each year!" "But they don't have the systems I'm endorsing so they aren't true gamers!" or "No true gamer would play games on one or a few systems!"

Some people have taken that even further to have gamer just mean true gamer as well.

I haven't listened to this guy in a long time because with notable exceptions which just about any fool can see I disagree with him on what is good and what is not. There is also nothing that is a better example as the major point of his argument against video games being art. And that is if you are in control of something and you can change the outcome then it is not art. For example:

If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices.

With some exceptions most games don't give you a choice of endings. Most games have only one outcome... The ending. Getting from point A to point B does have choices in a game but they can be compared to sub-plots (especially in books) and even just looking at a piece of art there are different emotional responses that can be illicit from a person. A lot of times when a person experiences an interactive piece there really was only one way they could have felt when they experience it at the time unless they play through it several times which the same could then be said about a film for example. There may be several choices along the way of how you feel or which path you might take but you can only pick one at any given time and in games most of the time it ends up coming back to the same conclusion. Making a choice in a game is nothing like rewriting a story. All choices where pre-written beforehand and again only lead to the same inevitable conclusion.

A quick example.. in Max Payne 2 there are characters called "The Cleaners" which are the villains of the story. You can choose to kill them early before it is revealed that they are villains but either way they are villains and you have to deal with them sooner or later and killing them early doesn't affect the outcome one iota. In Prey you aren't given a choice as to whether you are abducted.. whether you lose certain loved ones or whether or not you choose to save Earth. In mario for another example there may be choices as to whether you stomp a certain goomba or break a certain brick but there are really only two choices of outcome. Die.. or save the princess. Either choice is about as certain as they are in any other form of media when you first experience them.

It is my opinion that Roger Ebert is a little out of touch and a little out of date. I mean he's given movies that are real stinkers a thumbs up these days. However games as an art form is in its infancy and has a lot of maturing to do before it can be considered high brow art that may be true. But high brow art and anything elite like that can tend to be boring I'm sorry to say. The ironic thing is that a hundred years ago the critics where saying the same sort of things about film and music.

Also it doesn't help his position when he says things like,
Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old.
To Clive Barker. I think he stooped pretty low to come up with that. That's not to say that he doesn't have a few good points but it's weak to condemn a whole media form without even experiencing the best it has to offer. Not that I'm saying my examples are the best but they help illustrate a point. He all but admits that he hasn't played very many games but that doesn't stop him from generalizing about them.

A lot of modern art also consists of interactive installations as well.

I haven't listened to this guy in a long time because with notable exceptions which just about any fool can see I disagree with him on what is good and what is not. There is also nothing that is a better example as the major point of his argument against video games being art. And that is if you are in control of something and you can change the outcome then it is not art. For example:

If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices.

With some exceptions most games don't give you a choice of endings. Most games have only one outcome... The ending. Getting from point A to point B does have choices in a game but they can be compared to sub-plots (especially in books) and even just looking at a piece of art there are different emotional responses that can be illicit from a person. A lot of times when a person experiences an interactive piece there really was only one way they could have felt when they experience it at the time unless they play through it several times which the same could then be said about a film for example. There may be several choices along the way of how you feel or which path you might take but you can only pick one at any given time and in games most of the time it ends up coming back to the same conclusion. Making a choice in a game is nothing like rewriting a story. All choices where pre-written beforehand and again only lead to the same inevitable conclusion.

A quick example.. in Max Payne 2 there are characters called "The Cleaners" which are the villains of the story. You can choose to kill them early before it is revealed that they are villains but either way they are villains and you have to deal with them sooner or later and killing them early doesn't affect the outcome one iota. In Prey you aren't given a choice as to whether you are abducted.. whether you lose certain loved ones or whether or not you choose to save Earth. In mario for another example there may be choices as to whether you stomp a certain goomba or break a certain brick but there are really only two choices of outcome. Die.. or save the princess. Either choice is about as certain as they are in any other form of media when you first experience them.

It is my opinion that Roger Ebert is a little out of touch and a little out of date. I mean he's given movies that are real stinkers a thumbs up these days. However games as an art form is in its infancy and has a lot of maturing to do before it can be considered high brow art that may be true. But high brow art and anything elite like that can tend to be boring I'm sorry to say. The ironic thing is that a hundred years ago the critics where saying the same sort of things about film and music.

Also it doesn't help his position when he says things like,
Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old.
To Clive Barker. I think he stooped pretty low to come up with that. That's not to say that he doesn't have a few good points but it's weak to condemn a whole media form without even experiencing the best it has to offer. Not that I'm saying my examples are the best but they help illustrate a point. He all but admits that he hasn't played very many games but that doesn't stop him from generalizing about them.

A lot of modern art also consists of interactive installations as well.

The sculpture he made is just uber cool.. I mean just look at it!





To see more check out this page.