MW2 has the best mission ever

[ever]

and justify it to some extent

no

Yeah look obviously the guy with a psych degree who has been a successful film director for 20 years of his life and is well read on the philosophy of psych and knows his distinctions between a priori and ex post reasoning and has a firm grasp of the popperian vs kantian dynamics of every single word he writes is gonna be able to form a better justification than someone like me or you but that doesn't matter.

Most people have some sort of intuition on the question and will make some sort of attempt to put it to words when asked.

 

[Grunker]

Well, there's emotional attachment ("hey, I can feel the pain of that Nameless One guy, eh dies a lot and doesn't afraid of anything. He's interesting and I'm genuinely interested in his fate")

...and emotional attachment ("zomg, the polygons ")

I guess this makes me a fag by codex-standards, but good art should make you "zomg, the words " and "zomg, the pixels "

But you're right in the sense that no video game has been anywhere near achieving a level of greatness that warrants anything like such a reaction.

Not only that but one of great Codex minds said it isn't art unless it depicts ideal - so games can't be art by default.

Statements inherently vane and wrong do not count.

Come to think of it he is actually one of those guys who pulled this off. Aerie was the first character in a game that I hated and hated so much I had to kill her and rob her body of course.

PC (Skyway): [Influence gained: Grunker]

Look gais, Skyway can b funy! You're a lot more pleasant to deal with when you're right, you know? You should stop being wrong so often.

 

[Mackerel]

Hmm, valid points all around, actually. I do think there might be some confusion between empathy and perspective taking going on though. The role of imagination in the process is not to be understated as well. All of these factors vary between people, and some are accrued along with age and life experience, making this topic more of a poll of the degree that each poster has these personal qualities (those that aren't trolling, of course).

 

[bhlaab]

I guess this makes me a fag by codex-standards, but good art should make you "zomg, the words " and "zomg, the pixels "

I disagree. It's less about "zomg, the pixels " and more about "hey, I'm seeing these pixels in a new and interesting way, one that triggers even a vague emotional response inside my cold dead heart"

That's what makes this thread so amusing. The fact that Dicksmoker, what's his name, other faggot... the extent of the emotional reaction (shock, disgust, etc) proves that to them the mission met and/or exceeded all of its artistic and thematic goals and was, in fact, good art. (To them, anyway)
The only problem is that they choose to channel these reactions into raging about it on the internet instead of doing what you're supposed to do with art: asking themselves "WHY am I reacting to this in such a negative way, what is it about ME and MY relationship to entertainment that makes me feel this way."

I, on the other hand, wasn't moved in one particular way or the other. I thought it fell a bit flat and I reacted by stepping outside of the experience, which probably wasn't an intended goal of the scene.
So I suppose that, unlike Dicksmoker, I didn't think Modern Warfare 2 was good art.

 

[Forest Dweller]

No, that's different. There's an objective difference of quality between dumbed down shit and good RPGs.

In your opinion.

(c wut i did thar?)

What you are talking about isn't quality of art. It's the theme of art. For you, *all* art with or without a certain theme (violent asshole main character, no good hero person or happy end) is bad. It's not a matter of quality. Heck, you even dislike books/games/movies that are considered great pieces of art if they don't have a "character the audience can identify with", a "hero whose good sides outweigh the bad".

Get your definitions straight. "Themes" aren't plot elements. And we cut out more games from our consideration than my definition does to novels. Almost all stories DO have a hero. There are only a few exceptions.

Stop trying to pretend that what we do on this site is any different from what I did. Hypocrisy doesn't suit you.

In your opinion you can't make good art without a good-natured character.

In the forms of art that convey stories, yes. Don't neglect the other art forms.

And thus your opinion is wrong, shit, sucks etc etc and you're a faggot and all that.

And thus you are gay, a hypocrite, nigger, etc..

Haven't read those. Isn't Clockwork Orange about a bunch of psychopaths? Yeah, piece of shit. Next!

Lol, the irony is killing me. You do realize that Apocalypse Now is an adaptation of that novel, right? Oops, looks like somebody fucked up.

Yeah, but Marlowe is relatable. He's okay. Like I said, they don't have to be paragons of virtue. But the problem is that he's a passive observer and remains that way throughout the book. He doesn't DO anything. It's boring.

Hmm. Things don't turn out that well for Gatsby, but he's not the main character, is he? Didn't Nick (I think that's his name) take away a lot from his experiences and become a wiser person in the end?

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

Lol, the irony is killing me. You do realize that Apocalypse Now is an adaptation of that novel, right? Oops, looks like somebody fucked up.

Yeah, but Marlowe is relatable. He's okay. Like I said, they don't have to be paragons of virtue. But the problem is that he's a passive observer and remains that way throughout the book. He doesn't DO anything. It's boring.

It doesn't matter whether Marlow is relatable or not when we're talking about your definition of "bad art." Marlow isn't the hero of the book. It has no hero, Marlow is really just the narrator. It's completely different than in Apocalypse Now, where Willard really does meet your definition of a hero since in the end he ends up killing Kurtz. In Heart of Darkness Kurtz dies on his own, Marlow does not cause it.

I didn't fuck up, I brought up this book for a very specific purpose, because it shows how much of a hypocrite you are. You find Apocalypse Now to be fine, I can only assume because there is a "hero" in it, but the book its based on doesn't have that hero. It has an incredibly evil guy and a narrator. If you keep your definitions from earlier the same, then it's bad art. That would make Apocalypse Now based off bad art, so I don't see how you could consider that good art. Thus, you are a hypocrite. If you don't keep your definitions the same and you find Heart of Darkness to not be bad art, then you're reading it wrong or, again, you're a hypocrite.

Hmm. Things don't turn out that well for Gatsby, but he's not the main character, is he? Didn't Nick (I think that's his name) take away a lot from his experiences and become a wiser person in the end?

Again, Nick is the narrator, his character really isn't very vital to the overall purpose of the book. Gatsby is without a doubt the main character, because it is through him that the story's meaning comes through. Not to mention that Nick idolizes Gatsby throughout the book, even though Fitzgerald makes it perfectly clear that Gatsby is a bad human being.

 

[bhlaab]

Isn't Clockwork Orange about a bunch of psychopaths? Yeah, piece of shit.

why

 

[Forest Dweller]

It doesn't matter whether Marlow is relatable or not when we're talking about your definition of "bad art." Marlow isn't the hero of the book. It has no hero, Marlow is really just the narrator. It's completely different than in Apocalypse Now, where Willard really does meet your definition of a hero since in the end he ends up killing Kurtz. In Heart of Darkness Kurtz dies on his own, Marlow does not cause it.

A hero doesn't necessarily need to "act." I think you're using a different definition than I am. I just mean someone who can represent ideals in some manner or area, or, as I said earlier, someone who is "more good than bad." So someone who is relatable. (In other words, we all are or can be heroes - at least those of us who are decent human beings.) That's basically the bare minimum. Marlowe fits that, though I admit not by too much. And that doesn't require action. Of course, his lack of action makes him bad as a protaganist, and makes the book pretty shit in general, but that's a different issue.

You find Apocalypse Now to be fine, I can only assume because there is a "hero" in it, but the book its based on doesn't have that hero. It has an incredibly evil guy and a narrator. If you keep your definitions from earlier the same, then it's bad art. That would make Apocalypse Now based off bad art, so I don't see how you could consider that good art.

So in other words, you're saying that the film adaptation must be inextricably bound to the original novel. It can never stand on it's own. That's bullshit. Apocalypse Now is inspired by Heart of Darkness. That's it. It's a seperate entity, and thus deserving of seperate consideration. It took some things from the book, but for every one of those it invented two others. It's different.

Thus, you are a hypocrite.

no u

If you don't keep your definitions the same and you find Heart of Darkness to not be bad art, then you're reading it wrong or, again, you're a hypocrite.

It's bad art but for different reasons than what I've said earlier (stated above).

Again, Nick is the narrator, his character really isn't very vital to the overall purpose of the book.

Which is?

It's his story. Sure, Gatsby is a big part of it, but that doesn't make Nick's own struggles any less meaningful. And, being the narrator, he by default becomes the character who the reader most relates to (since everything happens through his eyes).

Gatsby is without a doubt the main character, because it is through him that the story's meaning comes through.

A main character can always learn something through the actions of another character.

Not to mention that Nick idolizes Gatsby throughout the book, even though Fitzgerald makes it perfectly clear that Gatsby is a bad human being.

I don't recall Gatsby coming across as a bad human being. He seemed more like a tragic character who was stuck in the past. It's been a while since I've read it, though, so my memory may not be completely on on this.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Isn't Clockwork Orange about a bunch of psychopaths? Yeah, piece of shit.

why

Needs a hero.

 

[Darth Roxor]

What's that, pumpkin? How about actually responding to my points and trying to debunk them?

Oh that's right. You can't. You have no real defense against anything I wrote and so you have to go for a cheap "lol ur retarded" post. Run along now, us grown-ups are having a converstation.

Because there's just no point replying to you, since most of the stuff you posted has been already addressed by others, and arguing with you is like arguing with skyway or volourn (going in pointless circles that dodge the problem, complete inability to admit that you may be wrong, general ignorance and replying with a typical, volourny 'NO'), so why bother?

 

[mondblut]

What I find even more surprising is that those same video-game ayatollahs, who violently molestate RPGs for some gameplay element or vaguely dubious design choices, somehow accept and defend the "degree zero" of modern gaming just because it... makes some bigot squeal.

Making some bigot squeal has an intrinsic value on its own, irrelevantly of the other qualities of a product in question. Every taboo broken and trampled upon means another step to the stars.

 

[mondblut]

Isn't Clockwork Orange about a bunch of psychopaths? Yeah, piece of shit. Next!

Congratulations. You just officially admitted on being an idiot AND a flaming faggot.

 

[Nostradumbass]

Nostradumbass.

Its quite clear that unless you appeal to extremely technical reasoning skyway will not be able to discern any difference in terms of human empathical connection with characters as portrayed in Carmageddon and Call of Duty 6.

I think earlier he asked something about the bit rate of the sounds or the resolution of the textures used.

To most people this really isn't a factor to their ability to form an emotional connection. You could use 1994 level technology and still be able to achieve the same kind of effect as in CoD6, if you developed characters, focused on facial expressions, used sound creatively to create the same atmosphere of panic and fear, took a serious tone throughout the game, showed off or gave allusions to the distress such violent actions may cause to real people, stuff like that.

Of course, high quality audio and visuals could add to it, but the effect of emotional attachment and creating a sense of empathy with a fictional experience has been achieved to the largest extent in the technically least rich form of data: text - text in books.

Now, I have been a teacher of all sorts of students for a long time and learning difficulties arise for many reasons. Sometimes a student is simply rebelling when he seems to have difficulty understanding something, other times its because they really do lack certain abilities you and I take for granted.

An inability to discern which of two things is more effective in creating an emotional attachment with the person interacting with it is usually a sign of autism. It is an especially distressing sign when the subject is only able to use highly technical usually quantifiable criteria as a means of being able to empathize or discern qualities attractive to any feelings of empathy. Skyway exhibits this behavior when he asks about bitrates and resolution textures and is baffled when concepts such as "over the top" or "serious tone" are concerned.

Either he is rebelling, or he simply does not see a difference between "over the top" and "serious" or he cannot even comprehend "over the top" and "serious"

A number of tests could be done to decide which of these it is. For example a simple receptive experiment might be conducted where he is shown an obviously over the top situation and an obviously serious situation and asked which represents which, or ask which would be better at generating a connection with the person witnessing the situation.

In any case it is best to leave such things to the experts. It is very difficult to engage in discussion with those who either experience serious difficulty with understanding certain things, and those who act in genuine malice simply to cause trouble and waste your time.

With this I recommend that you too stop talking to skyway.

no kidding. if anything, these threads are good for spotting the assburgers since they all seem to come out of the woodworks to say their piece. itt we have the rarely seen clockwork knight and skyway team up. epic fail, squared.

being insulted by skyway et al holds as much weight as being insulted by the village idiot, since everyone knows he's retarded like the tolling of a great bell. Perhaps he's not trying to be edgy after all when he goes on about how all games are "shit shit shit". i think he just has a hard time finding why people enjoy certain games, because it's not there, written clearly for him. poor skyway.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Because there's just no point replying to you, since most of the stuff you posted has been already addressed by others,

Adressed...and rebutted.

complete inability to admit that you may be wrong

I admit I could be wrong.

But the odds are very, very small.

 

[baronjohn]

Well, shooting any civilian in MW2, even masked ones that are obviously terrists just without weapons is insta-gameover. The game hammers that in pretty well.

But it also says that if you're part of some nutjob CIA operation it's alright to kill hundreds of men, women and children.

Basically I find this real-life message offensive.

 

[Darth Roxor]

rebutted.

r00fles!

 

[Chateaubryan]

Making some bigot squeal has an intrinsic value on its own, irrelevantly of the other qualities of a product in question. Every taboo broken and trampled upon means another step to the stars.

I tend to agree, but I aslo tend to have doubts about breaking taboo when it's another step in shit.

Breaking taboos is good as long as it makes people think a little more, but not when it just accustoms people to gobble more and more sordid realities. When a polemic is done well, it stirs debates and ideas. When it's done badly, it's not worth much more than scandal sheets.

 

[Trash]

Perhaps it's also fun to know that back in the day there was a lot of uproar here in the media about Carmageddon and that several political parties tried to ban it for being too realistic and violent and a bad influence on the youth.

Goes to show does it not?

 

[Xor]

Wow, you guys are still at it?

 

[Wyrmlord]

Codex talking about the moral issue of violence in videogames.

There was a word we have for it...what was it...yeah...I am pretty sure that's what we call it...

Incredibly serious fucking DECLINE OF THE CODEX. It's not even a meme anymore. :D

 

[Darth Roxor]

Codex talking about the moral issue of violence in videogames.

There was a word we have for it...what was it...yeah...I am pretty sure that's what we call it...

Incredibly serious fucking DECLINE OF THE CODEX. It's not even a meme anymore. :D

That would be an expression, not a word

 

[Trithne]

Dicksmoker, you know the point of Clockwork Orange is that violence and brutality are intrinsic to human behaviour? The main character is a violent youth, and eventually grows up, lessens his violent ways, only to find his own son has taken up the slack.

But I'm guessing you only know of the shit movie rendition.

 

[Chateaubryan]

Dicksmoker, you know the point of Clockwork Orange is that violence and brutality are intrinsic to human behaviour?

That was the movie's, and Kubrick's point : once Alex is freed from the Ludovico treatment, he's going back to his old ways without a second thought.

Burgess' was : every individual should be able to choose, and to be given the means to do the choice of being malevolent or not. When the movie got out, Burgess was horrified, and added a new epilogue to his "A Clockwork Orange". He also wrote a simili-autobiographical book about the subject : "End of Enderby - A Clockwork testament".

The main character is a violent youth, and eventually grows up, lessens his violent ways, only to find his own son has taken up the slack.

As far as I remember, Alex was only pondering what would happen if he had a son. I didn't know there was a third version of the epilogue.

But I'm guessing you only know of the shit movie rendition.

Koff. Koff. KOFF. What ?

 

[bhlaab]

Isn't Clockwork Orange about a bunch of psychopaths? Yeah, piece of shit.

why

Needs a hero.

why

 

[~*´¨¯¨`*·~-.¸-AIN'T]

It doesn't matter whether Marlow is relatable or not when we're talking about your definition of "bad art." Marlow isn't the hero of the book. It has no hero, Marlow is really just the narrator. It's completely different than in Apocalypse Now, where Willard really does meet your definition of a hero since in the end he ends up killing Kurtz. In Heart of Darkness Kurtz dies on his own, Marlow does not cause it.

A hero doesn't necessarily need to "act." I think you're using a different definition than I am. I just mean someone who can represent ideals in some manner or area, or, as I said earlier, someone who is "more good than bad." So someone who is relatable. (In other words, we all are or can be heroes - at least those of us who are decent human beings.) That's basically the bare minimum. Marlowe fits that, though I admit not by too much. And that doesn't require action. Of course, his lack of action makes him bad as a protaganist, and makes the book pretty shit in general, but that's a different issue.

Yes, I am using the definition that literary scholars and people who actually know what they're talking about are using, you're using some arbitrary thing that you think is required to make "good art"