Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing.

NeoKubrick

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not to mention your point is just plain wrong. [...] Just plain wrong.

Read, again if it is of any use which it palpably is not: "a linear unbroken sequence of shots is a cut-scene and within this structure, a director or editor can control the pace and meaning of the sequence. This is not possible with player input, because the player is controlling the pace, not the director or editor". The gameplay referenced to in the video posted is not a cut-scene and therefore has no process of composition or structure of shots, because the player has input and can break the sequence. You even mention 'backtrack' but scarcely understand how such a simple player input such as the action 'backtrack' breaks a "linear unbroken sequence". Did the developer predict the player would 'backtrack' at that specific moment?

Do tell how a game developer can predict with a certainty of one the specific order a player would go through and the duration of each specific frame and the specific input a player uses at each tick would you? They cannot, of course, but that's what you're implying with your ridiculous logic. They cannot have a process of composition and structure of shots, because the player input is composing and structuring the shots (i.e. the camera); the player's linear unbroken sequence, not the developer's. In the example you posted, the developer is not specifying when a shot is cut to, just the position; the player is specifying the cut to a position (i.e. editor). Player input and composition and structure of shots (a linear unbroken sequence) are mutually exclusive. You are pointing out the redundant obvious that developers create the environment for the player: that's not a process of composition or structure of shots and it is not a linear unbroken sequence or a cut-scene.

The youtube video you referenced uses the process of composition and structure of shots: you can hit refresh countless times and it would never change the composition or structure of the sequence of shots or the duration of each frame unless interrupted by user input (pause et cetera). It is a video recording of a player playing a game: the player is therefore the editor and therefore makes the decision of the composition and structure of shots in his playthrough, not the developer. The author is the player, not the developer. You could record a million different players playing a game with player input and composition and structure of the sequence of shots which would create a recording would with limited exceptions be different; the larger the complexity of the input the wider the difference (First-Person Shooter dynamic camera versus Resident Evil static).

Furthermore, the discussion is related to cinematography, camera, not audio; dialogue and sound is irrelevant to this discussion. If you understood this discussion, you would understand this.


It wasn't a base/less insult. It was a truthful statement: you don't understand such simple concepts as 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'process', 'composition', 'shots', 'structure' and I proved it. You conceded as such by not responding to my arguments about your use of the words, 'subjective', 'contradict', 'problem', 'error', 'I' and instead you resorted to contradicting yourself and insult:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

insulting someone instead of actually responding to their points

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You really love to talk BS dont you?

Where have I redefined "some" (hiding behind the general rather than the specific eh?) terms or words, in an actual dictionary? You are the one squealing about "needless" semantics as a loser would squeal about the rules of a game he lost and arguing with dictionary definitions. Where are the illogical arguments? You mean, where you claimed that a problem that was solved was an obstacle to the industry still and not just an error exhibited by specific developers and that this problem was bigger than the actual unsolved problem of reconstructing the human face comparable to the richness and complexity of a human's? Or, you mean, where you implied that form and content are interchangeable and that an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from? Or you mean, where you declared it was my subjective opinion in putting down comic books not a statement based upon observable fact of the status afforded to medium by societies?

Or, do you mean where you claimed that player input does not void the process of composition and structure of shots by the developer and that a linear unbroken sequence can be created by the developer with player input despite the very high probability that the player input will break the sequence the developer intended? So, by your own standard, playing the "games that trolls and creationists play".


Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. How much a creative work creates in monetary terms is not indicative of its popularity. If took to its proper logical conclusion, a man buying a film for a trillion dollars would indicate more popularity than a film which makes a billion dollars selling to 100,000 million people, which you agree is ridiculous. There is no evidence that Transformers that has been watched by more people than 2001: A Space Odyssey; there is evidence that Transformers has earned more money in the box-office but that's popularity over a very short period. It's foolish to assume that over forty years less people have watched 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers in a few years. A definable metric for success for a medium or a piece of art has is its popularity and/or critique over time. 2001: A Space Odyssey has been seen for over forty years because of its continuing popularity and status in the critical community and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the film industry; that's not an argumentum ad populum (not able to master simple naturalized English words, you're attempting to use Latin...), it is a definable metric that no game has matched - not least because the game industry is not much older than the film and relatively a child compared to the age of the film industry.

I have already explained to that you need to prove to me that it is worthwhile to elucidate 2001: A Space Odyssey for you. Just because an idiot does not understand how the Earth revolves around the Solar System's center of mass does not mean that I am compelled to prove and evidence the claim when the idiot is pointed to consulting a physicist's book on the topic for a more thorough explanation. There is an actual answer, because I have already recommended where you can go to educate yourself on the subject. I have already done the hard work for you by finding the appropriate quality material.

Retr0gamer

Try and keep the thinly veiled pseudo intellectual insults to a minimum or I'll have to lock the thread.

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Furthermore, the discussion is related to cinematography, camera, not audio; dialogue and sound is irrelevant to this discussion. If you understood this discussion, you would understand this.

If you understood my points you will see why they do. The problem that a lot of developers have is in forgetting that everything you do in a game should increase immersion, not break it, and that cut scenes (as they build up) will inevitably break it. Therefore, the best practice is to take whatever cutscenes that are just exposition and integrate into the gameplay. Even if a player can only run around in circles in a small room while someone talks to them, they will enjoy more immersion than if the game cuts to uncontrolled cutscene every 5 mins (compare the immersion of the Portal games, where the dialogue happens during the action, to that of Metal Gear Solid 4, which has 30 minute cutscenes every 5 or 10 mins)

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Where have I redefined "some" (hiding behind the general rather than the specific eh?) terms or words, in an actual dictionary? You are the one squealing about "needless" semantics as a loser would squeal about the rules of a game he lost and arguing with dictionary definitions. Where are the illogical arguments? You mean, where you claimed that a problem that was solved was an obstacle to the industry still and not just an error exhibited by specific developers and that this problem was bigger than the actual unsolved problem of reconstructing the human face comparable to the richness and complexity of a human's? Or, you mean, where you implied that form and content are interchangeable and that an intellectual property originated from one medium and successfully applied to another, it indicated something of the medium it originated from? Or you mean, where you declared it was my subjective opinion in putting down comic books not a statement based upon observable fact of the status afforded to medium by societies?

Or, do you mean where you claimed that player input does not void the process of composition and structure of shots by the developer and that a linear unbroken sequence can be created by the developer with player input despite the very high probability that the player input will break the sequence the developer intended?

Firstly an error is a problem if its made despite their being a solution, the problem with developers that we are discussing does have solutions, and some developers get them, but not all do because not all care. Besides which, in general, problems can have solutions and still be called problems, I remember having maths problems fro homework as a child and I'm pretty sure they all had solutions.
Secondly, if the importance, value, purpose etc of an intellectual property is independent of its medium, then you placing the purpose of comic books at the level of toys and boardgames is incorrect, as the intellectual property of comic books can achieve as great acclaim as the intellectual property of films (once the general public can be made overcome their illogical bias to certain media) and therefore their purpose or value is equal (even if not always recognised by everyone).
Thirdly, you initially put down comic books by saying they serve the same purpose as toys or boardgames, a subjective opinion as to comic book fans, comic books offer the same escapist opportunities and thought provoking material that a film may provide to a film buff. Even in trying to move the goalposts to "status" instead of "purpose" wont change this. Status is consensus and it does not dictate purpose as purpose is subjective.
Lastly, you seem to think that games just randomly throw out cutscenes or prescripted encounters and that developers have no way to ensure that a character has been at the locations the developer wanted them to reach first before a scene activates. You know I've yet to encounter a game that just throws the ending at you half way through, as it has to guess where you are in the story random sequence of scenes it already threw at you. I'm wondering if you have ever played a videogame now.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding. How much a creative work creates in monetary terms is not indicative of its popularity.

Well, actually it is. You do have to take account of inflation and whether those creative works came out on the same medium, but once you do, you have an indication of how many people payed to see it and therefore its popularity. Thats the problem with popularity, its a popularity contest.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

If took to its proper logical conclusion, a man buying a film for a trillion dollars would indicate more popularity than a film which makes a billion dollars selling to 100,000 million people, which you agree is ridiculous.

No, because you use the money made to determine how many people payed and its how many that payed that determine popularity.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

There is no evidence that Transformers that has been watched by more people than 2001: A Space Odyssey; there is evidence that Transformers has earned more money in the box-office but that's popularity over a very short period. It's foolish to assume that over forty years less people have watched 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers in a few years. A definable metric for success for a medium or a piece of art has is its popularity and/or critique over time.

Transformers earned $708million dollars box office, $291million dollars DVD sales, while 2001 earned $430million (adjusted for inflation) box office and $47million (adjusted) dvd sales. Over time, and adjusted for inflation, more people have paid to see Transformers, its all in the numbers.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

2001: A Space Odyssey has been seen for over forty years because of its continuing popularity and status in the critical community and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the film industry; that's not an argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad critic :P? The critics like it therefore everyone else does? Transformers was panned by critics and still was seen by more people.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

(not able to master simple naturalized English words, you're attempting to use Latin...),

Trying to put me down because I use a term you aren't familiar with? Argumentum ad ignorance ? I could have said "appeal to the masses" or "argument by consensus" but I like the Latin terms for them.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

I have already explained to that you need to prove to me that it is worthwhile to elucidate 2001: A Space Odyssey for you.

I'm sorry, I need to explain to you why you need to back up your claims? Are you a creationist? Cause they are the only other group of people who so totally misunderstand the notion of "burden of proof" as you. You make a claim, and you back it up, thats how it works. If you are unwilling to do this then this debate stops here, I dont post with trolls.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Just because an idiot does not understand how the Earth revolves around the Solar System's center of mass does not mean that I am compelled to prove and evidence the claim when the idiot is pointed to consulting a physicist's book on the topic for a more thorough explanation. There is an actual answer, because I have already recommended where you can go to educate yourself on the subject. I have already done the hard work for you by finding the appropriate quality material.

If you understood the answer then you could offer a basic run through of the reasons, pointing to the secondary source as evidence or just using it yourself for details. Thats how discussion boards work, you know, you discuss and offer evidence for you claims or opinions, if everyone just made declarations and then pointed to books, why would anyone post anything? What would happen to this thread if I simply declared you were wrong and said read "Why VideoGames are Better than Everything Else" by "Some Tw@" to educate yourself as to why?

Answer the question:what is it that all the games up to now lack that mean they aren't a match for 2001, in visual and/or narrative?

PS: dont call me an idiot again.

NeoKubrick

Your original claim was that it was a problem for the industry that some developers don’t understand the solution. It is not a problem to any specific developer that one or some developers cannot solve a problem any more that it was a problem for the science of Mathematics that you could not solve the problems in your Maths homework. It was an error, not a problem, that you could not understand the method to the solution and apply it to a specific case, because you are not solving the problems; they had already been solved and the task for you is to produce error-free work using the method to solve the problem.

Again, you confuse form for content and content for form. Comic book is a medium, a form, a collection of papers with graphics and text; it is not an intellectual property or content. Spiderman, Batman et cetera is an intellectual property, content, and its characters, stories and plots can be ported to cereal boxes, newspapers, films, say what you like. In general, comic books do not have the same status or purpose (your “goal posts” reference is bizarre) as film or literature in western society (France, an exception). This is not a declaration based upon what subjectively interests me: it is a statement based upon observable fact. Status in medium does dictate purpose: that’s one of the core principles of propaganda (hence, the difference in content and tone between tabloids, broadsheets, financial times, Wall Street Journal). Also, this isn’t an illogical bias: people will choose the mediums that satisfy their needs, intellectually et cetera. The task of the game industry will be to raise its medium to satisfy the needs of everyone as film and literature does, not just < 34 age population.

You claimed that the currency a creative work creates is indicative of its popularity; it is not as I proved with a simple example (“a man buying a film for a trillion dollars would indicate more popularity than a film which makes a billion dollars selling to 100,000 million people”). How many people watch, play, read a creative work is indicative of its popularity and to further refine it, how many people relative to the total population. Your utterly simplistic account analysis of complex interactions in box-office grosses based upon incomplete data is insufficient; you simply googled a bunch of terms and borrowed a couple of numbers without understanding the terms and the numbers. There are a number of effects in box-office grosses: average number of tickets sold for films in that year, the growth or decline of the industry, the size of the industry, the population number, the number of theaters, and the economy.

Transformers earned $319m in US and the average price of a ticket in 2007 was $6.88 which is approx. 46 million tickets sold. 2001: A Space Odyssey earned $25m in 1968 and $31m more by 1970 and average price of a ticket in 1968 was $1.31 and in 1970, $1.55 which is approx. 39 million tickets sold. The population of the US in 2010 was 308,745,538 and in 1970, 203,211,926, which is not accurate to the release dates of both films but near as possible. Based upon those population figures, Transformers sold to 15% of the US population and 2001: A Space Odyssey sold to 19% of the US population which is a more accurate representation. Furthermore, more people have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers with these more accurate figures from IMDB and even on conservative estimates, it was seen by more people; that’s not counting the numerous exhibitions and rentals of the film reel in the grosses and that’s not counting Television screenings over a period of forty years. So, on any grounds of representation, more people have seen 2001: A Space Odyssey than Transformers.

I have already supplied proof: a book which details the complexity of 2001: A Space Odyssey‘s visuals and narrative to which no game has yet achieved. I have no intention of summarizing and explaining a translated book with highly technical terms specific to Chion’s film criticism for someone (since you like using Latin words – pace Mark Hammil) who has demonstrated that he could not distinguish the subtleties of the film camera versus game camera and whom it took four detailed posts pertaining to the subject to finally understand it (I assume and hope this). Discussion is the basis of forums, but some discussions are more worthy of time than others and a discussion involving any argument that games have bettered or equaled 2001: A Space Odyssey in visuals and narrative is a complete waste of time as would be a lengthy discussion on the subject of “Is the world flat?”. The answer is obvious and the grounds for debate trodden and wrecked.

And, yes, I’m more than familiar with the oft-used little-understood Latin logical fallacies because opposed to demonstratively you, I understand them. Poor debators shoot around these buzzwords like sliver-bullets at any argument and as was the case with your quote-retarded replies, I was giving advice on your argument style which in no way could I give less of a shit about responding to.

Jazzy

is totallystanleykubrick getting his brain thinking on?

hes an intellectual ya know


but tbh, films provide more intellectual meat then games and thats something that will continue for a while. i dunno though, i dont really compare them in that regard anyway. they are two different things. you dont see people comparing film to music as to which has more depth and sh1t. bit of a null argument. brooker has a point in some, albeit very few, regards and even at that, they dont really make much of a difference. maybe he just wanted to have a go at some of the sh1te hollywood has puked out over the past few years.

now go outside kids! the weather be trippin' dawg

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/310/markhammilcounterquote.png

http://nerfzidane.com/2011/06/04/quote-lame/

So in an effort to stop me responding to you, you post an image of your text, instead of the text itself? What the hell is wrong with you? Did you think it will make it harder for me or something? Troll better, or not all, this is just pathetic. Anyway...

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Paragraph 1 (starting from "your original claim was...)

My original claim was that there is a problem for the industry because many developers dont even recognise that what they are doing is wrong. There is a danger in the industry of the developers who understand the difference between games and movies being outnumbered and eventually replaced by those who dont, those who think 40 minute non interactive cutscenes are great (Square Enix/ Hideo Kojima etc) or those that think that characters acting completely different in cutscenes than gameplay is also great (Devil May Cray/Bayonetta). Its not always a problem to the point of damaging the industry or medium (DMC and Bayonetta have great gameplay despite the cutscenes) but it does retard its progress, it forgets why games are different to movies and that you should embrace that difference.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Paragraph 2

This is just a repetition of the point you already made. Its still wrong. Status doesn't indicate purpose, it only indicates perceived purpose, which is subjective. Comic books are as meaningful an entertainment as movies or videogames or music, if you feel that way about them. Comic books are not just toys, they are not just for kids, the ignorance of the majority of the general public about this fact doesn't alter this fact.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Paragraph 3

Your point here is a strawman of my point, a really poor at that. Seeing as you claimed that people still go to see 2001 every time that its re-released, your point about population changes/economy etc is irrelevant, as the recent releases would have been during similar population numbers and economies as Transformers and the original and very early releases would have been at times of fewer films in the cinemas (which would lead to the numbers over stating its popularity). Overall, the numbers would even out.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Paragraph 4

Firstly you ignore the number of other films in the cinemas at the time of each movies release. 2001 would have had less competition in 1968 than Transformers when it came out, thus negating you calculations.
Secondly, you link wont work because your post is an image, not a real post, did you forget? :P

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Paragraph 5

Firstly, quoting an entire is not proof. If you dont understand the argument yourself enough to explain it here then just say so, it would be far less embarrassing for you than this thread.
Secondly, well done on the Latin, but you managed to spell my name wrong, so better luck next time.
Thirdly, the discussion is about your claim that games haven't in any way equalled 2001s visuals or narratives, what the basis is for this claim and what games need to do to get their (or it would be, if you could just answer a simply question), not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Paragraph 6

You have yet to show that even understand what I was asking for tin the first place, so lets not get into how badly you misunderstand simple logical fallacies, ok?

Even though you linking an image of your text didn't actually cause me any problems in responding, it reveals enough of your mentality to me that if you do it again, I will report you for trolling. I like having in depth debates, but not with petty children.

Jazzy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even though you linking an image of your text didn't actually cause me any problems in responding, it reveals enough of your mentality to me that if you do it again, I will report you for trolling. I like having in depth debates, but not with petty children. [/B]

but but but but but but super intellectuals don't troll. apparently it would be beneath them or some jazz.

unless..........

NeoKubrick

Here is your original claim:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The biggest problem in the industry is developers trying to tell stories in the same way as the movie or tv industries tell stories, with overly long cutscenes with no player input.

That is an error in a developer's form, not an industry problem and not even the biggest problem as you claimed above facial performance which is infinitely more complex than constructing a narrative form in gaming. It is not a problem for one developer that another is developing an error in his game nor more than it is a problem for a Mathematician that you cannot produce satisfactorily complete Mathematics homework; therefore, it is not retarding progress in the industry. In fact, the more developers produce the error, the more that the error will be recognized as an incongruous implementation to the Game medium.

It isn't a strawman argument; it is your argument. Here, read your own claim:

Mark Hamill wrote:

Over time, and adjusted for inflation, more people have paid to see Transformers, its all in the numbers.

You claimed that more people have paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Your argument was spurious, because it was based upon incorrect data and limited knowledge of the complexity of box-office grosses. I proved that it was incorrect by showing the actual figures that demonstrate that 2001: A Space Odyssey had been watched by more people in cinema than Transformers and it had attracted a relative larger share of the population. Your point about competition is irrelevant, because your simplistic argument was based upon numbers (remember your pontification: "its all in the numbers") not other equally important factors.

If we were to include these factors, it would only benefit 2001: A Space Odyssey's case and I wanted to thrash your argument on your own grounds; so, you couldn't complain that I was being selective. There is nothing that negates the calculations, not least the a meager factor of competition. If that did, which it doesn't, negate my calculations in which I made reference to the important factors, then your calculations based upon ignorance of the complexity of the box-office grosses are just as negated. The biggest factors would be the size of the film industry, the size of the population, the size of the economies, and the number of theaters and number of tickets sold annually as I mentioned and they are all the benefit of Transformers's numbers and still has not been seen by more people.

And you are now talking absolute gibberish on the subject of mediums and comic book. You claim that it is wrong but scarcely demonstrate it. You scarcely understand the words 'status' and 'purpose'. So, when Marvel executives sit down and talk about which comics they will run and at which audience they will target, which content do you think they will choose and which audience will they target? Yes, it is that obvious. The industry and the status of it thereof dictates the purpose of the medium. If a medium satisfies an upper market, it upscales; if it cannot sell its products to a specific age group, it either adapts to one that they can sell to or it dies. This isn't quantum mechanics. There is nothing inherent in any medium that specifies its status or purpose; the industry leaders of a specific medium dictate that and it is based upon their success in carving the marketplace for themselves. The western comic book industry failed to reach the status film or literature attained, and if the Game medium does not satisfy the intellectual needs of older age groups, it will fail, too, and carve out a thus-far no-further niche like Comic books have.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I like having in depth debates, but not with petty children.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly, well done on the Latin, but you managed to spell my name wrong, so better luck next time.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have yet to show that even understand what I was asking for tin the first place, so lets not get into how badly you misunderstand simple logical fallacies, ok?

That's babble. I know that you don't understand the logical fallacies you have referenced to because you designated an argument based upon critical and popular success over a period of time as simultaneously argumentum ad populum and "argumentum ad critic" which are incompatible. And here, you commit argumentum ad ignorantiam:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.

This fallacy is based upon assuming a proposition to be false if not proved true, which you demonstrate by claiming that I do not understand the argument by not summarizing and explaining it. It isn't sufficient that you ignore evidence or proof to negate it. Read:

I have already supplied proof: a book which details the complexity of 2001: A Space Odyssey's visuals and narrative to which no game has yet achieved. I have no intention of summarizing and explaining a translated book with highly technical terms specific to Chion's film criticism for someone (since you like using Latin words – pace Mark Hamill) who has demonstrated that he could not distinguish the subtleties of the film camera versus game camera and whom it took four detailed posts pertaining to the subject to finally understand it (I assume and hope this).

Trolling is not necessarily synonymous with destroying someone's argument. It is pathetic (in the word's strictest sense: evoking pity) that you are marking your statements in bold to draw moderators' attention. Do not pontificate again to me about embarrassing because I'm not threatening to report your posts. I think that it is absolutely embarrassing for you to call in a moderators' help because your arguments are weak and upset that I ruined your opportunity to quote-retard.

Jazzy wrote: »

but but but but but but super intellectuals don't troll. apparently it would be beneath them or some jazz.

unless..........

After your antics in the Liverpool thread a couple of months previous, I could learn a thing or two off you, aside from how to lay on the floor without holding on.

Jazzy

NeoKubrick wrote: »

After your antics in the Liverpool thread a couple of months previous, I could learn a thing or two off you, aside from how to lay on the floor without holding on.

antics in the liverpool thread? you have brought this up before. please, tell me of said antics. in fact, link them if you can because i have literally no idea wtf you are talking about.

however, it is pretty funny watching you trying to be as smart as you think you are on boards.ie when pretty much all you are writing is crappy wannabe intellectual nonsense. ooohhh Stanley Kubrick and Latin, check out the brains on brenda

NeoKubrick

Jazzy wrote: »

antics in the liverpool thread? you have brought this up before. please, tell me of said antics. in fact, link them if you can because i have literally no idea wtf you are talking about.

however, it is pretty funny watching you trying to be as smart as you think you are on boards.ie when pretty much all you are writing is crappy wannabe intellectual nonsense. ooohhh Stanley Kubrick and Latin, check out the brains on brenda

Then you can easily expose it for the wannabe intellectual nonsense that you "think" it is instead of unsupported insults, but you obviously cannot and you always make sure that you have someone to agree with when replying to me in a thread for confirmation bias. And you are only beating your friend, Mark Hamill, with the Latin references because I called him out for it, not the other way around.

I have absolutely no problem with you Jazzy and you are one of the few decent posters around here, but if you want to insult, you can PM it.

Jazzy

ill do this post instead

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Then you can easily expose it for the wannabe intellectual nonsense that you "think" it is instead of unsupported insults but you obviously cannot

the smarter thing to do is not write a big wall of text and just call a spade a spade. Ive read most of your posts on this thread and ill be perfectly honest, im not exactly sure what you and hamill are arguing about and what points you are both trying to make... and more importantly, im not sure they are even relevant. it just seems like trying to one up each other on which one of you is 'actually' stupid or some crap.

NeoKubrick wrote:

and you always make sure that you have someone to agree with when replying to me in a thread for confirmation bias.

I do? news to me. Ive never ever actually thought about this before and now that I have I still dont know where its coming from. I just tend to go by the right/wrong indicator I have in my head as to whether to post or not. or if something/one is particularly lol worthy. maybe you are just being paranoid there.

NeoKubrick wrote:

And you are only beating your friend, Mark Hamill, with the Latin references because I called him out for it, not the other way around.

I have absolutely no problem with you Jazzy and you are one of the few decent posters around here, but if you want to insult, you can PM it.

mark hamill is my friend? again, something else I didnt know.
"but tbh, films provide more intellectual meat then games and thats something that will continue for a while. i dunno though, i dont really compare them in that regard anyway. they are two different things. you dont see people comparing film to music as to which has more depth and sh1t. bit of a null argument. brooker has a point in some, albeit very few, regards and even at that, they dont really make much of a difference. maybe he just wanted to have a go at some of the sh1te hollywood has puked out over the past few years."

thats what I said, from the giant wall of text both you and mark have put up I think that more agrees with what you are saying then mark? im not sure though because as i said, I dont think the points you are making are either relevant or worth making them in the first place.

and what of my 'actions in the liverpool thread' ? the only thing Ive gotten in trouble for on soccer in ages is for calling trolls trolls. turns out I was right there too

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

That is an error in a developer's form, not an industry problem and not even the biggest problem as you claimed above facial performance which is infinitely more complex than constructing a narrative form in gaming. It is not a problem for one developer that another is developing an error in his game nor more than it is a problem for a Mathematician that you cannot produce satisfactorily complete Mathematics homework; therefore, it is not retarding progress in the industry. In fact, the more developers produce the error, the more that the error will be recognized as an incongruous implementation to the Game medium.

That not all developers recognise the problem doesn't mean that its not the biggest problem in the industry. Facial performance is only a problem if you are aiming for photorealism, and with games like Enslaved and LA Noire, we can see the industry make bounds in this area. Most developers dont understand that the most important thing in games is immersion and that a lot of what they do unforgivably breaks it.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You claimed that more people have paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. Your argument was spurious, because it was based upon incorrect data and limited knowledge of the complexity of box-office grosses. I proved that it was incorrect by showing the actual figures that demonstrate that 2001: A Space Odyssey had been watched by more people in cinema than Transformers and it had attracted a relative larger share of the population. Your point about competition is irrelevant, because your simplistic argument was based upon numbers (remember your pontification: "its all in the numbers") not other equally important factors.

Firstly, there is no indication that your numbers are more accurate then mine, as you have not provided a source for them. Secondly, audience share is irrelevant without taking note of competition, its easy to have a high audience share when there is little to no competition.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

And you are now talking absolute gibberish on the subject of mediums and comic book. You claim that it is wrong but scarcely demonstrate it. You scarcely understand the words 'status' and 'purpose'. So, when Marvel executives sit down and talk about which comics they will run and at which audience they will target, which content do you think they will choose and which audience will they target? Yes, it is that obvious. The industry and the status of it thereof dictates the purpose of the medium. If a medium satisfies an upper market, it upscales; if it cannot sell its products to a specific age group, it either adapts to one that they can sell to or it dies. This isn't quantum mechanics. There is nothing inherent in any medium that specifies its status or purpose; the industry leaders of a specific medium dictate that and it is based upon their success in carving the marketplace for themselves. The western comic book industry failed to reach the status film or literature attained, and if the Game medium does not satisfy the intellectual needs of older age groups, it will fail, too, and carve out a thus-far no-further niche like Comic books have.

I have already debunked these points, you are just repeating your illogical argument. Purpose is subjective, to some comics offer more than movies or videogames, there is no objective measure of purpose, no matter how many times you try to claim that status is. Tell me, if most people didn't like 2001, would that make it a worse film in your eyes? Is your opinion dictated by how many other people like it?

NeoKubrick wrote: »

That's babble. I know that you don't understand the logical fallacies you have referenced to because you designated an argument based upon critical and popular success over a period of time as simultaneously argumentum ad populum and "argumentum ad critic" which are incompatible.

I designated the argument argumentum ad populum when you proposed that 2001s worth was based on the fact that so many people like it, then I pointed out the "argumentum ad critic" when you tried to base its worth on how many critics hold it as the est film. You changed your argument from one fallacy to the other, I merely labelled your fallacy for you.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

And here, you commit argumentum ad ignorantiam:

Mark Hamill wrote:

not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.

This fallacy is based upon assuming a proposition to be false if not proved true, which you demonstrate by claiming that I do not understand the argument by not summarizing and explaining it.

You are very clearly using phrases that you dont understand. That is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam, as I have never agreed or disagreed with the notion that no videogame has achieved what 2001 did (in terms of visuals and narrative). In fact it wasn't even an argument, I merely asked you what you thought they were lacking. That you cant tell the difference between a question and a debate is only more evidence that you dont understand the rest of the posts, where the debating is actually taking place.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

It isn't sufficient that you ignore evidence or proof to negate it. Read:

Offering an entire book as a substitute to explaining your opinion is not conductive to a debate on an internet forum. That you cant even give an indication of what you mean just shows that you aren't interested in (or capable of) explaining your opinion, so I have to ask, what are you even doing here?

NeoKubrick wrote: »

Trolling is not necessarily synonymous with destroying someone's argument. It is pathetic (in the word's strictest sense: evoking pity) that you are marking your statements in bold to draw moderators' attention. Do not pontificate again to me about embarrassing because I'm not threatening to report your posts. I think that it is absolutely embarrassing for you to call in a moderators' help because your arguments are weak and upset that I ruined your opportunity to quote-retard.

There is nothing in my posts to report, so what exactly would you report? As for the rest, well if you repeat that childishness, we will see what the mods think.

Mark Hamill

Jazzy wrote: »

thats what I said, from the giant wall of text both you and mark have put up I think that more agrees with what you are saying then mark? im not sure though because as i said, I dont think the points you are making are either relevant or worth making them in the first place.

I dont disagree with what the point you made (I think games are getting pretty close though).
The walls of text seem to have come up because of two basic points: 1) Neokubrick claimed that games have never reached the visuals or narrative of 2001, so I asked him to explain (and he cant) and 2) I offered the suggestion that the worst thing in the industry at the moment is the problem of developers making their games like film-makers makes films and how this basically leads to everything that destroys immersion, the most important thing in gaming (long non-interactive cutscenes, hollywood cliches etc).

NeoKubrick

Jazzy wrote: »

the smarter thing to do is not write a big wall of text and just call a spade a spade.

I hope that you remember that whenever you attempt to complain about someone not adequately backing up his claims. It's not paranoia that you leech off people on the other side of my arguments. You attempted to illicit Mark Hamill's support here in this thread: "but but but [...]" (a euphemism?). And yes, we agree on this subject.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

so I have to ask, what are you even doing here?

To answer that question, you have to ask yourself that. You have been stumbling like a drunk from one piss position to another attempting to win the debate and bringing up pure erroneous and irrelevant arguments as if each argument you lost was just an aberration. You have offered zero contribution to this thread except embarrassing threats of reporting.

Facial performance affects everything about communicating and expressing real human emotion. It is not only a problem of graphic representation; that's a relatively easy problem with a definable metric. Retr0gamer and I discussed this earlier in the thread with the uncanny valley hypothesis about the technology moving more towards realism and the repulsive affect this will have on users for a period. This is a hard problem and combined with the necessity to act out a narrative and story with these virtual characters, it is and will continue to be the biggest obstacle to the Game medium. How have you surmised that most developers do not know that immersion is the most important thing in a computer game? Did you poll a large sample of developers outside their offices and ask them?

Again, you are sheepishly using generalizations that cannot be countered to avoid using a specific argument that can. What "points" did you debunk and where? Where is the illogical argument in the previous posts about mediums? If a medium satisfies a lucrative upper market, it does not upscale? If a medium does not find an upper market, it just dies rather than adapt to a lower market? This is quantum mechanics for you? There is something inherent in a medium that specifies its status and purpose? The industry leader do not dictate the evolution of their medium? The Western comic book industry is the same status as film and literature? Your incorrect definition of 'purpose' has no bearing on the actual.

Here are three quotes on the subject of 2001: A Space Odyssey:

2001: A Space Odyssey was the product of decades of work by an industry to get to a point where it was possible to create that film, intellectually and technologically.

It is not my subjective opinion of 2001: A Space Odyssey that I base my claims on but the fact that it has continually stood the test of time for over forty years (slightly below the age of the computer game) and is still a draw when screened at cinemas and had a tremendous impact upon mainstream culture; facts that have no relation to my subjective opinion.

A definable metric for success for a medium or a piece of art has is its popularity and/or critique over time. 2001: A Space Odyssey has been seen for over forty years because of its continuing popularity and status in the critical community and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the film industry; that's not an argumentum ad populum (not able to master simple naturalized English words, you're attempting to use Latin...), it is a definable metric that no game has matched - not least because the game industry is not much older than the film and relatively a child compared to the age of the film industry.

So, no, there was no change in the argument and therefore no fallacy and you used incompatible logical fallacies for one argument. Your numbers are inadequate and the source is now in the post. Audience share has nothing whatsoever to do with the population share and you have not explained how competition evens out over the more important factors mentioned; further proof of your irrelevant arguments.

See, you don't understand even basic argumentum ad ignorantiam. Here, read two examples of it:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

not once have I actually disagreed with your statement, so all you have shown here is that you, still, dont understand the argument.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

1) Neokubrick claimed that games have never reached the visuals or narrative of 2001, so I asked him to explain (and he cant)

It does not follow that I don't understand Chion's argument because I'm not prepared to summarize and explain his book to you. That's argumentum ad ignorantiam; if you understood the terms, you would understand this. Furthermore, you implied that you did think that games have matched 2001: A Space Odyssey, here:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? Why? What are games lacking in visuals or narrative that 2001 has?

I guess that implication of shock and surprise was ironic, right, and not genuine shock and surprise that no game matched 2001: A Space Odyssey? Therefore, it leads to why, if you think that I do not understand Chion's text and Chion's book is not indicative of the high complexity of 2001's visuals and narrative, you have changed your opinion from a shock and surprise at my statement to an agreement with Jazzy's in the form of "I think games are getting pretty close though"?

If you are genuinely interested in Chion's work and 2001: A Space Odyssey, then I will take the time to summarize and explain it. However, you will have to drop these petty debates.

Zombrex

NeoKubrick wrote: »

And let's not kid ourselves: no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both. There is no comparison: there's more of a comparison with a Sunday pub football team organized on the pitch based upon where they sit in the local to FC Barcelona.

That is some what missing the point. The best games are ones that do not try to simply ape cinema, but to provide an experience that unique to the medium.

There is absolutely nothing in cinema or writing that does, or even could, compare to the experience of something like the twist in BioShock. It is simply not something the medium can do. That moment (and I'm just using it as an example) is something cinema, which is still an observational non-interactive medium, cannot emulate.

No one thought would say there is something flawed about cinema because it cannot do this, or that it is not "art". Cinema is a continuous refinement of the elements that work in cinema. Games are the same in terms of what works for the medium of interactive media.

We focus far to much on the areas that are similar and over lap in my opinion. Games, with titles such as BioShock, Deus Ex, Half Life etc have already surpassed anything that films could do in terms of this time of interactive experience. And it simply continues to get better. The fact that the narrative or writing in BioShock is not up to the quality of 2001 is rather missing the point. 2001 is not up to the quality of BioShock in terms of utter astounding mind ****ing, nor would anyone expect it to be.

We need to move away from this idea that games are simply an extension of cinema, cinema with a bit of interactivity placed in them. That is what those dreadful FMV MegaCD games were. Modern games are far more than that, particularly when they try to be.

Even take something that is not exactly the hight of sophistication, the "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2. That experience made me more uncomfortable about my own actions than any film can or ever has made me feel. I instinctively refused to fire my gun. I fired into the roof, half expecting the other terrorists with me to turn around and kill me for doing so.

Just think about that for a minute, what that actually means. In a video game, that is totally imaginary in a virtual room with polygon representations of people I refused to fire my gun into a crowd of these virtual people. You could watch the greatest film ever directed about war, with the greatest actors that have ever lived reading the greatest script every written and that film would not make me feel like that.

Because we are dealing with a completely new form of art here people tend to not really appreciate these things, but that is actually rather profound. This was a some what silly video game with a rather ridiculous plot out of a Tom Clancy novel that by all rights if it was a movie would star a lot of b-movie stars looking all serious.

Yet it gave me an experience that I have never had from any film or novel. It was five minutes of a not all that good game and it had already done what no film or novel has ever done. And it wasn't even trying that hard.

We are only tipping the iceberg in terms of what this medium can do, and the sooner we move away from getting hung up on how "cinema like" it is the more we will discover the true magic of this totally new world.

jill_valentine

Great example Wicknight. I had a lot of beefs with MW2, but thought that was a really clever use of the medium, and one of the things that does set Call of Duty apart from it's peers. The nuclear explosion and helicopter crash in the previous game was similar. The sense of panic, as I tried to find some way that I could survive was something a movie can't match.

Although I was controlling exactly what I could see, the scene unfolding around me - the other choppers crashing in the background, the other troops falling to their doom - was all unfolding for my visual benefit. The sense of helplessness I felt, as I dragged my dying carcass out to see just how doomed I was, was compounded by it's contrast with the dynamic, furious pace of previous gameplay.

I had a personal stake in the story being told, and although the story being told in MW2 in particular turned out to be a complete mess, that's neither here nor there to the subject at hand.

Retr0gamer

Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

Zombrex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

Did you fire into the crowd?

Retr0gamer

Yeah out of boredom. Was wondering to myself 'this level is ****, when's the next one'. It never got above the feeling of shooting badly scripted NPCs. If you can't even get past the suspension of disbelief that you are playing a game then it's never going to work and it really didn't as opposed to the moments in CoD4 when it did work.

kazzdee

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In general, I think developers should use proper professional voice actors rather than regular actors who have little or no experience in voice acting, like Darksiders (Mark Hamill, Phil LaMarr, Fred Tatasciore, Liam O Brien etc). Good voice acting is integral to atmosphere in a game, just like in a movie, bad acting can take you out of the immersion.


Silent Hill 2

I agree, professional voice actors should get priority, but I among many others got a kick out of seeing some of our favorite actors from screen make an appearance in our favorite or in this case, most anticipated, games. It can and will be worked on I hope as a compromise needs to be worked on so far as dialogue and delivery is concerned. But for the moment LA Noire is a step in the right direction.

jill_valentine

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

I knew the concept in advance, and wasn't expecting a whole lot out of it, but there's one particular point where an NPC tries to drag a wounded stranger to safety and that really got me.

It lost me again once the cops arrived, because even though you had to shoot them to proceed, they were armed, armoured and much more dehumanised than the poor saps in the gift shop.

Zombrex

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yeah out of boredom. Was wondering to myself 'this level is ****, when's the next one'. It never got above the feeling of shooting badly scripted NPCs. If you can't even get past the suspension of disbelief that you are playing a game then it's never going to work and it really didn't as opposed to the moments in CoD4 when it did work.

Clearly you are a psychopath :pac:

mrm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Thought the No Russian level was an excellent idea really poorly executed. It had absolutely no emotional effect on me.

I would agree with this, but the execution of what the game makers set out to do was probably delivered as they intended. To think that this section of the game commenced with a choice of to 'play' or 'skip'. Once 'play' was selected the game should have went to town with the material at hand. Unfortunately I think that the makers didn't have the talent or confidence to push it sufficiently. It was possible to walk through the scene without getting involved atall. WTF? It would have benefited with a section in which the player was 'forced' by the terrorists to gun down, say, an innocent mother and child in the airport, or the game ended (forcing a 'skip scene' on the player next time around). The scene just delivered nothing! IMHO, most games in general fall similarly short.

An interesting comparison between game makers and film makers can be seen in the upcoming Dead Island. I thought that the trailer was very movie- like and really interesting. After watching it I thought that the game would be about a family fighting together for survival against zombies on an island, until the daughter got infected and turned on the parents. I hoped that the game would progress with the parents fleeing from the daughter, trying to find a cure/ antidote for her, eventually reaching an ending containing a choice for the parents (the player) to continue seeking the cure and risk their lives or kill the daughter for a guaranteed escape off the island. Thats what the trailer hinted to me anyway and I was preparing for a purchase. What did the game makers do? I have read that it is about......... a wise cracking rapper killing zombies! Not a hint of analysis regarding if a zombie daughter is still your daughter, or simply just another zombie!:D

I think that Hollywood is all too often an embarrassment to Hollywood, but unfortunately games are not even at movies emotive levels yet, with a long way to go. Games are great in their own right, but they seem to lack the talent and decision making throughout to elicit emotion like good movies can. Game plots and dialogue are generally just of a poor quality to date. I am not saying at all that no game has delivered a product as good as hollywoods, just games in general lack equivalent emotive content.
LA Noire is a move in the right direction (albeit slowly), but it also exposed the problems that games may face if they step too close to the movie medium. The potential is certainly there, but on evidence to date I think that the talent required may be have to be sourced from outside the games industry to meet this potential.

jill_valentine

mrm wrote: »

WTF? It would have benefited with a section in which the player was 'forced' by the terrorists to gun down, say, an innocent mother and child in the airport

I disagree. By making it a condition of completing the level, it takes the responsibility off the player. Why, you've got to kill them! The level demands it! Rather than being an innocent mother and child, those characters would be simply a game mechanic like a lever or a trapdoor.

As it is, you can choose to fire or not, so it's entirely on you if you do kill somebody. It's the kind of level you only need to play once, it only needs to be effective once - the first time I played it, I did fire on some people, purely out of some weird "Dougal, don't push the big red button" impulse, and was definitely sorry immediately.

Retr0gamer

I'm not a psychopath. I just never felt like they were real people and due to this there was no emotional connection and I didn't care if they lived or died.

Now to contrast a similar scene in a game where it worked, take the final boss of MGS3.

The game builds up the character of the boss. At the end of the boss fight you are standing over the character waiting to execute her but you really don't want to but you can't move on until you physically press the trigger to execute a character that you really emphasise with.

This was the same concept except the circumstances and characters were nore relatable and therefore carried more emotional weight.

The developers tried to do the same thing but for me utterly failed. Another reason for their failure is having a CIA agent taking part in a full on terrorist act to retain their cover. The CIA have done some terrible things over the years but even this was too much.

mrm

jill_valentine wrote: »

I did fire on some people, purely out of some weird "Dougal, don't push the big red button" impulse, and was definitely sorry immediately.

I think I did shoot one person also, and it was for the same reason!:o But that airport scene requires more gravitas than that Father Ted scene.

The No Russian scene was about the character being dropped into a morally reprehensible situation (I assume) - another pawn in the winding 'story' of MW2. Yet it was too easy to step away from it completely. You had already selected to get involved, but then you didn't have to. It would have been more fitting if the player was forced to get involved in the gritty aspect of the task- the whole moral dilemma of 'innocents being sacrificed to save greater numbers'. Without this it was relegated to the level of the 'dougal pushes the red button'. Surely the terrorists would have spotted me not shooting and reacted accordingly. It had none of the impact of (oldish movies spoilers)

kaiser Soze killing his children in Unusual Suspects, or Liam Neeson shooting his old friends wife in Taken, or Zorg smothering Betty in Betty Blue, or the moral pain expressed in Paths of Glory.

It had none of the impact of the nuclear exposion scene ending in MW1. The allowed detachment resulted in no impact atall.

I actually liked myself for not shooting innocent people in the airport; the game would have been served better if I actually hated myself for what I had just done (like Di Caprios character in certain tasks in The Departed). Plenty of movies have achieved this impact, but a mainstream game IMHO simply backed down!

johnny_ultimate

(Some spoilers ahead for Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Bioshock, but I've kept the descriptions as vague as possible)

I've always thought MW has been a mix of good ideas and piss poor implementation. I felt deeply uncomfortable at the beginning of MW1 where you had to mow down sleeping sailors. Perhaps that's the point, but in forcing the player to commit a morally questionable act it felt like a dodgy opening gambit. No Russians did pull it off a little better, it's definitely a surprising and affecting scene. But then you have the contrast of being forced to shoot through countless waves of generic 'Middle Eastern' enemies over the rest of the game. It's a game that presents ideas but seems to contradict itself at the same time.

TBH, the most emotionally effective of all CoD scenes was the most emotionally cold of them all - the level in MW1 where you had to murder countless individuals from the removed position of a night vision display. It got into the morally removed aspects of modern warfare very effectively indeed.

I agree though that forcing the player to commit a certain action can both be a brave artistic decision and an example of the limits of interactivity. There's a bit at the end of Assassins Creed: Brotherhood that I thought had serious emotional resonance as you're forced to commit an act against your own will (that the game forces you to murder countless others without much thought of the moral consequences is of course another matter all together). Indeed, even your 'avatar' Desmond is desperately trying to avoid doing it. But then there's a bit in Mirror's Edge where you have to use a sniper rifle to murder a politician - wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the game wasn't playable without shooting a gun. This one moment of forced gunplay really stood out as against the design principles of the rest of the game.

Of course, Bioshock for all its flaws is the one game that vocally brought up these issues - it's a game about interactivity and mindlessly following the instructions of the designer. When the curtain drops and it's revealed you're merely a puppet, it says more about interactivity than any game that came before or after it. For all the game's flaws (especially the painfully linear conclusion that follows), the themes and concepts of player involvement are fascinating and a massive success altogether.

Retr0gamer

I thought MW1 was far more effective in that regard. No Russian did nothing for me and I could see what they were trying for with suburban america and the white house devastated by war but it just did not work unlike the best parts of MW1.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I thought MW1 was far more effective in that regard. No Russian did nothing for me and I could see what they were trying for with suburban america and the white house devastated by war but it just did not work unlike the best parts of MW1.

Well I thought MW1 for the most part had a dreadful singleplayer campaign for the most part.

The best moments in the game - the nuclear fallout, the gunner mission etc... - were the ones where you weren't tied to the same old CoD format: walk forward, shoot, keep shooting and walking forward til you trigger the invisible trigger point.

Retr0gamer

I thought it had a great single player campaign. Still I don't think you could say MW2 was better in that regard.