1483 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

You didn't answer my question. Does a lack of certain knowledge lead to cessation of thought, or redoubled efforts?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Actually they are not really opposed, but sometimes we have to do that. My answer (because you take what I said out of context) was using entertainment in a pejorative way because it had been decided by some people here that art was blahblahblah (see my first intervention).

Actually cinema and video gaming are both art and entertainment but when it's the player satisfaction that is intended in the first place instead of writing a story, you're making bad entertainment (which are actually popular!) because your writing is based on clichés.

 

I got that you were using "entertainment" in a pejorative way. I was just asking what you meant by art and what you meant by entertainment.

[DeinonSlayer]

Do you have an answer as to why that argument is flawed?

I have no idea whatsoever why you and apparently others are so convinced that the story not shrugging it's shoulders with 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' makes things 'simple.' It seems to me the most 'simple' stance would be one of thoughtless adherence to 'there is no right answer.'

In fact, such a stance seems to be one that demands the cessation of thought and debate entirely, since by definition thought or debate can never lead anywhere of value under such an 'ideal.'

You're demanding that I argue from the basis of a stance you projected onto me. Not going to happen, David.

These stories aren't saying "nobody is right, anyone who picks a side is wrong." The issues presented are multifaceted, like much of what we see in real life. The expectation is for the audience to apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice.

How is a story which is designed to provoke thought simpler than one the audience is expected to sit back and absorb like a sermon?

I ask again. DX:HR. Who did you side with and why?

If you haven't played that, let's go with FNV. I remember you said you played that one. NCR, Legion, Mr. House, or Freeside? Why?

[Bob from Accounting]

You didn't answer my question. Does a lack of certain knowledge lead to cessation of thought, or redoubled efforts?

 

Redoubled efforts. But that's entirely irrelevant, since we're not discussing a lack of knowledge.

 

We're discussing that idea that knowledge doesn't exist. And yes, the idea that knowledge is nonexistent absolutely demands such a cessation.

[Steelcan]

I bet David is actually a huge GoT fan, until this scene

 

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ZnxvUuSzbMI

 

Then he gave it up because NOOOO HEEERRRROOOOOIIIIIIISSSSSSMMMMMMM

[archangel1996]

As far as I am concerned Rhaegar is wannabe Paris who couldn't even kill Achilles

 

Well, to be fair Paris is a known coward while Rhaegar, at least, went out with honor unlike the one who drinks and eats and shits and **** and dies killed by a pig

It would have been better if he lived but you can't have everything in GoT :/

[Bob from Accounting]

You're demanding that I argue from the basis of a stance you projected onto me. Not going to happen, David.

I just asked a simple question to get a simple answer. I have no idea how you twist such a thing into 'projecting a stance on you.'

 

Do you know the answer?

[Steelcan]

Well, to be fair Paris is a known coward while Rhaegar, at least, went out with honor unlike the one who drinks and eats and shits and **** and dies killed by a pig

It would have been better if he lived but you can't have everything in GoT :/

 

Paris was a coward until Achilles killed Hector, after that he turned into freakin Leeroy Jenkins

[archangel1996]

I bet David is actually a huge GoT fan, until this scene

 

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ZnxvUuSzbMI

 

Then he gave it up because NOOOO HEEERRRROOOOOIIIIIIISSSSSSMMMMMMM

 

Not enough cruel to show him the one when The King in The North becomes a true wolf

.....

....

Now i feel bad about what i wrote

[CronoDragoon]

Redoubled efforts. But that's entirely irrelevant, since we're not discussing a lack of knowledge.

 

We're discussing that idea that knowledge doesn't exist. And yes, the idea that knowledge is nonexistent absolutely demands such a cessation.

 

Is that why Nietzsche classes are being taught around the world today? Because asserting the dubious nature of "truth" leads to cessation of thought?

[Steelcan]

Not enough cruel to show him the one when The King in The North becomes a true wolf

.....

....

Now i feel bad about what i wrote

 

Sadly I can't find any high quality videos of that scene, and I doubt I can get one connecting the two since they are from two different episodes

 

 

that said

 

ALL HAIL THE KING IN THE NORTH

 

[archangel1996]

Paris was a coward until Achilles killed Hector, after that he turned into freakin Leeroy Jenkins

 

He didn't really change his ways during the war, he killed Achilles with an arrow(the cowards' weapon) and with the help of Apollos who guided it... so yeah

[Steelcan]

He didn't really change his ways during the war, he killed Achilles with an arrow(the cowards' weapon) and with the help of Apollos who guided it... so yeah

 

He was also known afterwards for leading near suicidal charges and incredibly reckless behaviour after Hector's death, even leading a push that drove the greeks back to their boats for the last time.

 

He took a few lessons in badass after Hector bought it

[wolfhowwl]

Do you have an answer as to why that argument is flawed?
 
I have no idea whatsoever why you and apparently others are so convinced that the story not shrugging it's shoulders with 'Nobody's right, nobody's wrong' makes things 'simple.' It seems to me the most 'simple' stance would be one of thoughtless adherence to 'there is no right answer.'
 
In fact, such a stance seems to be one that demands the cessation of thought and debate entirely, since by definition thought or debate can never lead anywhere of value under such an 'ideal.'

But the writers are not shrugging their shoulders and they are not engaging in thoughtless "adherence to there is no right answer." They are using one of the few advantages this medium has: interactivity. They create a conflict in their world where two different people can see two different right answers and then let them choose based on that.

Go over a few forums and you can find thousands of pages of debate on the place of Mages in Dragon Age. The writers created the Circle establishment in the setting and players decided for themselves what was right based on their own personal beliefs about freedom vs security and the rights of the individual weighed against the safety of society.

No one has found the like of Arl Howe or Danarius particularly compelling because there is no ambiguity about them, they are just evil and should be treated as such.

I am saddened that you think writers inspiring such passion in people that they would be moved to spend countless hours in debate hasn't lead to "anywhere of value." If they made a player pause in contemplation before making a choice for a few fleeting moments lost in thought, isn't that something special on its own?

[Bob from Accounting]

My, do you sound like Merizan. What passes for debate on the BSN is now 'inspired passion,' huh? I was under the impression that it primarily consisted of players insisting their particular choice was right because their opponent was the stupidest person/people in the history of ever, ever.

 

But no. You're wrong. Debate rages just as violently for overwhelmingly clear topics as for 'ambiguous ones.' Are AIs alive, for example. Is it right or wrong to despise aliens and want to put humanity on top.

[Steelcan]

My, do you sound like Merizan. What passes for debate on the BSN is now 'inspired passion,' huh? I was under the impression that it primarily consisted of players insisting their particular choice was right because their opponent was the stupidest person/people in the history of ever, ever.

 

Nah we just reserve that for special cases

 

 

I have been on numerous threads where I have been able to talk civily with people I vehemently disagree with.

 

 

And then there's the times you came in and everyone ganged up on you and you accused everyone of being in a Clique together

[DeinonSlayer]

I just asked a simple question to get a simple answer. I have no idea how you twist such a thing into 'projecting a stance on you.'

Do you know the answer?

I've yet to see you establish the relevance to the topic at hand, but now that I think about it, I see a rather humorous correlation.

On one side we have evolution (theory extrapolated from observations of the natural world and the fossil record, refined as new discoveries are made). On the other we have creationism (theology disregarding that which does not fit a preconcieved conclusion).

Gee... which of the former does your preferred narrative sound like? Events could unfold naturally, leading to things like Vido attempting to assassinate you if you let him go or Balak obliterating a different colony if you let him go, but we can't have that - "good" actions must yield a "good" outcome, or the story is deemed bad and disregarded.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

That's very boring to see people who don't know anything about art making fun of it, trying to define it or anything else. "Singing in the rain" is a piece of art, a real deep movie with several ways of reading it and a point of view on the cinema, on Hollywood. We actually don't care if it's happy or unhappy ending to decide if it's art or not. It's the internal consistency of the story, the ambition, the form used that decide itself if it's art. When the ending turn to be happy in a story that couldn't have a happy ending that's because of the commercial intention. What is criticized (when it's criticized) isn't the happy ending itself, it's that people want happy ending for happy ending, they actually don't care about the story and (the most important which is very different from the story) the writing.

Mass Effect couldn't have a happy ending, if it had it, it would be because of the commercial intention ("people want happy ending, we have put a lot of money on the game, we want a lot of money to come back, we'll satisfy them with a happy ending to have money!" I exaggerate a little bit but that's the idea) and it would destroy the writing itself. That's why fan fictions are so such a disappointment : every great idea the game have put in the end that make the writing consistent disappear and turn into a basic story that doesn't make sense.

And for TVtropes, wikipedia and other sites they are far from being a good source. TVtropes is full of bad ideas, bad definitions... it can be useful only when you're a beginner, not to criticize because it's like most things on internet : it's superficial and only give the impression of knowledge.

 

I hate to see people making assumptions that other people don't know anything about art.

 

ME3 is a war story. People and even heroes return from wars. They are never the same when they do. Wars change them. ME3 is no different. Even if Shepard were to have survived, been rescued, and had that reunion it would not have been a happy ending. It would depend upon how well it was written. Could the Bioware staff have done it in a video game? I think if they'd taken the time they might have been able to do that.

 

The people who survived would be rejoicing that the war was over like those Asari, but the celebration would be short lived. There would be a lot of hard work to be done afterward. Tens of billions of lives were lost in the war. The destruction on the worlds was catastrophic. It would have been a bittersweet ending. Shepard and his/her crew would know this. We won, but what was the cost? What do we have left? We have something we didn't have before. We have tomorrow. That makes the sacrifices worth it.

 

But with the EMS system you can have a range. That's what it was designed for. Work hard, you get the best outcome. Don't work hard you get tragic outcome. And now there's a way where the reapers can win if you refuse. Gasp of air + a rescue of Shepard would be too much happiness for you? If that's the case your argument is very weak.

 

I think you're just really invested in sacrifice and a dark ending, and railroading the player to that ending. Why bother having a role playing game at all with any choices? Why not make it a game like a Halo with the story told in cutscenes and you shoot your way through levels and make no choices? Then you can have your dark ending and the player won't complain. What you're telling the player by saying "it can't have a happy ending" is "get out of my movie." But you can't do that because you gave the player choices, and because you gave the player choices you have a contract to make those choices matter. If you break that contract, you will face rage from the players. The ending of ME3 broke the contract, especially with the Original Ending - all the endings were virtually identical except for the color of the explosions on your screen: you died, the mass relays exploded, and the Normandy crashed. The End.

[Bob from Accounting]

I've yet to see you establish the relevance to the topic at hand.

Simple. You think you're promoting the ability of the audience to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice."

 

Putting creationism alongside evolution would promote precisely that, wouldn't it? So why not encourage that in an issue such as creationism and evolution? Why not tell both sides and issue and let audiences supposedly 'think for themselves' and decide which is right? Isn't it true that audiences should be able to see the obvious flaws in creationism and realize the truth of evolution when presented with both sides of the issue?

 

What's the flaw in that argument?

[Steelcan]

The hamsters are working overtime David, give the poor sods a rest

[angol fear]

I hate to see people making assumptions that other people don't know anything about art.

 

You can hate.

[Randy1012]

As far as I am concerned Rhaegar is wannabe Paris who couldn't even kill Achilles

The real tragedy of that whole situation is that Rhaegar was the hero and Robert was the villain.

[Steelcan]

The real tragedy of that whole situation is that Rhaegar was the hero and Robert was the villain.

 

Some prophecy obsessed harp player who can't beat a man who was drunk more often than not and didn't even have the balls to face the consequences of running off with/kidnaping Lyanna but instead had his insane daddy burn lords to death.

 

 

"hero"

[DeinonSlayer]

Simple. You think you're promoting the ability of the audience to "apply their own judgement, reach their own conclusions, and be able to justify their choice."

Putting creationism alongside evolution would promote precisely that, wouldn't it? So why not encourage that in an issue such as creationism and evolution? Why not tell both sides and issue and let audiences supposedly 'think for themselves' and decide which is right?

What's the flaw in that argument?

One is based on looking at evidence and developing a theory from it, the other is based on taking a conclusion and finding evidence for it afterwards, disregarding that which doesn't fit. The logic of the latter is flawed - like the assertion that "good" actions taken by the protagonist in a narrative must lead to a positive outcome.

Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you're a good person is like expecting a bull not to attack because you're a vegetarian.

Again, how is this comparison of yours relevant to a fictional narrative where there are both pros and cons to the stances advocated by opposing parties? How does your analogy support the superiority of a black and white good-versus-evil story over one resembling real life where we all choose sides based on our observations, ethics, and interests in the situation?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Some prophecy obsessed harp player who can't beat a man who was drunk more often than not and didn't even have the balls to face the consequences of running off with/kidnaping Lyanna but instead had his insane daddy burn lords to death.

 

 

"hero"

 

I thought Robert was much less of a drunk (well maybe just slightly less drunk but a lot more badass) when he was young and still a soldier, and it was assuming the crown that turned him into how we see him in the story. Then again I haven't gotten around to reading the books yet so there might be some things I don't know.