Examine and describe certain movements of electronic music since its rise in popularity. Focus on a single genre or several at once. What were their implications in the raver community? How did society react to these new types of sounds? I believe you can trace how the underground sounds in the raver culture of old can help uncover certain trends and developments that have influenced the mainstream industry of pop music.
I would also add discussion on the argument regarding the legitimacy of electronic dance music--is there any real skill/expertise in its creation, and if so, does it require enough talent to be as vastly popular as it is? Does talent play into composition at all? – amyolweiler9 years ago
Consideration definitely needs to be paid towards the difference between 'actors' who DJ live without DJing live - pre-recorded sets, etc. - and those who are pushing the boundaries and who pushed them in the first place. Perhaps worth thinking about major voices in this issue, like Mat Zo, who once shared a list of 'ghost producers' for 'famous' DJs, or Deadmau5 who was laughing not long ago about a Forbes story detailing the bankruptcy of SFX Entertainment. Both of those artists take the creation of their music very seriously; Zo has even made 'theproducersforum.com' to facilitate the development of new electronic artists. /Never/ boil down EDM into a push-play culture. There is immense skill in the craft of some artists, both in composition and live performance. Disclosure, Madeon and Porter Robinson quickly come to mind. – JekoJeko9 years ago
Thor is a woman, Spider-man is black, and the Hulk is Korean-American. These popular characters were once all white males, but Marvel Comics has undergone some re-branding and decided to branch out with character diversity. Are these changes to be praised and the new line-up celebrated? Can this truly be called diversity when these female and minority characters are launched from the platform of popular, established, white male characters?
This article will argue whether or not this kind of "diversity" is valid.
I always thought about why didn't they just create new characters as opposed to changing the old? I like that they are trying to be progressive and gain a more diverse audience and appeal to the masses, however, I feel as if it's kind of a half-hearted move. Sounds like they said to themselves, "Oh hey, it's 2015, we need to have more diverse characters. Oh, let's just change Thor into a woman and make Spider-man black." Upon hearing these changes, I didn't feel moved. I think for this topic, it would be important to see how their readers have reacted and what their thoughts are, and if this made an impact on Marvel's comic-book sales. – Jmarie9 years ago
While I am incredibly glad to see that more female characters are being added, I am hesitant to praise the way in which it is happening. Representation is everything; it's what pulls people in and keeps them buying, volume after volume. People of all colors, creeds, identities, religions, and orientations deserve to be explored and promoted - correctly.
Having Thor be a woman is an interesting change, but I think it was a cop out. Jane Foster could have been so incredible on her own. She didn't need Mjolnir and the power of Thor to be "super," but that's the angle they chose.
The Spiderverse is taking a slightly better approach to it. This opens the path for there to be multiple personalities with the same powers. That sort of open-ended story telling could do so much good for representation. What could all of these different people, all from different backgrounds, do with the same set of powers?
While all of this is all well and good, I want to see original characters that aren't being slapped with the merits of their "previous" versions. Jane is going to have to break away from readers who have the white, male, Norse "god" mindset. They could have easily taken a bit from the movies - why was Jane Foster, a normal woman, able to absorb an Infinity Stone? There is so much potential there! Let's have new characters that are black, latina/o, trans*, gay, asexual - but let them be themselves. No recycling of names to get attention. Let the characters speak for themselves. – crypticlyric9 years ago
I worry about this change in comics. I absolutely think that creators need to be creating more diverse comic universes, however some of these changes seem half thought out and sloppy. I'd much rather see new characters of different races than old characters redefined. No matter what the main stream public is probably going to remember the white character, thus taking something away from both versions of the character. I also worry that these changes are temporary grabs for publicity and lacking in real substance. – SomeOtherAmazon9 years ago
Who writes comics and for whom? – Munjeera9 years ago
According to my brother, we are on the brink of a "golden age of video games." Analyze the progression of video games from Asteroids to Nintendo 64 to PS1,2,3,4, to all the Xboxes, and then into the future of virtual reality games that you can actively participate in by wearing a type of goggle. Do you feel the next few years will be as promising as he does?
It would interesting to understand why the game industry has risen so much and look at the influence of 3D cinema, where the experience needs to be 'complete' for the audience, like a game. TVs are now in 3D too. Have a look at stats on the rise of the demand for video games too. – Rachel Elfassy Bitoun9 years ago
"There's nowhere to go from the bottom but up," also feels like it's appropriate at this point in time. – Austin9 years ago
It will be interesting to see where gaming will go. Connecting consoles to the internet changed the way we play. We don't have to sit in the same room or even know each other anymore. Of course, the graphics have gotten much better too, though that might not make the games better, but I'd like to see some speculation or insight into what gaming developers are working on. – S.A. Takacs9 years ago
What would the roster of golden age video games look like? Who would you put on your top 5? – george9 years ago
Maybe link it loosely to the how comic book's define their respective ages. Surely, there have been other "golden" ages in Video Games. We should try and demarcate them. Separating by console generation would probably be the best place to at least start. Also need to separate between console, handheld/mobile, PC. – JAKK9 years ago
A "golden" age of gaming, for some, has already passed. I know there are those who consider the first Nintendo games to be part of the "golden" age, because they were the first - the ground-breakers. I think it is important to first define what you mean by a "golden" age to begin with, and then go from there. What makes a particular age of gaming "golden"? – Caliburnus9 years ago
This might be the golden age but all I can help but wonder is how companies are charging us for DLC's. Games are getting way more expensive and giving an advantage to those who can spare extra change. – CarlosRodriguez9 years ago
The golden age of video games were between 2002 till 2011 when half life 2,bioshock and red dead redemption were published – SinaHasani8 years ago
Excuse, who is your brother? – T. Palomino2 years ago
Analyze the difference between the experience of reading a written play, such as Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" and experiencing it live in a theater. Pros and cons to either? Opinion on what is better
I'm unsure how this was processed with so little information given in the incredibly vague prompt that roughly mirrors an article recently written for this site. – JekoJeko9 years ago
This is a hard topic to write about so the article will probably have to be personal yet rely on statistics, investigations and numbers as well. The conditions of how we watch a film are extremely important as they influence our reception, understanding and appreciation of the film. Watching a classic like The Usual Suspects on a small screen is never as satisfying as watching it on a big screen. Yet classics are very rarely projected again on big screens. In Paris, a cinema has just opened, specializing in projecting Hollywood and French classics on a big screen once again for the public. How much are screen size and ratio important in our experience of the film? How can you read a film through the cinema experience and through the home experience? How aware are the distributors on this subject and how does it influence their decision? In contrast, can we appreciate a film more at home, in the comfort of our personal space? How does our experience change if we watch it on TV? On a laptop?
I think it changes in that when we goto a theater, we are going out of our way for that experience. The theater is exclusively a place for films to be watched, the home is not so. Our attention is easily diverted and in all likelihood not as audio/visually potent as the theater system. The common moviegoer will always deny caring about film vs digital, big screen vs little, high quality sound vs low, or anything else in regard to the film's aesthetic. The thing is that those things make an effect whether or not you realize they are or not. You know something about to come crashing through this door, but why did you know? Because Tarantino Dollied in on the door. This scene feels warm and romantic, but why? Because of the delicate lighting. These things will always make a difference, even to those people who deny their importance. – AaronHunt9 years ago
I've always found a horror to be more frightening in a cinema, a comedy to be more hilarious, and an action sequence to move me closer to the edge of my seat. There's something to be said for group-think, shared emotions in space, and the ability of a theater-goer to feed on the thoughts and emotional reactions of others. Also, my living room can never get as delectably dark as a movie theater. That's important in my book. – Derek Jackson9 years ago
I think the question of medium specificity is often overlooked. This question looks like a great jumping point for a discussion about the sensual or material qualities of cinema. Thank you for sharing.
– InAugust9 years ago
Feminism has been a huge topic of conversation through 2014/2015. It's become a point of view in which to critically analyze our media, and led to new multifaceted stories. The Bechdel test is often used as the bare minimum; but what exactly constitutes a feminist story?
Great question! Although, I imagine it will be incredibly difficult to navigate given the varieties and history of feminism. For example, what is feminism? – Mitch9 years ago
14/15? what is this a school year? – wolfkin9 years ago
Because feminism is such a complex topic, I don't think there is any way to say a story is feminist or not while having everyone agree. Some stories break feminist code while still depicting feminist characters, and vice versa. – morleycigs9 years ago
I agree with the comments above in that this topic/ subject matter is very broad and complex. I would suggest narrowing it down to one specific facet of feminism in stories and/or writing. – Morgan R. Muller9 years ago
One in which egalitarianism, if not present in the setting, is the one goal for the protagonist. – ChrisKeene9 years ago
I don't want it to sound too simple, but if we narrow it to ''equal treatment'' i guess it has more to do with the most inherent characteristics of your characters than with your story. People are now talking about the role of female characters of Game of Thrones, who are, most of the time, the ones in control. Maybe GoT is not the best example, but my point is that, if you want to make a feminist story, perhaps the best thing to do is not to include dialogues or pivotal situations in the form of statements, but to make your characters be statements themselves.
However, as it have been said before, it is much more complex than that. – Ga5ton9 years ago
I would define a feminist movie as one which is female-centric, that is has a prominent female lead(s) and voice(s). I don't think feminist means that one woman has to speak for all women, but that her voice is heard to create, instead of "history", a "herstory" on any subject. – Munjeera9 years ago
Michiko and Hatchin is an anime set in a fictional country on a continent similar to South America. The story involves two dysfunctional characters in a "mother/daughter" relationship that it equally, if not more, dysfunctional. Question is, why is it so popular? As a "mother daughter" relationship, it clearly is designed to leave a lot to be desired, but what is it about the over-the-top relationship that draws people in. One could say that it's the diversity in the show itself that is refreshing enough to keep people engaged in the story line. Or is it the hope to see Michiko and Hatchin's relationship grow in affection, as one would expect from a "mother/daughter" duo? Also, why is it that Michiko sought Hatchin out, and how does her relation to the man she loves put Michiko in a conflicting position of love and hate for Hatchin? This is to analyze and dive deeper into the relationship between the two and how it appeals to the audience.
Is "Michiko and Hatchin" popular? How popular? It's hard to tell since it's not something that has blown up in terms of memes, gifs, or fan-art: which seems to be the way to gauge popularity for things these days. I know I'm a fan, and am still working my way through the series now. But I haven't really been aware of its popularity before I ready your description here. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I think it's important to note the demographics of popularity. From my experiences when it first aired on Adult Swim, it was highly circulated among women looking for variety in female characters and minorities seeking representation. I understand where you are coming from though, because as a whole the scale of popularity can be a bit iffy, I think it depends on where you look. "Popular with who" would probably be the question here. – Aurianna9 years ago
I've noticed lately that, in my opinion, sitcoms are declining in quality, and networks appear to be abandoning them and going for different genres. I think shows like The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, and The Wire have introduced a precedent for cinematic masterpiece that TV shows haven't had to meet in the past. Will this shift kill the sitcom, or other genres of shows for that matter?
I think it has to do with the changes to the medium. Because audiences can stream whatever they want on the internet, television networks no longer have to fill airtime with superficial humor and can delve into more complex projects. Also, the internet brought about a new wave of competition. The way sitcoms are being made is also changing. Laugh-track, three-camera shows (I Love Lucy, The Big Bang Theory) are being replaced with updated styles, like The Office, or Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Maybe they aren't dying, just transitioning? – joshuahall9 years ago
I have been thinking about this myself lately. I can re-watch Will and Grace and Friends repeatedly, but barely make it through one episode of these new "sitcoms." I have been speculating whether there is an association between the need to be politically correct and not offend people and the reduction in humorous shows. Nowadays it's all sexual innuendoes and crude jokes, no more intelligent jokes. – Catherine Conte9 years ago
There were some pretty spectacular games from 2015, I would like to see someone comprise a list of the best soundtracks. Take into account different genre/styles of music and why that track deserves its place. Take note that this list would be highly opinionated and how that would be delivered to the audience. It doesn't need to be specifically ten tracks, I just used that number for convenience.
If really delved into, this could be a great showcase and conversation starter! – Ian Boucher9 years ago
Maybe to make it even more interesting of an article, the article writer could even do a survey collection through Facebook or other forms of social media to help give the article another layer of immersion. Then the top 10 is based on the survey results. – Kevin Mohammed9 years ago
This would be a awesome, and a great way for people to find new music. I feel like the Undertale soundtrack is definitely up there, but I'm not sure how the rest of the list will shake out. – Connor Gregorich-Trevor9 years ago
In 2013, NBC got America's attention by producing The Sound of Music Live! Ratings went through the roof! Next was Peter Pan, and then The Wiz. Now Fox has done Grease Live with an audience and different locations. Who did it better? NBC or Fox? Explore the history of live televised musical theatre performances. Explore techniques, successes, and failures to determine who wears the live musical crown.
Critically analyze how generations X and Y, how they were raised versus how generation Z is being raised today. Generations X and Y have been known to handle issues with a tougher outlook, such as getting spanked, while generation Z believes that spanking is child abuse. How has this changed the way our society is? Has the way these generations have been raised drawn an even thicker line to differentiate the generations? How has this impacted our society today as a whole?
I wouldn't say that the current generation is being more raised from technology and media rather than from their parents themselves. – Kevin Mohammed9 years ago
My biggest points 1) that I think the current generation is being exploited for financial gain by companies on a level that deeply impacts mental health (like social media and too much tech for young kids). 2) There is a big increase in mental health issues and how the generations respond to that will differ greatly. 3) Society is moving into a more liberal age and information is more easily shared, therefor political and sociopolitical views will differ greatly. – LaRose9 years ago
For the writer of this topic, some serious consideration as to how connect this to Writing/Another Category must be done. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
For the writer of this article, there should be a serious reassessment of bias. This expresses bias to generation X and Y. I think you can relate this to popular children's literature... but then you'd have to move this topic to literature... – Jill9 years ago
This is out of the scope of The Artifice. – T. Palomino2 years ago
There are many anime aimed toward children, although only a small number of those are aired on televisions in the West. What are some of these series? Why might they not have been aired on television and instead released on DVD only? There is an Answerman on Anime News Network on "Why are anime still censored?" which could be useful to refer to. Fancy Lala, Creamy Mami, Kaleido Star other magical girl series, and maybe even Tamako Market are some examples that could be considered appropriate for that audience.
If possible, read "Killing Monsters" by Gerard Jones! – Ian Boucher9 years ago
It would be a curious thing to know what quality parts of the anime allowed for translations in other countries, with the U.S. being a notable recipient. It might be a decent idea for someone to study the background of countries that aired the anime (perhaps who aired the show and what the demographic are watching), to see what distinct traits might be consistent with the argument. – N.D. Storlid9 years ago
I definitely agree with this. There are a number of children's anime that came out in Italy and France, for example, that didn't make it here. Maybe there is more of an audience for them in those countries? – Jordan9 years ago
As a popular reviewing website, Rotten Tomatoes gives an easy to understand percentage ratio to allow people to see what the masses of online critics think of films new and old. With films being rated as soon as they are released, are you one to check the film's rank before deciding on whether a film is worth watching at the cinema or do you not consider reviewer opinions at all before going to the movies?
You could expand on this by looking at a number of movie reviewing sites, like IMDB, Letterboxd, etc., and talk about the differences and similarities between them, how to use them, etc. – Marcie Waters9 years ago
I agree with Marcie, this article should look at other sites and maybe even each of them in relation to what the fan base of the people who use them are. For example, I don't trust Rotten Tomato because it gives bad reviews to movies I think are good because it's a different fan base using the site and rating them, one which doesn't appreciate or understand certain genres. Which sites support which kind of movies the most? – Slaidey9 years ago
I agree with the topic that the website is an easy way of determining wether a movie is good or bad. However, this can spoil the views before watching the film, especially if you have just paid to see it in theatres. Also, I recommend using other movie rating sites to see more opinions on the film. – naomidelottin219 years ago
Rotten tomatoes is very up and down for me, sometimes they get it right, other times it is little more than internet sensationalism. A movie could be nearly perfect but because the internet hates the director it will get a bad review. It is very much a little looking glass for the internet. – lostatsea3039 years ago
This is a topic I've always wanted to write about. The way in which different sites work and when if ever one should let said opinions affect them before viewing the film themselves. What a rating means, how it's scaled, who is posting the ratings, and how many does it take to accurately judge a film? – danielhageman8 years ago
An analysis on how mobile/casual games have exploded into the market in recent years and why it is that people who play these kinds of games on a daily basis are, by definition, gamers themselves.
Also includes a short section on why a lot of people decide to ignore such a definition and instead criticize those who play casual games like Tiny Tower and Bejeweled.
Funny title! I would also include Angry birds if the writer decides to talk about multiple games, because Angry bird's popularity led to animated shorts and a film that will come out in 2016. – YsabelGo9 years ago
I find mobile games fascinating- whoever writes this should definitely watch the game theory episode about Candy Crush, and the psychology it uses to keep players intrigued. – akasharose9 years ago
Interesting idea. My mother would never consider herself a gamer, but she plays solitaire on her phone on the train home from work every day. – MichelleAjodah9 years ago
There is a great deal of psychology behind why these games can be so addicting. It's actually really interesting, and it will be interesting to see how whoever takes this explores the topic. – Vexliss8 years ago
This makes me want to interview my parents on the subject. My dad considers himself a gamer though he doesn't have time to play much other than Marvel's Contest of Champions. But my mother detests the idea even though she plays more mobile games than him. – TGoutos8 years ago
Now that video games are becoming a primary mode of entertainment, it would be great for there to be a "tops" list of games to get into by level of difficulty and genre. It could explore the subgenres and the emergence of easy to control mobile gaming and its effects on larger console/computer games.
I like this idea, maybe on a scale of "never touched a controller in your life" to "I am basically welded to it" what games would you recommend. It could either be a personal essay, with the games that the author used to develop their skills, or a look forward to upcoming games, maybe with a pre-emptive look at (whisper it) Christmas presents for gamers. – Francesca Turauskis9 years ago
Maybe you could consider, instead of how easy-to-hard certain games are, exploring why many people think mobile games and the like are more "casual" and easier to play/control over equipment specifically built for control and gaming purposes. – TheLegendofPie9 years ago
An interesting thought.
What genres of difficulty would you choose.
Does it range from "Wheres the X button" to "I remember that money cheat code from 4th grade to Vice City and I'm not afraid to use it"? – ljhilberath9 years ago
Exactly, I was thinking a game like WOW where it is 1 button attack and defend, compared to a similar MMO the D&D where it has complicated spell casting and intricate steps to memorize to complete actions. Also it might be interesting to compare difficulty in story lines like GTA vs Mario Kart. 3D games are also a whole new world of controller acrobatics that take a long time to get used to. – firefly85179 years ago
Perhaps also look at the level of specialization in certain genres. For instance, in FPS games, people have their own preferences in fighting as a sniper or a machine gun-wielding tank. This also affects team dynamics. – tsundoku9 years ago
Different people prefer to write at different times of the day and night, and many believe that they write better or for longer during these hours. Explain if you think this belief is valid or not and if there is any particular part of the day you prefer to write in? Are you a early morning writer or do prefer to write in the afternoon? Are you an evening writer or do you write long into the night? What times do you write the most or the best? AM or PM, explain when and why you write the most then, and if you think writing at this time makes any difference.
I always find that I write best late at night. I don't know why, but come late afternoon/evening, I'm the most creatively inspired. I think some people just function differently and are stimulated in different ways, at different times. I think the author of this article might want to consider the psychological aspect of time/environment in creative inspiration, as that's probably the most fact-based perspective to take on this topic. – Christina9 years ago
You could also consider length of time in relation to time of day to see if there are any correlations - can you write for long sittings at night, but only short ones in the morning? – kathleensumpton9 years ago
I usually find myself writing better later at night. Consider exploring the relationship between the factors affecting creativity at different times of day. A factor that could affect one's creativity levels in the morning might be that in the morning they drink coffee, etc. – mfazeka9 years ago
Perhaps some statistics could be made with what people say from these notes. I often hear people write more/better at night, this may be linked to that period just before you fall asleep. You suddenly think of an amazing idea and you just have to make a note of it. This could be because that as you are preparing for sleep your brain becomes more relaxed and more creative ideas seem to flow better. Anyway, I always write between 12pm and 10pm. I don't like writing when I'm tired and I always have lunch/breakfast (depending on when I wake up...) before I start. – Jamie White9 years ago
This article sheds light on how fame or public recognition does not measure or define the quality of ones work or contribution to society. It’s a shame Gil Scott Heron was not more recognized for his work but your article and more articles of this nature will help his brilliance and talent live on. – arton30th9 years ago
I find that I write better at night, and that's just how I have always been. I've been an avid reader every since I was a child, and many times I spent the entire night reading under my covers. And I feel like because of this, it has caused me to like writing at night. That's just when I feel most creative because I think about a lot of things. I've always considered myself a night owl, so that makes a difference too. I definitely think that different people write at different times. Every person has to find creativity in their own way, and for some that means writing in the morning for others that means writing at night. – diehlsam9 years ago
Growing up in a house of women, I've watched a lot of romantic comedies at time. Call it an acquired taste or Stockholm Syndrome, I've grown quite an affection for them. For a genre so heavily associated with the female demographic, its surprising (or depressingly unsurprising) to see that most of the creative forces behind these films are guys. Admittedly most of these movies tend to formulaic and pandering often attributed to simple creative laziness or not showing the genre's main demographic much respect. This is all standard extrapolation, yet it seems that the films in the romance genre that do get some form of critical acclaim are mostly ones from the male perspective. 500 Days, Eternal Sunshine, even Casablanca are all stories about the romantic struggles of men. Why is this?
Joseph Gordon Levitt's "Don Jon" I would also classify as a romantic comedy from the male perspective. – Cagney9 years ago
I think you nailed it on the head when you said mentioned 'creative laziness'. It is very unfortunate and true that a majority of chick flicks are lackadaisically made and it appears that the main focus of these movies are to pull in money. The films are created with elements that the 'typical female' would appeal to: a physically fit male lead with an established life and a lovable girl-next-door female lead that the female audience can relate to. They blunder through an entertaining ordeal of first dates where something said or done is always lost in translation. This leads to a fight that is only reconciled when the man or woman, usually humiliating themselves in public, does something outrageous to win their significant other back. Then of course, the other is flattered and moved by the oh so lovable other that put themselves through 'all that just to win me back?' It is a stale script that has been overused. – JordanHalkoski9 years ago
Have you done a comparison to romantic comedies that are directed by women vs ones that are directed by men? That could help with your theory. – bcoundif9 years ago
This would be a good topic if the person started with the first chick flick "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and look into how the genre developed in the 80s and 90s. Chick flick queens such as Meg Ryan and Julia Roberts started off and in the 90s Cameron Diaz started off with more male-friendly rom coms like "There's Something About Mary." These are pretty formulaic but maybe the writer could look at the really successful rom coms and how they drove the genre. – Munjeera9 years ago
Look at the changes in the Disney princesses throughout the decades. The princesses went from being all white, to finally adding in some other "races." However, most of the princesses even today are of white European appearance. There is a shift happening within the world of the Disney "princess" to where princesses of other persuasions are slowly joining the beloved originals like Cinderella and Snow White. With Tiana, there is finally an African American princess. There are other heroines such as Ariel, Megara, Esmerelda, Pocahontas, and Mulan. However most of these characters could be classified as ethnic whites. This group is a minority in the group of Disney heroines and princesses. Disney is coming out with new movies that are introducing characters from other places in the world besides the European region. Show the changes in the princesses' culture and ethnicities and explain any patterns that have developed. By this I mean to look at the additions to the Disney princess grouping since the 1980s.
The "shift" happened in the mid-90's and it seems like another is happening "now." Is your topic asking to explore the different patterns that have occurred with ethnic princesses since Snow White or just recently? I think this needs clarification. Also does "appearance" also include animation style? Because that too has changed with technological advances. – Cmandra9 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "ethnic whites". It's an interesting term, but Mulan is Chinese (Asia) and Pocahontas is Native American (North America). Esmeralda is Romanian, Megana is Greek, Ariel is a fish. Do you mean how light-skinned they are in the films? – Katheryn9 years ago
Ethnic whites are those that look white but are not European. Merida would be an ethnic white. So would Rapunzel. – amandajarrell9 years ago
Some franchises have been severely capitalized on by their publishers because of their popularity (for example, the Assassin's Creed series). At its current rate, Ubisoft is putting out one to two games a year in this franchise. No matter how many games Ubisoft puts out, fans always seem to buy the next installment, even if they grumble about it while handing over their money.
On the other hand, other publishers like Naughty Dog have one or two notable franchises which have stretched over a span of years. The first game in the Uncharted series came out in 2007, and the final installment is set to release in 2016. Consumers will hand over the same amount of money for a poorly-produced, glitchy Assassin's Creed game as they will for a quality copy of the Last of Us.
Where do you draw the line? Do you purchase games in a franchise you love without a second thought? Does the increased capitalization on certain franchises deter you from purchasing their games? Why do you think people will inevitably buy a game in a franchise that they realize has been milked to death?
This would make a doable article, but I think that whoever writes this article won't have a lot of concrete facts to draw from. There's a possibility that this could be a heavily opinion-based post. That's okay, but just keep in mind that most articles on the Artifice are usually written works with firm foundations set upon facts, research, or statistics. Once again, there's nothing wrong with the author voicing his or her opinion, but usually we encourage people not to write using first person. We want to avoid too much "I think this" or "I think that". It's an interesting idea though! I'm looking forward to seeing what it will look like when someone uses this topic. – Dominic Sceski9 years ago
To me its fairly simple, just look at the game thats coming out next. If that individual game looks good then buy it. The souls series is putting out a game a year but I'm still excited for Dark Souls 3 because that game looks good. In contrast I liked a lot of the Assassins Creed games but disliked how Unity looked so i skipped it. – Cojo9 years ago
How has the experience of watching video games changed over the past few years? Whether you enjoy watching live streams for the commentary or the competitions, or you prefer watching playthroughs for a handy walkthrough, exploring glitches or simply watching a good story, what would be your reasons to watch games rather than play them?
You should have gap between your question mark and 'Whether' and have d at the end of change to show past tense. – ChrisKeene9 years ago
It's quite interesting occupation! I think, it's also addicts but in the same time is more easy. – LauraJonson9 years ago
Neat topic! How about those "Let's Play"ers on Youtube that review all sorts of games. Many people I know watch them for the Youtuber himself, and not as much the game he's reviewing. – James Smith9 years ago
I wrote a piece for my column in the newspaper I work that argued "Let's Plays" could be this generation's form of arcade entertainment, a social gathering for all your nerdy friends who loved video games? What do you guys think? – CaptainSwift9 years ago
This definitely deserves some exploration! With the rise in streaming and the genre of the "let's play" videos, some in-depth writing on this could do a lot to help those who are unfamiliar with the phenomena to earn a greater understanding. – gabbyfarley159 years ago