『.hack//G.U.』20th Anniversary
⬡⬢─────────────────⬡⬢
『.hack//G.U.』は2026年5月18日で発売から20周年を迎えました✨
本作のキャラクターデザインを手掛けたサイバーコネクトツー細川誠一郎による、20年の軌跡を祝う晴れやかな描き下ろし記念イラストを公開!
⬡本イラストを使用したマルチマットも新発売⬢
詳細🛒https://t.co/eZLRr8Hg22
また、このイラストを含むCC2スタッフからの20周年お祝いイラストを5/20までの3日間で全23枚公開していきます😊
ぜひ最後までご覧ください✨
【『.hack//G.U.』20周年記念イラスト 01/23】
#dothackGU20th #ドットハック #dothack
⬡⬢⬡⬢⬡⬢⬡⬢
.hack//G.U. celebrated the 20th anniversary on May 18, 2026✨
We're unveiling a commemorative illustration by Seiichiro Hosokawa, the character designer of the series, celebrating the 20-year journey!
⬡A multi-purpose mat featuring this illustration is available now!⬢
🛒Details https://t.co/eZLRr8Hg22
We’ll also be releasing 23 celebratory illustrations from the CC2 staff—including this one—over the next three days, through May 20😊
Please enjoy them all the way to the end✨
[.hack//G.U. 20th Anniversary Celebration Illustration 01/23]
i introduced myself to trails yes but i hope i can be this person to others
that would mean i'm more than the guy who post funny sceenshot of his gameplay
Video games will never be taken seriously as an art form because neither the industry nor the audience treats them as art, and the audience is the larger part of the problem. Games are treated as products to be made fast, sold loud, consumed, discarded, and replaced. That is why Call of Duty and FIFA sell in the billions, not because they endure, but because they are disposable and familiar.
This has nothing to do with graphical fidelity, art style, music, voice acting, or budget, even though players insist otherwise. For most people, “artistic merit” means how flashy, pretty, and expensive a game looks. Spectacle is mistaken for depth, and production value is confused with meaning.
Games are not built to be evergreen because the audience does not want evergreen. The people who revisit old titles, engage deeply with systems, or approach games patiently are a minority. Most want the new release, the hype cycle, and the spectacle, then move on as soon as something shinier appears. This is the same reason Avatar makes a billion dollars per film yet leaves almost no cultural footprint. Audiences want stimulation for a few hours, then the exit.
Art requires patience and trust, and games demand both. They ask players to learn systems, accept friction, and think. The audience rejects this. Anything slow, strange, or uncomfortable is dismissed as boring or pretentious, so risk is punished not just by publishers, but by players themselves.
Because of this, metrics replace meaning. Engagement time, retention, and monetisation become the measure of success, because that is what the audience rewards. Art asks what something is saying. Products ask how long you stayed logged in. Games suffer most here because their greatest strength, player agency, is treated as an inconvenience rather than an opportunity.
Legacy is impossible without permission to fail, and the audience does not allow failure. A bad novel does not kill literature. A bad film does not kill cinema. A bad game can kill a studio, because players demand perfection, constant novelty, and infinite support while rejecting experimentation.
So the ceiling stays low by choice. Not because games cannot be art, but because an audience trained on disposability, spectacle, and instant gratification will not tolerate sincerity, patience, or risk. What survives is not what lasts, but what sells loudly and disappears quietly.
SORTEIO
Dark Souls 3 + Dark Souls 2 (STEAM)
🔰 Regras
- De RT nesse post e me siga
- Resultado esse domingo, vou fazer + alguns então vou postar todos os resultado de uma vez