I think, if you see some Bollywood films, you'll understand where these "they are identical" posts come from.
A metaphor for this situation would be that you are a person who has only ever read sci-fi novels, talking to someone who is discussing how women's fashion magazines are all the same. True, many many sci-fi novels have a remarkable amount of overlap in style, but it's nothing compared to the cookie cutter approach of Vogue and Cosmo.
There are, of course, exceptions, as with anything, but (pulling random numbers out of my hat), maybe 5% of Hollywood movies do something newish each year, and maybe 1% or 0.5% of Bollywood films do.
On the other hand, from what little I've seen of them, they can be great entertainment. They make me understand when older folks talking about going to see the matinees during their childhood and spending the whole day thrilling to Errol Flyn and sci-fi movies and the like. (Most) Bollywood films are not "artistic compositions", they are "entertainment".
"I don't know about the rest of the world but I am not into reading books written as if I was reading at a third grade level (ie Stephen King's latest works)."
"Seeing that Stephen King is one of the most popular authors of our time I'd say most of the world disagree with you."
True.
"All in all a pretty elitist thing to say."
Maybe. Is it "being an elitist" to disagree with the majority? If so, we need more elitists. I wasn't aware that conformity was such a highly prized goal.
"But, I guess it's not cool to like a popular author."
I don't see the connection.
Most of the world is composed of idiots. I'll play the asshole's advocate and point out the numbers: Half the world has below average intelligence, half the world has above average intelligence. People posting on slashdot (for the most part, not everyone) has appreciably above average intelligence. Therefore, statistically, the parent poster is probably smarter than the majority of people in the world. Sure, he's being elitist, but he's also elite, so he may be right, and he may be wrong. Or, more likely, his personal literary tastes cause him to view Stephen King's writings as bad, and your personal philosophical tastes seem to view people who dislike popular things as bad.
I personally think Stephen King is an incredible bore. Great short stories, though. And it has nothing to do with popularity. Some popular things are good, and some are bad. Or, better phrased, I like some popular things, and dislike some. So do you. So does the parent. We just tend to say "bad" or "good" instead. That doesn't mean that the parent was right or wrong, nor does it make him elitist. It's just his tastes, and your tastes. Drawing popularity into it is a non-issue. My opinion only, of course.
You see, the #1 UI wisdom that M$ will never get is that different people have different wants and needs.
Apparently Microsoft isn't the only one who is against providing choice to users. How about, you do with your computer what you want, I do what I want, and we let software makers provide us with the tools to do both. Next thing you know people will be arguing that we shouldn't have non-military or academic sites on the internet because "that's not what the internet was meant for".
First, let me preface by saying that I haven't played any of the Xenosagas, so what I am saying is in general and in no way related to this game. That said: One of the criteria for "taking things too seriously" is taking admittedly advanced concepts, ideas, references, etc., running a few feet with them, and then acting like you have created a work of deep genius. This is what got so many people steamed about Matrix philosophy: it was, essentially, name-dropping. I didn't have too much of a problem with the Matrix (in that, philosophically, it was at least sound, for the most part. Haven't seen the sequels, though). I do notice this trend in some other films, games, websites, etc. Knowing Nietszche, Kierkegaard, or Sartre does not intrinsically make something deep. Saying "God is Dead" does not make something deep. Obscure religious symbolism does not make something deep.
I keep coming back to Evangelion when thinking about this subject. Now THAT was a show that took itself too seriously! Evangelion (and its ilk) are to deepness what Goths are to people with severe clinical depression: showy, self-infatuated shells that take on the trappings instead of the contents.
Not having played Xenosaga, I can't say if that is the case or not, but the fact that, instead of using the title "The Will to Power", they chose to go with the intentionally obscure and weighty "Der Wille zur Macht" puts one point on the "pompous" side of the scoreboard.
"Making a volleyball game and then taking the players clothes off..."
I wasn't aware volleyball was usually played in winter overcoats.
I see what you're saying, of course, but I would say the issue is more about making a volleyball game where "breast physics" and bikini selection are critical sales points.
Ok, rephrased: You can't expect a company to do something that would only lose them money, without even the hope of recouping losses elsewhere.
You can accuse Microsoft of making a bad decision with the XBox, but the fact of the matter is that their initial intention was to somehow, someway, recoup invested losses, whether it be through licensing fees, improved sales of the XBox 2, advertising effect of Microsoft spilling over into other Microsoft properties, or the like. Microsoft must have seen some financial incentive to launch the XBox, or they would not have done it.
First, nice post. While I disagree with a little bit of it, I just want to point out that it was thoughtful and reasoned, and my disagreement is not an attack on what you wrote.
In reference to the comment:"there's not one single SF themed multiplayer game that I think would be fun without borrowing heavily from fantasy."
True, but the argument really is against wholesale borrowing, not partial borrowing. For example, swordfighting is borrowed from fantasy, but I don't think people would find Star Wars, Ninja Gaiden, Prince of Persia, and Everquest to be excessively overlapped.
One example of Sci-Fi that seems like it would lend itself well to MMORPGS is something like Warhammer 40K. Sure, it has fantasy elements, but it has an undeniably different flavor than, say, Mythica. As a completely "alternate universe" flavor of sci-fi, too, it doesn't necessitate the need for WMDs, either. WMDs particularly come into play in sci-fi stories based on extensions of our current world, and on purely progressive versions (as opposed to Mad Max style "future, but regressive" approaches).
Just wanted to let you know that that was a very informative and insightful post. Didn't want to think you'd put all that effort into an old topic just for no-one to read it.
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Interesting aside:
One of the frequent dangers of car accidents is that people will pull an accident victim from their car, assuming it will blow up (as they've seen it a billion times in the movies). Properly aerating and dispersing gasoline such that it is explosive is pretty rare in car accidents, though, and the much greater danger is that a person with spine injuries will be further injured by...people pulling them out of the car.
I first saw it in Bug's Life, but I'm sure someone can provide an even older example. Pixar was probably the first, though.
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 1
I have to agree with the parent, though, for the most part. Sure, the effects are advanced and whatnot, but they still stand out in a bad way. Not all, mind you, but most. I've only seen the first film of LOTR, but I remember the CG distracting me at points. I'm not going to a movie intentionally trying to pick out flaws, but CG are still at the point where their inclusion in a movie pulls you out of the story and makes you say "nice computer graphics". Personally, I often find it a distraction. Still, things are getting much, much better. Just look at LOTR compared to Phantom Menace, where everything had the unworldly sheen of a nice computer game.
Blair Witch Pinball? Man, even the jokes made about games in this thread don't match up with the surreality of actual games...though your Bowling for Columbine FPS comment was pretty damn funny.
Yo, yo, calm down man, I'm not your enemy. Just took a little offense at the (apparently misconstrued) implication that all people who buy the DVD are sheeple.
You certainly don't need to buy a movie if you aren't that into it. If you just kinda liked it, there's certainly no point buying the supersmurfy edition, nor protesting. Heck, I liked it, but I went and got the single DVD version (I didn't know about the 2 DVD version until after I'd made my purchase). Sure, I woulda liked the 2 DVD version, but I'm not going to pay twice for the same movie.
I think there's a definite distinction to be made between directly movie based merchandise and ancillary merchandise. Fight Club is a book and a movie, and special editions, making of, etc. all seem to be pretty understandable even in the context of the movie's message. If I were to find Fight Club movie or book directly related merchandising to be ironic, I'd find the fact that I even paid to see the movie ironic as well (which it may be).
However, Fight Club games, t-shirts, coke rings, and soap are just plain crass commercialism, and I agree, the irony drips like my old faucet.
And, yeah, on reflection, Tyler Durden would have just snuck into the theater, but then again, Tyler Durden is a whacko, and just because I liked the movie doesn't mean I agree with anything in it. That's one of the parts that strikes me as most ironic: Fight Club claims to be anti-commercialist, anti-violence, but the story itself basically shows everything to be crap. Violence is bad, repression of violence is bad, commercialism is bad, anarchy is bad, group behaviour is bad, behaviour unchecked by groups is bad, yuppies are bad, blue-collar folks are bad. I personally don't think the movie actually has a message.
1) Puzzle game.
2) Because the movie is nihilistic and iconoclastic, and a game based on it would have to give up on the concepts of "winning" in order to progress. Sure, I guess it's possible that you could have a game whereby if you win too many rounds in a row you lose because of your attachment to victory; where losing would be critical for character development, and where things just kinda happen...However, generally players need goals, things to work towards, and a game based on a movie that shows that the stuff we work towards is crap would end out being a game where random button presses lead to random cutscenes, and noone would enjoy that.
Sony initially had an exclusivity deal with Rockstar that they wouldn't publish on other platforms until, I believe, 2004, but Rockstar got that abridged, hence the early XBox release.
Slashdot Mirror
I think, if you see some Bollywood films, you'll understand where these "they are identical" posts come from.
A metaphor for this situation would be that you are a person who has only ever read sci-fi novels, talking to someone who is discussing how women's fashion magazines are all the same. True, many many sci-fi novels have a remarkable amount of overlap in style, but it's nothing compared to the cookie cutter approach of Vogue and Cosmo.
There are, of course, exceptions, as with anything, but (pulling random numbers out of my hat), maybe 5% of Hollywood movies do something newish each year, and maybe 1% or 0.5% of Bollywood films do.
On the other hand, from what little I've seen of them, they can be great entertainment. They make me understand when older folks talking about going to see the matinees during their childhood and spending the whole day thrilling to Errol Flyn and sci-fi movies and the like. (Most) Bollywood films are not "artistic compositions", they are "entertainment".
Periods
"Seeing that Stephen King is one of the most popular authors of our time I'd say most of the world disagree with you."
True.
"All in all a pretty elitist thing to say."
Maybe. Is it "being an elitist" to disagree with the majority? If so, we need more elitists. I wasn't aware that conformity was such a highly prized goal.
"But, I guess it's not cool to like a popular author."
I don't see the connection.
Most of the world is composed of idiots. I'll play the asshole's advocate and point out the numbers: Half the world has below average intelligence, half the world has above average intelligence. People posting on slashdot (for the most part, not everyone) has appreciably above average intelligence. Therefore, statistically, the parent poster is probably smarter than the majority of people in the world. Sure, he's being elitist, but he's also elite, so he may be right, and he may be wrong. Or, more likely, his personal literary tastes cause him to view Stephen King's writings as bad, and your personal philosophical tastes seem to view people who dislike popular things as bad.
I personally think Stephen King is an incredible bore. Great short stories, though. And it has nothing to do with popularity. Some popular things are good, and some are bad. Or, better phrased, I like some popular things, and dislike some. So do you. So does the parent. We just tend to say "bad" or "good" instead. That doesn't mean that the parent was right or wrong, nor does it make him elitist. It's just his tastes, and your tastes. Drawing popularity into it is a non-issue. My opinion only, of course.
You'd call someone an arrogant asshole out of the blue if he complained about people not knowing about the LOTR books? You must be fun to work with.
So, wait, you could teach my mom to do it?
To quote a different thread in here:
You see, the #1 UI wisdom that M$ will never get is that different people have different wants and needs.
Apparently Microsoft isn't the only one who is against providing choice to users. How about, you do with your computer what you want, I do what I want, and we let software makers provide us with the tools to do both. Next thing you know people will be arguing that we shouldn't have non-military or academic sites on the internet because "that's not what the internet was meant for".
First, let me preface by saying that I haven't played any of the Xenosagas, so what I am saying is in general and in no way related to this game. That said: One of the criteria for "taking things too seriously" is taking admittedly advanced concepts, ideas, references, etc., running a few feet with them, and then acting like you have created a work of deep genius. This is what got so many people steamed about Matrix philosophy: it was, essentially, name-dropping. I didn't have too much of a problem with the Matrix (in that, philosophically, it was at least sound, for the most part. Haven't seen the sequels, though). I do notice this trend in some other films, games, websites, etc. Knowing Nietszche, Kierkegaard, or Sartre does not intrinsically make something deep. Saying "God is Dead" does not make something deep. Obscure religious symbolism does not make something deep.
I keep coming back to Evangelion when thinking about this subject. Now THAT was a show that took itself too seriously! Evangelion (and its ilk) are to deepness what Goths are to people with severe clinical depression: showy, self-infatuated shells that take on the trappings instead of the contents.
Not having played Xenosaga, I can't say if that is the case or not, but the fact that, instead of using the title "The Will to Power", they chose to go with the intentionally obscure and weighty "Der Wille zur Macht" puts one point on the "pompous" side of the scoreboard.
"Making a volleyball game and then taking the players clothes off..."
I wasn't aware volleyball was usually played in winter overcoats.
I see what you're saying, of course, but I would say the issue is more about making a volleyball game where "breast physics" and bikini selection are critical sales points.
Ok, rephrased: You can't expect a company to do something that would only lose them money, without even the hope of recouping losses elsewhere.
You can accuse Microsoft of making a bad decision with the XBox, but the fact of the matter is that their initial intention was to somehow, someway, recoup invested losses, whether it be through licensing fees, improved sales of the XBox 2, advertising effect of Microsoft spilling over into other Microsoft properties, or the like. Microsoft must have seen some financial incentive to launch the XBox, or they would not have done it.
First, nice post. While I disagree with a little bit of it, I just want to point out that it was thoughtful and reasoned, and my disagreement is not an attack on what you wrote.
In reference to the comment:"there's not one single SF themed multiplayer game that I think would be fun without borrowing heavily from fantasy."
True, but the argument really is against wholesale borrowing, not partial borrowing. For example, swordfighting is borrowed from fantasy, but I don't think people would find Star Wars, Ninja Gaiden, Prince of Persia, and Everquest to be excessively overlapped.
One example of Sci-Fi that seems like it would lend itself well to MMORPGS is something like Warhammer 40K. Sure, it has fantasy elements, but it has an undeniably different flavor than, say, Mythica. As a completely "alternate universe" flavor of sci-fi, too, it doesn't necessitate the need for WMDs, either. WMDs particularly come into play in sci-fi stories based on extensions of our current world, and on purely progressive versions (as opposed to Mad Max style "future, but regressive" approaches).
Just wanted to let you know that that was a very informative and insightful post. Didn't want to think you'd put all that effort into an old topic just for no-one to read it.
Interesting aside:
One of the frequent dangers of car accidents is that people will pull an accident victim from their car, assuming it will blow up (as they've seen it a billion times in the movies). Properly aerating and dispersing gasoline such that it is explosive is pretty rare in car accidents, though, and the much greater danger is that a person with spine injuries will be further injured by...people pulling them out of the car.
I first saw it in Bug's Life, but I'm sure someone can provide an even older example. Pixar was probably the first, though.
I have to agree with the parent, though, for the most part. Sure, the effects are advanced and whatnot, but they still stand out in a bad way. Not all, mind you, but most. I've only seen the first film of LOTR, but I remember the CG distracting me at points. I'm not going to a movie intentionally trying to pick out flaws, but CG are still at the point where their inclusion in a movie pulls you out of the story and makes you say "nice computer graphics". Personally, I often find it a distraction. Still, things are getting much, much better. Just look at LOTR compared to Phantom Menace, where everything had the unworldly sheen of a nice computer game.
Blair Witch Pinball? Man, even the jokes made about games in this thread don't match up with the surreality of actual games...though your Bowling for Columbine FPS comment was pretty damn funny.
Scooby doesn't know what "wherefore" means.
So, Durindana, how's being clever working for you?
Yo, yo, calm down man, I'm not your enemy. Just took a little offense at the (apparently misconstrued) implication that all people who buy the DVD are sheeple.
You certainly don't need to buy a movie if you aren't that into it. If you just kinda liked it, there's certainly no point buying the supersmurfy edition, nor protesting. Heck, I liked it, but I went and got the single DVD version (I didn't know about the 2 DVD version until after I'd made my purchase). Sure, I woulda liked the 2 DVD version, but I'm not going to pay twice for the same movie.
I think there's a definite distinction to be made between directly movie based merchandise and ancillary merchandise. Fight Club is a book and a movie, and special editions, making of, etc. all seem to be pretty understandable even in the context of the movie's message. If I were to find Fight Club movie or book directly related merchandising to be ironic, I'd find the fact that I even paid to see the movie ironic as well (which it may be).
However, Fight Club games, t-shirts, coke rings, and soap are just plain crass commercialism, and I agree, the irony drips like my old faucet.
And, yeah, on reflection, Tyler Durden would have just snuck into the theater, but then again, Tyler Durden is a whacko, and just because I liked the movie doesn't mean I agree with anything in it. That's one of the parts that strikes me as most ironic: Fight Club claims to be anti-commercialist, anti-violence, but the story itself basically shows everything to be crap. Violence is bad, repression of violence is bad, commercialism is bad, anarchy is bad, group behaviour is bad, behaviour unchecked by groups is bad, yuppies are bad, blue-collar folks are bad. I personally don't think the movie actually has a message.
1) Puzzle game. 2) Because the movie is nihilistic and iconoclastic, and a game based on it would have to give up on the concepts of "winning" in order to progress. Sure, I guess it's possible that you could have a game whereby if you win too many rounds in a row you lose because of your attachment to victory; where losing would be critical for character development, and where things just kinda happen...However, generally players need goals, things to work towards, and a game based on a movie that shows that the stuff we work towards is crap would end out being a game where random button presses lead to random cutscenes, and noone would enjoy that.
Cracks me up to see people who pass by an excellent movie with a really interesting DVD commentary because they might lose their indie karma points.
In Project Pixellated Mayhem, we have no names!
Sony initially had an exclusivity deal with Rockstar that they wouldn't publish on other platforms until, I believe, 2004, but Rockstar got that abridged, hence the early XBox release.
Or, how about this: I ask you, you tell me. Simple give and take. I wasn't aware that asking a question was such a big faux pas.
It took six and a half years for Clerks to be released in Japan...
I wasn't aware that "massively multiplayer" meant 4 people...