147 réponses à ce sujet

[Draining Dragon]

Inquisition is not a very good example of that.

[Cyonan]

Ok then, explain how you think a Lolita video game would work. As doctor Lecter would say, enthrall me with your acumen.

 

It would probably work better in something like a Telltale style which is more story heavy and about making various choices rather than with traditional gameplay. It would be similar to a BioWare story in that while you still get to make choices along the way, ultimately you're going down the same path every time. Dialogue, writing, and animation would be key here as you need to convey a lot of things in spoken words and facial/body expressions that a writer can simply say happened.

 

It would most likely be a shorter game, as it's probably not something you could stretch out to 20+ hours of gameplay like we expect out of AAA titles while keeping it the central plot of the story.

 

Keep in mind I said "video games can cover the same subject" and not "you could make an identical version of Lolita in video game format". The mediums are different and require a different delivery on the subject matter in order to be effective.

[Andres Hendrix]

It would probably work better in something like a Telltale style which is more story heavy and about making various choices rather than with traditional gameplay. It would be similar to a BioWare story in that while you still get to make choices along the way, ultimately you're going down the same path every time. Dialogue, writing, and animation would be key here as you need to convey a lot of things in spoken words and facial/body expressions that a writer can simply say happened.

 

It would most likely be a shorter game, as it's probably not something you could stretch out to 20+ hours of gameplay like we expect out of AAA titles while keeping it the central plot of the story.

 

Keep in mind I said "video games can cover the same subject" and not "you could make an identical version of Lolita in video game format". The mediums are different and require a different delivery on the subject matter in order to be effective.

 "Lolita: a middle aged pedophile tries to make his case, that he actually loved Lolita, to the readership of his memoir (most likely a psychologist). The entire book is in Humbert's point of view (very icky), and his language was written to be similar to Milton's Satan--the monster disguised behind a bombastic prose. That's not going to happen in a video game (it did not even work well in Kubrick's film)."

[Il Divo]

Ok then, explain how you think a Lolita video game would work. As doctor Lecter would say, enthrall me with your acumen.

 

Not sure why a Lolita video game even has to work for games to be regarded as art. Actually, the entire point of different mediums is that they have various strengths and weaknesses attached, to the point where some stories can't be adapted directly without losing something critical about their delivery in the process.

[Cyonan]

 

 "Lolita: a middle aged pedophile tries to make his case, that he actually loved Lolita, to the readership of his memoir (most likely a psychologist). The entire book is in Humbert's point of view (very icky), and his language was written to be similar to Milton's Satan--the monster disguised behind a bombastic prose. That's not going to happen in a video game (it did not even work well in Kubrick's film)."

 

So why couldn't you have the game be from the point of view of the middle aged pedophile? Having the player go through various scenarios and needing to make choices and go through dialogue as that character?

 

Remember that I am not trying to faithfully re-create the exact novel Lolita in video game format. That is never what I said you could do.

 

I am trying to cover the subject matter in a video game: A middle aged pedophile trying to make his case and saying he actually loves the other person.

 

You couldn't faithfully re-create Dragon Age: Inquisition in novel format, either, but you could cover the same subject matter.

 

It being from a certain point of view or in a certain style of language is actually more delivery here rather than subject matter, but you could still fit both of them in. You'd just need to have a really solid writing team for the game.

[AlanC9]

 "Lolita: a middle aged pedophile tries to make his case, that he actually loved Lolita, to the readership of his memoir (most likely a psychologist). The entire book is in Humbert's point of view (very icky), and his language was written to be similar to Milton's Satan--the monster disguised behind a bombastic prose. That's not going to happen in a video game (it did not even work well in Kubrick's film)."

Actually, this is making a Lolita video game sound like a very interesting idea. But I think you'd have to mask it so that the player doesn't realize how complicit he is in Humbert's, er, monstrosity, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that a game like Lolita would be workable.

I've been waiting my whole gaming life for one of my PCs to end up like Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, actually. I suppose if IT had been true ME3 would have come close.

[In Exile]

Deconstructionism is the church of Derrida, whose obscurantism is the cultish sepulcher--where, the humanities are now buried.

This line I'm having a hard time parsing. Let's say I accepted your argument that you cannot separate deconstructionism from every philosophy and moral view personally held by Derrida. I still can't parse the rhetorical flourish that follows after it. The "cultist sepulchre"? Other than trying to keep the rhetorical trick of using religious imagery and putting aside the insulting connotations of the term "cultist" (as in anti-critical thought etc.) what are you really saying?

Or is this nothing more than a particularly verbose insult?

[Nefla]

Of all the times I get insulted by other people, the one that sticks with me is when someone says "oh, you're just using big words to sound smart!", usually after I say a word that is neither big nor complex.

 

... Unless something like "implore", "confound", or "frivolous" is no longer taught in schools. And I say that last bit as someone who graduated from high school only last year.

Words like that really aren't taught anymore. I remember in my high school English class (which was like in 2003, ouch!) I had written an essay or creative writing assignment and had used the word "instinctual" somewhere and the teacher crossed it out in red and wrote "you mean instinctive, 'instinctual' is not a word."

[In Exile]

Actually, this is making a Lolita video game sound like a very interesting idea. But I think you'd have to mask it so that the player doesn't realize how complicit he is in Humbert's, er, monstrosity, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that a game like Lolita would be workable.

I've been waiting my whole gaming life for one of my PCs to end up like Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, actually. I suppose if IT had been true ME3 would have come close.

The very idea (not your idea but the comparison to Lolita, which frankly isn't even that impressive of a work) though misunderstands the medium. Video games are unique in how they take the player from being in the role of a passive audience member to being an active participant. The story that you can tell is then very different.

A very infantile example of trying to exploit that medium is Spec Ops. I think the game fails on almost every level but it gets the sense of how games can be art right - by involving the player and forcing the player to explore or expose questionable beliefs and views.

[hong]

Actually, this is making a Lolita video game sound like a very interesting idea. But I think you'd have to mask it so that the player doesn't realize how complicit he is in Humbert's, er, monstrosity, so maybe it would be more accurate to say that a game like Lolita would be workable.

I've been waiting my whole gaming life for one of my PCs to end up like Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, actually. I suppose if IT had been true ME3 would have come close.

Isn't that basically how Spec Ops: The Line works?

[Il Divo]

The very idea (not your idea but the comparison to Lolita, which frankly isn't even that impressive of a work) though misunderstands the medium. Video games are unique in how they take the player from being in the role of a passive audience member to being an active participant. The story that you can tell is then very different.

A very infantile example of trying to exploit that medium is Spec Ops. I think the game fails on almost every level but it gets the sense of how games can be art right - by involving the player and forcing the player to explore or expose questionable beliefs and views.

 

I'd agree with that. Which is why I find his example of a novel's strength being its use of ethical thought experiments to be odd. I actually think that's something games are far more equipped to deal with, when handled correctly. 

[Phoe77]

Cyonan has done a good job of presenting my thoughts on the matter in a much more eloquent manner than I seem to have.  

 

When I first thought of how a Lolita game could be, my mind went to the interrogation portions of L.A. Noire.  The specifics would naturally be influenced with what the game's overall goal was (to convince or deceive the person you're talking to perhaps), but I imagine it would have to be a very dialogue heavy game.  

 

The fact that such a game will not be made anytime soon has more to do with the squickiness of having the player assume the role of a pedophile rather than the fact that there's no way to do it within the framework of a game.

[TXAstarte]

Flaubert was French, I translated the line roughly into English. The other line is the last in Joyce's Dubliners, if you consider it with the whole of the short stories it is a beautiful piece of writing. As for what you are trying to do, you are either trolling or you are devoid of a literary sensibility.

 

Signs point to both...

[KaiserShep]

Words like that really aren't taught anymore. I remember in my high school English class (which was like in 2003, ouch!) I had written an essay or creative writing assignment and had used the word "instinctual" somewhere and the teacher crossed it out in red and wrote "you mean instinctive, 'instinctual' is not a word."

 

Next thing you know, they'll be teaching that the moon landing was a hoax like in Interstellar.

[Andres Hendrix]

This line I'm having a hard time parsing. Let's say I accepted your argument that you cannot separate deconstructionism from every philosophy and moral view personally held by Derrida. I still can't parse the rhetorical flourish that follows after it. The "cultist sepulchre"? Other than trying to keep the rhetorical trick of using religious imagery and putting aside the insulting connotations of the term "cultist" (as in anti-critical thought etc.) what are you really saying?

Or is this nothing more than a particularly verbose insult?

 I'm saying that post modernism killed the humanities; and deconstruction is ludicrous. Post modernism was never about understanding how things work, it was all about giving people the false consolation (said falsity made obscure by oodles of jargon)  that every opinion matters. It did this by convincing a gaggle that every opinion has equal validity, thus, there can be no facts. They opine 'everything is subjective!' without noticing that they in fact adhere to their one objective truth, 'that everything is subjective'. As for Derrida's particular 'holy' piffle, it of course commits the fallacy of begging the question. Deconstructionists already assume that a work has no meaning, even before they so blithely make a statement like 'Lolita is not an impressive work'. They separate the work from any meaningful context on their own, by breaking it away from the original author, and committing to a nihilistic enterprise.  Perhaps my biggest problem with it, is that such a destructive venture means that such people will not be creating any beautiful works of their own, as they are already so convinced that there can be no such thing.

The 'verbosity' of the last post was a joking allusion, and yes it was meant to be insulting how 'keen-eyed' of you.

[In Exile]

I'm saying that post modernism killed the humanities; and deconstruction is ludicrous. Post modernism was never about understanding how things work, it was all about giving people the false consolation (said falsity made obscure by oodles of jargon) that every opinion matters. It did this by convincing a gaggle that every opinion has equal validity, thus, there can be no facts. They opine 'everything is subjective!' without noticing that they in fact adhere to their one objective truth, 'that everything is subjective'. As for Derrida's particular 'holy' piffle, it of course commits the fallacy of begging the question. Deconstructionists already assume that a work has no meaning, even before they so blithely make a statement like 'Lolita is not an impressive work'. They separate the work from any meaningful context on their own, by breaking it away from the original author, and committing to a nihilistic enterprise. Perhaps my biggest problem with it, is that such a destructive venture means that such people will not be creating any beautiful works of their own, as they are already so convinced that there can be no such thing.

The 'verbosity' of the last post was a joking allusion, and yes it was meant to be insulting how 'keen-eyed' of you.

I've politely allowed you to define the terms of the debate by adopting your terminology out of respect for the value that you ascribe to particular terms in the hope we could find common ground. It seems that was a mistake.

I don't ascribe to a particular ideology or a particular strain of thought as you describe it beyond generally favouring the tools of an analytic philosopher. In this thread you've relied an incredible amount on either jargon or references to writers devoid of context. None of that advances the conversation and none of it is conducive to a meaningful intellectual discussion.

My point in this thread is a simple one: ideas have to be assessed on their own merits. Venerating a particular work solely in virtue of its genre or popular opinion regarding its merit isn't meaningful. It's repetition. Lolita is highly regarded by many critics. Repeating that statement says nothing noteworthy regarding the work. It seems that as this thread has gone on you've articulated an actual position. That's commendable but that's quite different from the original post I responded to on the first page.

Once again, I'm having a hard time parsing your post. I'm not entirely clear what a "nihilistic enterprise" is supposed to reference. It's certainly not clear what you mean by "meaningful context" or by "breaking away from the author". If these are terms of art in literary theory their meaning is lost on me. What's the actual position behind the jargon and rhetorical flourish?

"Meaning" can be a subjective or an objective endeavour. It depends on what the academic project is attempting to achieve. Meaning is subjective when it's used to denote some sense of emotional connection or significance. This type of analysis suffers from incommensurability problems. It can also be a question of interpretation. In that sense it is objective.

I will say that the notion that presuming that all works are meaningless implies an inability to create meaningful work is complete nonsense.

[Andres Hendrix]

I've politely allowed you to define the terms of the debate by adopting your terminology out of respect for the value that you ascribe to particular terms in the hope we could find common ground. It seems that was a mistake.

I don't ascribe to a particular ideology or a particular strain of thought as you describe it beyond generally favouring the tools of an analytic philosopher. In this thread you've relied an incredible amount on either jargon or references to writers devoid of context. None of that advances the conversation and none of it is conducive to a meaningful intellectual discussion.

My point in this thread is a simple one: ideas have to be assessed on their own merits. Venerating a particular work solely in virtue of its genre or popular opinion regarding its merit isn't meaningful. It's repetition. Lolita is highly regarded by many critics. Repeating that statement says nothing noteworthy regarding the work. It seems that as this thread has gone on you've articulated an actual position. That's commendable but that's quite different from the original post I responded to on the first page.

Once again, I'm having a hard time parsing your post. I'm not entirely clear what a "nihilistic enterprise" is supposed to reference. It's certainly not clear what you mean by "meaningful context" or by "breaking away from the author". If these are terms of art in literary theory their meaning is lost on me. What's the actual position behind the jargon and rhetorical flourish?

"Meaning" can be a subjective or an objective endeavour. It depends on what the academic project is attempting to achieve. Meaning is subjective when it's used to denote some sense of emotional connection or significance. This type of analysis suffers from incommensurability problems. It can also be a question of interpretation. In that sense it is objective.

I will say that the notion that presuming that all works are meaningless implies an inability to create meaningful work is complete nonsense.

You seem to have nonsense down pat. Deconstructionism is an ideology, it's your problem that you don't have the guts to admit it.

[Andres Hendrix]

Not sure why a Lolita video game even has to work for games to be regarded as art. Actually, the entire point of different mediums is that they have various strengths and weaknesses attached, to the point where some stories can't be adapted directly without losing something critical about their delivery in the process.

I did not say that they do, nor did I say that video games could not be art. I said that they will not and cannot broach the the wide range of subjects that novels can. Lolita was just an example.

[GithCheater]

Did someone say something about english snobs?  Did someone complain about young whippersnappers?

 

This 52 year old illterate engineer has this to say:

 

Get off my lawn!

[Andres Hendrix]

Did someone say something about english snobs?  Did someone complain about young whippersnappers?

 

This 52 year old illterate engineer has this to say:

 

Get off my lawn!

It's not a lawn, it's a forum.

[AlanC9]

You seem to have nonsense down pat. Deconstructionism is an ideology, it's your problem that you don't have the guts to admit it.

Ummm.... you do realize that you're the one coming across here as an ideological crusader, right?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[GithCheater]

I counted those as electives.  I loaded up my schedule with as much math and science as I could to avoid them.

 

As young lad, I was considering majoring in chemical engineering at the University of Illinois - Urbana, but there was one huge problem.  Chemical engineering was in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  By majoring in metallurgical engineering I only had to take one english rhetoric class plus five social science and liberal arts classes of my choosing.  That left me plenty of credits to take additional, more useful technical classes.

[Qunquistador]

I entered this thread expecting a discussion about how people fell in love with Cassandra's general disgust with life and Varric's silky chest hair. But instead I'm reminded of the intellectual pissing contests I had to endure while attending the University of Pompous Pseudo-intellectuals  (Let's goooo UPP Brechtian Bears!) .

 

Private messaging does exist on this vi-de-o game forum, yes? 

[AlanC9]

Private messaging does exist on this vi-de-o game forum, yes?

Well, yeah, but then how would we get all our posturing done?

[Andres Hendrix]

Ummm.... you do realize that you're the one coming across here as an ideological crusader, right?

There is nothing wrong with ideology as long as you are open to being wrong and criticizing it. I am a leftest in ideology, I have certain values, goals and expectations that line up that way on a political scale, that does not mean that I worship at the nave of Leon Trotsky--or try to act like I'm value free.