17599 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Lopez23 wrote...
. i forgot the name of the philosopher who said it or writer but someone once said or at least from what i remember it that "If you have to explain to people what you wrote then you failed at writing it" or something like that

“If you have to ask what it symbolizes, it didn't.”

Roger Ebert

edit:  What Aquilas said.

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with Ebert's position on the matter.  If all symbolism was point-blank digestible for everyone upon an initial glance, then there wouldn't be analytical essays and debates on exactly what elements mean in pieces of work to different people. It's ridiculous, especially considering how highly he thinks of Mulholland Drive---which directly hinges on complex, obscure analysis of many devices in the movie. 

Love the man and what he did for making film criticism mainstream, but he's not the absolute in terms of symbolism and literary analysis.  Not by a long shot. 

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with Ebert's position on the matter.  If all symbolism was point-blank digestible for everyone upon an initial glance, then there wouldn't be analytical essays and debates on exactly what elements mean in pieces of work to different people. It's ridiculous, especially considering how highly he thinks of Mulholland Drive---which directly hinges on complex, obscure analysis of many devices in the movie. 

Love the man and what he did for making film criticism mainstream, but he's not the absolute in terms of symbolism and literary analysis.  Not by a long shot. 

Well, in essence, it makes sense.  If the significance of something (like, oh, I don't know the ending) is lost or greatly misinterpreted by the audience, then it failed at what it was supposed to do. 

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Yeah, there's a lot wrong with Ebert's position on the matter.  If all symbolism was point-blank digestible for everyone upon an initial glance, then there wouldn't be analytical essays and debates on exactly what elements mean in pieces of work to different people. It's ridiculous, especially considering how highly he thinks of Mulholland Drive---which directly hinges on complex, obscure analysis of many devices in the movie. 

Love the man and what he did for making film criticism mainstream, but he's not the absolute in terms of symbolism and literary analysis.  Not by a long shot. 

Well, in essence, it makes sense.  If the significance of something (like, oh, I don't know the ending) is lost or greatly misinterpreted by the audience, then it failed at what it was supposed to do. 

I disagree---heavily. People have neglected to pick up on symbolism in storytelling for hundreds of years, only to have it emerge as a clear and concise meaning as time has passed and with reevaluation through a shift in the audience. Just because the audience didn't interpret devices a few months outside of the piece of work's release, it doesn't mean the symbolism's a failure.

If that's the case, then modern-day, post-release interpretations of past works of art are meaningless.  I'm not directly attaching this to ME3's ending, per se, but the pronounced fallacy in Ebert's easy dismissal of symbolism.

[Iakus]

dreamgazer wrote...
I disagree---heavily. People have neglected to pick up on symbolism in storytelling for hundreds of years, only to have it emerge as a clear and concise meaning as time has passed and with reevaluation through a shift in the audience. Just because the audience didn't interpret devices a few months outside of the piece of work's release, it doesn't mean the symbolism's a failure.

If that's the case, then modern-day, post-release interpretations of past works of art are meaningless.  I'm not directly attaching this to ME3's ending, per se, but the pronounced fallacy in Ebert's easy dismissal of symbolism.

Don't wanna get wrapped up in this on this thread, so I'll just say:

To the person who sees something or hears a line in the game, and doesn't grasp the significance of it, or its intention, the scene or line did nothing for them.  It fails for that person, even if it may succeed for others.

And in the case of ME3, the ending failed for a lot of people.  I and others don't see what it symbolized, so for us, it didn't

[ZombieJohn84]

I agree with Ebert. Obviously, he doens't mean we can't be challenged to think pretty hard about something. What he's getting at are those times when the symbolism is just muddy due to poor execution or presentation.

Symbolism, like art, can sometimes be hard to talk about. A lot of the times, audiences insert symbolism where it wasn't intended to exist. Does that make their speculations invalid? No, but it's unintended just the same.

Everyone loved to talk about what was in the breifcase in Pulp Fiction. It's now known that it was never supposed to be a big puzzle, it just turned into one because of the audience.

[AdamJenson]

Ebert is correct technically, if not in particular instance.

If you have to explain your joke, the joke is a FAILURE. Period. You cannot rescue it by going back and laying out how and why it was "funny". It wasn't funny because most didn't laugh or didn't understand the obscure or obtuse reference. It fell flat. It is fail. Cannot be more plain than that.

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

To the person who sees something or hears a line in the game, and doesn't grasp the significance of it, or its intention, the scene or line did nothing for them.  It fails for that person, even if it may succeed for others.

And in the case of ME3, the ending failed for a lot of people.  I and others don't see what it symbolized, so for us, it didn't

If a small group picked up on a universal figurative idea, it worked.  Just because it goes against the grain of the populace, it doesn't mean it's inaccurate.  Misunderstood in terms of a general audience? Yes.  A failure? No. 

Again, not slapping this directly on ME, but on the repeated usage of Ebert's quote I've seen around these parts.  Failure to see symbolism at a cursory glance does not entail an overall failure of symbolic intention. 

And there's a pretty significant difference between humor working properly in a joke and the symbolism in literary devices.  Once you explain the joke, the magic's gone, but exploring interpretive devices can undoubtedly enhance the potency and appreciation of a piece of work. 

[AdamJenson]

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

To the person who sees something or hears a line in the game, and doesn't grasp the significance of it, or its intention, the scene or line did nothing for them.  It fails for that person, even if it may succeed for others.

And in the case of ME3, the ending failed for a lot of people.  I and others don't see what it symbolized, so for us, it didn't

If a small group picked up on a universal figurative idea, it worked.  Just because it goes against the grain of the populace, it doesn't mean it's inaccurate.  Misunderstood in terms of a general audience? Yes.  A failure? No. 

Again, not slapping this directly on ME, but on the repeated usage of Ebert's quote I've seen around these parts.  Failure to see symbolism at a cursory glance does not entail an overall failure of symbolic intention. 

And there's a pretty significant difference between humor working properly in a joke and the symbolism in literary devices.  Once you explain the joke, the magic's gone, but exploring interpretive devices can undoubtedly enhance the potency and appreciation of a piece of work. 

Not in this case because it was a defacto illogical ending that was NOT well-considered or thought out tacked onto a fairly poorly thought out game that spent too much of its wad on MP gimmick.  Artsy statements cannot undo illogic...and in any case this isn't "art'.  It is a mass produced, fast-produced, general audience targetted GAME.  Crank and dump is the business model and business models are never art, they are merely greed and lowest common denominator.

[dreamgazer]

AdamJenson wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

iakus wrote...

To the person who sees something or hears a line in the game, and doesn't grasp the significance of it, or its intention, the scene or line did nothing for them.  It fails for that person, even if it may succeed for others.

And in the case of ME3, the ending failed for a lot of people.  I and others don't see what it symbolized, so for us, it didn't

If a small group picked up on a universal figurative idea, it worked.  Just because it goes against the grain of the populace, it doesn't mean it's inaccurate.  Misunderstood in terms of a general audience? Yes.  A failure? No. 

Again, not slapping this directly on ME, but on the repeated usage of Ebert's quote I've seen around these parts.  Failure to see symbolism at a cursory glance does not entail an overall failure of symbolic intention. 

And there's a pretty significant difference between humor working properly in a joke and the symbolism in literary devices.  Once you explain the joke, the magic's gone, but exploring interpretive devices can undoubtedly enhance the potency and appreciation of a piece of work. 

Not in this case because it was a defacto illogical ending that was NOT well-considered or thought out tacked onto a fairly poorly thought out game that spent too much of its wad on MP gimmick.  Artsy statements cannot undo illogic...and in any case this isn't "art'.  It is a mass produced, fast-produced, general audience targetted GAME.  Crank and dump is the business model and business models are never art, they are merely greed and lowest common denominator.

Once you get into the argument regarding whether video games---especially those in the Mass Effect universe---are protected as narratives or are perfunctory "products", I bow out of the conversation.  Have a good day. 

[AVPen]

Aquilas wrote...

Lopez23 and others have expressed concern that Casey is working on the EC. That shouldn't be surprising, since he's still the ME3 project director (as far as we know) and has demonstrated his writing "talent" and his "artistic integrity."  Not surprising--but definitely cause for concern. Deep and abiding concern.

Here's a great review by Adam Robert Thomas, a writer for the California Literary Review. It's been posted several times over the last few months, but it's definitely pertinent to the current discussion. It expresses beautifully why I'm most profoundly concerned:

Mass Effect 3 - Reaping the Harvest of Poor Choices

Quite a good review, accurate and hits all the right points where it needs to.
(now if only the general gaming media would feature reviews of that degree, but they don't, at all....)

[AdamJenson]

AVPen wrote...

Aquilas wrote...

Lopez23 and others have expressed concern that Casey is working on the EC. That shouldn't be surprising, since he's still the ME3 project director (as far as we know) and has demonstrated his writing "talent" and his "artistic integrity."  Not surprising--but definitely cause for concern. Deep and abiding concern.

Here's a great review by Adam Robert Thomas, a writer for the California Literary Review. It's been posted several times over the last few months, but it's definitely pertinent to the current discussion. It expresses beautifully why I'm most profoundly concerned:

Mass Effect 3 - Reaping the Harvest of Poor Choices

Quite a good review, accurate and hits all the right points where it needs to.
(now if only the general gaming media would feature reviews of that degree, but they don't, at all....)

The review NAILS it square.  This one does a good job of nailing it too...medicine for what ailes you wrt ME: calitreview.com/19739

[Vertigo_1]

twitter.com/rick_D_knowles/status/210777863362838528
"Always nice to see things start to come together. The team has been working on some amazing things."

Modifié par Vertigo_1, 07 juin 2012 - 05:06 .

[Lawrence0294]

Amazing things huh?.....intersting

[JediHealerCosmin]

kratos0294 wrote...

Amazing things huh?.....intersting

Remember that this is the guy who thought that the ending would be "amazing".

[Lawrence0294]

JediHealerCosmin wrote...

kratos0294 wrote...

Amazing things huh?.....intersting

Remember that this is the guy who thought that the ending would be "amazing".

"Optimism brought to minus infinite"

[rapscallioness]

Lopez23 wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/CGaspur/status/210595570161688576
"Every time I have meetings with @PWatamaniuk and @CaseyDHudson I realize I still have so much to learn. #TheBestInTheBiz"

oh god caseys working on this too...i thought Bioware did the smart thing and had him locked in a bunker or a basement away from all things mass effect until he can learn to peer review and until the EC is done.....great more artistic integrity and SPECULATIONS!!

of course he's on this. he is the project director. Casey has a good track record overall. but he's only human. everybody has missteps. sometimes things seem like a good idea in your head, but don't always come out the way you intended.

nobody is perfect. i think it's time to give the man a chance again. mass effect is his baby. and he's done well with it. there was what many consider a fumble in the last minute of the last quarter of a superbowl game....but...sh*t happens. it happens all the time.

[Vertigo_1]

LMAO:

twitter.com/manveerheir/status/210793925798133760
Dammit someone leaked the new extended cut ending of Mass Effect 3 i.imgur.com/u8BWP.gif - really sad the DLC surprise is spoiled #ME3

Modifié par Vertigo_1, 07 juin 2012 - 06:05 .

[rapscallioness]

Vertigo_1 wrote...

LMAO:

twitter.com/manveerheir/status/210793925798133760
Dammit someone leaked the new extended cut ending of Mass Effect 3 i.imgur.com/u8BWP.gif - really sad the DLC surprise is spoiled #ME3

YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

[Darth Malice113]

rapscallioness wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

LMAO:

twitter.com/manveerheir/status/210793925798133760
Dammit someone leaked the new extended cut ending of Mass Effect 3 i.imgur.com/u8BWP.gif - really sad the DLC surprise is spoiled #ME3

YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

Excellent.

[RenegadeXV]

May or may not be Mass Effect related:

"serious fun this morning, but again, I can say no more"

https://twitter.com/...792068438704128

[rapscallioness]

COGNiTiON 1 wrote...

May or may not be Mass Effect related:

"serious fun this morning, but again, I can say no more"

https://twitter.com/...792068438704128

you know this really is the best thread in this forum. nice bits of news and updates. i guess i'll have to bookmark, or something. i always lose this thread in the shuffle of things.

[Lawrence0294]

Vertigo_1 wrote...

LMAO:

twitter.com/manveerheir/status/210793925798133760
Dammit someone leaked the new extended cut ending of Mass Effect 3 i.imgur.com/u8BWP.gif - really sad the DLC surprise is spoiled #ME3

Hahahahahaha, that's just brilliant 

So the EC is suppose to have a surprise ? or am i reading too much into it?

[rapscallioness]

reading too much into it. I mean, it's what we do, but at this point it might be best to restrain ourselves. We'll see.

[Saberchic]

Vertigo_1 wrote...

LMAO:

twitter.com/manveerheir/status/210793925798133760
Dammit someone leaked the new extended cut ending of Mass Effect 3 i.imgur.com/u8BWP.gif - really sad the DLC surprise is spoiled #ME3

*snip*

Biotic God FTW!