Wasn't that also said about film at one time?
I think video games still have a long way to go before they can be compared to the best books or films, but I don't think that is a problem with a medium itself.
I believe they have surpassed the best books or films long ago in every conceivable dimension.
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?
http://forum.bioware...t-walking-tall/
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?
but intellectual pissing matches are so much fun.
Especially when they're with people who come off as somebody who thinks they're superior for liking literature.
This makes your reply to In Exile at 7:50 EST seem fairly hypocritical. The only content there was that In Exile has the wrong ideology.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.
Modifié par AlanC9, 28 janvier 2015 - 02:33 .
For this to be a pissing contest, there would need to be some reasoned basis for thinking that one intellectual pursuit was objectively superior to another.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?
I suspect In Exile's final comments went completely over his head.This makes your reply to In Exile at 7:50 EST seem fairly hypocritical. The only content there was that In Exile has the wrong ideology.
Edit: wait... were you maybe doing a pure-rhetoric finishing move? OK, that sort of thing can work, but I think you're grossly overestimating how persuasive your earlier remarks on deconstructionism were,
I suspect In Exile's final comments went completely over his head.
But there is an argument to be made that ideology isn't persuasive, so advancing an ideological position is of limited rhetorical utility. Ideology might be useful then to guide one's own behaviour, but not in evaluating the behaviour of others.
it's true, my eyes and brain glaze over completely every time I look at this thread now, and odds are I won't remember any of the content or anyone in it 24 hours from now, or that I was even here.
I believe they have surpassed the best books or films long ago in every conceivable dimension.
Which game(s) would you compare to the best books or films ever written?
I don't think the quality of the writing of video games has yet to come close to either, but maybe there is a gem or two out there I just haven't played yet.
Which game(s) would you compare to the best books or films ever written?
I don't think the quality of the writing of video games has yet to come close to either, but maybe there is a gem or two out there I just haven't played yet.
Whoa an honest question, I only remembered to come back here because I'd said I'd forgotten.
Well let me say that the great irony about this discussion is the golden rule of all this literature is supposedly "show, not tell." Well guess what, that's exactly what video games are, show, not tell. The whole concept is right there in the center, and the greatest literature violates that rule continuously and ad-nauseum simply by virtue of being literature. They even had the gall, after dumping bazillions of words on us all, to then after that go "oh yeah, show, don't tell, golden rule and all that." Thanks, literature.
If you want to stick within some abstract metric of "writing quality" (which I've never understood properly anyway), which (to me) that seems to be missing the point entirely, then I'm sure my answers will disappoint you, for they never intended to meet such a standard in the first place.
It's like saying, this form is inherently constrained by certain limitations, oh come on, why doesn't this form free of those limitations have those limitations? Because they were trying to escape them in the first place.
If you simply want to know what games though had a striking emotional impact that rivaled the likes of the "great" films and such there are a number of those that come to mind, but some of them have almost no writing at all, and consequently how or why would you compare them? Anyway, maybe I Just misinterpreted your initial comment as to what you were looking for in the first place.
I'm afraid you're again making connections that don't belong.The question is this, where does the new generation get its ethical content from? I said that traditionally novels covered this area, Dickens, Nabokov etc. I also said that for this new (lost) generation, video games have been taking up this area. Just by looking at this thread you can see how they have a revulsion towards books (they are thought of as a school chore, archaic) and instead tout video games as what they hope will be their 'ethical progressor ', or they disown such exercises in ethics altogether. My argument is that video games cannot cover the same subjects as novels, nor do such games maintain the same kind of artistry. My examples of novels with subjects that would never happen in a video game included Lolita and Finnegans Wake. You are not going to be playing Humbert Humbert in a video game, it's not going to happen.
I laugh at your oranges. My apples are clearly better due to [reasons as subjective as yours that you won't agree with]Which game(s) would you compare to the best books or films ever written?
I don't think the quality of the writing of video games has yet to come close to either, but maybe there is a gem or two out there I just haven't played yet.
but intellectual pissing matches are so much fun.
Especially when they're with people who come off as somebody who thinks they're superior for liking literature.
Care to direct that ad hominem at an individual? If you are going to stray into such fallacy, the least you can do is grow a spine.
I counted those as electives. I loaded up my schedule with as much math and science as I could to avoid them.
Science was another one I liked. Well, it depended on the science. I liked my Biology classes and if I ever have an Anatomy and Physiology class, I'm sure I'll like those too. My Physical Science class was okay, but I detest math (and any physics-related study is just math with fancy words). I had a pretty cool teacher though, so that made up for it, plus we froze a bunch of sh*t in liquid nitrogen and burned a trail of magnesium, which absolves any and all BS needed to put up with the class.
I'm afraid you're again making connections that don't belong.
Kids today are not avoiding classic novels because they're getting their ethical kicks from video games instead.
I get it, you love classic novels and wish that more people read them. But face it, the classics have NEVER been mainstream and they never will be. There is a significant number of people that like this stuff, as there always has been. There is also a bigger number of people that have no interest in this stuff, and will stick to trashy novels, Hollywood movies and/or video games. Again, this has always been the case.
Incidentally there's also a good chunk of people that enjoy all these things to some extent.
You are strawmaning what I said,
"I think for the last few gaming generations, video games have been taking over the ethical role that Novels used to fill. Novels have always been great for ethical thought experiments e.g. Nabokov's Lolita etc. My problem with this, is that video games do not have the same artistry nor do they cover the wide range of subjects that novels can. Video games are limited to very particular tropes, and pander greatly to a status quo demographic. I doubt that we will see a Joyceian video game, or a Flaubert type video game anytime soon."
People are not reading as much anymore, but more and more are playing video games with suposed ethical cunnudrums. Meaning?
Care to direct that ad hominem at an individual? If you are going to stray into such fallacy, the least you can do is grow a spine.
I like taking sarcastic shots from time to time(and it should have been fairly obvious who it was pointed at =P), but since you asked lines like:
"The intellectual condition of my peers is much worse than I thought, if they won't take the time to discover such incredible lines."
Give me the impression that you think you're better than everybody else who hasn't read the same literature as you. Nevermind those of us who know science and math, apparently our intellectual condition is in jeopardy because we didn't read Joyce and Flaubert.
You even act like books are somehow a superior art form to video games and when met with an actual argument against your point, you just re-iterated your original point that it couldn't work and then ignored any future response.
Gaming is good for your health!!! ...
http://www.chicagotr...ory.html#page=1
I found the following quote especially poignant, as Bioware puts so much effort into believable character and "inner ethics"
"(Games) helped me discover what my inner ethics are, what choices I would make in particular situations," he said. "What I've found is I generally try to resolve things peacefully. … You can grow emotional attachment to the characters, and that's not a bad thing. It proves they can give humanization to a bunch of polygons."
This makes your reply to In Exile at 7:50 EST seem fairly hypocritical. The only content there was that In Exile has the wrong ideology.
Edit: wait... were you maybe doing a pure-rhetoric finishing move? OK, that sort of thing can work, but I think you're grossly overestimating how persuasive your earlier remarks on deconstructionism were,
And what was that exactly? If you mean me telling him to have the guts to admit that deconstructionism is an ideology, and then my saying that we are ideological in some way, and using myself as an example; that is not hypocrisy. Post modernists are the ones who act like they are value free. Perhaps instead of just making claims you could actually show said line and make a real argument? Or is that too "logocentric"? As for deconstructionism, on top of begging the question it is 1. Unfalsifiable; thus it places all readings of a text at equal validity even those that are wrong 2. It misuses language (just look at the many ways Culler misuses the word origin in one paragraph, or Millers conflation of writing with facts about the real world--so language was not a product of culture used to convey meaning within a community. Language according to the deconstructionist has no real ‘meaning’ thus linguistics is moot; 3. It is inherently contradictory, if all readings are equally valid what is the point of deconstructionist criticism? 4. Alan Sokal destroyed post modernism with his hoax http://compbio.biosc...-boundaries.pdf. 5.Only a crackpot strain in cultural anthropology and English studies hold on to this piffle, 6. I’m done talking about this; I’ve more “important things to do,” a discovery that made many ‘ex- deconstructionists.’
I like taking sarcastic shots from time to time(and it should have been fairly obvious who it was pointed at =P), but since you asked lines like:
"The intellectual condition of my peers is much worse than I thought, if they won't take the time to discover such incredible lines."
Give me the impression that you think you're better than everybody else who hasn't read the same literature as you. Nevermind those of us who know science and math, apparently our intellectual condition is in jeopardy because we didn't read Joyce and Flaubert.
You even act like books are somehow a superior art form to video games and when met with an actual argument against your point, you just re-iterated your original point that it couldn't work and then ignored any future response.
That is one giant ad hominem that you've got going there, it is not surprising to me that you merely give the expression “actually argument” and do not actually provide one. I think you have even managed to unite your personal attacks with a straw man. Bravo, you are just a divine example of cultural awareness. XD
As for Joyce and Flaubert that was a joke. However, they were two of the most exceptional writers that ever lived; Harold Bloom ranks Joyce with Shakespeare. Both Joyce and Flaubert changed their respective cultures for the better by adding to (and in Joyce's case) starting a Renaissance in wonderful French and Irish writing. Yes, intellectually, if people are ignoring them they are missing out. Especially if you care about studying such cultures, there would be no Bloomsday in Dublin Ireland without Joyce.
You particular culture snobs (those that abscond from what is at least called high culture) are welcome to miss out.
That is one giant ad hominem that you've got going there, it is not surprising to me that you merely give the expression “actually argument” and do not actually provide one. I think you have even managed to unite your personal attacks with a straw man. Bravo, you are just a divine example of cultural awareness. XD
As for Joyce and Flaubert that was a joke. However, they were two of the most exceptional writers that ever lived; Harold Bloom ranks Joyce with Shakespeare. Both Joyce and Flaubert changed their respective cultures for the better by adding to (and in Joyce's case) starting a resonance in wonderful French and Irish writing. Yes, intellectually, if people are ignoring them they are missing out. Especially if you care about studying such cultures, there would be no Bloomsday in Ireland without Joyce.
You particular culture snobs (those that abscond from what is at least called high culture) are welcome to miss out.
Ah the internet, where criticizing somebody's delivery of their argument or general attitude is immediately an ad hominem to be dismissed.
I also did actually provide an argument to the one point I wished to dispute and you never replied. Since you apparently missed it, after you posted saying what subject Lolita was about and claimed it would never work in video game format I said the following(it's still on page 3 of this thread):
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.
I'm also not here to debate if people are missing out by not having read certain authors. What I am pointing out is that you give the impression in your posts(at least to me) that you think you're somehow better than those who have not read them, which is downright absurd.
There is obviously stuff I've missed out on intellectually. There is stuff you have as well, because there is simply too much of it out there. My enjoying the study of history and science doesn't make me any worse off than you who choose literature.
@Cynoan
"Ah the internet" that place were people such as you piddle the cliche "ah the internet".
"So why couldn't you have the game be from the point of view of the middle aged pedophile?" Sorry I thought that was a rhetorical question. lol
That is one giant ad hominem that you've got going there, it is not surprising to me that you merely give the expression “actually argument” and do not actually provide one. I think you have even managed to unite your personal attacks with a straw man. Bravo, you are just a divine example of cultural awareness. XD
As for Joyce and Flaubert that was a joke. However, they were two of the most exceptional writers that ever lived; Harold Bloom ranks Joyce with Shakespeare. Both Joyce and Flaubert changed their respective cultures for the better by adding to (and in Joyce's case) starting a resonance in wonderful French and Irish writing. Yes, intellectually, if people are ignoring them they are missing out. Especially if you care about studying such cultures, there would be no Bloomsday in Dublin Ireland without Joyce.
You particular culture snobs (those that abscond from what is at least called high culture) are welcome to miss out.
Someone who goes out of their way to prattle off and list renowned authors (in both this thread and others) and condescend to others by sarcastically calling them "a divine example of cultural awareness" calls someone else a culture snob.
The irony is actually painful.
It can go too far.
Remembers being linked the aggregated page of dozens of tumblr posts about having suicidal thoughts after finding out Cassandra was straight...
I find it chilling that I actually am not surprised to be told that. I will still hope it isn't true and live in my own bubble where sanity is still a thing.
@Cynoan
"Ah the internet" that place were people such as you piddle the cliche "ah the internet".
"So why couldn't you have the game be from the point of view of the middle aged pedophile?" Sorry I thought that was a rhetorical question. lol
I didn't really feel like explaining the difference between criticizing somebody's attitude and an actual ad hominem attack that is used to say that the other person is wrong because of their character. I suspected that as a literary enthusiast, you should know the difference anyway =P
The only time in this thread I've actually said that you're wrong is your claim that video games cannot cover all the same subject matter that books can, and my counter-point wasn't a personal attack.
The question has an obvious answer to me, but I was curious to see what your answer would be about it keeping in mind that I'm not talking about societal issues here but purely about if it is technically possible or not to do it.
Someone who goes out of their way to prattle off and list renowned authors (in both this thread and others) and condescend to others by sarcastically calling them "a divine example of cultural awareness" calls someone else a culture snob.
The irony is actually painful.
Cultural awareness involves both of what people call high and low culture, I think culture can do without such adjectives. And I must say, I've never had my views so strawmaned in my entire life than by those here who like to think that they are the "true defenders of a culture".
Cultural awareness involves both of what people call high and low culture, I think culture can can do without such adjectives. And I must say, I've never had my views so straw maned in my entire life then by those here who like to think that they are the "true defenders of a culture".
Just ignore this ventus dude, all he knows is to claim that the people he doesn't agree with are "painfully ironic" or somsuch nonsense.. it's just endless strawmen and that irony claim ad nauseam.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut