Charlie Brooker: Gaming makes Hollywood look embarrassing.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

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

Oh, I dislike MW2 singleplayer too - despite some fun setpieces, the story was beyond shambolic and quickly resorted to one too many shock character deaths (a trick they used once in MW1 to great effect, and around seven times in MW2 to diminishing returns everytime :pac:).

As said, whatever about the story of Half-Life and Half-Life 2 occasionally lacking originality, the delivery is far and away the high point of FPS storytelling. Emerging from the train station at the beginning of HL2 is a moment cinema couldn't echo, and is up there with the likes of the first Jurassic Park dinosaur reveal in terms of spine-tingling effectiveness. And the super rare moments when the player isn't in control - every scene with everyone's favourite mysterious stranger, the end of Episode 2 - are superbly effective because it actually means something.

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

To answer that question, you have to ask yourself that.

To answer that question, all you need do is answer it. Psuedo-intellectual responses are worse than stupid responses. A stupid person can learn from his mistakes, a pseudo-intellectual will hold up his mistakes as if they are victories.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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

Actually that would be you.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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.

And I would agree a lot with what Retr0gamer said, "I think games should step out of the uncanny value and this race to be more realistic because I don't think it's acheiveable. I'm all for more stylised looks and think they can convey far more emotion than any weird looking plasticy lump of polygons vaguely resembling a human". I think that games still can aim for photorealistic emotions (Enslaved is a good example I think), but with a developer with artistic vision, they simply dont need to all the time.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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?

Are you looking for an answer beyond the fact that I play videogames and have seen this problem arise in everything from $100 million blockbusters to bargain basement indy sleepers.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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.

You know full well that I have covered these in my previous posts, I will not repeat myself.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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

So, no, there was no change in the argument and therefore no fallacy and you used incompatible logical fallacies for one argument.

Whatever about not reading my posts, could you at least read your own? The second quote you referenced was your argument about how 2001 is still a draw (argumentum ad populum) while your third quote was your argument about how well it was and is critiqued (argumentum ad critic).

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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.

Your post still ignores that population share is irrelevant if you dont take account of competition at the time of release. 2001 had far less competition at the time of release than Transformers, so its not possible to say that it would have enjoyed the same viewership had it been released in the same circumstances.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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

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.

Actually it does follow. You assert an opinion, but are completely uncooperative when asked to explain, now claiming that it would require the summarisation of a book to explain (even loosely) what you meant when you said games haven't achieved what 2001 has, in visuals or narrative. That you cant even give a general description of what you mean, one example of either a visual or narrative aspect of 2001 that you think supports your claim, implies that you dont actually know of one. It implies that you hold this opinion because you think you should, but without understanding the reasons why.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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?

Unless you are reading that post with a major inferiority complex about your own opinion of 2001, there is nothing in it which actually questions that 2001 is ahead of games, as it is simply asking for what aspects of 2001 do you think are ahead of games. It does not bode well for your constant assertions that your definitions and arguments are correct when you cant tell the difference between a request for clarification and a contradiction.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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"?

Where did I say that I thought Chions book isn't indicative of 2001s complexity? I haven't even read, so why would I make that claim? Another strawman? The fact that I agree with Jazzy would inform an impartial reading that I was never shocked and surprised at you claim, merely that I was asking for specifics in relation to 2001.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

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.

I am not interested in Chions work. I am interested in your opinion. If your opinion and your argument is simply Chions book, then I am not interested. I like debating with people who, while inspired and informed by books and intellectuals and other things, actual think about what they encounter and have considered their own opinions, and not simply replaced their own thinking wholesale with that of someone else.

NeoKubrick

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Actually it does follow. [...]

So, you don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam if you claim that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true, which you have. You claimed that because I did not prove my understanding of Chion's argument that I cannot ("so I asked him to explain (and he cant)"). That's a clear and simple case of declaring false because of what has not been proven true: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

In response to my statement "no game has come close to 2001: A Space Odyssey in terms of visuals or narrative or both", you replied: "Really? Why?". Unless that is a standard reply to something agreeable or known, which it is not (example: "no person has come close to travelling at the speed of light": "Really? Why?"), you implied that the concept (that games have not surpassed film in these areas) was unknown to you. The fact that you agree with Jazzy now does not retroactively mean that you were not shocked or surprised or that the concept was known to you before. I did not claim that you thought Chion's book is not indicative of the high complexity of 2001's visuals and narrative; if you had read it correctly, then you would notice the condition 'if' upon which it hangs: "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 can question my reading comprehension, but I do not think you understand what a conjunction is. In the second quote, it is used to join together that the film has stood the test of time for over forty years (a critique) and is still a draw at cinemas (popular) and had a tremendous impact upon mainstream culture; in the third, it is used, that the film has been seen because of its continuing popularity (popular) and its status in the critical community (critique) and a product of over sixty years of advancement in the medium.

I know full well that you do not understand the concept of mediums (you already demonstrated that in your confusion of form and content) and consequently, in every post, you have used sheepish generalizations to hide behind rather than specific details of your points; I cannot counter-argument a non-existent argument, which is the sum of your contribution.

You claimed that more people paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. You have failed to qualify how the competition of relative films qualifies this statement. The population share a work receives is to important factors such as the size of the population, the size of the economy, the size of the film industry and the average cinema tickets sales for that year which all benefited Transformers. So, you still have not proven how the competition supersedes all of these to such an extent that you can claim it evens out. The competition is a small factor which bears no mention relative to the important factors.

This debate has obviously run its course.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.
[...]
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 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.

I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree with most of your points. Visual and narrative are not exclusive to the Film medium: it is content and Games should be thriving for the depth and complexity of 2001: A Space Odyssey, just not in the form of film but the form fit for the Game medium.

Cinema has emulated twists as in the example of BioShock. There is participation in Film; whereas the participation in Games is explicit, in Films it is implicit (read here to understand what I mean). In Inglourious Basterds, the premise of the film as advertised was that there are a bunch of American troops killing and scalping Nazis during World War II. In the film, Nazi propaganda dictate that a film about a Nazi sniper hero be commissioned in which the sniper kills a lot of American soldiers. In the final part of Inglourious Basterds, Nazi dignitaries attend the opening screening of the film to celebrate the victory of the German soldier killing American soldiers in the same manner that Americans and others attended numerous exploitative war films and Inglorious Basterds to celebrate the victory of their soldiers in killing German ones. It is an ingenious and subtle twist and compare it to BioShock's which was simplistic and obvious. If you make the connection in Inglorious Basterds, it is going to inform you of your behaviour and perhaps modify it. BioShock's could have been just as meaningful if it allowed the player to ignore Atlas' commands but it does not. Inglourious Basterds is just one example.

It would depend upon what you mean by "mind fucking". Personally, I think that it is piece of work which keeps defying your understanding of it. In that case, 2001: A Space Odyssey is the ultimate "mind fuck" and another great example from film would be Mulholland Drive.

A medium will be good and strong in some aspects and consequently bad and weak in others. Your citing of the "No Russian" level in Modern Warfare 2 is a very good example of where the Game medium is strong: explicit high participation in a war action game. Chris Hecker made the good and correct point that the hardest film to make is the easiest game to make: great epic war battles, spaceships fighting et cetera. Conversely, the easiest film to make is the hardest game to make: two people talking in a room. Similarly, as I would not necessarily praise a director for putting two people in a room and feeding them adequate dialogue, I would not necessarily praise a game developer for an easy design choice.

I would also strongly disagree on "Cinema like". There are two ends of the spectrum for the Game medium at the moment: the art, cinema-like narrative experience and social and competitive experience. The Game industry is a business and will seek to maximize profits and market share; there should be capital for both developing games near one end of the spectrum and the other, but if the developers don't attempt to solve the hard problems related to creating games with high quality narratives and a singleplayer experience, then it is not hard to see where the industry and medium will put their money. It'll be just a highly lucrative but glorified playground, or casino.

Mark Hamill

NeoKubrick wrote: »

So, you don't understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are committing argumentum ad ignorantiam if you claim that a proposition is false because it has not been proven true, which you have. You claimed that because I did not prove my understanding of Chion's argument that I cannot ("so I asked him to explain (and he cant)"). That's a clear and simple case of declaring false because of what has not been proven true: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam if I assumed you couldn't explain your understanding. Multiple times I have asked you to explain your reasoning and multiple times you have simply deigned not to. At this stage, the likelihood is great that you either dont understand the argument and only hold to it in order to appear to have an intelligent opinion or that you are trolling. There is no other reason why you cant give if a simple explanation of why you think something is so good.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

In response to my statement ....
...I cannot counter-argument a non-existent argument, which is the sum of your contribution.

This is just empty assertions of your superiority and my inferiority coupled with pseudo-intellectual ****, which, incidentally, has been the major contribution in all of your posts. Declaring my opinions and definitions as wrong is not the same thing as demonstrating them to be wrong. I have explained why you are wrong in your various assertions, your various definitions and your various logical fallacies and your entire counter argument has been to declare that I am the one suffering from them with little to no explanation or proof as to why that is the case (and what explanation has been forthcoming falls under its own ill thought "logic"). A rather transparent attempt to derail the thread and drive away from your inability to expand on your original assertion about 2001. Just answer the question, if you can.

NeoKubrick wrote: »

You claimed that more people paid to see Transformers than 2001: A Space Odyssey. You have failed to qualify how the competition of relative films qualifies this statement. The population share a work receives is to important factors such as the size of the population, the size of the economy, the size of the film industry and the average cinema tickets sales for that year which all benefited Transformers. So, you still have not proven how the competition supersedes all of these to such an extent that you can claim it evens out. The competition is a small factor which bears no mention relative to the important factors.

This debate has obviously run its course.

What an odd course it was:
ME: Request clarification on your point about 2001
YOU: Declare that by asking the question, I show that I am incapable of understanding the answer and in the same post claim that I am asserting that games match it.
ME: Question where this is coming from and why you cant answer the question
YOU (and for the rest of the thread): My opinion comes from a book, it doesn't need to be explained. Every word you use is wrong because I declare it so.