Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing.

2»

Comments

  • #52
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,728 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    I think Limbo might come awful close to the former, at least.

    Limbo shows the one thing games do astoundingly well: atmosphere. In terms of story and themes, I'd probably put it a wee bit behind Braid and Flower, but it's definitely the sort of game that's on the right track: something uniquely interactive.

    There are a few art games out there that do marry big themes and gameplay. They tend to be relatively basic, but again teasing potential. This guy's fascinating: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/


  • #53
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    With a good developer, player input shouldn't void their desire to compose shots. It does throw up certain game specific difficulties (how do I ensure the player sees this scene in a certain way without forcing them to stop playing in a cutscene) but it can be done, look at Shadow of the Colossus (camera position, lighting, environments all come together to direct players to see the scenes the developer wants them to see.

    Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots, because the developer cannot predict the actions of the player and therefore cannot create a linear sequence of shots (i.e. structure, composition). What you are referring to are events in the environment which Valve has used to great effect in the Half-Life 2 games, but they are not cut-scenes and there is no process of composition or structure of the shots by the developer; in fact, the player, not the developer, is the editor and cinematographer and it is effective because it encourages player input, not coerces it.

    You're confusing a problem for an error. It's an error developers continually make by attempting to copy film, not a problem. It would be a problem if there was no alternative to copying film, which as you and I agree there is an alternative (i.e. Half-Life 2).

    In Half-Life 2, there is a connection similar to the bone-spaceship-glass sustained payoff in 2001: A Space Odyssey: Valve set a rhythm for the player where the player sees a character on a monitor and identifies that as the location the player is moving to, and the first character the player sees on a monitor is Dr. Breen which is the player's ultimate destination and is eventually paid off. It has one of the best lines in Games: "Tell me, Dr. Freeman, if you can. You have destroyed so much. What is it, exactly, that you have created? Can you name even one thing?". It works effectively, because it could not work in any other medium. However, Half-Life 2 pales in comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    If you have to ask the question as to why no game can compare to 2001: A Space Odyssey, then, by definition, you demonstrate that you don't understand film or that specific film (Michael Chion's book about the film is a great starting point if you're interested, though).

    The Game industry is relatively young. It's still in the balance what purpose computer games will serve: they can either be elevated to film or literature or knocked down to comic books, toys and boardgames and that's still in balance. So, it's comparable to a midget knocking out a five year old and his promoters asking David Haye for a shot at the WBA Heavyweight belt by comparing any game to 2001: A Space Odyssey. To compare games to that film the Game industry, much like any boxer wanting to fight David Haye, has to earn it and the Game industry hasn't even earned the status film and literature have in the mainstream.

    Hyperbolic statements serve no purpose. I mean, you can claim that games match 2001: A Space Odyssey to draw attention to the great advances in games over the past two decades but you're only liable to have people react negatively to the naivety of the Game industry and its gamers. 2001: A Space Odyssey was the product of decades of work by an industry to get to a point where it was possible to create that film, intellectually and technologically.


  • #54
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots, because the developer cannot predict the actions of the player and therefore cannot create a linear sequence of shots (i.e. structure, composition).

    This isn't true at all. In lots of cases, the player can fiddle around with the camera settings to get a closer look at something for gameplay purposes, but game developers can have very clear ideas indeed about how they want to present each scene and can indeed impose them if they've got a mind to.

    The first Silent Hill game has a great example of what I mean. The opening sequence has the player character run down an alleyway, trying to find his lost child. As you, the player, press forward, the view tracks around you in a series of amazing and clearly very thoughtfully composed angles, to emphasize the increasingly confined quarters. The "camera" is not fixed, it flies around you like a hummingbird with a steadicam; sometimes it sways erratically to shake you up, and sometimes, it settles in one position to let you run past from above, like a patient predator.

    At all times, the player is in control of the character that the "camera" is tracking, but somebody somewhere has clearly sat down and made a series of decisions and, I daresay, storyboards, about exactly how they want to present the scene onscreen, and exactly how they want each moment framed.

    The original Metal Gear Solid has a few moments like that too - the moment the player is first confronted with Metal Gear itself, the viewpoint adopts a very, very deliberate position that emphasizes the scale of the machine in relation to the player character. And there's plenty of other stuff I could probably come up with if it weren't 4am and post-pint.

    Depending on the game, the player does have the final word, but that doesn't mean the developer hasn't given it lots and lots and lots of thought already, or that they can't employ some degree of control if they so choose. A lot of developers aren't very creative or imaginative about it, and it's more convenient to implement in some genres than in others, but the option is certainly there, player input and all.


  • #55
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots, because the developer cannot predict the actions of the player and therefore cannot create a linear sequence of shots (i.e. structure, composition). What you are referring to are events in the environment which Valve has used to great effect in the Half-Life 2 games, but they are not cut-scenes and there is no process of composition or structure of the shots by the developer; in fact, the player, not the developer, is the editor and cinematographer and it is effective because it encourages player input, not coerces it.

    Have you played through the developers commentaries for Left 4 Dead yet? If you haven't it might be interesting to you. There's parts were the developer talks about the use of colour and lighting in a scene to draw the players attention to it what the devleoper wants the player to see and to guide them through a level subconciously. You've still got the randomness factor of the player but it is quite an effective step in rectifying this.
    Untitled Image




  • #56
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots, because the developer cannot predict the actions of the player and therefore cannot create a linear sequence of shots (i.e. structure, composition). What you are referring to are events in the environment which Valve has used to great effect in the Half-Life 2 games, but they are not cut-scenes and there is no process of composition or structure of the shots by the developer; in fact, the player, not the developer, is the editor and cinematographer and it is effective because it encourages player input, not coerces it.

    But thats my point, in games you shouldn't try to create specific shots and force players to watch them in cut scenes too much as it breaks the immersion. Good developers realise this and so create the shots ingame and direct the player to watch the action themselves, they get to create composed shots but without losing immersion for the player. The thing that games have that most differentiates them from any other media is immersion, everything a developer does should be done with that in mind.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    You're confusing a problem for an error. It's an error developers continually make by attempting to copy film, not a problem. It would be a problem if there was no alternative to copying film, which as you and I agree there is an alternative (i.e. Half-Life 2).

    Needless distinction. Its a problem that in the games industry more and more developers are aiming for cinematic games, as this fundamentally ignores the uniqueness of the media they are working in (imagine a developer making a literature game, where players would play by reading massive blocks of prose, nobody would play it, as what would be the point), but that doesn't mean that problem doesn't have a solution.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    If you have to ask the question as to why no game can compare to 2001: A Space Odyssey, then, by definition, you demonstrate that you don't understand film or that specific film (Michael Chion's book about the film is a great starting point if you're interested, though).

    :confused: This is probably one of the most patronising pieces of crap I've ever heard. Asking why you think no game can be compared to a film, by definition, means I dont understand film? Your subjective opinion of a movie is not an objective truth. Why do you think no game can compare to 2001?
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    The Game industry is relatively young. It's still in the balance what purpose computer games will serve: they can either be elevated to film or literature or knocked down to comic books, toys and boardgames and that's still in balance. So, it's comparable to a midget knocking out a five year old and his promoters asking David Haye for a shot at the WBA Heavyweight belt by comparing any game to 2001: A Space Odyssey. To compare games to that film the Game industry, much like any boxer wanting to fight David Haye, has to earn it and the Game industry hasn't even earned the status film and literature have in the mainstream.

    This is not an answer, its an inflated opinion. You put down comic books, as if one of the most profitable films ever made wasn't adapted from a comic book. You objectively declare the importance of certain forms of entertainment over others, because of what subjectively interests you. This is not a prize fight, its a simple question: I can either watch 2001 for the first time tonight, or I can play "insert game here" for the first time tonight, which should i do and why?
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Hyperbolic statements serve no purpose. I mean, you can claim that games match 2001: A Space Odyssey to draw attention to the great advances in games over the past two decades but you're only liable to have people react negatively to the naivety of the Game industry and its gamers. 2001: A Space Odyssey was the product of decades of work by an industry to get to a point where it was possible to create that film, intellectually and technologically.

    :confused: Where did I claim that games match 2001? I merely asked you, without agreeing or disagreeing, what makes you think it cant be matched, in visuals or narrative, by games.
    Do you have any reasoning beyond snotty derision of games? Can you describe specific aspects of 2001 that make it so unapproachable by the games industry in terms of visuals or narratives.


  • #57
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    This isn't true at all. In lots of cases, the player can fiddle around with the camera settings to get a closer look at something for gameplay purposes, but game developers can have very clear ideas indeed about how they want to present each scene and can indeed impose them if they've got a mind to.

    How then does a developer predict the actions of a player such that they can structure a linear sequence of unbroken shots and predict with a certainty of one each time the player's input over each tick? It is not possible. A linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor. You are correct that game developers can control the environments in which player exists and trigger events based upon player input; however, that's pointing out the redundant obvious and I didn't disagree and in fact I advocate and support the event triggering and gating Valve have used, especially in the Half-Life 2 games and stated such here.

    So, we don't disagree.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Have you played through the developers commentaries for Left 4 Dead yet? If you haven't it might be interesting to you. There's parts were the developer talks about the use of colour and lighting in a scene to draw the players attention to it what the devleoper wants the player to see and to guide them through a level subconciously. You've still got the randomness factor of the player but it is quite an effective step in rectifying this.
    Those are techniques in level design that can be used to great effect in narrative design if the developer uses the environment to convey meaning. Valve's designers referenced it in the developer commentaries for Half-Life 2 episodes too. The best example I can think of from memory is at the start of Half-Life 2 where the player has to go through a regimented caged path that simultaneously tasks the player on movement and subtly conveys the regimental oppression of the Combine.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Needless distinction. Its a problem that in the games industry more and more developers are aiming for cinematic games

    It isn't a needless distinction. If it were a problem rather than an error in form, then there has not been a solution found, which you and I agree there has, such that the games industry cannot progress. That is not the case and game developers have utilized the form to effect and have progressed the medium. An error made by the majority of game developers does not preclude other superior game developers from progress in the industry and elevating it. These errors do not eclipse the real problem of game developers creating and mapping emotion to the human face comparable to the expressiveness of great actors and actresses.

    I did not put down comic books. It is not a declaration based upon what subjectively interests me: it is a statement based upon observable fact. In general, comic books do not have the same status as film or literature in western society (France, an exception); this is easily verified by perusing mainstream newspapers, watching media coverage or reading treatise over the last few decades and counting the number of journalists and intellectuals employed to write, talk and critique film or literature versus the number, comic books. It's irrelevant that the intellectual property of a comic book or any other medium was used by another medium to great acclaim or reviews; it indicates zero of the medium from which the property originated and zero of the medium to which the property was used. Don't confuse form ('a reel of film', 'a piece of coloured paper') for content ('characters', 'story', 'plot').

    I did not claim that you, specifically, said games matched 2001: A Space Odyssey; 'you' was used in a general sense. The original claim was:
    no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both.
    That is different from your interpretation of the claim that 'no game can match' 2001: A Space Odyssey which speaks to the past, present and future of games as opposed to the original which speaks to the past collection of games which have not come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey and which speaks nothing of future games.

    I have already recommended a very good book and author who can elucidate the film for you. It is not my subjective opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey that I base my claims on but the fact that it has continually stood the test of time for over forty years (slightly below the age of the computer game) and is still a draw when screened at cinemas and had a tremendous impact upon mainstream culture; facts that have no relation to my subjective opinion.


    I don't see any reason why you cannot watch 2001: A Space Odyssey and play "insert game here".


  • #58
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    How then does a developer predict the actions of a player such that they can structure a linear sequence of unbroken shots and predict with a certainty of one each time the player's input over each tick? It is not possible. A linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor. You are correct that game developers can control the environments in which player exists and trigger events based upon player input; however, that's pointing out the redundant obvious and I didn't disagree and in fact I advocate and support the event triggering and gating Valve have used, especially in the Half-Life 2 games and stated such here.

    So, we don't disagree.

    Look, you are suffering from the same problem as a lot of game developers at the moment, by assuming that games should tell stories in the same way as movies, by simply playing a scene with no 3rd party involvement, and that player input would work against that. The thing is, games aren't supposed to tell stories the same way as movies, they are supposed to tell stories while involving the player with gameplay. When developers recognise this, they can have great stories and great gameplay compliment each other, while still structuring the scenes they want. This contradicts you first sentence in your last post where you say "Player input voids the process of composition and structure of shots"
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Those are techniques in level design that can be used to great effect in narrative design if the developer uses the environment to convey meaning. Valve's designers referenced it in the developer commentaries for Half-Life 2 episodes too. The best example I can think of from memory is at the start of Half-Life 2 where the player has to go through a regimented caged path that simultaneously tasks the player on movement and subtly conveys the regimental oppression of the Combine.

    So you agree now that player input doesn't void the process of composition and structure of shots? Just that it needs to be done in a different way to movies?
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    It isn't a needless distinction. If it were a problem rather than an error in form, then there has not been a solution found, which you and I agree there has, such that the games industry cannot progress. That is not the case and game developers have utilized the form to effect and have progressed the medium. An error made by the majority of game developers does not preclude other superior game developers from progress in the industry and elevating it. These errors do not eclipse the real problem of game developers creating and mapping emotion to the human face comparable to the expressiveness of great actors and actresses.

    This is just needless semantics. Its a problem because a lot of develops attitude is to compete with films on a films terms, which negatively effects gameplay experiences. Call it an error or a problem, the situation is the same, too many developers think games need to cinematic.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    I did not put down comic books. It is not a declaration based upon what subjectively interests me: it is a statement based upon observable fact.

    You have this odd habit of claiming you didn't say something despite the fact that you previous posts are still here for all to see. You do realise that, dont you? I can point to your post where you said:
    "It's still in the balance what purpose computer games will serve: they can either be elevated to film or literature or knocked down to comic books, toys and boardgames and that's still in balance"
    and point out how that clearly puts down comic books, as being mere toys, meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    In general, comic books do not have the same status as film or literature in western society (France, an exception); this is easily verified by perusing mainstream newspapers, watching media coverage or reading treatise over the last few decades and counting the number of journalists and intellectuals employed to write, talk and critique film or literature versus the number, comic books. It's irrelevant that the intellectual property of a comic book or any other medium was used by another medium to great acclaim or reviews; it indicates zero of the medium from which the property originated and zero of the medium to which the property was used. Don't confuse form ('a reel of film', 'a piece of coloured paper') for content ('characters', 'story', 'plot').

    You are contradicting yourself all over the place. Status is merely consensus. Comics dont have the same status as films as there isn't a majority consensus on what they are worth, but that doesn't mean that to some they aren't worth more than movies or video games or paintings. The point is, regardless of what popularity of perceived worth a medium has in the general publics eyes, it may still have worth in the eyes of its fans. Video games may end up knocked down to the purpose of comic books, toys and boardgames as you say, but that doesn't mean they wont have more worth than the most cinematic film or the most thoughtful sculpture, to those who can appreciate them.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    I did not claim that you, specifically, said games matched 2001: A Space Odyssey; 'you' was used in a general sense. The original claim was:
    "no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both. "
    That is different from your interpretation of the claim that 'no game can match' 2001: A Space Odyssey which speaks to the past, present and future of games as opposed to the original which speaks to the past collection of games which have not come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey and which speaks nothing of future games.

    Then what is it that all the games up to now lack that mean they aren't a match for 2001, in visual and/or narrative?
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    I have already recommended a very good book and author who can elucidate the film for you. It is not my subjective opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey that I base my claims on but the fact that it has continually stood the test of time for over forty years (slightly below the age of the computer game) and is still a draw when screened at cinemas and had a tremendous impact upon mainstream culture; facts that have no relation to my subjective opinion.

    I am not interested in reading a book, you made a claim, you back it up. If its based purely on it still being a draw in the cinemas than The Rocky Horror Picture Show must be one of the best films ever made, as people still go to see that (hell, they dress up when they see it, do people go in costume when they go to see 2001?)
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    I don't see any reason why you cannot watch 2001: A Space Odyssey and play "insert game here".

    Just answer the question.


  • #59
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Look, you are suffering from the same problem as a lot of game developers at the moment

    I doubt that I suffer from the same error, because my first post in this thread established that I was aware of the error before even your first reference to it in this thread. You cannot even distinguish between what is an error and what is a problem ("needless semantics" it is not) and you still have not understood the terms used in this discussion or the discussion itself. Read: "a linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor".

    The process of composition and structure of shots by the developer is not possible with player input, because the player is composing and structuring the shots, not the developer. Therefore any pace or meaning the developer indicated with the process of composition and structure of a linear unbroken sequence of shots is lost if the player breaks it. Player input voids the process. Like confusing form for content and asserting the irrelevant fact that because an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from, you confuse an event in an environment or the environment itself for a cut-scene. The former encourages player input and consequently voids the process of composition and structure of shots and the latter, voids player input and consequently enables the process of composition and structure of shots.


    You have an unsurprising habit of using words that you do not understand ('problem', 'subjective', 'contradict' et cetera). You claimed that 'I' put down comic books: 'I' is a personal pronoun. Nowhere in your quote is there reference to comic books in the personal first-person singular. That quote is based upon the observable fact found in the media and literature and mainstream society who have established a hierarchy of media with film and literature near the top, not based upon my personal 'subjective' opinion; otherwise I would have used the first-person singular. A monkey can "point" to the moon, but it doesn't mean he understands it. The contradictions exist only within your own noggin'.

    If someone thinks that blowing up houses is a medium worthy of consideration as the same status as film or literature, then the onus is on that someone to establish by work and effort and prove that it is worthy of consideration. The ultimate decision of whether that medium is considered the same as film or literature is by the society in which that someone lives. Fundamentally, you don't understand that if a medium is relegated to a toy, a comic book or a boardgame, it is relegated for the reason that it does not offer intellectually-satisfying form or content for the adult and mature society it is sold for and therefore, the medium has to downmarket to create an economy for the industry to survive.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I am not interested in reading a book

    You should start. You've answered your own question. On the contrary, you have to make it worthwhile for me to waste my time explaining to you which, based upon your inability to understand simple concepts such as 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'process', 'composition', 'shots', 'structure', 'I' et cetera, would be a full-time job and should be remunerated.

    And, if you're going to debate with me, learn how to respond by not quote-retarding my post. If you cannot construct a response in sizeable blocks of text without confusing yourself, then you shouldn't bother composing a response at all.


  • #60
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    I doubt that I suffer from the same error, because my first post in this thread established that I was aware of the error before even your first reference to it in this thread. You cannot even distinguish between what is an error and what is a problem ("needless semantics" it is not) and you still have not understood the terms used in this discussion or the discussion itself. Read: "a linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor".

    Your semantic nitpicking is exasperating. Not to mention your point is just plain wrong. The player only controls the pace of the character they control, a director can still dictate the pace of any scenes that play out on screen, regardless of whether or not the player can run around in circles while the story is playing out. A player cant stop a scene, have one npc change his dialogue or deliver it in a way that the director doesn't want them to.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    The process of composition and structure of shots by the developer is not possible with player input, because the player is composing and structuring the shots, not the developer. Therefore any pace or meaning the developer indicated with the process of composition and structure of a linear unbroken sequence of shots is lost if the player breaks it. Player input voids the process. Like confusing form for content and asserting the irrelevant fact that because an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from, you confuse an event in an environment or the environment itself for a cut-scene. The former encourages player input and consequently voids the process of composition and structure of shots and the latter, voids player input and consequently enables the process of composition and structure of shots.

    Just plain wrong. Players only control the direction of the camera, they cannot have a scene play out in a way that the director doesn't allow for, as, very simply, the scenes are pre-programmed according to the directors wishes. The director does have to ensure that the player is looking at the right place, but the player cant interfere with a scene playing out in ways the director doesn't want them to. Directors can use light and colour to direct players attention, they can structure levels so that they enter scenes from certain angles and can only view things the way the director wants. Look at the old Resident evil games (before 4 or the shooters), they were games made up entirely of linear sequences of shots as the camera was fixed in each room and would only show you the scene the director wanted in the way he wanted (you could backtrack, but you could still only see the scripted sequences in the order and manner the director desires
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psocOySFePA
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    You have an unsurprising habit of using words that you do not understand ('problem', 'subjective', 'contradict' et cetera). You claimed that 'I' put down comic books: 'I' is a personal pronoun. Nowhere in your quote is there reference to comic books in the personal first-person singular. That quote is based upon the observable fact found in the media and literature and mainstream society who have established a hierarchy of media with film and literature near the top, not based upon my personal 'subjective' opinion; otherwise I would have used the first-person singular. A monkey can "point" to the moon, but it doesn't mean he understands it. The contradictions exist only within your own noggin'.

    If someone thinks that blowing up houses is a medium worthy of consideration as the same status as film or literature, then the onus is on that someone to establish by work and effort and prove that it is worthy of consideration. The ultimate decision of whether that medium is considered the same as film or literature is by the society in which that someone lives. Fundamentally, you don't understand that if a medium is relegated to a toy, a comic book or a boardgame, it is relegated for the reason that it does not offer intellectually-satisfying form or content for the adult and mature society it is sold for and therefore, the medium has to downmarket to create an economy for the industry to survive.

    You really love to talk BS dont you? All you are offering is an argumentum ad populum (along with a bizarre attempt to redefine some words :confused: ) which, if taken to its logical conclusion, implies that the Transformers movie has more purpose than 2001, as it made more money (more people chose to watch it), a ludicrous notion, I'm sure you will agree. The general populations ability to appreciate the purpose or value of something is not actually a measure of the purpose or value of that thing.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    You should start. You've answered your own question. On the contrary, you have to make it worthwhile for me to waste my time explaining to you which, based upon your inability to understand simple concepts such as 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'process', 'composition', 'shots', 'structure', 'I' et cetera, would be a full-time job and should be remunerated.

    Baseless insults now? Really, making a claim and then pointing to somewhere else to support it without any input of your own, trying to redefine simple terms to get out of the hole your illogical arguments have put you in, insulting someone instead of actually responding to their points, these are the games that trolls and creationists play. Cut it out, quit stalling and answer the question "what is it that 2001 has in narrative and visuals that, up to now, games haven't matched"? If you believe that there is an actual answer, and actually comprehend it, rather than hold to it because you think it makes you sound smarter to agree with snotty film critics, then actually explain it.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    And, if you're going to debate with me, learn how to respond by not quote-retarding my post. If you cannot construct a response in sizeable blocks of text without confusing yourself, then you shouldn't bother composing a response at all.

    :confused: I cant even tell what you are complaining about here (more games is it?) Is it that I split up your posts too much when I respond? Is that too much for you to handle or something?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    Everyone's referring to games like Heavy Rain (which I like) and L.A Noir for examples of story telling and facial animation but come on lads there's way more games than that and they're not old either. The Darkness got really bad reviews but honestly it's storytelling and gameplay worked relatively well with each other and it was powerful.

    shadow of the colossus stold a story without really using any cutscenes or dialogue... the whole emotion of the game came directly from the gameplay, filling the player with hope, wonder and regret without ever saying a word to suggest such emotions.

    I also can't believe nobody has mentioned Yakuza 3 or 4, Games with some of the best facial animation I've seen around (easily beating L.A imo) and very good action if a little unrealistic at times. And the story is just brilliant if a little complicated at times. Half the story is told through gameplay, too.

    Saying the game cannot be directed properly because of the player's ability to explore is just crazy.


  • #62
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Not to mention your point is just plain wrong. [...] Just plain wrong.

    Read, again if it is of any use which it palpably is not: "a linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor". The gameplay referenced to in the video posted is not a cut-scene and therefore has no process of composition or structure of shots, because the player has input and can break the sequence. You even mention 'backtrack' but scarcely understand how such a simple player input such as the action 'backtrack' breaks a "linear unbroken sequence". Did the developer predict the player would 'backtrack' at that specific moment?

    Do tell how a game developer can predict with a certainty of one the specific order a player would go through and the duration of each specific frame and the specific input a player uses at each tick would you? They cannot, of course, but that's what you're implying with your ridiculous logic. They cannot have a process of composition and structure of shots, because the player input is composing and structuring the shots (i.e. the camera); the player's linear unbroken sequence, not the developer's. In the example you posted, the developer is not specifying when a shot is cut to, just the position; the player is specifying the cut to a position (i.e. editor). Player input and composition and structure of shots (a linear unbroken sequence) are mutually exclusive. You are pointing out the redundant obvious that developers create the environment for the player: that's not a process of composition or structure of shots and it is not a linear unbroken sequence or a cut-scene.

    The youtube video you referenced uses the process of composition and structure of shots: you can hit refresh countless times and it would never change the composition or structure of the sequence of shots or the duration of each frame unless interrupted by user input (pause et cetera). It is a video recording of a player playing a game: the player is therefore the editor and therefore makes the decision of the composition and structure of shots in his playthrough, not the developer. The author is the player, not the developer. You could record a million different players playing a game with player input and composition and structure of the sequence of shots which would create a recording would with limited exceptions be different; the larger the complexity of the input the wider the difference (First-Person Shooter dynamic camera versus Resident Evil static).

    Furthermore, the discussion is related to cinematography, camera, not audio; dialogue and sound is irrelevant to this discussion. If you understood this discussion, you would understand this.


    It wasn't a base/less insult. It was a truthful statement: you don't understand such simple concepts as 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'process', 'composition', 'shots', 'structure' and I proved it. You conceded as such by not responding to my arguments about your use of the words, 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'I' and instead you resorted to contradicting yourself and insult:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    insulting someone instead of actually responding to their points
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You really love to talk BS dont you?

    Where have I redefined "some" (hiding behind the general rather than the specific eh?) terms or words, in an actual dictionary? You are the one squealing about "needless" semantics as a loser would squeal about the rules of a game he lost and arguing with dictionary definitions. Where are the illogical arguments? You mean, where you claimed that a problem that was solved was an obstacle to the industry still and not just an error exhibited by specific developers and that this problem was bigger than the actual unsolved problem of reconstructing the human face comparable to the richness and complexity of a human's? Or, you mean, where you implied that form and content are interchangeable and that an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from? Or you mean, where you declared it was my subjective opinion in putting down comic books not a statement based upon observable fact of the status afforded to medium by societies?

    Or, do you mean where you claimed that player input does not void the process of composition and structure of shots by the developer and that a linear unbroken sequence can be created by the developer with player input despite the very high probability that the player input will break the sequence the developer intended? So, by your own standard, playing the "games that trolls and creationists play".


    Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. How much a creative work creates in monetary terms is not indicative of its popularity. If took to its proper logical conclusion, a man buying a film for a trillion dollars would indicate more popularity than a film which makes a billion dollars selling to 100,000 million people, which you agree is ridiculous. There is no evidence that Transformers that has been watched by more people than 2001: A Space Odyssey; there is evidence that Transformers has earned more money in the box-office but that's popularity over a very short period. It's foolish to assume that over forty years less people have watched 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers in a few years. A definable metric for success for a medium or a piece of art has is its popularity and/or critique over time. 2001: A Space Odyssey has been seen for over forty years because of its continuing popularity and status in the critical community and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the film industry; that's not an argumentum ad populum (not able to master simple naturalized English words, you're attempting to use Latin...), it is a definable metric that no game has matched - not least because the game industry is not much older than the film and relatively a child compared to the age of the film industry.

    I have already explained to that you need to prove to me that it is worthwhile to elucidate 2001: A Space Odyssey for you. Just because an idiot does not understand how the Earth revolves around the Solar System's center of mass does not mean that I am compelled to prove and evidence the claim when the idiot is pointed to consulting a physicist's book on the topic for a more thorough explanation. There is an actual answer, because I have already recommended where you can go to educate yourself on the subject. I have already done the hard work for you by finding the appropriate quality material.


  • #63
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Try and keep the thinly veiled pseudo intellectual insults to a minimum or I'll have to lock the thread.
    Untitled Image




  • #64
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Furthermore, the discussion is related to cinematography, camera, not audio; dialogue and sound is irrelevant to this discussion. If you understood this discussion, you would understand this.

    If you understood my points you will see why they do. The problem that a lot of developers have is in forgetting that everything you do in a game should increase immersion, not break it, and that cut scenes (as they build up) will inevitably break it. Therefore, the best practice is to take whatever cutscenes that are just exposition and integrate into the gameplay. Even if a player can only run around in circles in a small room while someone talks to them, they will enjoy more immersion than if the game cuts to uncontrolled cutscene every 5 mins (compare the immersion of the Portal games, where the dialogue happens during the action, to that of Metal Gear Solid 4, which has 30 minute cutscenes every 5 or 10 mins)
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Where have I redefined "some" (hiding behind the general rather than the specific eh?) terms or words, in an actual dictionary? You are the one squealing about "needless" semantics as a loser would squeal about the rules of a game he lost and arguing with dictionary definitions. Where are the illogical arguments? You mean, where you claimed that a problem that was solved was an obstacle to the industry still and not just an error exhibited by specific developers and that this problem was bigger than the actual unsolved problem of reconstructing the human face comparable to the richness and complexity of a human's? Or, you mean, where you implied that form and content are interchangeable and that an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from? Or you mean, where you declared it was my subjective opinion in putting down comic books not a statement based upon observable fact of the status afforded to medium by societies?

    Or, do you mean where you claimed that player input does not void the process of composition and structure of shots by the developer and that a linear unbroken sequence can be created by the developer with player input despite the very high probability that the player input will break the sequence the developer intended?

    Firstly an error is a problem if its made despite their being a solution, the problem with developers that we are discussing does have solutions, and some developers get them, but not all do because not all care. Besides which, in general, problems can have solutions and still be called problems, I remember having maths problems fro homework as a child and I'm pretty sure they all had solutions.
    Secondly, if the importance, value, purpose etc of an intellectual property is independent of its medium, then you placing the purpose of comic books at the level of toys and boardgames is incorrect, as the intellectual property of comic books can achieve as great acclaim as the intellectual property of films (once the general public can be made overcome their illogical bias to certain media) and therefore their purpose or value is equal (even if not always recognised by everyone).
    Thirdly, you initially put down comic books by saying they serve the same purpose as toys or boardgames, a subjective opinion as to comic book fans, comic books offer the same escapist opportunities and thought provoking material that a film may provide to a film buff. Even in trying to move the goalposts to "status" instead of "purpose" wont change this. Status is consensus and it does not dictate purpose as purpose is subjective.
    Lastly, you seem to think that games just randomly throw out cutscenes or prescripted encounters and that developers have no way to ensure that a character has been at the locations the developer wanted them to reach first before a scene activates. You know I've yet to encounter a game that just throws the ending at you half way through, as it has to guess where you are in the story random sequence of scenes it already threw at you. I'm wondering if you have ever played a videogame now.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. How much a creative work creates in monetary terms is not indicative of its popularity.

    Well, actually it is. You do have to take account of inflation and whether those creative works came out on the same medium, but once you do, you have an indication of how many people payed to see it and therefore its popularity. Thats the problem with popularity, its a popularity contest.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    If took to its proper logical conclusion, a man buying a film for a trillion dollars would indicate more popularity than a film which makes a billion dollars selling to 100,000 million people, which you agree is ridiculous.

    No, because you use the money made to determine how many people payed and its how many that payed that determine popularity.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    There is no evidence that Transformers that has been watched by more people than 2001: A Space Odyssey; there is evidence that Transformers has earned more money in the box-office but that's popularity over a very short period. It's foolish to assume that over forty years less people have watched 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers in a few years. A definable metric for success for a medium or a piece of art has is its popularity and/or critique over time.

    Transformers earned $708million dollars box office, $291million dollars DVD sales, while 2001 earned $430million (adjusted for inflation) box office and $47million (adjusted) dvd sales. Over time, and adjusted for inflation, more people have paid to see Transformers, its all in the numbers.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    2001: A Space Odyssey has been seen for over forty years because of its continuing popularity and status in the critical community and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the film industry; that's not an argumentum ad populum

    Argumentum ad critic :P? The critics like it therefore everyone else does? Transformers was panned by critics and still was seen by more people.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    (not able to master simple naturalized English words, you're attempting to use Latin...),

    Trying to put me down because I use a term you aren't familiar with? Argumentum ad ignorance :p? I could have said "appeal to the masses" or "argument by consensus" but I like the Latin terms for them.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    I have already explained to that you need to prove to me that it is worthwhile to elucidate 2001: A Space Odyssey for you.

    I'm sorry, I need to explain to you why you need to back up your claims? Are you a creationist? Cause they are the only other group of people who so totally misunderstand the notion of "burden of proof" as you. You make a claim, and you back it up, thats how it works. If you are unwilling to do this then this debate stops here, I dont post with trolls.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Just because an idiot does not understand how the Earth revolves around the Solar System's center of mass does not mean that I am compelled to prove and evidence the claim when the idiot is pointed to consulting a physicist's book on the topic for a more thorough explanation. There is an actual answer, because I have already recommended where you can go to educate yourself on the subject. I have already done the hard work for you by finding the appropriate quality material.

    If you understood the answer then you could offer a basic run through of the reasons, pointing to the secondary source as evidence or just using it yourself for details. Thats how discussion boards work, you know, you discuss and offer evidence for you claims or opinions, if everyone just made declarations and then pointed to books, why would anyone post anything? What would happen to this thread if I simply declared you were wrong and said read "Why VideoGames are Better than Everything Else" by "Some Tw@" to educate yourself as to why?

    Answer the question:what is it that all the games up to now lack that mean they aren't a match for 2001, in visual and/or narrative?

    PS: dont call me an idiot again.


  • #65
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Your original claim was that it was a problem for the industry that some developers don’t understand the solution. It is not a problem to any specific developer that one or some developers cannot solve a problem any more that it was a problem for the science of Mathematics that you could not solve the problems in your Maths homework. It was an error, not a problem, that you could not understand the method to the solution and apply it to a specific case, because you are not solving the problems; they had already been solved and the task for you is to produce error-free work using the method to solve the problem.

    Again, you confuse form for content and content for form. Comic book is a medium, a form, a collection of papers with graphics and text; it is not an intellectual property or content. Spiderman, Batman et cetera is an intellectual property, content, and its characters, stories and plots can be ported to cereal boxes, newspapers, films, say what you like. In general, comic books do not have the same status or purpose (your “goal posts” reference is bizarre) as film or literature in western society (France, an exception). This is not a declaration based upon what subjectively interests me: it is a statement based upon observable fact. Status in medium does dictate purpose: that’s one of the core principles of propaganda (hence, the difference in content and tone between tabloids, broadsheets, financial times, Wall Street Journal). Also, this isn’t an illogical bias: people will choose the mediums that satisfy their needs, intellectually et cetera. The task of the game industry will be to raise its medium to satisfy the needs of everyone as film and literature does, not just < 34 age population.

    You claimed that the currency a creative work creates is indicative of its popularity; it is not as I proved with a simple example (“a man buying a film for a trillion dollars would indicate more popularity than a film which makes a billion dollars selling to 100,000 million people”). How many people watch, play, read a creative work is indicative of its popularity and to further refine it, how many people relative to the total population. Your utterly simplistic account analysis of complex interactions in box-office grosses based upon incomplete data is insufficient; you simply googled a bunch of terms and borrowed a couple of numbers without understanding the terms and the numbers. There are a number of effects in box-office grosses: average number of tickets sold for films in that year, the growth or decline of the industry, the size of the industry, the population number, the number of theaters, and the economy.

    Transformers earned $319m in US and the average price of a ticket in 2007 was $6.88 which is approx. 46 million tickets sold. 2001: A Space Odyssey earned $25m in 1968 and $31m more by 1970 and average price of a ticket in 1968 was $1.31 and in 1970, $1.55 which is approx. 39 million tickets sold. The population of the US in 2010 was 308,745,538 and in 1970, 203,211,926, which is not accurate to the release dates of both films but near as possible. Based upon those population figures, Transformers sold to 15% of the US population and 2001: A Space Odyssey sold to 19% of the US population which is a more accurate representation. Furthermore, more people have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers with these more accurate figures from IMDB and even on conservative estimates, it was seen by more people; that’s not counting the numerous exhibitions and rentals of the film reel in the grosses and that’s not counting Television screenings over a period of forty years. So, on any grounds of representation, more people have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers.

    I have already supplied proof: a book which details the complexity of 2001: A Space Odyssey‘s visuals and narrative to which no game has yet achieved. I have no intention of summarizing and explaining a translated book with highly technical terms specific to Chion’s film criticism for someone (since you like using Latin words – pace Mark Hammil) who has demonstrated that he could not distinguish the subtleties of the film camera versus game camera and whom it took four detailed posts pertaining to the subject to finally understand it (I assume and hope this). Discussion is the basis of forums, but some discussions are more worthy of time than others and a discussion involving any argument that games have bettered or equaled 2001: A Space Odyssey in visuals and narrative is a complete waste of time as would be a lengthy discussion on the subject of “Is the world flat?”. The answer is obvious and the grounds for debate trodden and wrecked.

    And, yes, I’m more than familiar with the oft-used little-understood Latin logical fallacies because opposed to demonstratively you, I understand them. Poor debators shoot around these buzzwords like sliver-bullets at any argument and as was the case with your quote-retarded replies, I was giving advice on your argument style which in no way could I give less of a shit about responding to.

    ;)


  • #66
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    is totallystanleykubrick getting his brain thinking on?

    hes an intellectual ya know


    but tbh, films provide more intellectual meat then games and thats something that will continue for a while. i dunno though, i dont really compare them in that regard anyway. they are two different things. you dont see people comparing film to music as to which has more depth and sh1t. bit of a null argument. brooker has a point in some, albeit very few, regards and even at that, they dont really make much of a difference. maybe he just wanted to have a go at some of the sh1te hollywood has puked out over the past few years.

    now go outside kids! the weather be trippin' dawg


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/310/markhammilcounterquote.png

    http://nerfzidane.com/2011/06/04/quote-lame/ ;)

    So in an effort to stop me responding to you, you post an image of your text, instead of the text itself? What the hell is wrong with you? Did you think it will make it harder for me or something? Troll better, or not all, this is just pathetic. Anyway...
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Paragraph 1 (starting from "your original claim was...)

    My original claim was that there is a problem for the industry because many developers dont even recognise that what they are doing is wrong. There is a danger in the industry of the developers who understand the difference between games and movies being outnumbered and eventually replaced by those who dont, those who think 40 minute non interactive cutscenes are great (Square Enix/ Hideo Kojima etc) or those that think that characters acting completely different in cutscenes than gameplay is also great (Devil May Cray/Bayonetta). Its not always a problem to the point of damaging the industry or medium (DMC and Bayonetta have great gameplay despite the cutscenes) but it does retard its progress, it forgets why games are different to movies and that you should embrace that difference.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Paragraph 2

    This is just a repetition of the point you already made. Its still wrong. Status doesn't indicate purpose, it only indicates perceived purpose, which is subjective. Comic books are as meaningful an entertainment as movies or videogames or music, if you feel that way about them. Comic books are not just toys, they are not just for kids, the ignorance of the majority of the general public about this fact doesn't alter this fact.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Paragraph 3

    Your point here is a strawman of my point, a really poor at that. Seeing as you claimed that people still go to see 2001 every time that its re-released, your point about population changes/economy etc is irrelevant, as the recent releases would have been during similar population numbers and economies as Transformers and the original and very early releases would have been at times of fewer films in the cinemas (which would lead to the numbers over stating its popularity). Overall, the numbers would even out.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Paragraph 4

    Firstly you ignore the number of other films in the cinemas at the time of each movies release. 2001 would have had less competition in 1968 than Transformers when it came out, thus negating you calculations.
    Secondly, you link wont work because your post is an image, not a real post, did you forget? :D:P
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Paragraph 5

    Firstly, quoting an entire is not proof. If you dont understand the argument yourself enough to explain it here then just say so, it would be far less embarrassing for you than this thread.
    Secondly, well done on the Latin, but you managed to spell my name wrong, so better luck next time.
    Thirdly, the discussion is about your claim that games haven't in any way equalled 2001s visuals or narratives, what the basis is for this claim and what games need to do to get their (or it would be, if you could just answer a simply question), not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Paragraph 6

    You have yet to show that even understand what I was asking for tin the first place, so lets not get into how badly you misunderstand simple logical fallacies, ok?

    Even though you linking an image of your text didn't actually cause me any problems in responding, it reveals enough of your mentality to me that if you do it again, I will report you for trolling. I like having in depth debates, but not with petty children.


  • #68
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Even though you linking an image of your text didn't actually cause me any problems in responding, it reveals enough of your mentality to me that if you do it again, I will report you for trolling. I like having in depth debates, but not with petty children. [/B]

    but but but but but but super intellectuals don't troll. apparently it would be beneath them or some jazz.

    unless..........


  • #69
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Here is your original claim:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The biggest problem in the industry is developers trying to tell stories in the same way as the movie or tv industries tell stories, with overly long cutscenes with no player input.

    That is an error in a developer's form, not an industry problem and not even the biggest problem as you claimed above facial performance which is infinitely more complex than constructing a narrative form in gaming. It is not a problem for one developer that another is developing an error in his game nor more than it is a problem for a Mathematician that you cannot produce satisfactorily complete Mathematics homework; therefore, it is not retarding progress in the industry. In fact, the more developers produce the error, the more that the error will be recognized as an incongruous implementation to the Game medium.

    It isn't a strawman argument; it is your argument. Here, read your own claim:
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    Over time, and adjusted for inflation, more people have paid to see Transformers, its all in the numbers.

    You claimed that more people have paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Your argument was spurious, because it was based upon incorrect data and limited knowledge of the complexity of box-office grosses. I proved that it was incorrect by showing the actual figures that demonstrate that 2001: A Space Odyssey had been watched by more people in cinema than Transformers and it had attracted a relative larger share of the population. Your point about competition is irrelevant, because your simplistic argument was based upon numbers (remember your pontification: "its all in the numbers") not other equally important factors.

    If we were to include these factors, it would only benefit 2001: A Space Odyssey's case and I wanted to thrash your argument on your own grounds; so, you couldn't complain that I was being selective. There is nothing that negates the calculations, not least the a meager factor of competition. If that did, which it doesn't, negate my calculations in which I made reference to the important factors, then your calculations based upon ignorance of the complexity of the box-office grosses are just as negated. The biggest factors would be the size of the film industry, the size of the population, the size of the economies, and the number of theaters and number of tickets sold annually as I mentioned and they are all the benefit of Transformers's numbers and still has not been seen by more people.

    And you are now talking absolute gibberish on the subject of mediums and comic book. You claim that it is wrong but scarcely demonstrate it. You scarcely understand the words 'status' and 'purpose'. So, when Marvel executives sit down and talk about which comics they will run and at which audience they will target, which content do you think they will choose and which audience will they target? Yes, it is that obvious. The industry and the status of it thereof dictates the purpose of the medium. If a medium satisfies an upper market, it upscales; if it cannot sell its products to a specific age group, it either adapts to one that they can sell to or it dies. This isn't quantum mechanics. There is nothing inherent in any medium that specifies its status or purpose; the industry leaders of a specific medium dictate that and it is based upon their success in carving the marketplace for themselves. The western comic book industry failed to reach the status film or literature attained, and if the Game medium does not satisfy the intellectual needs of older age groups, it will fail, too, and carve out a thus-far no-further niche like Comic books have.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I like having in depth debates, but not with petty children.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Secondly, well done on the Latin, but you managed to spell my name wrong, so better luck next time.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You have yet to show that even understand what I was asking for tin the first place, so lets not get into how badly you misunderstand simple logical fallacies, ok?

    That's babble. I know that you don't understand the logical fallacies you have referenced to because you designated an argument based upon critical and popular success over a period of time as simultaneously argumentum ad populum and "argumentum ad critic" which are incompatible. And here, you commit argumentum ad ignorantiam:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.
    This fallacy is based upon assuming a proposition to be false if not proved true, which you demonstrate by claiming that I do not understand the argument by not summarizing and explaining it. It isn't sufficient that you ignore evidence or proof to negate it. Read:
    I have already supplied proof: a book which details the complexity of 2001: A Space Odyssey's visuals and narrative to which no game has yet achieved. I have no intention of summarizing and explaining a translated book with highly technical terms specific to Chion's film criticism for someone (since you like using Latin words – pace Mark Hamill) who has demonstrated that he could not distinguish the subtleties of the film camera versus game camera and whom it took four detailed posts pertaining to the subject to finally understand it (I assume and hope this).

    Trolling is not necessarily synonymous with destroying someone's argument. It is pathetic (in the word's strictest sense: evoking pity) that you are marking your statements in bold to draw moderators' attention. Do not pontificate again to me about embarrassing because I'm not threatening to report your posts. I think that it is absolutely embarrassing for you to call in a moderators' help because your arguments are weak and upset that I ruined your opportunity to quote-retard.
    Jazzy wrote: »
    but but but but but but super intellectuals don't troll. apparently it would be beneath them or some jazz.

    unless..........
    After your antics in the Liverpool thread a couple of months previous, I could learn a thing or two off you, aside from how to lay on the floor without holding on.


  • #70
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    NeoKubrick wrote: »

    After your antics in the Liverpool thread a couple of months previous, I could learn a thing or two off you, aside from how to lay on the floor without holding on.

    antics in the liverpool thread? you have brought this up before. please, tell me of said antics. in fact, link them if you can because i have literally no idea wtf you are talking about.

    however, it is pretty funny watching you trying to be as smart as you think you are on boards.ie when pretty much all you are writing is crappy wannabe intellectual nonsense. ooohhh Stanley Kubrick and Latin, check out the brains on brenda


  • #71
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Jazzy wrote: »
    antics in the liverpool thread? you have brought this up before. please, tell me of said antics. in fact, link them if you can because i have literally no idea wtf you are talking about.

    however, it is pretty funny watching you trying to be as smart as you think you are on boards.ie when pretty much all you are writing is crappy wannabe intellectual nonsense. ooohhh Stanley Kubrick and Latin, check out the brains on brenda
    Then you can easily expose it for the wannabe intellectual nonsense that you "think" it is instead of unsupported insults, but you obviously cannot and you always make sure that you have someone to agree with when replying to me in a thread for confirmation bias. And you are only beating your friend, Mark Hamill, with the Latin references because I called him out for it, not the other way around.

    I have absolutely no problem with you Jazzy and you are one of the few decent posters around here, but if you want to insult, you can PM it.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    ill do this post instead
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Then you can easily expose it for the wannabe intellectual nonsense that you "think" it is instead of unsupported insults but you obviously cannot

    the smarter thing to do is not write a big wall of text and just call a spade a spade. Ive read most of your posts on this thread and ill be perfectly honest, im not exactly sure what you and hamill are arguing about and what points you are both trying to make... and more importantly, im not sure they are even relevant. it just seems like trying to one up each other on which one of you is 'actually' stupid or some crap.
    NeoKubrick wrote:
    and you always make sure that you have someone to agree with when replying to me in a thread for confirmation bias.

    I do? news to me. Ive never ever actually thought about this before and now that I have I still dont know where its coming from. I just tend to go by the right/wrong indicator I have in my head as to whether to post or not. or if something/one is particularly lol worthy. maybe you are just being paranoid there.
    NeoKubrick wrote:
    And you are only beating your friend, Mark Hamill, with the Latin references because I called him out for it, not the other way around.

    I have absolutely no problem with you Jazzy and you are one of the few decent posters around here, but if you want to insult, you can PM it.

    mark hamill is my friend? again, something else I didnt know.
    "but tbh, films provide more intellectual meat then games and thats something that will continue for a while. i dunno though, i dont really compare them in that regard anyway. they are two different things. you dont see people comparing film to music as to which has more depth and sh1t. bit of a null argument. brooker has a point in some, albeit very few, regards and even at that, they dont really make much of a difference. maybe he just wanted to have a go at some of the sh1te hollywood has puked out over the past few years."

    thats what I said, from the giant wall of text both you and mark have put up I think that more agrees with what you are saying then mark? im not sure though because as i said, I dont think the points you are making are either relevant or worth making them in the first place.

    and what of my 'actions in the liverpool thread' ? the only thing Ive gotten in trouble for on soccer in ages is for calling trolls trolls. turns out I was right there too :)


  • #73
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    That is an error in a developer's form, not an industry problem and not even the biggest problem as you claimed above facial performance which is infinitely more complex than constructing a narrative form in gaming. It is not a problem for one developer that another is developing an error in his game nor more than it is a problem for a Mathematician that you cannot produce satisfactorily complete Mathematics homework; therefore, it is not retarding progress in the industry. In fact, the more developers produce the error, the more that the error will be recognized as an incongruous implementation to the Game medium.

    That not all developers recognise the problem doesn't mean that its not the biggest problem in the industry. Facial performance is only a problem if you are aiming for photorealism, and with games like Enslaved and LA Noire, we can see the industry make bounds in this area. Most developers dont understand that the most important thing in games is immersion and that a lot of what they do unforgivably breaks it.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    You claimed that more people have paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Your argument was spurious, because it was based upon incorrect data and limited knowledge of the complexity of box-office grosses. I proved that it was incorrect by showing the actual figures that demonstrate that 2001: A Space Odyssey had been watched by more people in cinema than Transformers and it had attracted a relative larger share of the population. Your point about competition is irrelevant, because your simplistic argument was based upon numbers (remember your pontification: "its all in the numbers") not other equally important factors.

    Firstly, there is no indication that your numbers are more accurate then mine, as you have not provided a source for them. Secondly, audience share is irrelevant without taking note of competition, its easy to have a high audience share when there is little to no competition.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    And you are now talking absolute gibberish on the subject of mediums and comic book. You claim that it is wrong but scarcely demonstrate it. You scarcely understand the words 'status' and 'purpose'. So, when Marvel executives sit down and talk about which comics they will run and at which audience they will target, which content do you think they will choose and which audience will they target? Yes, it is that obvious. The industry and the status of it thereof dictates the purpose of the medium. If a medium satisfies an upper market, it upscales; if it cannot sell its products to a specific age group, it either adapts to one that they can sell to or it dies. This isn't quantum mechanics. There is nothing inherent in any medium that specifies its status or purpose; the industry leaders of a specific medium dictate that and it is based upon their success in carving the marketplace for themselves. The western comic book industry failed to reach the status film or literature attained, and if the Game medium does not satisfy the intellectual needs of older age groups, it will fail, too, and carve out a thus-far no-further niche like Comic books have.

    I have already debunked these points, you are just repeating your illogical argument. Purpose is subjective, to some comics offer more than movies or videogames, there is no objective measure of purpose, no matter how many times you try to claim that status is. Tell me, if most people didn't like 2001, would that make it a worse film in your eyes? Is your opinion dictated by how many other people like it?
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    That's babble. I know that you don't understand the logical fallacies you have referenced to because you designated an argument based upon critical and popular success over a period of time as simultaneously argumentum ad populum and "argumentum ad critic" which are incompatible.

    I designated the argument argumentum ad populum when you proposed that 2001s worth was based on the fact that so many people like it, then I pointed out the "argumentum ad critic" when you tried to base its worth on how many critics hold it as the est film. You changed your argument from one fallacy to the other, I merely labelled your fallacy for you.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    And here, you commit argumentum ad ignorantiam:
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.

    This fallacy is based upon assuming a proposition to be false if not proved true, which you demonstrate by claiming that I do not understand the argument by not summarizing and explaining it.

    You are very clearly using phrases that you dont understand. That is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam, as I have never agreed or disagreed with the notion that no videogame has achieved what 2001 did (in terms of visuals and narrative). In fact it wasn't even an argument, I merely asked you what you thought they were lacking. That you cant tell the difference between a question and a debate is only more evidence that you dont understand the rest of the posts, where the debating is actually taking place.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    It isn't sufficient that you ignore evidence or proof to negate it. Read:

    Offering an entire book as a substitute to explaining your opinion is not conductive to a debate on an internet forum. That you cant even give an indication of what you mean just shows that you aren't interested in (or capable of) explaining your opinion, so I have to ask, what are you even doing here?
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Trolling is not necessarily synonymous with destroying someone's argument. It is pathetic (in the word's strictest sense: evoking pity) that you are marking your statements in bold to draw moderators' attention. Do not pontificate again to me about embarrassing because I'm not threatening to report your posts. I think that it is absolutely embarrassing for you to call in a moderators' help because your arguments are weak and upset that I ruined your opportunity to quote-retard.

    There is nothing in my posts to report, so what exactly would you report? As for the rest, well if you repeat that childishness, we will see what the mods think.


  • #74
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Jazzy wrote: »
    thats what I said, from the giant wall of text both you and mark have put up I think that more agrees with what you are saying then mark? im not sure though because as i said, I dont think the points you are making are either relevant or worth making them in the first place.

    I dont disagree with what the point you made (I think games are getting pretty close though).
    The walls of text seem to have come up because of two basic points: 1) Neokubrick claimed that games have never reached the visuals or narrative of 2001, so I asked him to explain (and he cant) and 2) I offered the suggestion that the worst thing in the industry at the moment is the problem of developers making their games like film-makers makes films and how this basically leads to everything that destroys immersion, the most important thing in gaming (long non-interactive cutscenes, hollywood cliches etc).


  • #75
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Jazzy wrote: »
    the smarter thing to do is not write a big wall of text and just call a spade a spade.
    I hope that you remember that whenever you attempt to complain about someone not adequately backing up his claims. It's not paranoia that you leech off people on the other side of my arguments. You attempted to illicit Mark Hamill's support here in this thread: "but but but [...]" (a euphemism?). And yes, we agree on this subject.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    so I have to ask, what are you even doing here?
    To answer that question, you have to ask yourself that. You have been stumbling like a drunk from one piss position to another attempting to win the debate and bringing up pure erroneous and irrelevant arguments as if each argument you lost was just an aberration. You have offered zero contribution to this thread except embarrassing threats of reporting.

    Facial performance affects everything about communicating and expressing real human emotion. It is not only a problem of graphic representation; that's a relatively easy problem with a definable metric. Retr0gamer and I discussed this earlier in the thread with the uncanny valley hypothesis about the technology moving more towards realism and the repulsive affect this will have on users for a period. This is a hard problem and combined with the necessity to act out a narrative and story with these virtual characters, it is and will continue to be the biggest obstacle to the Game medium. How have you surmised that most developers do not know that immersion is the most important thing in a computer game? Did you poll a large sample of developers outside their offices and ask them?

    Again, you are sheepishly using generalizations that cannot be countered to avoid using a specific argument that can. What "points" did you debunk and where? Where is the illogical argument in the previous posts about mediums? If a medium satisfies a lucrative upper market, it does not upscale? If a medium does not find an upper market, it just dies rather than adapt to a lower market? This is quantum mechanics for you? There is something inherent in a medium that specifies its status and purpose? The industry leader do not dictate the evolution of their medium? The Western comic book industry is the same status as film and literature? Your incorrect definition of 'purpose' has no bearing on the actual.

    Here are three quotes on the subject of 2001: A Space Odyssey:
    2001: A Space Odyssey was the product of decades of work by an industry to get to a point where it was possible to create that film, intellectually and technologically.
    It is not my subjective opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey that I base my claims on but the fact that it has continually stood the test of time for over forty years (slightly below the age of the computer game) and is still a draw when screened at cinemas and had a tremendous impact upon mainstream culture; facts that have no relation to my subjective opinion.
    A definable metric for success for a medium or a piece of art has is its popularity and/or critique over time. 2001: A Space Odyssey has been seen for over forty years because of its continuing popularity and status in the critical community and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the film industry; that's not an argumentum ad populum (not able to master simple naturalized English words, you're attempting to use Latin...), it is a definable metric that no game has matched - not least because the game industry is not much older than the film and relatively a child compared to the age of the film industry.

    So, no, there was no change in the argument and therefore no fallacy and you used incompatible logical fallacies for one argument. Your numbers are inadequate and the source is now in the post. Audience share has nothing whatsoever to do with the population share and you have not explained how competition evens out over the more important factors mentioned; further proof of your irrelevant arguments.

    See, you don't understand even basic argumentum ad ignorantiam. Here, read two examples of it:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    1) Neokubrick claimed that games have never reached the visuals or narrative of 2001, so I asked him to explain (and he cant)
    It does not follow that I don't understand Chion's argument because I'm not prepared to summarize and explain his book to you. That's argumentum ad ignorantiam; if you understood the terms, you would understand this. Furthermore, you implied that you did think that games have matched 2001: A Space Odyssey, here:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Really? Why? What are games lacking in visuals or narrative that 2001 has?
    I guess that implication of shock and surprise was ironic, right, and not genuine shock and surprise that no game matched 2001: A Space Odyssey? Therefore, it leads to why, if you think that I do not understand Chion's text and Chion's book is not indicative of the high complexity of 2001's visuals and narrative, you have changed your opinion from a shock and surprise at my statement to an agreement with Jazzy's in the form of "I think games are getting pretty close though"?

    If you are genuinely interested in Chion's work and 2001: A Space Odyssey, then I will take the time to summarize and explain it. However, you will have to drop these petty debates.


  • #76
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    And let's not kid ourselves: no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both. There is no comparison: there's more of a comparison with a Sunday pub football team organized on the pitch based upon where they sit in the local to FC Barcelona.

    That is some what missing the point. The best games are ones that do not try to simply ape cinema, but to provide an experience that unique to the medium.

    There is absolutely nothing in cinema or writing that does, or even could, compare to the experience of something like the twist in BioShock. It is simply not something the medium can do. That moment (and I'm just using it as an example) is something cinema, which is still an observational non-interactive medium, cannot emulate.

    No one thought would say there is something flawed about cinema because it cannot do this, or that it is not "art". Cinema is a continuous refinement of the elements that work in cinema. Games are the same in terms of what works for the medium of interactive media.

    We focus far to much on the areas that are similar and over lap in my opinion. Games, with titles such as BioShock, Deus Ex, Half Life etc have already surpassed anything that films could do in terms of this time of interactive experience. And it simply continues to get better. The fact that the narrative or writing in BioShock is not up to the quality of 2001 is rather missing the point. 2001 is not up to the quality of BioShock in terms of utter astounding mind ****ing, nor would anyone expect it to be.

    We need to move away from this idea that games are simply an extension of cinema, cinema with a bit of interactivity placed in them. That is what those dreadful FMV MegaCD games were. Modern games are far more than that, particularly when they try to be.

    Even take something that is not exactly the hight of sophistication, the "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2. That experience made me more uncomfortable about my own actions than any film can or ever has made me feel. I instinctively refused to fire my gun. I fired into the roof, half expecting the other terrorists with me to turn around and kill me for doing so.

    Just think about that for a minute, what that actually means. In a video game, that is totally imaginary in a virtual room with polygon representations of people I refused to fire my gun into a crowd of these virtual people. You could watch the greatest film ever directed about war, with the greatest actors that have ever lived reading the greatest script every written and that film would not make me feel like that.

    Because we are dealing with a completely new form of art here people tend to not really appreciate these things, but that is actually rather profound. This was a some what silly video game with a rather ridiculous plot out of a Tom Clancy novel that by all rights if it was a movie would star a lot of b-movie stars looking all serious.

    Yet it gave me an experience that I have never had from any film or novel. It was five minutes of a not all that good game and it had already done what no film or novel has ever done. And it wasn't even trying that hard.

    We are only tipping the iceberg in terms of what this medium can do, and the sooner we move away from getting hung up on how "cinema like" it is the more we will discover the true magic of this totally new world.


  • #77
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Great example Wicknight. I had a lot of beefs with MW2, but thought that was a really clever use of the medium, and one of the things that does set Call of Duty apart from it's peers. The nuclear explosion and helicopter crash in the previous game was similar. The sense of panic, as I tried to find some way that I could survive was something a movie can't match.

    Although I was controlling exactly what I could see, the scene unfolding around me - the other choppers crashing in the background, the other troops falling to their doom - was all unfolding for my visual benefit. The sense of helplessness I felt, as I dragged my dying carcass out to see just how doomed I was, was compounded by it's contrast with the dynamic, furious pace of previous gameplay.

    I had a personal stake in the story being told, and although the story being told in MW2 in particular turned out to be a complete mess, that's neither here nor there to the subject at hand.


  • #78
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.
    Untitled Image




  • #79
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

    Did you fire into the crowd?


  • #80
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Yeah out of boredom. Was wondering to myself 'this level is ****, when's the next one'. It never got above the feeling of shooting badly scripted NPCs. If you can't even get past the suspension of disbelief that you are playing a game then it's never going to work and it really didn't as opposed to the moments in CoD4 when it did work.
    Untitled Image




  • #81
    kazzdee
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭kazzdee


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    In general, I think developers should use proper professional voice actors rather than regular actors who have little or no experience in voice acting, like Darksiders (Mark Hamill, Phil LaMarr, Fred Tatasciore, Liam O Brien etc). Good voice acting is integral to atmosphere in a game, just like in a movie, bad acting can take you out of the immersion.


    Silent Hill 2

    I agree, professional voice actors should get priority, but I among many others got a kick out of seeing some of our favorite actors from screen make an appearance in our favorite or in this case, most anticipated, games. It can and will be worked on I hope as a compromise needs to be worked on so far as dialogue and delivery is concerned. But for the moment LA Noire is a step in the right direction.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

    I knew the concept in advance, and wasn't expecting a whole lot out of it, but there's one particular point where an NPC tries to drag a wounded stranger to safety and that really got me.

    It lost me again once the cops arrived, because even though you had to shoot them to proceed, they were armed, armoured and much more dehumanised than the poor saps in the gift shop.


  • #83
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Yeah out of boredom. Was wondering to myself 'this level is ****, when's the next one'. It never got above the feeling of shooting badly scripted NPCs. If you can't even get past the suspension of disbelief that you are playing a game then it's never going to work and it really didn't as opposed to the moments in CoD4 when it did work.

    Clearly you are a psychopath :pac:


  • #84
    mrm
    Registered Users Posts: 439 ✭✭mrm


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

    I would agree with this, but the execution of what the game makers set out to do was probably delivered as they intended. To think that this section of the game commenced with a choice of to 'play' or 'skip'. Once 'play' was selected the game should have went to town with the material at hand. Unfortunately I think that the makers didn't have the talent or confidence to push it sufficiently. It was possible to walk through the scene without getting involved atall. WTF? It would have benefited with a section in which the player was 'forced' by the terrorists to gun down, say, an innocent mother and child in the airport, or the game ended (forcing a 'skip scene' on the player next time around). The scene just delivered nothing! IMHO, most games in general fall similarly short.

    An interesting comparison between game makers and film makers can be seen in the upcoming Dead Island. I thought that the trailer was very movie- like and really interesting. After watching it I thought that the game would be about a family fighting together for survival against zombies on an island, until the daughter got infected and turned on the parents. I hoped that the game would progress with the parents fleeing from the daughter, trying to find a cure/ antidote for her, eventually reaching an ending containing a choice for the parents (the player) to continue seeking the cure and risk their lives or kill the daughter for a guaranteed escape off the island. Thats what the trailer hinted to me anyway and I was preparing for a purchase. What did the game makers do? I have read that it is about......... a wise cracking rapper killing zombies! Not a hint of analysis regarding if a zombie daughter is still your daughter, or simply just another zombie!:D

    I think that Hollywood is all too often an embarrassment to Hollywood, but unfortunately games are not even at movies emotive levels yet, with a long way to go. Games are great in their own right, but they seem to lack the talent and decision making throughout to elicit emotion like good movies can. Game plots and dialogue are generally just of a poor quality to date. I am not saying at all that no game has delivered a product as good as hollywoods, just games in general lack equivalent emotive content.
    LA Noire is a move in the right direction (albeit slowly), but it also exposed the problems that games may face if they step too close to the movie medium. The potential is certainly there, but on evidence to date I think that the talent required may be have to be sourced from outside the games industry to meet this potential.


  • #85
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    mrm wrote: »
    WTF? It would have benefited with a section in which the player was 'forced' by the terrorists to gun down, say, an innocent mother and child in the airport

    I disagree. By making it a condition of completing the level, it takes the responsibility off the player. Why, you've got to kill them! The level demands it! Rather than being an innocent mother and child, those characters would be simply a game mechanic like a lever or a trapdoor.

    As it is, you can choose to fire or not, so it's entirely on you if you do kill somebody. It's the kind of level you only need to play once, it only needs to be effective once - the first time I played it, I did fire on some people, purely out of some weird "Dougal, don't push the big red button" impulse, and was definitely sorry immediately.


  • #86
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I'm not a psychopath. I just never felt like they were real people and due to this there was no emotional connection and I didn't care if they lived or died.

    Now to contrast a similar scene in a game where it worked, take the final boss of MGS3.
    The game builds up the character of the boss. At the end of the boss fight you are standing over the character waiting to execute her but you really don't want to but you can't move on until you physically press the trigger to execute a character that you really emphasise with.
    This was the same concept except the circumstances and characters were nore relatable and therefore carried more emotional weight.

    The developers tried to do the same thing but for me utterly failed. Another reason for their failure is having a CIA agent taking part in a full on terrorist act to retain their cover. The CIA have done some terrible things over the years but even this was too much.
    Untitled Image




  • #87
    mrm
    Registered Users Posts: 439 ✭✭mrm


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    I did fire on some people, purely out of some weird "Dougal, don't push the big red button" impulse, and was definitely sorry immediately.

    I think I did shoot one person also, and it was for the same reason!:o But that airport scene requires more gravitas than that Father Ted scene.

    The No Russian scene was about the character being dropped into a morally reprehensible situation (I assume) - another pawn in the winding 'story' of MW2. Yet it was too easy to step away from it completely. You had already selected to get involved, but then you didn't have to. It would have been more fitting if the player was forced to get involved in the gritty aspect of the task- the whole moral dilemma of 'innocents being sacrificed to save greater numbers'. Without this it was relegated to the level of the 'dougal pushes the red button'. Surely the terrorists would have spotted me not shooting and reacted accordingly. It had none of the impact of (oldish movies spoilers)
    kaiser Soze killing his children in Unusual Suspects, or Liam Neeson shooting his old friends wife in Taken, or Zorg smothering Betty in Betty Blue, or the moral pain expressed in Paths of Glory.
    It had none of the impact of the nuclear exposion scene ending in MW1. The allowed detachment resulted in no impact atall.

    I actually liked myself for not shooting innocent people in the airport; the game would have been served better if I actually hated myself for what I had just done (like Di Caprios character in certain tasks in The Departed). Plenty of movies have achieved this impact, but a mainstream game IMHO simply backed down!


  • #88
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,728 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    (Some spoilers ahead for Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Bioshock, but I've kept the descriptions as vague as possible)

    I've always thought MW has been a mix of good ideas and piss poor implementation. I felt deeply uncomfortable at the beginning of MW1 where you had to mow down sleeping sailors. Perhaps that's the point, but in forcing the player to commit a morally questionable act it felt like a dodgy opening gambit. No Russians did pull it off a little better, it's definitely a surprising and affecting scene. But then you have the contrast of being forced to shoot through countless waves of generic 'Middle Eastern' enemies over the rest of the game. It's a game that presents ideas but seems to contradict itself at the same time.

    TBH, the most emotionally effective of all CoD scenes was the most emotionally cold of them all - the level in MW1 where you had to murder countless individuals from the removed position of a night vision display. It got into the morally removed aspects of modern warfare very effectively indeed.

    I agree though that forcing the player to commit a certain action can both be a brave artistic decision and an example of the limits of interactivity. There's a bit at the end of Assassins Creed: Brotherhood that I thought had serious emotional resonance as you're forced to commit an act against your own will (that the game forces you to murder countless others without much thought of the moral consequences is of course another matter all together). Indeed, even your 'avatar' Desmond is desperately trying to avoid doing it. But then there's a bit in Mirror's Edge where you have to use a sniper rifle to murder a politician - wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the game wasn't playable without shooting a gun. This one moment of forced gunplay really stood out as against the design principles of the rest of the game.

    Of course, Bioshock for all its flaws is the one game that vocally brought up these issues - it's a game about interactivity and mindlessly following the instructions of the designer. When the curtain drops and it's revealed you're merely a puppet, it says more about interactivity than any game that came before or after it. For all the game's flaws (especially the painfully linear conclusion that follows), the themes and concepts of player involvement are fascinating and a massive success altogether.


  • #89
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I thought MW1 was far more effective in that regard. No Russian did nothing for me and I could see what they were trying for with suburban america and the white house devastated by war but it just did not work unlike the best parts of MW1.
    Untitled Image




  • #90
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,728 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I thought MW1 was far more effective in that regard. No Russian did nothing for me and I could see what they were trying for with suburban america and the white house devastated by war but it just did not work unlike the best parts of MW1.

    Well I thought MW1 for the most part had a dreadful singleplayer campaign for the most part.

    The best moments in the game - the nuclear fallout, the gunner mission etc... - were the ones where you weren't tied to the same old CoD format: walk forward, shoot, keep shooting and walking forward til you trigger the invisible trigger point.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,844 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I thought it had a great single player campaign. Still I don't think you could say MW2 was better in that regard.
    Untitled Image




  • #92
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,728 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I thought it had a great single player campaign. Still I don't think you could say MW2 was better in that regard.

    Oh, I dislike MW2 singleplayer too - despite some fun setpieces, the story was beyond shambolic and quickly resorted to one too many shock character deaths (a trick they used once in MW1 to great effect, and around seven times in MW2 to diminishing returns everytime :pac:).

    As said, whatever about the story of Half-Life and Half-Life 2 occasionally lacking originality, the delivery is far and away the high point of FPS storytelling. Emerging from the train station at the beginning of HL2 is a moment cinema couldn't echo, and is up there with the likes of the first Jurassic Park dinosaur reveal in terms of spine-tingling effectiveness. And the super rare moments when the player isn't in control - every scene with everyone's favourite mysterious stranger, the end of Episode 2 - are superbly effective because it actually means something.


  • #93
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    To answer that question, you have to ask yourself that.

    To answer that question, all you need do is answer it. Psuedo-intellectual responses are worse than stupid responses. A stupid person can learn from his mistakes, a pseudo-intellectual will hold up his mistakes as if they are victories.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    You have been stumbling like a drunk from one piss position to another attempting to win the debate and bringing up pure erroneous and irrelevant arguments as if each argument you lost was just an aberration. You have offered zero contribution to this thread

    Actually that would be you.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Facial performance affects everything about communicating and expressing real human emotion. It is not only a problem of graphic representation; that's a relatively easy problem with a definable metric. Retr0gamer and I discussed this earlier in the thread with the uncanny valley hypothesis about the technology moving more towards realism and the repulsive affect this will have on users for a period. This is a hard problem and combined with the necessity to act out a narrative and story with these virtual characters, it is and will continue to be the biggest obstacle to the Game medium.

    And I would agree a lot with what Retr0gamer said, "I think games should step out of the uncanny value and this race to be more realistic because I don't think it's acheiveable. I'm all for more stylised looks and think they can convey far more emotion than any weird looking plasticy lump of polygons vaguely resembling a human". I think that games still can aim for photorealistic emotions (Enslaved is a good example I think), but with a developer with artistic vision, they simply dont need to all the time.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    How have you surmised that most developers do not know that immersion is the most important thing in a computer game? Did you poll a large sample of developers outside their offices and ask them?

    :confused: Are you looking for an answer beyond the fact that I play videogames and have seen this problem arise in everything from $100 million blockbusters to bargain basement indy sleepers.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Again, you are sheepishly using generalizations that cannot be countered to avoid using a specific argument that can. What "points" did you debunk and where? Where is the illogical argument in the previous posts about mediums? If a medium satisfies a lucrative upper market, it does not upscale? If a medium does not find an upper market, it just dies rather than adapt to a lower market? This is quantum mechanics for you? There is something inherent in a medium that specifies its status and purpose? The industry leader do not dictate the evolution of their medium? The Western comic book industry is the same status as film and literature? Your incorrect definition of 'purpose' has no bearing on the actual.

    You know full well that I have covered these in my previous posts, I will not repeat myself.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Here are three quotes on the subject of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

    So, no, there was no change in the argument and therefore no fallacy and you used incompatible logical fallacies for one argument.

    Whatever about not reading my posts, could you at least read your own? The second quote you referenced was your argument about how 2001 is still a draw (argumentum ad populum) while your third quote was your argument about how well it was and is critiqued (argumentum ad critic).
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Your numbers are inadequate and the source is now in the post. Audience share has nothing whatsoever to do with the population share and you have not explained how competition evens out over the more important factors mentioned; further proof of your irrelevant arguments.

    Your post still ignores that population share is irrelevant if you dont take account of competition at the time of release. 2001 had far less competition at the time of release than Transformers, so its not possible to say that it would have enjoyed the same viewership had it been released in the same circumstances.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    See, you don't understand even basic argumentum ad ignorantiam. Here, read two examples of it:

    It does not follow that I don't understand Chion's argument because I'm not prepared to summarize and explain his book to you. That's argumentum ad ignorantiam; if you understood the terms, you would understand this.

    Actually it does follow. You assert an opinion, but are completely uncooperative when asked to explain, now claiming that it would require the summarisation of a book to explain (even loosely) what you meant when you said games haven't achieved what 2001 has, in visuals or narrative. That you cant even give a general description of what you mean, one example of either a visual or narrative aspect of 2001 that you think supports your claim, implies that you dont actually know of one. It implies that you hold this opinion because you think you should, but without understanding the reasons why.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Furthermore, you implied that you did think that games have matched 2001: A Space Odyssey, here:
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    Really? Why? What are games lacking in visuals or narrative that 2001 has?
    I guess that implication of shock and surprise was ironic, right, and not genuine shock and surprise that no game matched 2001: A Space Odyssey?

    Unless you are reading that post with a major inferiority complex about your own opinion of 2001, there is nothing in it which actually questions that 2001 is ahead of games, as it is simply asking for what aspects of 2001 do you think are ahead of games. It does not bode well for your constant assertions that your definitions and arguments are correct when you cant tell the difference between a request for clarification and a contradiction.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    Therefore, it leads to why, if you think that I do not understand Chion's text and Chion's book is not indicative of the high complexity of 2001's visuals and narrative, you have changed your opinion from a shock and surprise at my statement to an agreement with Jazzy's in the form of "I think games are getting pretty close though"?

    Where did I say that I thought Chions book isn't indicative of 2001s complexity? I haven't even read, so why would I make that claim? Another strawman? The fact that I agree with Jazzy would inform an impartial reading that I was never shocked and surprised at you claim, merely that I was asking for specifics in relation to 2001.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    If you are genuinely interested in Chion's work and 2001: A Space Odyssey, then I will take the time to summarize and explain it. However, you will have to drop these petty debates.

    I am not interested in Chions work. I am interested in your opinion. If your opinion and your argument is simply Chions book, then I am not interested. I like debating with people who, while inspired and informed by books and intellectuals and other things, actual think about what they encounter and have considered their own opinions, and not simply replaced their own thinking wholesale with that of someone else.


  • #94
    NeoKubrick
    Registered Users Posts: 660 ✭✭✭NeoKubrick


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Actually it does follow. [...]
    So, you don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam if you claim that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true, which you have. You claimed that because I did not prove my understanding of Chion's argument that I cannot ("so I asked him to explain (and he cant)"). That's a clear and simple case of declaring false because of what has not been proven true: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    In response to my statement "no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both", you replied: "Really? Why?". Unless that is a standard reply to something agreeable or known, which it is not (example: "no person has come close to travelling at the speed of light": "Really? Why?"), you implied that the concept (that games have not surpassed film in these areas) was unknown to you. The fact that you agree with Jazzy now does not retroactively mean that you were not shocked or surprised or that the concept was known to you before. I did not claim that you thought Chion's book is not indicative of the high complexity of 2001's visuals and narrative; if you had read it correctly, then you would notice the condition 'if' upon which it hangs: "if you think that I do not understand Chion's text and Chion's book is not indicative of the high complexity of 2001's visuals and narrative".

    You can question my reading comprehension, but I do not think you understand what a conjunction is. In the second quote, it is used to join together that the film has stood the test of time for over forty years (a critique) and is still a draw at cinemas (popular) and had a tremendous impact upon mainstream culture; in the third, it is used, that the film has been seen because of its continuing popularity (popular) and its status in the critical community (critique) and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the medium.

    I know full well that you do not understand the concept of mediums (you already demonstrated that in your confusion of form and content) and consequently, in every post, you have used sheepish generalizations to hide behind rather than specific details of your points; I cannot counter-argument a non-existent argument, which is the sum of your contribution.

    You claimed that more people paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. You have failed to qualify how the competition of relative films qualifies this statement. The population share a work receives is to important factors such as the size of the population, the size of the economy, the size of the film industry and the average cinema tickets sales for that year which all benefited Transformers. So, you still have not proven how the competition supersedes all of these to such an extent that you can claim it evens out. The competition is a small factor which bears no mention relative to the important factors.

    This debate has obviously run its course.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    There is absolutely nothing in cinema or writing that does, or even could, compare to the experience of something like the twist in BioShock. It is simply not something the medium can do. That moment (and I'm just using it as an example) is something cinema, which is still an observational non-interactive medium, cannot emulate.
    [...]
    The fact that the narrative or writing in BioShock is not up to the quality of 2001 is rather missing the point. 2001 is not up to the quality of BioShock in terms of utter astounding mind ****ing, nor would anyone expect it to be.
    [...]
    We are only tipping the iceberg in terms of what this medium can do, and the sooner we move away from getting hung up on how "cinema like" it is the more we will discover the true magic of this totally new world.

    I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree with most of your points. Visual and narrative are not exclusive to the Film medium: it is content and Games should be thriving for the depth and complexity of 2001: A Space Odyssey, just not in the form of film but the form fit for the Game medium.

    Cinema has emulated twists as in the example of BioShock. There is participation in Film; whereas the participation in Games is explicit, in Films it is implicit (read here to understand what I mean). In Inglourious Basterds, the premise of the film as advertised was that there are a bunch of American troops killing and scalping Nazis during World War II. In the film, Nazi propaganda dictate that a film about a Nazi sniper hero be commissioned in which the sniper kills a lot of American soldiers. In the final part of Inglourious Basterds, Nazi dignitaries attend the opening screening of the film to celebrate the victory of the German soldier killing American soldiers in the same manner that Americans and others attended numerous exploitative war films and Inglorious Basterds to celebrate the victory of their soldiers in killing German ones. It is an ingenious and subtle twist and compare it to BioShock's which was simplistic and obvious. If you make the connection in Inglorious Basterds, it is going to inform you of your behaviour and perhaps modify it. BioShock's could have been just as meaningful if it allowed the player to ignore Atlas' commands but it does not. Inglourious Basterds is just one example.

    It would depend upon what you mean by "mind fucking". Personally, I think that it is piece of work which keeps defying your understanding of it. In that case, 2001: A Space Odyssey is the ultimate "mind fuck" and another great example from film would be Mulholland Drive.

    A medium will be good and strong in some aspects and consequently bad and weak in others. Your citing of the "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 is a very good example of where the Game medium is strong: explicit high participation in a war action game. Chris Hecker made the good and correct point that the hardest film to make is the easiest game to make: great epic war battles, spaceships fighting et cetera. Conversely, the easiest film to make is the hardest game to make: two people talking in a room. Similarly, as I would not necessarily praise a director for putting two people in a room and feeding them adequate dialogue, I would not necessarily praise a game developer for an easy design choice.

    I would also strongly disagree on "Cinema like". There are two ends of the spectrum for the Game medium at the moment: the art, cinema-like narrative experience and social and competitive experience. The Game industry is a business and will seek to maximize profits and market share; there should be capital for both developing games near one end of the spectrum and the other, but if the developers don't attempt to solve the hard problems related to creating games with high quality narratives and a singleplayer experience, then it is not hard to see where the industry and medium will put their money. It'll be just a highly lucrative but glorified playground, or casino.


  • #95
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    So, you don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam if you claim that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true, which you have. You claimed that because I did not prove my understanding of Chion's argument that I cannot ("so I asked him to explain (and he cant)"). That's a clear and simple case of declaring false because of what has not been proven true: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    It would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam if I assumed you couldn't explain your understanding. Multiple times I have asked you to explain your reasoning and multiple times you have simply deigned not to. At this stage, the likelihood is great that you either dont understand the argument and only hold to it in order to appear to have an intelligent opinion or that you are trolling. There is no other reason why you cant give if a simple explanation of why you think something is so good.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    In response to my statement ....
    ...I cannot counter-argument a non-existent argument, which is the sum of your contribution.

    This is just empty assertions of your superiority and my inferiority coupled with pseudo-intellectual ****, which, incidentally, has been the major contribution in all of your posts. Declaring my opinions and definitions as wrong is not the same thing as demonstrating them to be wrong. I have explained why you are wrong in your various assertions, your various definitions and your various logical fallacies and your entire counter argument has been to declare that I am the one suffering from them with little to no explanation or proof as to why that is the case (and what explanation has been forthcoming falls under its own ill thought "logic"). A rather transparent attempt to derail the thread and drive away from your inability to expand on your original assertion about 2001. Just answer the question, if you can.
    NeoKubrick wrote: »
    You claimed that more people paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. You have failed to qualify how the competition of relative films qualifies this statement. The population share a work receives is to important factors such as the size of the population, the size of the economy, the size of the film industry and the average cinema tickets sales for that year which all benefited Transformers. So, you still have not proven how the competition supersedes all of these to such an extent that you can claim it evens out. The competition is a small factor which bears no mention relative to the important factors.

    This debate has obviously run its course.

    What an odd course it was:
    ME: Request clarification on your point about 2001
    YOU: Declare that by asking the question, I show that I am incapable of understanding the answer and in the same post claim that I am asserting that games match it.
    ME: Question where this is coming from and why you cant answer the question
    YOU (and for the rest of the thread): My opinion comes from a book, it doesn't need to be explained. Every word you use is wrong because I declare it so.


Advertisement