/lit/ - Literature

File: 47 KB, 600x450, 8974264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:07:51 2011 No.1881154 [Reply] [Original]

What you are about to read may appear to be trolling, I assure you, it is not.

For the sake of the scenario, and to create a situation in which this could happen, let us say that we have someone in our life that asks us the following question:

"What do you get from reading that you would not otherwise obtain from, let's say, watching a movie, or playing a video game?"

I personally do the latter, and I hate reading, I just wanted to hear the other side's argument.

My side is pretty simple, I think movies are more neurologically engaging (so are video games), and in video games you can also engage in friendly competition (input - output psychology). Also, anything that you would find in a book is instilled in the context of my choice of entertainment.

I know it's an opinion, but what would you say to the question?

>inb4people are mad for no reason and sage this possibly constructive thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:08:51 2011 No.1881160 im mad bc animae

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:11:51 2011 No.1881168 Ok, let me ask you this before we even get the ball rolling on this argument. Make a list of say 15 books you have read. Also, if you had picked a picture of almost any other anime I would have just saged for your pic but Lain is actually OK.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:19:51 2011 No.1881199

>>1881168
Fucking this.

We will be able to tell by your list very easily what the problem is, because honestly most of us, or me personally, get the exact same amount of engagement from music, movies, and books. If you are not engaged by all of them then it's probably one of several things. For you I'll make a list.

1. The books you have read are crap that wouldn't engage anyone.
2. You can't list 15 books you've read, because you are a dumbass, arguing that books sux when you haven't even read them.
3. You haven't found the right type of book for you, some people enjoy fantasy/scifi, some people enjoy horror, some philosophy, some people like the classics.
4. You are some retard from /v/ trying to stir up shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:22:51 2011 No.1881215 >>1881199 i can hear you grinding your teeth through my monitor so buttvexed

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:26:51 2011 No.1881229

>>1881215
I'm not even mad actually! I just know deep down that everyone needs to find that one author that really speaks directly to them, and obviously OP hasn't found it yet, I want to help guide him on a journey and show him that /lit/ actually can be engaging and good and that he is mistaken, but he has to let me.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:26:51 2011 No.1881231

Each artform reaches a side of our perception. Books are the much more abstract in that they deal with words alone, not with pictures, music or anything else. Only with books you can get this much abstraction into the realm of language.

Say, for instance, you start reading a dialogue but with no description of the characters or the surroundings and they are talking about something that could be politics, women or suicide. This multiple interpretation scenario would be very hard (not to say impossible) to be translated into a movie or a videogame. This is just one of many examples, from inner monologues to the book's lenght, there are plenty of things exclusive to literature. Any modern book will give you much more to think about in terms of freedom in the use of words. I'd say much like photography killed portrait painting and made artists turn to the paint itself, literature turned over to its own making and made evident what you still can see: that it's special.

People tend to think that books are special because of the story, because of what happends, but what really stands out with literature is how the author mold the words around what it is happening, if it is happening at all.

Even though we have the illusion that all artforms are interchangeable, each one stands out by its own technique. A writer is a writer inside his mother's womb, you can't stop an artist's drive, so adressing it like you did makes absolutely no sense to me.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:28:51 2011 No.1881239

>>1881168

In no particular order; ten latest, I don't read that often to remember 15 off my head.

The End of Faith - Harris
The Stranger - Camus
Brave New World - Huxley
The Selfish Gene - Dawkins
A History of God - Armstrong
The Metamorphosis - Kafka
Atlas Shrugged - Rand
God is not Great - Hitchens
One hundred years of solitude - Marquez
Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Nietzsche

>>	✿Fab✿ !!uPAynS9nRTz Mon Jun 27 00:29:42 2011 No.1881243 Lain is great thank you for spreading open-mindedness about other forms of art

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:29:51 2011 No.1881242 >>1881229 >>let me in he wants to fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:31:51 2011 No.1881247 >>1881199 I don't go to /v/, it seems like /b/ with a video game mentality. >>1881215 I agree, no need to insult people based on a trivial opinion like taste.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:33:51 2011 No.1881255

I think video games have more potential to tell an amazing story than they currently do.

There aren't many, if ANY video games with a story so deep and thought provoking that people playing it compare it to reading a good novel.

This doesn't mean that they can't, they just haven't been taken seriously by serious writers yet.

Alan Wake was close (up til the end, shit got all kinds of derp), but no game has really captured that essence yet.

Yet.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:34:51 2011 No.1881259

>neurologically
>input - output psychology
anyway, I find all mediums to have the potential to provide something that no other medium can.

Books for me are good at providing thought-provoking narratives that allow me to can reflect upon with my own life, in an overarching or specific perspective of it.

Literature probably does this best over other mediums because it uses language (as opposed to fine art) to form complex ideas, is without as many external factors that effect the material (anyone can pick up a pen and write for what they believe without tv or game ratings to worry), requires no more than one person to make, but also must face relatively high standards to reach acclaim. There are however, examples and exceptions in everything, but the general landscape is as as such.

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Mon Jun 27 00:34:51 2011 No.1881263 thread severely lacking some deep&edgy

>>	✿Fab✿ !!uPAynS9nRTz Mon Jun 27 00:35:42 2011 No.1881272 >>1881263 are you mad at me or something

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:35:51 2011 No.1881275

Ok, I got this. Have you ever played Europa Universalis 2? (or 3 I guess)

Well, in that game there's a system of inflation and minting; the more money you mint, the more inflation you get. From a learning perspective, you learn that inflation brings the government money, but it debases the currency already in circulation. Fascinating, yeah?

But it's not real. It's a simulation. A bad simulation. Economics isn't just about inflation and minting, it's about 10,000 other things which you can only learn of in two ways: by experiencing those things in real life, or by reading about them. The best literature is a superior reflection of real life compared to television or videogames. TV and the vidya have limits; literature doesn't.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:36:51 2011 No.1881277

>>1881239

I think you read to either strengthen or broaden your opinion about a particular viewpoint or subject and yet when you dive into it you eventually get bored because it reinforces what you've already figured it out for yourself; thus, continuing to read bores you.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:41:51 2011 No.1881299
File: 127 KB, 682x480, wired.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Lain

Studies have been done which show your brain cell count generally increases from reading, as opposed to declining as a result of television. I don't particularly think any medium has a genuine entertainment advantage over the other, but brain capacity is worth taking into account.

>sage

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:42:51 2011 No.1881300 >>1881277 The concept and mystery of God is probably the most interesting many people. It is not repetitive because it does not reinforce, as you say, it makes you think and intuitively connect "the dots" of metaphysical paradigm.

castiel !C.Z5K.oPig Mon Jun 27 00:43:51 2011 No.1881305

This might be an immature thought, but I read so I can better express myself. The manipulation of words is an art I can emulate throughout daily life, through written word, 4chan posts, or the depth to which I'm able to speak and pass along ideas.

That doesn't translate well to movies or video games, even comics, because of the nature of the medium being more intensive in some ways (visual) than others (verbal, written)

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:49:51 2011 No.1881316 Books allow you to impart so much more detail and information to the audience while also leaving a lot more to their imagination Even tv and film are different enough in format to be hard to compare directly, literature is another dimension entirely

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:50:51 2011 No.1881318 >>1881300 For that, I mean to say it reinforces suspicions and doubts unless he was still fairly new to the idea. It could be as such that while reading into said authors he would think to himself, 'I had a feeling this, that, and the other'.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:50:54 2011 No.1881319 >>1881299 >brain cell count generally increases from reading >brain cell count generally increases >brain cell count increases >mfw thats rich as fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:55:51 2011 No.1881329 File: 289 KB, 509x382, trollain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1881319 >can't prove me wrong

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:55:51 2011 No.1881332

>>1881305
But just as books may help you become better at expressing yourself through written language, don't film, print, cartoons, comic books, and plays also communicate with the audience? This is called cinematography, graphic design, animation, panel-sequencing (I don't know the proper word for techniques in making comic book panels sensible), and speech, all of which you can learn from their respective mediums just as you do with language and books.

Sure, you might not be making comics or films as often as you write, but don't forget you also get better at comprehension, interpretation, and appreciation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 00:58:54 2011 No.1881343 >>1881329 show me the research that demonstrates reading can cause CNS neurons to proliferate. dont worry, ill wait here.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 01:01:51 2011 No.1881351

>>1881329
sorry, but to be honest, medicine does not know enough about the brain to validate those "cell-count" arguments. Read far enough or at least keep an ear open on recent issues about the brain and you will realize how little anyone knows about anything.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 01:03:51 2011 No.1881355

>>1881332
>comprehension, interpretation, and appreciation.

This goes for anything. You could sit on your ass and just think and you'd gain the same comprehension for life as you did by watching tv or playing a videogame. The skills and abilities developed by doing those things are .01% of the skills and abilities you'd develop by reading.

castiel !C.Z5K.oPig Mon Jun 27 01:03:51 2011 No.1881356

>>1881332
I feel like the application of those skills is lost on everyday life though, at least to the degree an understanding of the written language allows us to manipulate language and ideas for ourselves and others. An appreciation of those arts are useful but the transition to practical purposes outside of those mediums has less practical value than just words.

Actually, I think could be an argument made over the practicality of words, versus mediums like film which engage multiple senses (and thus, can't pay attention to any one in the same magnitude)

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 01:10:51 2011 No.1881373

In video games and movies, what is happening is pretty readily accessible. You can see what's going on, hear what's going on. While there may be deeper meaning, because of the definitiveness of everything -- being defined as you see it -- there's very little room for interpretation.

Because literature is communicated through language alone, it allows for a greater range of interpretation and mental stimulation.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 01:27:51 2011 No.1881407

I've read, somewhere, an essay that likened literature to a whisper, compared to the stimulation one gets from movies, television, or video games. And yes, they do have greater energy and and can make a novel's descriptions into vivid scenes. And I enjoy both movies and video games very much, as well. There's been games and movies that have had the same effect on me as a novel.

But it's the words that makes literature different from those other media. It permits a great deal of information to be delivered, and makes palpable abstract feelings and concepts. Through words, a writer can create complex things with resounding exactness. At the same time, though, writing allows a flexibility in interpreting what is said. Based on the same passage, two people could imagine two unique images of what is being described. So in a way, words are a manipulable conduit between the writer and the reader, and the writer can arrange it in myriad ways, for myriad purposes.

Admittedly, movies surpass text in how it can vivify stories with dominion over so much more sensory detail. It can bring alive people, which makes it an ideal medium for reconstructing historical events to make people feel it as it happens in the moment. Video games have the advantage of interactivity and same control over multimedia, which immerses the player into it. I can't tell you how much a game like Mother 3 captivated me with its style, its characters, and its young blond protagonist. But even with the sensual panoply of such media as those, reading is an experience in of itself, unique from either of them. It all boils down to the words.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 01:55:51 2011 No.1881453
File: 8 KB, 201x236, 1308931822867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What the fuck is going on here, I'm dissapoint at you /lit/. Are you seriously defending books because "they make you smart and understand shit"?

Who the hell cares? I'm certainly not reading books to exercise my brain even if it eventually does. Same goes for the writers. I can assure you they weren't trying to teach anything, they were trying to tell something. They had the urge to tell something and they did and we have the urge to listen to them whatever that implies.

It's the same fucking thing with movies, music, painting, videogames... Someone is trying to tell something and you'd like to listen. There are different ways to tell and different ways to listen, none of them exclude the other.

>movies are more neurologically engaging
>books make you smarter and television makes you dumber

First, that's a contradiction right there. Second, don't talk like that of what you don't know. Next time, use the word "psychological" instead, because everyone will know what you mean (including you, that's my point). Third, that's ridiculous. Mental inertia makes you dumber, mental stimulation makes you smarter and there is no reason to relate those things with those media, that's full of prejudice. None of that makes your brain cell count increase though. Forth and most important of all is that this is missing the point. Let me illustrate this with a classic 4chan greentext impersonation:

>hurr durr evry1 should go 4 the thing with moar shit happenin so they're brain is stimulated, that's y we play vidya insted of boring reading

pic related, I'm slightly mad, just as much as his expression

These:
>>1881231
>>1881407

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 02:09:51 2011 No.1881480

>>1881453
>It's the same fucking thing with movies, music, painting, videogames... Someone is trying to tell something
Not always. Does every fucking painting, movie, videogame under the sun have to TELL you something? Can't it just be a beautiful piece of work for the sake of its own craftsmanship?

What the fuck does space invaders have to say about anything? Fucking hell, kill yourself; it's people like you can't appreciate the very things that go into making an art form great.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 02:16:51 2011 No.1881495

So guys, what did the guy who made tetris want to TELL US? What did Mozart want to TELL US? What did Leonardo want to TELL US with the Mona Lisa? What does An Occurrence at Owl Creek TELL US?

Heaven forbid any of these guys just wanted to make great works, tell great stories, make great games, paint brilliant paintings, write beautiful music, of course not!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:18:51 2011 No.1881499 I'll post the same thing I posted last time this stupid argument came up http://bartelby.org/123/62.html Housman, bitches

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:26:51 2011 No.1881520 >>1881407 I like you. Do something important.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:27:51 2011 No.1881525 I AM MAD FOR NO REASON AND SAGING THIS POTENTIALLY CONSTRUCTIVE THREAD

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 02:29:51 2011 No.1881528

>>1881231
>Each artform reaches a side of our perception.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? That radio reaches our fucking ears while paintings reach our eyes? Well no shit, but they both end up reaching our BRAIN.

>Books are the much more abstract in that they deal with words alone, not with pictures, music or anything else. Only with books you can get this much abstraction into the realm of language.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? How is a word any more abstract than a picture, or music, or anything else? How do you think about pictures, books, musics, or anything else other than IN WORDS TO BEGIN WITH? And even then, what the fuck is so abstract about neuron fibres firing in your brain? How the fuck is any of that abstract?

>you start reading a dialogue but with no description of the characters or the surroundings and they are talking about something that could be politics, women or suicide

>This multiple interpretation scenario would be very hard (not to say impossible) to be translated into a movie or a videogame

WOW, THEY DIDN'T DESCRIBE THE CHARACTERS FOR US THE WHOLE PROJECT IS TOTALLY FUCKED. Guess what you stupid moron, you could easily, easily translate all of that BY SIMPLY PUTTING THAT TEXT ON A SCREEN, for video-games or movies. It wouldn't be very desirable I should think, BUT IT WOULD BE BY NO MEANS EXCLUSIVE TO BOOKS. OH WAIT, THAT'S BECAUSE BOOKS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TEXTUALITY.

Fucking hell

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:30:51 2011 No.1881534 >>1881528 deep and edgy is a total faggot, but he's right

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:32:51 2011 No.1881538 >>1881528 Ugh, calm down. It'd be better for everyone if you'd critique someone's post without being so mad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:33:51 2011 No.1881543 sage because I hate the fact that you think this thread could be "constructive". it's shit.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:36:51 2011 No.1881551

>>1881538
>Ugh, calm down. It'd be better for everyone if you'd critique someone's post without being so mad.

Speak for yourself, I find his mad entertaining. You're just butthurt because he hurt your feelings, make a counter-argument or stfu.

who'd know I'd end up siding with a triptard?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:36:51 2011 No.1881553

>>1881538

Admittedly, though, you're right on that last part. As for the whole abstraction thing, books can deal with abstract things more readily because, well, that's what they're often written for. They're good for portraying information that isn't directly sensory.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:37:51 2011 No.1881556

I honestly don't see how movies or video games are more neurologically stimulating. You're going to have to have real points, with more than just "I think this" to make this thread anything but a bunch of retards claiming something is better because "I think it is."

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:39:51 2011 No.1881559

>>1881528
u mad
now that that's out of the way...

>Each artform reaches a side of our perception.

Music does not change its listener as words change their reader. You can listen to all the music you want, but even if it's trying to somehow magically communicate to you, "Kill white people.", you're never going to interpret it the same as when a novelist writes "Kill white people."

>on abstractness
If I see white people being killed in a painting, it's simply not the same as seeing a verbal description of that painting, even if the verbal description somehow describes the painting exactly.

>on texts onscreen
Once you start putting texts on screen, they stop being movies or videogames and start being texts. You fucking faggot. Holy shit, you are so mad.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:42:51 2011 No.1881565

Imagination. Books are ambiguous. They create a world that is constructed entirely in your head using your memories. This allows for complete immersion via your imagination. This can be achieved in movies and games but it's more rare than in books. Also they're easier to build up over large time spans with a lot of information that would require huge production times and costs that aren't economically viable in games.

The problem with books is that they require patience. The beauty of games and movies is their accessibility and short time spans.

tl;dr Games/movies are like a quick 45 second masturbation and books are a long drawn out affair where you cum with the power of 1000 suns.
tl;dr2 I can't write/explain shit and have given up

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 02:44:51 2011 No.1881570

>>1881559
>Music does not change its listener as words change their reader.
You are a fucking retard.

>even if it's trying to somehow magically communicate to you
>doesn't know how to type "kill white people" lyrics into google
You are a fucking retard

>you're never going to interpret it the same as when a novelist writes "Kill white people."
A writer told me to kill white people, a rap artist told me to kill white people. Means the same to me, fucking dullard.

>If I see white people being killed in a painting, it's simply not the same as seeing a verbal description of that painting, even if the verbal description somehow describes the painting exactly.
No shit, but how is any of that abstract and not just a different manner of mechanical processing, fucking retard

>Once you start putting texts on screen, they stop being movies or videogames and start being texts
You are a fucking retard

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:46:51 2011 No.1881573

Regardless of content (for I think all fools who think for one minute that the pleasures of 'literature' are somehow higher than that of movies or television), literature is an entirely different medium.

I could not give less fucks about the plots or characters or morals or ideas in a book v. that in a film. Some films have more intelligence in a minute than entire novels (and I mean true 'literary' novels) in 200 pages.

What matters, and what sets literature apart as significant, independent of other media and perhaps more so, is that the experience of the written word is a profoundly unique experience. Which is why style--not content--is of the utmost importance.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:54:51 2011 No.1881590

>>1881570
>ad hominem

>ad hominem

>implying rap is not a text. We're talking about music without words, you dense goof.

>You're interpreting and processing completely different things; it's like comparing seeing a bicycle to seeing the words "a two wheeled device generally pedaled, of metal, with many chains, bolts and screws all running along an aluminum frame"

>ad hominem

Well I'm glad you're being thorough in your refutations.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 02:58:51 2011 No.1881597 >>1881570 Oh look when D&E argues about music and movies, and art in general he fails miserably. Better just stick to your comfort-zone faggot.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 03:01:51 2011 No.1881602

>>1881590
You're not wrong because you're a fucking retard, that's not an ad hominem.
I'm not interested in wasting any more time on your stupid shit. Let me make this clear for your retarded ass: ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS WORDS, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MUSIC, BOOKS, MOVIES, OR YOUR DOWNS SYNDROME. JUST TRY TO THINK ABOUT MUSIC OR THE EXPERIENCE OF MUSIC WITHOUT WORDS, YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER. YOU CAN'T.

SO LET'S GIVE YOUR RETARDED BULLSHIT A DOUBLE-TAKE WITH THIS THRILLING INFORMATION IN MIND:

>WORDS are the much more abstract in that they deal with WORDS alone, not with WORDS, WORDS or anything else. Only with WORDS you can get this much abstraction into the realm of language.

WOW, WHAT A SHOCKING REVELATION. THIS BUNCH OF WORDS IS MORE ABSTRACT THAN ANOTHER BUNCH OF WORDS, AMAZING. TOO BAD IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH BOOKS THOUGH :(

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:06:51 2011 No.1881616

>>1881559
You're just absolutely wrong about everything you say.

"Text" gets used in comp-rhet to essentially mean anything that can be "read" (i.e. interpreted).

Anything can "say" anything about anything because authorial intent doesn't matter. Space Invaders has a lot to fucking say about what it meant to be a human in the 1970s.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:06:51 2011 No.1881617
File: 1.48 MB, 649x477, lightning.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

so thread consensus is that each artistic medium has it's own aesthetic, and that writing has the flexibility and precision of words used to its greatest extent as an art form.

cool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:06:51 2011 No.1881620 File: 28 KB, 316x475, 18384848.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1881602 Burroughs must have had you in mind when he wrote this one, D&E.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:11:51 2011 No.1881631 >>1881616 just because you can't infer whether text is being used to mean "text" or "text" doesn't make him wrong

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 03:18:51 2011 No.1881642 >>1881617 >each artistic medium has it's own aesthetic Only at most in a terminological, vocabulary-oriented sense. I would say that such media simply represent logical form but I'm too tired to talk about it now.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:21:51 2011 No.1881650

The feeling I get during a good book is like the feeling I get from only the best of movies. The most recent example I can think of is the movie Inception, where I was hanging off every word and scene for the whole time... The thing is for me though is that very few movies make me feel that way, but many books make me feel that way, and that is why I like reading books.

Though I do think that good works from any medium can make you feel that feel so I don't really hold one over any of the others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:26:51 2011 No.1881659 >>1881650 If a novel provides the same feelings as does Inception, perhaps there is merit to the claim that films are superior to books...

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:28:51 2011 No.1881662

those who are arguing that videogames don't stimulate or give enough room for imagination have clearly not played enough horror games like Amnesia. On the whole "abstractness" thing, I would recommend Yume Nikki. Both are pretty popular around the boards. Play alone at night with some dedicated time as you would a fine novel. Perhaps you might enjoy either so well, but hopefully the idea gets through.

I do understand where everyone is coming from, but I believe there is potential for videogames to achieve the same, if no more than the games we currently have, kind of abstractness and imagination as literature. However, part of the reason why games don't go these directions is because of the current belief about what games can achieve. I'm lucky enough to have some recommendations and hopefully the barrier can be broken.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:28:51 2011 No.1881664 >>1881659 To be fair, if you like Inception, you shouldn't be reading books, you should be coloring.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 03:30:51 2011 No.1881668

>>1881662
>However, part of the reason why games don't go these directions is because of the current belief about what games can achieve. I'm lucky enough to have some recommendations and hopefully the barrier can be broken.

so tell me, if a game could cure cancer would it be a good game?

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 03:32:51 2011 No.1881673 Guys why hasn't anyone made a shakespeare play out of a chess match?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:37:51 2011 No.1881682

>>1881662

Yeah, I've played Yume Nikki and watched a friend play Amnesia. They're both really great. I always imagine one of Nikki's dreamscapes when I'm daydreaming.

>>1881673

That would actually be pretty cool. You'd probably have to label the pieces, or make custom ones, though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:38:51 2011 No.1881684 >>1881668 ...I guess. It would be good if a game could cure cancer, but if it wasn't entertaining or stimulating in any way, then it would fail as a game. What is your point?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:38:51 2011 No.1881687

>>1881659
I meant that the feeling is interchangeable between mediums, I could say that some movie was so good it was like I was reading game of thrones the whole time.

But I do think that one of the only weakness of films is that studios rarely put out movies that are more than 2 hours or so, which puts limits on the plot in ways that books don't have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:39:51 2011 No.1881690 >>1881673 On it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:39:51 2011 No.1881691 >>1881668 >good there you go again, D&E

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:42:51 2011 No.1881700 >>1881631 Well, I mostly meant he was wrong about music and everything else he said.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 03:43:51 2011 No.1881704

>>1881684
My point is that, much like curing cancer, a great story or the potential to do anything literary, would not make a game good or any even any better as a game. And if you were to say it did you would be making a textual evaluation, not a game evaluation. Games have the potential to be anything, like music, or film, or painting, but there's a very good, well-established function that games achieve. And I specifically use the word 'game' rather than "video game" because there isn't any difference really, a game of chess is a game of chess whether you play it on a computer screen or on a table, games have always been games, video or otherwise, and this talk about games as an emerging medium is just nonsense.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:44:51 2011 No.1881706

>>1881687
The "limits on plot" you're talking about aren't limits at all. You're just judging films by the conventions of novels. Short stories aren't as long as novels, so does that mean they're at a disadvantage? No, they just tell different kinds of stories in different ways.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:47:51 2011 No.1881709

>>1881480
>>1881495
That's exactly my point, actually. It's just that "tell" has different meanings here, apparently. As yourself said later in "tell great stories, make great games". I was just trying to use the word tell and expand to the other artforms. Unlike teaching or explaining, telling doesn't imply much of an intention other than what's being told. In other words, "for the sake of it". I share the very same rage as you do, D&E.

>>1881528
>That radio reaches our fucking ears while paintings reach our eyes? Well no shit, but they both end up reaching our BRAIN.
That too, but it's more complicated than that in my opinion. There is a reason I said "perception" other than the physical sense. Think of it as languages rather than waves in the air. Words are of a perception of their own, a very abstract one that allow us to think things we may not be able to visualize. They all go to our brain, but seeing an apple and reading "apple" are two distinct things.

>How do you think about pictures, books, musics, or anything else other than IN WORDS TO BEGIN WITH?
I don't understand this question much, can't you think of a picture or a sound without associating it with any word? Do you describe things in your head while you see/hear/taste them? And even if you do, it goes from the real world to your brain and then you make it into words. With reading is the opposite, you go from the words to the pictures.

>you could easily, easily translate all of that BY SIMPLY PUTTING THAT TEXT ON A SCREEN
But that's literature, not film... I think it's fairly obvious that by "book" none of us is talking about the physical object, but literature. It doesn't matter if it is on a screen or on paper or if someone is reading to you (although that would imply some acting, which is another art), they are all words.

My first post since>>1881453

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:48:51 2011 No.1881714

>>1881704
I mostly agree, but there is one massive difference between traditional games like chess and videogames: narrative, characterization, plot, setting, and scene.

Video games don't necessarily require another player, and instead rely much more on the conventions of storytelling.

If anything this makes video games much more readable as text than chess, and subsequently less "functional." Or maybe just functional in different ways: the goodness of a game comes from enjoyability, and enjoyability in a contemporary setting has a lot to do with the effectiveness of the storytelling mechanics.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:52:51 2011 No.1881725

>>1881709 here

>>1881559
>Music does not change its listener as words change their reader
Agreed. But books don't change its reader's mood as much as music. That's the beauty of it. Pictures are the most intantaneous, words are the most clear and music is the most, hmm, emotional I guess. No, I'm not saying books and pictures can't change your mood, read what I said.

And D&E seems to don't quite get anything that isn't words apparently.

Even something as simple as a comic book made by the best artist and the best writer is still missing its strongest value. Some people can't watch a movie past its visuals, some people can't watch it beyond its script being told onscreen. There is much more to these artforms.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:53:51 2011 No.1881729

> you would be making a textual evaluation, not a game evaluation.
Could you give more specific examples? If a game involved a story, would that be a textual evaluation or a game evaluation? And say if the choices you make effect the storyline, what then? And would it matter what sort of evaluation you use? In the end, what you experience is coming out of only one medium. If a game provided "textual qualities", it is still a game and you are experiencing those qualities through one. Therefore, it is possible for that game to achieve those qualities.

>there's a very good, well-established function that games achieve.
Could you state this explicitly for me?

>And I specifically use the word 'game' rather than "video game" because there isn't any difference really...
I guess I agree, depending on what you answer to the above quote. "Games" would be as broad a term as "Literature" or "Fine-art", as under them would be even more categories and genre that do describe more specific experiences or constraints to the medium.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:54:51 2011 No.1881730 File: 12 KB, 196x226, 1308872257622.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1881725 here again Going to sleep. I like to be right on the internet before going to bed. Good night and see you tomorrow.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 03:56:51 2011 No.1881734
File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1288342840815.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Books generally contain more information than films or music. Even the longer screenplays for said films are relatively short compared to many books. (One could argue that the pictures make up for the gap in information, but it's not the same thing.) Anyone who has ever read a book and later viewed the film based on the book will tell you the book is more detailed.

Also, there are more books (in their greater detail than films and videogames) out there than there than films or videogames. This is partly because it is easier for an individual to write a book than make a film or game, and also because writing had a head start over the other mediums.

I'm currently in the middle of reading "The Federalist," the series of essays published by Madison, Hamilton and Jay regarding the United States Constitution. It is roughly 500 pages long. No one is going to make a film that covers that 500 pages in detail, or a videogame about it. Some of us are into books not just for their entertainment value, but also for the knowledge they impart.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:00:51 2011 No.1881744

>>1881734
You're absolutely wrong about books being more detailed.

The reason people say this is because they're aware of the act of reading the details in ways that don't occur when viewing a film.

If you're telling me that a written description can in any way be more detailed than even a still image from a film, you're really, really mistaken.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:03:51 2011 No.1881747 >>1881744 I think he's referring to textual details, not actual details. That is, if you read a book about something, you'd get interesting ideas that can't really be conveyed through a film format, and vice versa

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:04:51 2011 No.1881749

>>1881704

Ah, well I can see where you're coming from with that. Though, I have to say that what >>1881714
is talking about is the point I wanted to bring up in particular. The storytelling part of it factors into how someone enjoys a game, which I consider the primary goal of games in general. It helps as a context in which the player goes about actually playing the videogame. It's what made the first Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros. remarkable, even if their stories (being pretty loose for the latter game here) are rudimentary. And they were pivotal into making video games feasibly marketable. It isn't often the main thing that makes people want to get a videogame, but it helps to take it beyond an exercise in hand eye coordination.

I'll come back to see if this thread's still afloat. In any case, to get a better understanding on your point of view on games, what do you think their main function is?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:04:51 2011 No.1881751

>>1881744
Not who you responded to but, he did mention this:
>(One could argue that the pictures make up for the gap in information, but it's not the same thing.)
And by not the same thing I think he meant as in, not abstract conceptual information needed to form complex ideas like politics or economics, at least not as explicitly.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:06:51 2011 No.1881754

>>1881747
I still think even that's wrong. Especially the idea that something "can't be conveyed through film."

Sure, there might not be the same kind of narrative voice, but sometimes there is. Spalding Gray's films are a great example of this: a film that does absolutely the same things as a text. In fact, it does more, and surpasses plain text's abilities to affect the reader and convey ideas.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:10:51 2011 No.1881758

>>1881751
>>1881734

Another point of contention: the fact that "no one is going to" make a film that covers those 500 pages in detail has nothing to do with the ability of film as a medium, it has to do with the business of film.

The possibility of a thing being written and the possibility of a thing being published are two different things. The same goes for film.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:11:51 2011 No.1881759

>>1881709
>Think of it as languages rather than waves in the air
It's not a matter of languages, it's signs, and that's all there is, signs.

>can't you think of a picture or a sound without associating it with any word?
It's not a matter of association, it's a matter of representation. And representation is always a matter of signs. You cannot give me any thought or talk about any thought, that is not a sign.

>seeing an apple and reading "apple" are two distinct things.
What's distinct about the fact that all that's happening in either cases is that signs are interpreted. I mean, besides the physical process.

>But that's literature, not film
So you think old films that had intertitles in them were literature? You think that any time someone shows text on a film screen the audience goes from watching a film to reading literature? Am I getting that right?

>>1881714
>narrative, characterization, plot, setting, and scene.
These are all textual elements, not game mechanics.

>Video games don't necessarily require another player, and instead rely much more on the conventions of storytelling.
You can play chess by yourself, you can play scrabble by yourself, you can play simon says games by yourself, you can play snakes and ladders by yourself. This really isn't anything new.

>If anything this makes video games much more readable as text than chess
It doesn't make video games anything. It makes the text of video games, not the games themselves, likes the texts of books and not the books themselves, much more readable.

>>1881725
>books don't change its reader's mood as much as music.
You must read some shitty books

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:11:51 2011 No.1881760

With cinema, I love it as much as I love books so there's no dilemma there for me. I think both are very valid artforms.

Video games I believe have the potential to be great and artistic but haven't quite reached the point where such games are being produced regularly. However, I think we are soon approaching that point as the video game independent market is starting to kick-off and developers are starting to realise what better things they can achieve with games.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:13:51 2011 No.1881764

>You must read some shitty books
An elaboration on this; just because you are incapable of deriving the same intensity of an aesthetic experience as the rest of us does not make the aesthetic object have any less potential for such an experience. That's your own inferior physiology's problem.

>>1881729
>Could you give more specific examples?
"I loved Shadow of The Colossus' story"

>If a game involved a story, would that be a textual evaluation or a game evaluation?
All games have narratives whether they like it or not. That depends on how you evaluate the game, the criterion under which you evaluate it.

>And say if the choices you make effect the storyline, what then?
Ever read a choose-your-own-adventure text? You're free to do a textual evaluation of it, but there's nothing special about it (besides the fact that no great writers have written texts whose plot is determined by the reader)

>And would it matter what sort of evaluation you use?
One promotes good textual development, the other promotes good game development. Maybe some people prefer good textual development, but myself and everyone else serious about video-games prefer good game development.

>what you experience is coming out of only one medium. If a game provided "textual qualities", it is still a game and you are experiencing those qualities through one. Therefore, it is possible for that game to achieve those qualities.
I never said you couldn't, just that it wouldn't be any better a game for it, which it wouldn't. Similar to how if you slapped a hello-kitty sticker on a plastic violin, it wouldn't make the violin any better a violin. You might love hello-kitty/good stories a lot, but that doesn't make the quality of the violin any better.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:21:51 2011 No.1881770
File: 1.36 MB, 449x1823, 6423525252.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1881744
You can only convey so much with visual details; you can't impart complex thoughts or policies in the same amount of detail, at least not in a short amount of time, with film. You also, stated I was wrong, but offered no rebuttal to my point on The Federalist. Certainly a film would be more effective in depicting, say, a sunset, but complicated ideals need more than just pictures.

A good example would be Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series. While it spans roughly 13 hours, it still does not even approach the amount of detail that countless texts, regarding the same issues presented, have.

Pic related: it's an OC comic I made about Carl Sagan.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:22:51 2011 No.1881772

>>1881759
Your book/text distinction here is a little bit problematic and annoying.

When I say video game, what do you think I'm referring to the physical cartridge? Of course I'm talking about it as text.

And of course those are textual elements; that was my point.

Also, I'm not saying that single-player games are new, I'm saying that advanced storytelling in games is likely a result of the massive surge in number of single-player games.

I'm not arguing with you D&E, I actually agree with most of what you're saying. Stop nitpicking and relying on semantics.

Language is just a system of symbols anyway, so don't presume to tell me what my words mean.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:23:51 2011 No.1881773

>>1881749
>The storytelling part of it factors into how someone enjoys a game, which I consider the primary goal of games in general.
I like how you say someone as though that's a general statement. Not everyone (i.e. me and anyone else who is a video-games enthusiast or anyone in general who has their valuational ducks in a row) cares all that much about story; whether it be in literature, film, music (lyrical content) or video-games, because while those things are influential in determining whether one particular instantiation of any of those media is aesthetically appealing to us, they're not indicative of the quality of any instantiation. Two games can have the same story but be rendered in entirely different, mechanics better or worse. The same way two writers can deal with the same story better or worse, or two painters can paint the same landscape better or worse. Of course, for people who aren't capable of appreciating the tools of the trade of each respective medium, clearly the only things that would appeal to them are the most obvious general elements that don't require any expertise to understand, and thus don't give any insight into the quality of a piece (e.g. story, emotional content, anecdotal stuff "hurp durp it's our wedding song", etc).

>In any case, to get a better understanding on your point of view on games, what do you think their main function is?
Enjoyment of course, more formally to contribute to human flourishing. But there's a reason human beings don't have one single action for pursuing enjoyment.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:25:51 2011 No.1881775

>>1881770
You're still absolutely wrong. One could make a film in which a narrator reads an entire book over series of related images, interspersed by scenes, accompanied by musical accompaniment.

This isn't an issue of whether the medium of film "can" do something a book can, because absolutely it can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:27:51 2011 No.1881777 >>1881773 What are you even trying to argue, D&E? You're just disagreeing with everything.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:27:51 2011 No.1881778

>>1881772
>advanced storytelling in games is likely a result of the massive surge in number of single-player games.
No, it's most positively the shift from the socially constituted coin-operated arcade machine to the solitary home console. How many arcade games do you see with the sort of storytelling you're talking about?

>Stop nitpicking and relying on semantics.
Where did I do that?

>Language is just a system of symbols anyway, so don't presume to tell me what my words mean.
No, it's a system of signs. Symbols are signs.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:28:51 2011 No.1881779

>>1881758
The business of the thing is something that does matter. If no one's ever going to make a film of it (for financial, or whatever reasons), and to an extraordinarily detailed extent (and be honest, there will never be a perfectly accurate film made of every single book ever written, or article, for that matter) the business climate does affect the medium.

Just because the film industry 'could' make a perfectly accurate film depicting the 500 pages of "The Federalist", doesn't mean that it ever will. We're not talking about possible potential (that you and I both know will never happen), we're talking about how it actually is.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:30:51 2011 No.1881780

>>1881778
That's part of it too, yes. But coin-operated games are still story-driven.

>Where did I do that?

>These are all textual elements, not game mechanics.

>It doesn't make video games anything. It makes the text of video games, not the games themselves, likes the texts of books and not the books themselves, much more readable.

>No, it's a system of signs. Symbols are signs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:30:51 2011 No.1881782 >>1881777 Behold, the veil is pierced!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:32:51 2011 No.1881783 >>1881779 I thought we were discussing what the medium can and cant do. Whether or not Hollywood will fund it or not has nothing to do with the abilities of the medium.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:33:51 2011 No.1881785

>>1881775
Some people have been proven to be better visual learners (I'm assuming in your "film" there would be narration echoing the ideas of the book it's based on). Some individuals simply retain information that is read better than if they listen to it being spoken.

Making films is also more cumbersome and less accessible to most individuals. Making films takes lots of money; writing a book (essentially) only takes time. In this sense, literature presents a more level playing field, where potentially anyone can put forth their thoughts.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:36:51 2011 No.1881787

I want a thread where D&E fucking writes a book on his viewpoints, his arguments are always so in depth. I would love to see D&E just do a thing where he goes down and tells us his entire position on all of literary theory, and philosophy, I think it would be interesting.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:37:51 2011 No.1881788

>>1881783
What it can and can't do is limited by many things, including: finance, time, detail, patience by viewers, and other things. If you really want to put forth a solid thesis regarding the matter, perhaps you should drop the straw man arguments you're using. You're claiming to fully address my points in the context I put them in when you actually haven't.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:38:51 2011 No.1881789

>>1881785
>Some people have been proven to be better visual learners (I'm assuming in your "film" there would be narration echoing the ideas of the book it's based on). Some individuals simply retain information that is read better than if they listen to it being spoken.

No, I mean the film itself would just be the full text of the book. And I'm not sure how the ability of individuals to retain information plays into whether or not something is doable, especially since people learn in all sorts of ways and no one is necessarily better.

>Making films is also more cumbersome and less accessible to most individuals. Making films takes lots of money; writing a book (essentially) only takes time. In this sense, literature presents a more level playing field, where potentially anyone can put forth their thoughts.

I'd say you're close to being right, but you're still not. It seems like you're talking about studio-funded films. One person with a basic camera and basic editing software can make a film. Something doesn't have to come out in a theater for it to be a film. Also, if you're going to take the medium in the context of its industry, there are many ways in which big-name publishing is not a level playing field.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:39:51 2011 No.1881790

>>1881780
>But coin-operated games are still story-driven.
No, they're not. THE HINT IS IN THE NAME. They're driven by money, BY COIN OPERATION. People didn't flood into arcades to pay and play for space invader's story. And it's certainly not why they came back again and again. Unlike with console games, where you don't have to pay each fucking time you want to play through it. Of course, hardly anyone who hasn't played arcade games (and not on an emulator where if you lose you simply pop another credit with a keypress and unwittingly take the entire challenge out of a game that's structurally designed to around that whole mechanism - to keep you paying money to play by providing a challenge that's just about surmountable without being a matter of repetition (this is what churning credits into the machine makes it)) actually can grasp that. So you get home console games that try to give you a singular more conventional story-equivalent type of experience. Same goes for the beginnings of film, people wouldn't go to the movies for a comprehensive narrative experience, they went for curiosities, freak-shows, and so on. It's only later that the emphasis shifted to story-driven filmmaking.

>These are all textual elements, not game mechanics.

>It doesn't make video games anything. It makes the text of video games, not the games themselves, likes the texts of books and not the books themselves, much more readable.

>No, it's a system of signs. Symbols are signs.

All of these are valid points that I've made.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:40:51 2011 No.1881791

>>1881788
I'm not going to argue that the business doesn't matter for a lot of separate reasons, but whether or not someone "would" make a film of a certain kind has nothing to do with whether or not someone "could."

Eccentric millionaire makes whatever kind of film he damn well pleases. Your argument falls apart.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:43:51 2011 No.1881792

>>1881790
That doesn't change the fact that coin-operated games still have story. There is a rudimentary narrative that the player takes part in. Story-driven game.

The game isn't "about" money.

And of course it's a system of challenges--that's why it's a game. If you'd actually read my posts you'd see that I'm saying that games, as a thing, have begun to adopt storytelling mechanisms, plot mechanics, and cinematic techniques. Of course they're still games; that's beside the point.

You are literally making zero points.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:45:51 2011 No.1881793

>>1881791

There aren't enough eccentric millionaires in the world to counter-act the effect of individuals who are less well off and can create books. I see your point of argumentation, but sadly it relies on a world that could be, rather than one that actually is, or ever will be, for that matter.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:47:51 2011 No.1881794

>>1881790
>So you get home console games that try to give you a singular more conventional story-equivalent type of experience.
Let me elaborate on this just a little bit more, although nothing I've said in this thread is news. So you get home console games, whose production is motivated and guided by an ENTIRE shift of market focus. Instead of having to design a game that keeps you paying to play, something that by its nature is in a sense a great game (because surely, all the best games are games we play over and over, right? I'm not of course saying that every arcade game ever made was pure gold, just that the design philosophy behind them was admirable and promoted skillful, lasting production to a certain degree) developers now have to design a game that simply has to sell (and sell big), something that the individual buys, consumes and moves on to buy and consume something else; Late Market Capitalism 101.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:47:51 2011 No.1881795

>>1881793
It doesn't rely on anything. The point is whether or not film is capable of something as a medium. As in, "What can a film do?" not "Would this film get funded?"

I could tell you a hundred reasons why your book won't get published, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to write.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:48:51 2011 No.1881796 >>1881792 Shut up you stupid pissant, you think I actually give a shit about a singlem solitary, mind-numbing thing you're saying or anything you even have to say?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:49:51 2011 No.1881797

>>1881794
But that skill is still set in the context of a basic story. As someone before said, otherwise it'd be a hand-eye coordination test you have to pay for.

Essentially it's back to the idea of signs. If you tell someone the white triangle represents a spaceship, they'll be more apt to pay it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:50:51 2011 No.1881798 >>1881796 Shitposting 101

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:52:51 2011 No.1881799

In the end, we are comparing very disparate things. Music will never be like literature, and I would never want it to be.

I have often posed hypothetical questions to myself, as I am sure many of you also have. Would I choose to be without hearing, or without my sight? I could never imagine a world where I would not be able to hear Bach, or Saint-Saens; and I also would not enjoy a world where I cannot read Shakespeare or Hemingway. Sure there are those who would say if I were blind I could simply 'listen' to the read works of such authors, but it would not be the same. I could not interact in the same way; marking the pages while simultaneously listening to the wondrous background. Humans have multiple senses, and also need to interact with them in multiple ways. I wouldn't want to lose my hearing to spite my eyes, or vice versa, for that matter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:53:51 2011 No.1881801 >>1881796 Once again, words fail the tripfag.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 04:54:51 2011 No.1881802

>>1881797
>But that skill is still set in the context of a basic story.
No. Fucking. Shit. Everything is set in the context of a narrative, a narrative is inescapable. Seriously, stop parroting "LOL BUT IT'S A STORY LOLOL" as if that's in any way meaningful, it doesn't tell us anything.

>If you tell someone the white triangle represents a spaceship, they'll be more apt to pay it.
And if they play it and it's a piece of shit and they don't love spaceships all that much they'll never touch it again. Because spaceships don't make a game any better or worse, JUST LIKE STORIES, they may make you want to play it more or less depending on whether you HAPPEN TO LIKE SPACESHIPS OR HAND-EYE COORDINATION TESTS OR ANYTHING ELSE, but they do not make the game as a game any better or worse.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 04:59:51 2011 No.1881803

>>1881802
>>1881802
The reason I keep saying it is because you keep trying to refute it.

Everything is not set in the context of narrative. We might try to perceive most things in such a way, but that doesn't make it a narrative in its own right. Certainly not "narrative" in the literary sense of the word.

And who said story makes a game better or worse? I'm saying it makes a game easier to read as text because it makes it resemble more traditional literary forms.

God you're bad at reading and also articulating thoughts. What are you even doing here?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 05:02:51 2011 No.1881805 >>1881802 >Speak in generalities. >Nitpick a hypothetical situation using specifics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 05:03:51 2011 No.1881806 >>1881803 It's already over. Didn't you notice?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 05:04:51 2011 No.1881807

>>1881803
>The reason I keep saying it is because you keep trying to refute it
already have ages ago

>We might try to perceive most things in such a way, but that doesn't make it a narrative in its own right.
There are no narratives in their own right. Anything you say is a narrative. Everything you've given me or could give me is a narrative. Prove me wrong.

>Certainly not "narrative" in the literary sense of the word.
Who said I was using a literary sense of the word? Although there's absolutely no reason I couldn't.

>I'm saying it makes a game easier to read as text because it makes it resemble more traditional literary forms.
No, that's the first time you've said anything of the sort.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 05:05:51 2011 No.1881809 >>1881805 I'm not using specifics.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 05:11:51 2011 No.1881814

>>1881807
Narrative is a construct, constructs don't exist unless they're created. There is nothing narrative about a car, the sun, a piece of cheese, etc.

Any narrative would be created by you and projected onto it.

When I'm talking about narrative I'm talking about the literary technique of telling stories, specifically in contemporary video games.

If you're just going to constantly question terminology, why fucking bother trying to discuss anything? You haven't said anything about the subject, you've just been greentexting and contradicting yourself. Why not respond to something someone is fucking saying?

Everything is a story. Nothing is a story. Shut the fuck up already.

Also, see this:
>>1881714

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 05:15:51 2011 No.1881819

>That doesn't change the fact that coin-operated games still have story. There is a rudimentary narrative that the player takes part in. Story-driven game.

No, what drives the game is the desire to play the game, and some people are motivated by the desire to enjoy the story or whatever useless notion they have in their head, and other people are motivated by the desire to play a good video game.

>The game isn't "about" money.
It is for most publishers or other capital enterprises

>And of course it's a system of challenges--that's why it's a game
That's not why it's a game. A english test is a system of challenges but that doesn't make it a game. You're a fucking moron.

>You are literally making zero points.
>games, as a thing, have begun to adopt storytelling mechanisms, plot mechanics, and cinematic techniques.
Lolirony, did you come up with this by yourself?

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 05:15:51 2011 No.1881820

>>1881809
>Present super-specific strawman.
>Claim to not be using specifics.

Could you please explain how someone not liking a game because they don't like space ships has any bearing at all on the fact that story is used by game designers to draw people in?

Someone can not like a book because they dislike some aspect of its text, but what the fuck does that have to do with whether or not it is a text?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 05:17:51 2011 No.1881827

>>1881814
>There is nothing narrative about a car, the sun, a piece of cheese, etc.
But that's a narrative. Try again, you can try talking about cars again if you want.

>Any narrative would be created by you and projected onto it.
Yes, although not necessarily me. That doesn't make it any less of a narrative though, constructed or not.

>You haven't said anything about the subject,
try reading my posts

>Everything is a story. Nothing is a story
A good deal of them are worth highlighting, actually, for literary purposes. Others are worth highlighting in cases such as this.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 05:20:51 2011 No.1881833

>>1881820
>>Present super-specific strawman.
Where have I presented any strawmen?

>Claim to not be using specifics.
I'm not.

>Could you please explain how someone not liking a game because they don't like space ships has any bearing at all on the fact that story is used by game designers to draw people in?
But I'm not talking about that at all so why would I? Who cares about that, it's so obvious.

>Someone can not like a book because they dislike some aspect of its text, but what the fuck does that have to do with whether or not it is a text?
That's also got nothing to do with anything I've said.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 05:34:51 2011 No.1881846

>>1881814
>Narrative is a construct, constructs don't exist unless they're created. There is nothing narrative about a car, the sun, a piece of cheese, etc.
Also I love this line because the guy starts off by saying narratives are constructs and don't exist unless they're created, then gives me a bunch of constructs that don't exist unless they're created, that must always exist as part of a narrative.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 05:47:51 2011 No.1881858 I loved Serial Experiments Lain.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 06:02:51 2011 No.1881871

i like anime, movies, video games, table top games, d&d, and i really fucking like books. i get something different from all of them. i don't understand the OP post at all.

if you don't like to read that is your problem. this is not a one or the other sort of situation

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 06:13:51 2011 No.1881883 >>1881846 The fact that something is created doesn't mean it's a narrative. Do you even know what narrative device is? A car is not the story of its manufacture. Neither is a piece of cheese.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 06:19:51 2011 No.1881888 >>1881846 >that must always exist as part of a narrative. Nope.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 06:22:51 2011 No.1881896

It's for sure not an either/or type of argument, they all have a different appeal.

For example, what you get from a book that you cannot get from a movie is the absolute detail and immersion that literature can provide just based on the format. Unless you're prepared to watch a 20 hour movie, the movie will have to cut out the majority of detail, character development, entire sub-plots, etc. that will be in a book. A book is simply more thorough, hands-down.

Another thing is that with a book it leaves room for the imagination. Of course there could be rich descriptions of every person, place, and object in the story, but in the end how you picture it is really up to you. The tones of their voices, the scent of the flowers, the way their eyebrows wrinkle when they're angry, any sort of minute detail that is force-fed to you in a movie is your own to create with a book.

Obviously this isn't a thorough argument, but it's just some observations. Though, I must say, I doubt anyone really hates reading, it's just that you hate the books you've read. I would be surprised if you've ever read a book that you yourself chose because it had some sort of interest for you, and you are instead basing this off of books you were forced to read in school. I suggest you do some research to find a genre you think you might like, maybe ask some friends or a local bookstore employee for some recommendations, and sit down and read something for yourself.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 12:22:51 2011 No.1882244

>>1881883
>A car is not the story of its manufacture. Neither is a piece of cheese.
You've just given me another narrative. Try again. You're free to tell me how 'a car' is x, y, or z, but all you've been giving me when you talk about them or even use the words is a narrative.

>>1881888
>Nope.
Prove me wrong and give me something that doesn't exist as part of a narrative.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 12:27:51 2011 No.1882250 >>1882244 Everything is narrative is the same as turtles all the way down. What's a narrative made up of? Other narratives. You'd be better off trying to describe what a narrative is rather than just saying what things are narratives.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 13:10:51 2011 No.1882303

>>1881729here
>>1881764
>"I loved Shadow of The Colossus' story"
If I understand you correctly, you're saying a game's "story" and "gamplay" are two grounds from which you can gain from that are completely independent. Okay, but I think it is silly to disregard the story as something a game can legitimately provide. Regardless, you may neither look for nor like a game for its story, there are even those who don't seek information, mystery, or romance in books, it still doesn't change the fact that the medium is capable of providing that sort of experience. And let us remember we're arguing the capabilities of mediums.

>I never said you couldn't, just that it wouldn't be any better a game for it, which it wouldn't. Similar to how if you slapped a hello-kitty sticker on a plastic violin, it wouldn't make the violin any better a violin. You might love hello-kitty/good stories a lot, but that doesn't make the quality of the violin any better.
I guess when you're referring to the violin's appearance, you enter the medium of performance rather than solely music. Physically, the hello-kitty thing might not make the violin sound better or worse, but it certainly changes the experience felt by the audience. A better example would be in speeches. A speech only requires good rhetoric and sound logic. However, it would be unfair to say that adding in a tale of emotion or engaging body language and gestures doesn't also contribute to the experience overall, and therefore make the speech better.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 13:35:51 2011 No.1882323

>>1882303
>it still doesn't change the fact that the medium is capable of providing that sort of experience. And let us remember we're arguing the capabilities of mediums.
No, that's not what I've been arguing. I've already highlighted that that's a non-issue I nor anyone else on my level is not interested in discussing. Remember how I asked everyone why no-one's interested in telling a story with chess even though it's entirely possible? Remember how I asked why a game that could cure cancer isn't any better a game for it?

>it certainly changes the experience felt by the audience.
Yes, it makes it a better experience for people who love hello kitty, it doesn't for people who don't give a shit about hello kitty and are just interested in violin quality.

>it would be unfair to say that adding in a tale of emotion or engaging body language and gestures doesn't also contribute to the experience overall, and therefore make the speech better.
They don't make the speech better unless those are properties of good rhetoric, they make it more aesthetically welcoming to people receptive to that language and gestures.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 13:38:51 2011 No.1882327

>>1882303
>I think it is silly to disregard the story as something a game can legitimately provide
Video-games can legitimately provide handjobs, complementary cheese and crackers, a klondike bar and whatever else you want them to provide so long as they are good video-games.

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:02:51 2011 No.1882450 File: 156 KB, 623x477, lol!.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882244 hey when you hit your head on a tree because you are too busy talking about narratives, is that a narrative

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 15:09:51 2011 No.1882459

>>1882450
>when you hit your head on a tree
But here you are just giving me another narrative, one in a daisy chain that you would like to think ends in the experience, the qualia; but we never get to that because every time we come up against it, it's in the form of a narrative, not the 'en soi'. That itself is unspeakable, but entirely showable. But hey, you know what they say about what can and can't be said right? This is really nothing special, just no-outside-of-the-text stuff with the old 'of what we cannot speak' twist added for good measure, against your philosophical spirit-invocation

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:15:51 2011 No.1882471 >>1882459 there is a point at which an argument becomes semantically impenetrable, and you have clearly passed it

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 15:17:51 2011 No.1882474 >>1882471 >semantically impenetrable maybe if you've never been in a freshman philosophy class, shallow-pate

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:19:51 2011 No.1882475 File: 45 KB, 364x406, nv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882459 >implying one cannot show with text

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 15:21:51 2011 No.1882478 >>1882475 I did not, and I don't know why I didn't mention this earlier, but showing is no less an act of narration than telling

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:23:51 2011 No.1882482 File: 65 KB, 468x344, 1294307861677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882478 hey let's go take a walk in the park. you have to put on a blindfold and hold my hand, but you can trust me to not lead you into danger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:25:51 2011 No.1882484 >>1882474 oh, so you're admitting that you're intentionally structuring your thoughts so that 98% of the English-speaking population can't understand them, when you could simply opt for a different choice of words?

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:28:46 2011 No.1882488 >>1882484 don't worry he's worse at philosophy than the random guy on the street.

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:31:51 2011 No.1882494

It's two completely different types of entertainment.

Books are more internal. Most of the books that are considered Classics aren't action-packed or chock-full of non-stop story pacing, but they reveal insight into human nature. It's an idea that can only be conveyed within the relationship of the mind and the words of the writer, because of the unique way that each reader interprets each word.

There always have been, and always will be people who read and people who don't. I don't understand why we have to keep arguing why one way of life is better than another.

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:31:51 2011 No.1882495 >>1882482 so when you hit your head on a tree, which narrative caused that?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 15:33:51 2011 No.1882498
File: 10 KB, 270x187, conradsmiling..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1882482
>hey let's go take a walk in the park. you have to put on a blindfold and hold my hand, but you can trust me to not lead you into danger.
whoah steady on there I'm not into that kinky shit

>>1882484
No, I'm just not addressing myself to people who don't have a sufficient grasp of the terminology necessary for highly precise and complex concepts and issues. It's okay, I don't get angry when thermonuclear physicists use technical terms in their debates either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:34:51 2011 No.1882502 Holy shit greentext overload.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:37:51 2011 No.1882511 >>1882498 >comparing thermonuclear physics to a greentext thread on /lit/ That's your problem, D&E. You take yourself so seriously. polite sage

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 15:40:51 2011 No.1882518 >>1882511 >comparing yourself to a thermonuclear physicist you think that's bad you should see what onionring comes up with

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:41:51 2011 No.1882519 File: 35 KB, 600x449, teehee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882498 >whoah steady on there I'm not into that kinky shit so you are not comfortable with entirely living in narration, what do you call me, an unreliable narrator?

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:42:51 2011 No.1882522 File: 115 KB, 490x694, me creating the world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882518 this is a fact, provable from the authenticity of content + physical closure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:42:51 2011 No.1882523 >>1882518 yeah, but my bro O is entertaining sometimes. You're NEVER entertaining.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:51:51 2011 No.1882541 >>1882519 Is that blood on her face and hand? Gross...

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:52:51 2011 No.1882544 File: 84 KB, 679x569, poofy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882519 d&e i am awaiting your ineffective response to this master-argument

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 15:56:51 2011 No.1882551 >>1882541 >afraid of blood there is nothing to be afraid of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:58:51 2011 No.1882555 >>1882551 >misreading afraid != engrossed

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 15:59:51 2011 No.1882557

Holy shit what a thread.
Anyway i'd argue video games are more neurologically stimulating, or at least equal to books, because you're actively solving puzzles and strategizing, whereas when reading or watching a movie, your mind is basically being taken for a ride.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 16:00:51 2011 No.1882558 >>1882555 >misreading You'll get used to it after a while

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 16:03:51 2011 No.1882561 >>1882558 such a bore

>>	♥ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Jun 27 16:04:51 2011 No.1882563 >>1882555 same difference

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 16:06:51 2011 No.1882567 File: 57 KB, 339x351, 1306392226412.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Can explain why this Deep&Edgy guy is always so mad? Or is he a troll?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 16:19:51 2011 No.1882583 File: 571 KB, 1024x619, 1308312507570.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1882567

Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:36:51 2011 No.1882695

>>1881773

I see. I suppose I just determine the quality of video games in the more holistic sense than of the mechanics of the game itself. But I do understand why you differentiate the game itself and the story elements, because that's the same thing with me and music. I never listen for the lyrics themselves; I listen for the instrumentation, how the whole thing works musically, rather than the story the lyrics tell.

Well, there's nothing else I have to address on that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 27 17:46:51 2011 No.1882708 >>1882244 Narrative is story, you idiot. Articulation is not the same thing as telling a story.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Jun 27 17:54:51 2011 No.1882716

>>1882708
>Narrative is story
Of course

>Articulation is not the same thing as telling a story.
Telling a story is not the same thing as a story or a narrative. An articulation is a narrative. You're free to give me a counter-example of an articulation that is not such.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]