Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Roger Ebert: VIDYA GAEMS CAN'T BE ART!!1

Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
2,695
Location
Superior Plane
ScottishMartialArts said:
Paula Tormeson IV said:
You didn't say anything about such things. You were talking about analysis, how such stories should be analyzed.

So analysis doesn't involve asking questions and thinking?
Trolling, are we?

You wrote:

"At any rate, I'd call narrative art a story which arouses and directs emotion in service of meaningful expression."

Your argument, up to that point at any rate (you now seem to want to argue that your last paragraph wasn't coherent), was that the best writers always have an ax to grind, i.e. a point to make. Toward this goal, they MANIPULATE the reader's emotions.

That was your argument as I read or perhaps misread it. Then you jumped to how stories with such means and goals ought to be analyzed, which has nothing to do with ordinary passive reading. On the other hand, if you were talking about active reading, where the reader is in constant interaction with the text, then your whole other argument about games not being art 'cause they're interactive falls flat to its face.

In any case, such manipulative nanny writers and filmmakers exist in abundance, no argument there. My argument was merely that good writers and filmmakers produce different sort of stuff.

And no, the problem isn't that I can't read, it's that either you can't write or you can't remember what you have written by the time you begin your next post.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Vibalist said:
Vaarna_Aarne said:
Now I feel bad.

We should all chip in and buy him a Darth Malak mask or something instead of a second copy of PS:T.

Would actually be cool as fuck if he shaved his head bald, had a voicebox installed and wore a Malak mask.
We should ask him to give us a picture like that with either thumbs up or thumbs down after playing PS:T.
 
Self-Ejected

ScottishMartialArts

Self-Ejected
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
11,707
Location
California
Paula Tormeson IV said:
Your argument, up to that point at any rate (you now seem to want to argue that your last paragraph wasn't coherent), was that the best writers always have an ax to grind, i.e. a point to make.

I wouldn't say that they have an ax to grind but that they have an idea or problem that they want to explore, i.e. a theme. Towards that end they create characters and situations that explore that theme. Other times, they start with characters or a specific event and let their imagination flesh it out, and theme develops from there. Regardless, authors are interested in ideas, and they use stories and the emotions they evoke to explore those ideas.

Regardless, the paragraph was an answer to the question: what is your notion of art? In the previous paragraph, I explained that I only felt prepared to give a definition for narrative art forms. I labored a bit to write that definition because, believe it or not, I didn't have a prearticulated, stock answer at the ready. Unsatisfied with my one line response, I attempted to describe how I know narrative art when I see it, thus fleshing out my notion of art. Hence, the rest of the paragraph describes how I analyze literature, and that fruitful analysis means you're dealing with rich literature worthy of the moniker art. Do you understand the unity of the paragraph now? That it was all answering a specific question (what I think art is)?

Also, I don't think it's fair to equivicate the player shaping the story from within, and the reader thinking about the story afterwards. The former is true interactivity, the latter is an after the fact response to a fixed text which can't respond. An interactive narrative ensures that themes can't be carried to their conclusion, because the conclusion itself is always in doubt.

For example, If Achilles forgives Hector and they depart as friends because he invested his skillpoints in diplomacy rather than spears, then the story becomes a pointless exercise in bronze age heroic combat; Achilles will never grow as a person if he doesn't kill Hector only to realize that revenge won't bring back the friend he got killed. Now you and I can have a debate over how hopeless Achilles' situation is at the end of the Iliad the poem, and what that says about Homer's view of the human condition, but we can't have that discussion with Iliad the RPG. With Iliad the RPG we'll discuss what character builds we made, and how we used those skills to affect the outcome of the Achilles/Hector duel and it's consequences on later gameplay (perhaps if Achilles spares Hector, then Hector will convince Priam and Paris to give Helen back, thus obviating the need for the Trojan Horse). With the poem, we're discussing the ideas inchoate in the text; with the game, we're discussing game mechanics and how they affect how you acheive your goals in the game. The former is art, and the latter is not.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
2,695
Location
Superior Plane
ScottishMartialArts said:
Also, I don't think it's fair to equivicate the player shaping the story from within, and the reader thinking about the story afterwards. The former is true interactivity, the latter is an after the fact response to a fixed text which can't respond.
Active reading means that you are thinking about what you read WHILE you are reading it, and not just passively reacting to stimuli like a dancing marionette to the string pulls. Some writers encourage active reading, indeed, provoke the reader to read actively (by employing superficial incoherency, for example), while many writers try their best to hide from the reader that he is reading a text and should take the responsibility for his own reactions and thoughts.

A text is just as fixed a product as a game is. A game may have three narrative paths, but if it does, then they are indeed three paths that it has, not two or four. It's a thing with three paths instead of one, but it's still fixed. You can't experience it all at once, and perhaps it's not all worth experiencing, but can you experience everything in a book all at once, or will you fail to notice some things, and is it all worth experiencing, or even related to the theme the writer was supposedly exploring when he wrote the book? (Often there is a theme only because the reader insists on imagining that there is one.) The truth is, both books and games are platforms that the reader or player uses for creating his own internal fantasies.
 

Haba

Harbinger of Decline
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,871,788
Location
Land of Rape & Honey ❤️
Codex 2012 MCA Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Art is whatever the art community decides to be art.

And most great artists of today were considered to be shit during their time, by their peers in the art community of their time.
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
Is pornography art, people?

I have never seen a pornographic movie, so I am unable to comment.

But recently, I started a thread asking Codexers to admit which ones of them are the kinds of degenerates who play hentai games.

The result was a serious discussion on hentai game mechanics, rules, and difficulty.

The first thought that came was, "Appreciating a hentai game for gameplay is like appreciating a pornographic movie for the writing, the editing, and the cinematic composition."

But then if the former is so, then maybe it is the case with the latter.

Ahem.

Discuss.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
2,695
Location
Superior Plane
It's pretty, but is it art?

Wyrmlord said:
Is pornography art, people?
One thing that comes to mind is that the more you feel you are taking part in the sexual act, the better it is. Books can accomplish this better than short fuck clips (video) by pulling you in. I tried RapeLay, and wasn't really impressed by the effect (I deleted it today, 'cause it was taking too much space and not giving enough in return). Something like Fallout 3 with a rape mod would probably be much better, because you would have more of the sense that you're taking part in the action.
 
Self-Ejected

ScottishMartialArts

Self-Ejected
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
11,707
Location
California
Paula Tormeson IV said:
ScottishMartialArts said:
Also, I don't think it's fair to equivicate the player shaping the story from within, and the reader thinking about the story afterwards. The former is true interactivity, the latter is an after the fact response to a fixed text which can't respond.
Active reading means that you are thinking about what you read WHILE you are reading it, and not just passively reacting to stimuli like a dancing marionette to the string pulls. .

And when reading or watching fiction for the first time, you're supposed to read, or watch, passively. If you bring all of your critical faculties to bear on a work of fiction the first time you experience it, then you seperate yourself from the immediacy of the story. If a story portrays a character as sympathetic and say to yourself "Oh, the author wants me to like this guy, fuck that!" you're kind of missing the point of the whole endeavor. Read critically right away when you're reading a prose essay on science, politics, or philosophy, but the whole point of fiction is to engage your imagination, and if you're unwilling to do that then not even the best author will impress you.

Mortimer J Adler said:
In order to proceed by the way of negation, it is first of all necessary to grasp the basic differences between expository and imaginative literature. These differences will explain why we cannot read a novel as if it were a philisophical argument, or a lyric as if it were a mathematical demonstration.

The most obvious difference, already mentioned, relates to the purposes of the two kinds of writing. Expository books try to convey knowledge -- knowledge about experiences that the read has had or could have. Imaginative ones try to communicate an experience itself -- one that the reader can have or share only by reading -- and if they succeed, they give the reader something to be enjoyed. Because of their diverse intentions, the two sorts of work appeal differently to the intellect and the imagination.

We experience things through the exercise of our senses and imagination. To know anything we must use our powers of judgment and reasoning, which are intellectual. The is not mean that we can think without using our imagination, or that sense experience is ever wholly divorced from rational insight or reflection. The matter is only one of emphasis. Fiction appeals primarily to the imagination. That is one reason for calling it imaginative literature, in contrast to science and philosophy which are intellectual.

This fact about imaginative literature leads to what is probably the most important of the negative injunctions we want to suggest. Don't try to resist the effect that a work of imaginative literature has on you.

We have discussed at length the importance of reading actively. This is true of all books, but it is true in quite different ways of expository works and of poetry. The reader of the former should be like a bird of prey, constantly alert, always ready to pounce. The kind of activity that is appropriate in reading poetry and fiction is not the same. It is a sort of passive action, if we may be allowed the expression, or, better, active passion. We must act in such a way, when reading a story, that we let it act on us. We must allow it to move us, we must let it do whatever work it wants to do on us. We must somehow make ourselves open to it.

We owe much to the expository literature -- the philosophy, science, mathematics -- that has shaped the real world in which we live. But we could not live in this world if we were not able, from time to time, to get away from it. We do not mean that imaginative literature is always, or essentially, escapist. IN the ordinary sense of that term, the idea is contemptible. If we must escape from reality, it should be to a deeper, or greater, reality. This is the reality of our inner life, of our own unique vision of the world. To discover this reality makes us happy, the experience is deeply satisfying to some part of ourselves we do not ordinarily touch. In any envent, the rules of reading a great work of literary art should have as an end or goal just such a profound experience. The rules should clear away all that stops us from feeling as deeply as we possibly can.

From How to Read a Book.
 

Jaime Lannister

Arbiter
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
7,183
Paula Tormeson IV said:
It's pretty, but is it art?

Wyrmlord said:
Is pornography art, people?
One thing that comes to mind is that the more you feel you are taking part in the sexual act, the better it is. Books can accomplish this better than short fuck clips (video) by pulling you in. I tried RapeLay, and wasn't really impressed by the effect (I deleted it today, 'cause it was taking too much space and not giving enough in return). Something like Fallout 3 with a rape mod would probably be much better, because you would have more of the sense that you're taking part in the action.

nomask fuckin delivers
 

Data4

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
5,531
Location
Over there.
Wyrmlord said:
I have never seen a pornographic movie, so I am unable to comment.

Jesus, dude, are you serious? Here, let me solve that problem for you. Not a full movie, but it fits the format.

It's not art, but shit... pains my heart to hear of a guy who hasn't seen porn before. You're welcome.
 

Multi-headed Cow

Guest
He's faithful to the God-Emperor and abhors the mutant, the alien, the heretic. Duh. Won't catch Wyrmlord with the machete wielding rape-gangs of Slaanesh.
chaosmarinerr1.jpg
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
Roger who?

So anyway, the guy never played Fallout (i.e.: never had a chance to play multiple different characters, never had a talk with the Master, never explored a coherent post-apocalyptic wasteland, never got to see the irony in activating nukes to save a nuked world, never listened to M. Morgan's music, never witnessed the visual art direction, etc.), so he can't talk.

Just some random dude wanting attention going the easy, controversial way. Move along.

Also, the fucking comments, man.
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
Pullitzer my ass, the guy can't write or argue for shit; probably a political thing, as with all prizes nowadays (Nobels, Oscars, et al).
 

Radisshu

Prophet
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
5,623
Haba said:
Art is whatever the art community decides to be art.

This is, sadly, the most accurate definition of art possible. I'd like to use reason and well-thought arguments to dismantle the term entirely, but it just won't happen. If the "art world" (people working in museums and galleries, etc) decides that games are art, games are art.

EDIT: Roger Ebert is an okay film critic, I think, but he's not what I would call an intellectual, though I see why some low brow people would consider him such. He reviews mainstream films and usually gives them good reviews.

EDIT2: Thinking "video games" have to be "games" is a common misconception as well. Video games can fall through the games definition and still be video games. The monkey island games work more like interactive stories, in how there's no way to lose, and there are so-called art games that barely feature a goal at all, but they are still - undeniably - video games.
 

Hobo Elf

Arcane
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
14,039
Location
Platypus Planet
Are the artfags afraid of going to the Louvre only to find a boxed copy of Fallout 3 in a glass case next to the Mona Lisa?
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
2,695
Location
Superior Plane
ScottishMartialArts said:
Paula Tormeson IV said:
ScottishMartialArts said:
Also, I don't think it's fair to equivicate the player shaping the story from within, and the reader thinking about the story afterwards. The former is true interactivity, the latter is an after the fact response to a fixed text which can't respond.
Active reading means that you are thinking about what you read WHILE you are reading it, and not just passively reacting to stimuli like a dancing marionette to the string pulls. .

And when reading or watching fiction for the first time, you're supposed to read, or watch, passively. .
And what if I'm unable to?

ScottishMartialArts said:
If you bring all of your critical faculties to bear on a work of fiction the first time you experience it, then you seperate yourself from the immediacy of the story. If a story portrays a character as sympathetic and say to yourself "Oh, the author wants me to like this guy, fuck that!" you're kind of missing the point of the whole endeavor.
The writer shouldn't labor to portray any character as sympathetic or unsympathetic. If he does, he has an agenda unworthy of a serious author, and should indeed write essays and newspaper articles instead of fiction. If you find a character unsympathetic, that shouldn't be because the writer makes his sympathetic characters tell you what an awful asshole the unsympathetic character is ("that terrible nazi! look what he did! never forget!"). Such portrayals may be suitable for children's propaganda books, but not something an adult should find value in. If you find a character unsympathetic, it should be because you genuinely can't figure him out, or can't sympathize with his goals, or approve of his means. It shouldn't necessarily be something every intelligent reader can safely agree on. And sympathizing with characters is just the natural thing to do, unless you find you cannot, for some reason. Even then, there should be moments when you can.

There are writers, such as Jack Vance, who leave it to their readers to decide whether some action was terrible or not. His portrayals of rape, for example, are so cold and objective that one Amazon reader (a girl) was genuinely upset about it and thought that Jack Vance probably had some serious problems. No, it's not the writer that there's something wrong with, it's rape that there is something wrong with, but the writer shouldn't have to tell you that there is something wrong with rape. You should, kind of, be able to figure that out on your own.

Similarly, one Amazon reviewer, after reading Light, could swear that M. John Harrison was a porn addict. No, that's not supposed to be a review of M John Harrison, knucklehead, it's supposed to be a review of the book and your engagement with it, which is pathetically naive if you think M John Harrison is a porn addict because of what he wrote in the book. (Another good writer who leaves drawing moral conclusions to his readers, as well as undermines the simplistic notion that is "character", as if humans were characters, as if something like consistent "character" even existed.)

ScottishMartialArts said:
the whole point of fiction is to engage your imagination, and if you're unwilling to do that then not even the best author will impress you.
I'm all for fiction that provokes my imagination, stimulates it into action. And sure there are impressive books by impressive fiction writers. This is just one example of such a book. It's impressive as fuck from the beginning. And sure he has an agenda, but not unworthy or simplistic, and figuring out what it is, is part of the fun.
 

1eyedking

Erudite
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
3,591
Location
Argentina
I dug some stuff about this old fart:
Roger Ebert said:
I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

Roger Ebert said:
Your movie sucks.

BLOBERT stands a p. good chance of being the next Pullitzer prize winrar.
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
1eyedking said:
I dug some stuff about this old fart:
Roger Ebert said:
I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.

Roger Ebert said:
Your movie sucks.

BLOBERT stands a p. good chance of being the next Pullitzer prize winrar.
Pfooie.

Ebert's reviews are entertaining, except when he goes on his angry Catholic Leftist political rants in his movie reviews, but otherwise, read his review of Caligula.

"Caligula" is sickening, utterly worthless, shameful trash. If it is not the worst film I have ever seen, that makes it all the more shameful: People with talent allowed themselves to participate in this travesty. Disgusted and unspeakably depressed, I walked out of the film after two hours of its 170-minute length. That was on Saturday night, as a line of hundreds of people stretched down Lincoln Ave., waiting to pay $7.50 apiece to become eyewitnesses to shame.

I wanted to tell them ... what did I want to tell them? What I'm telling you now. That this film is not only garbage on an artistic level, but that it is also garbage on the crude and base level where it no doubt hopes to find its audience. "Caligula" is not good art, It is not good cinema, and it is not good porn.

I've never had anything against eroticism in movies. There are X-rated films I've enjoyed, from the sensuous fantasies of "Emmanuelle" to the pop-comic absurdities of Russ Meyer. I assume that the crowds lining up for admission to the Davis Theater were hoping for some sort of erotic experience; I doubt that they were spending $15 a couple for a lesson on the ancient history of Rome.

All I can say is that the makers of "Caligula" have long since lost touch with any possible common erotic denominator, and that they suggest by the contents of this film that they are jaded, perverse and cruel human beings. In the two hours of this film that I saw, there were no scenes of joy, natural pleasure, or good sensual cheer. There was, instead , a nauseating excursion into base and sad fantasies.

You have heard that this is a violent film. But who could have suspected how violent, and to what vile purpose, it really is? In this film, there are scenes depicting a man whose urinary tract is closed, and who has gallons of wine poured down his throat. His bursting stomach is punctured with a sword. There is a scene in which a man is emasculated, and his genitals thrown to dogs, who eagerly eat them on the screen. There are scenes of decapitation, evisceration, rape, bestiality, sadomasochism, necrophilia.

These scenes -- indeed, the movie itself -- reflect a curiously distanced sensibility. Nobody in this film really seems to be there. Not the famous actors like Malcolm McDowell and (very briefly) Peter O'Toole and John Gielgud, whose scenes have been augmented by additional porn shot later with other people and inserted to spice things up. Not the director (who removed his credit from the film). Not the writer (what in the world can it mean that this movie is "Adapted from an Original Screenplay by Gore Vidal"?) Not even the sound track. The actors never quite seem to be speaking their own words, which were so badly dubbed in later that the dialogue never seems to be emerging from the drama itself.

The film even fails to involve itself in the action. "Caligula" has been photographed and directed with such clumsiness and inelegance that pieces of action do not seem to flow together, the plot is incomprehensible, the events are frequently framed as if the camera was not sure where it was, and everything is shot in muddy, ugly, underlit dungeon tones. The music Is also execrable.

So what are we left with? A movie, I am afraid, that may be invulnerable to a review like this one. There are no doubt people who believe that if this movie is as bad as I say it is, it must be worth seeing. People who simply cannot believe any film could be this vile. Some of those people were walking out of the Davis before I did Saturday night; others were sitting, depressed, in the lobby. That should not, I suppose, be surprising.

The human being is a most curious animal. often ready to indulge himself in his base Inclinations, but frequently reluctant to trust his better Instincts. Surely people know, going in, that "Caligula" is worthless. Surely they know there are other movies in town that are infinitely better. Yet here they are at "Caligula." It is very sad.

My friendly recommendation is that they see "The Great Santini," to freshen their minds and learn to laugh and care again in a movie. People learn fast. "This movie," said the lady in front of me at the drinking fountain, "is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen."
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom