IC Forum Archive

Lobst · Posts: 96

Scratchmonkey wrote:

Sweet Fancy Christ. I'm kind of glad I stopped reading this thread now.

Yeah; it appears to have been turned into a makeshift discussion of what one person's words mean to everyone else. Way off the trail I intended to forge for us to all merrily march upon -- the one lined with talk of female stereotypes from anywhere from Rockstar Games to Nippon Ichi Studios, creative intent with regard to what "vibe" the authors are going for, and what constitutes "respect" in terms of a touchy subject like this one, dotted and punctuated with outrageous examples of misogynistic idealization found in games like Magna Carta or God of War, and brief, heartwarming anecdotes of past reactions to oversexualized game characters. We could have even ended it with a crashing deluge of Tron Bonne cheesecake fan art, for absolutely no reason! It could have been legendary.

As another aside, one of my worst college memories comes from the first day of an American Culture/Civilization class, in which the teacher -- a woman in her mid-forties with short, graying hair -- told us as she was passing out syllabi that she liked to teach this subject "through gender". I won't bore you with the details of the months ahead, suffice it to say that I've been wary of any such discussion ever since.

...I guess what I'm trying to say is, maybe the derail was a good thing?

dhex · Posts: 2963

zebadayus · Posts: 672

Talbain · Posts: 628

sethsez wrote:

So Talbain, do you think Demolition Man was meant to be realistic?

You have an extremely skewed view of fantasy. Just because something uses realistic settings and human characters doesn't mean it isn't completely nuts and 100% in fantasy land. Videogames have warped your expectations of what "realistic" means.

I've seen this when people call Metal Gear Solid a "realistic" series as well. I mean, what the fuck?

Yet people wonder why no one takes video games seriously. I used to not understand what people like Roger Ebert meant when he said "Games aren't art." But I think I do now. Deep down, almost no one actually takes games seriously, even those who have been ingrained into the culture surrounding video games. What's worse, is that the video game genre has accepted its own ridiculous stature - both those who play them and those who make them. I take video games seriously because I want them to be a serious subject; I want them to be as developed and intelligent as art, as movies, as books. But I suppose that's still a long way off, given that people at large won't even consider them in the realm of reality yet.

I think I'm done arguing. There's no point with you guys anyways.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

What?

There's a difference between taking something seriously and claiming that it's realistic. Do you seriously not understand this?

I take Shadow of the Colossus seriously. It is not realistic. I take Metal Gear Solid seriously. It is not realistic.

By the same token, I take 8 1/2 seriously. It is not realistic. I take Brazil seriously. It is not realistic.

Equating realism with seriousness is just retarded. I don't have to claim that something is realistic to justify taking it seriously, and if you do, that's a mental barrier you need to get over. Using the fantastic and exaggerated to cast light on reality is an extremely common approach in cinema and literature, so your whole "if it's not realistic then it's not serious" approach is... well, as I said, retarded.

And again. Just because you want to claim DoA is realistic doesn't mean it is. It's got exaggerated characters in bizarre situations with a fantastic plot. It isn't realistic no matter how much you kick and scream about it on the internet.

thatbox · Posts: 816

Talbain, Ebert's thing about games not being art focuses on the fact that you're affecting things too much for them to be presented to you by a director/artist/designer/composer/etc. as an idea to be consumed.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Yeah, I can't imagine Ebert claiming a lack of realism being the main factor in their lack of artistry. Look at his "great films" list and you'll find a whole hell of a lot of fantastic (as in, not realistic) movies.

Then again, I guess if your only requirement for being realistic is "stars humans that aren't drawn like anime" then I guess Groundhog Day is realistic.

Talbain · Posts: 628

By the same token, seth, I could say your lack of ability to perceive the fantastical as reality is a mental barrier as well.

thatbox, you're right, Ebert wasn't a very good example, in any case.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

By the same token, seth, I could say your lack of ability to perceive the fantastical as reality is a mental barrier as well.

Fantastic stories can be, and usully are, used to better explain aspects of reality. That doesn't make the stories themselves realistic. You apparantly can't tell the difference between these two, and then can't tell the difference between "serious" and "realistic."

And no matter what way you interpret this, Dead or Alive is not realistic in any possible sense aside from, perhaps, having realistic looking graphics (that exists to portray unrealistic art design).

Zigfried · Posts: 15

Even though Soul Calibur is steeped in fantasy, I consider it to be more (internally) realistic than Dead or Alive. It knows its own dramatic boundaries, and it stays safely within those boundaries. The concept of Soul Calibur is absurd, but a straight-faced story could easily be created based on in-game events. If I were to compare it to anime, I'd compare it to Record of Lodoss War. Soul Calibur follows the rules of its world to the letter.

Dead or Alive is more like Slayers -- it sets up its fictional world, and then tries to bend the rules in unexpected ways. There's a thin dramatic thread for people to latch onto, but it's primarily an assortment of inside jokes, ridiculous action, and absurdly over-the-top melodrama (see: Ayane's DOA4 ending). Whereas Soul Calibur would have people fight on a narrow raft for dramatic effect, Dead or Alive has people fight in the middle of oncoming traffic for zany effect.

The problem with bending a fictional world's rules is that creators might accidentally break the rules (or at least, break them in the eyes of the audience). Whether comedic or dramatic, people treat their favorite games/movies/books seriously and form expectations as they play/watch/read. I don't think DOA has ever reached that breaking point, which is a big part of why I respect the series.

Well, that and Ayane.

//Zig

Talbain · Posts: 628

sethsez wrote:

Talbain wrote:

By the same token, seth, I could say your lack of ability to perceive the fantastical as reality is a mental barrier as well.

Fantastic stories can be, and usully are, used to better explain aspects of reality. That doesn't make the stories themselves realistic.

Everything is based in reality. Thus, even the most fantastical story holds truth. If it is based in imagination it does not make it any less real. Otherwise, even the fantastical would be unacceptable. People do not accept what their minds cannot perceive.

An example might be the Native Americans first meeting with the Europeans. The Native Americans only initially knew of the Europeans coming because the water seemed to move strangely. They did not yet see the ships. The Native American's mystics had to "unveil" these ships to the other Native Americans for them to even be able to see them. This is because to the other Native Americans, the idea of a sailing ship was not possible. Only through the help of the mystics could such an understanding be reached.

Today, media (in all its different forms) is this attempt at understanding, though it seems that most people are happy to remain ignorant.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

"Everything is realistic" makes the term completely useless for discussing stories, which is why that's not the definition anybody uses for these discussions.

Talbain · Posts: 628

sethsez wrote:

"Everything is realistic" makes the term completely useless for discussing stories, which is why that's not the definition anybody uses for these discussions.

Then tell me, how did you understand the language used to create that story? How did you understand the environments given to you in that story - was snow something that was completely made up; or how about the trees? How did you understand the situations or scenarios in terms of how serious they were - did you not know that the gun was dangerous or that the fire was hot? Where did you start pulling things in that are outside reality?

Everything is already there.

dhex · Posts: 2963

these are not the fnords you're looking for.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

sethsez wrote:

"Everything is realistic" makes the term completely useless for discussing stories, which is why that's not the definition anybody uses for these discussions.

Then tell me, how did you understand the language used to create that story? How did you understand the environments given to you in that story - was snow something that was completely made up; or how about the trees? How did you understand the situations or scenarios in terms of how serious they were - did you not know that the gun was dangerous or that the fire was hot? Where did you start pulling things in that are outside reality?

Everything is already there.

Use of realistic elements != realism. There's no such thing as a completely fantastic story, but when people talk about fantasy stories or realistic stories, they're not talking about absolutes.

Thus, when someone says Demolition Man isn't realistic, you know what they mean. Unless you're a moron. Which I'm assuming you're not and you're just arguing semantics to try and impress everyone with your superior grasp on the nature of stories. Of course, you're really just showing your sub-standard grasp of how these words are used in a narrative context.

Having ties to reality, and having a realistic foundation, do not keep a story from being fantastic or still being dubbed "unrealistic." Your little stab at intellectualism here is backfiring.

Edit: In conclusion, a housecat is realistic. Talking is realistic. College is realistic. A cat giving a lecture at Cambridge is not realistic.

Talbain · Posts: 628

sethsez wrote:

Having ties to reality, and having a realistic foundation, do not keep a story from being fantastic or still being dubbed "unrealistic." Your little stab at intellectualism here is backfiring.

Edit: In conclusion, a housecat is realistic. Talking is realistic. College is realistic. A cat giving a lecture at Cambridge is not realistic.

Ties to reality? What is so unrealistic about any given situation in context? Is it merely unlikely, or is it something that you yourself cannot believe? I'm merely asking you to tell me what your version of reality entails.

Is a talking cat at Cambridge unrealistic, or is it simply something you cannot believe? Let's move away from the less likely, and into something more possible by most people's standards.

What would you say about people who see ghosts? Are they simply crazy, or do they see more than what we see? Perhaps the people who do not see ghosts are the crazy ones for accepting a certain level of truth. That's merely what I'm asking you to consider seth.

What about dreams? Despite being fantastical, do they carry no truth? Are they "just dreams?" They certainly seem realistic for those who dream them.

Also, I'm not trying to be intellectual, I'm trying to get you to consider the possibility that there's more out there than what's on the surface - people spend far too much time looking at what everyone else can already see.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

Is a talking cat at Cambridge unrealistic, or is it simply something you cannot believe?

lol

winkerwanker · Posts: 2414

sup thread

extralife · Posts: 3316

Talbain wrote:

Is a talking cat at Cambridge unrealistic, or is it simply something you cannot believe?

dhex, I demand you use this quote in your sig.

Lobst · Posts: 96

Talbain wrote:

Also, I'm not trying to be intellectual, I'm trying to get you to consider the possibility that there's more out there than what's on the surface - people spend far too much time looking at what everyone else can already see.

Okay, Talbain, you obtuse motherfucker:

I've kept myself relatively neutral on this debate up until now, but you've obviously seen my limits, utilized the tiny computer in your retina to identify them as being a series of consecutive walls made of a durable elastic substance, and apparently chosen to drive at them full-speed in a jet-black Pontiac Trans Am. And I'm sorry to say it, but your determination has succeeded to the point where you've broken through every one of them in a single sentence.

Something to think about: On the messageboard where people like Tim Rogers and Mister Toups come to discuss matters of gaming urgency, you are the first one whose proudly extended middle finger has spontaneously shoved itself down my throat, triggering my gag reflex.

Get out of this thread, and think about what you've done.

Takashi · Posts: 820

Hoping this doesn't get lost in exciting internet drama, I'd like to point the BongBoing'ed article Writing A ‘Girls In Games’ Article as impertinent to this thread.

dhex · Posts: 2963

extralife: i have relented.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

dhex wrote:

i am again reminded of an ornery roshi who insisted on punching students in the face when they would have their "ZOMG the universe is in my mind" epiphany.

Yeah, I'd say that's a fair summary of the situation.

Talbain · Posts: 628

I've always liked this quote.

"1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

Though this is quite fun. I'm just taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

I think your problem is that you think that everybody else is on the first step of enlightenment while you're on the second, when in actuality everybody else is on the third.

Dhex's parable is pretty applicable to the situation, really, if you can suss it out.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

I'm just taking the argument to its logical conclusion.

No, you're taken it to its illogical conclusion. "Things A, B and C turned out to be true, thus anything we can possibly imagine is true even if imagined for the sole purpose of being separated from reality" is a fallacy.

And I will bet you anything, absolutely anything you could possibly want to bet that never, in the history of the universe, will a cat give a lecture at Cambridge.

I have to agree with dhex, put down the bong. There's a fine line between insight and banality, and you've sailed over it.

dhex · Posts: 2963

talbain: if you send me *all* of your money i will return it to you in a week's time, plus 3% interest. however, if you do not send me all of your money, - not just some - you will receive no interest. i will not only know how much your total assets are worth, but i will be able to give you a total return on that investment in seven days (only five of which are business days) which puts most nearly every investment instrument to shame.

so are you going to send me your money or what?

also: scratch is wrong. i'm on the seventh fnord of endarkenment, which is like running backwards down a long and dangerous hill.

double edit: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Talbain · Posts: 628

I've got 15 bucks in my bank account. You must be pretty desperate.

dhex · Posts: 2963

1) is that the total sum of your assets to date? (remember, i will know if you are lying)

2) don't you want this to be $15.45 in seven days' time?

3) i'm not the one with the opportunity here. you are! are you going to let this go to waste because it seems impractical or even downright fraudulent compared to other investments and debt instruments? remember your own words, mr. talbain: "consider the possibility that there's more out there than what's on the surface" - can you see the opportunity that lies beneath the surface here? or are you content to presume "this is a scam?" simply because that's what everyone else thinks?

don't let consensual reality get in the way of your dreams.

Talbain · Posts: 628

1) Actually, it's 23.38, I just went and checked. I'm a rich bastard.

2) No, not really; since in the grand scheme of things, one way or another I'll make that money again.

3) I don't remember dreaming that I'd give you 15 bucks.

4) This thread is fun. Even if one wanted to deny the idea of different realities, the very fact that it is something worth arguing over gives it credence, even if it is just strict denial.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

the very fact that it is something worth arguing over gives it credence

No, it really doesn't.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

So if I accused you of being a reptoid and you denied it, my original supposition would have credence simply because it involved "debate"?

This thread is where logic goes to die.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Scratchmonkey wrote:

So if I accused you of being a reptoid and you denied it

Why would he deny it? Everything is real! Nothing could ever be considered fantasy.

Talbain · Posts: 628

Scratchmonkey wrote:

This thread is where logic goes to die.

Yes, but isn't it more fun that way?

If you were to call me a reptoid, why would I deny it? I don't even know what a reptoid is, so how could I not be one? If you told me what one is perhaps then I could respond, but even then, what is a reptoid? It's just a name. It serves as nothing more than something to categorize context.

If I called a Kleenex a fireball, would it not be a fireball?

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Stoned College Freshman in Introductory Philosophy will return after this commercial break.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Talbain wrote:

If I called a Kleenex a fireball, would it not be a fireball?

No, it'd be a Kleenex that you decided to call a fireball.

This conversation reminds me of when The Matrix came out and suddenly everyone was a philosopher.

dark steve · Posts: 3002

Talbain you need some Wittgenstein in you yesterday.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Just don't look at your HANDS, maaaaan.

WHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAA

dhex · Posts: 2963

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Okay, so one time I was, like, tripping, or something, and like, I suddenly realized it. We're all made of energy, right? I mean, if all matter is made of energy then we're made of energy so we're creatures of energy. So, like, all energy affects all other energy in small, imperceptible ways, but, like, if we're all, like, energy, then we're really all just one huge being, so we must share one conciousness. So, like, I figured out what God is, man. And, like, when I realized that, it was like, you know, wow. So then I figured that, you know, if colors are all just different frequencies of light, then, like, maybe we could achieve world peace by just painting everything blue, which seems to affect our hamonic... stuff... the best, you know? The energy would, like, calm us down and make us stop fighting so we can be God again.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Dude.

Scratchmonkey · Posts: 2229

Seth, I totally looked my hands.

I looked at my hands man, I looked at my hands.

They aren't really MY hands anymore.

WHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAA

sethsez · Posts: 1977

Scratchmonkey wrote:

Seth, I totally looked my hands.

I looked at my hands man, I looked at my hands.

They aren't really MY hands anymore.

WHOOOOOOOOAAAAAAA

Dude don't look at your hands!

ipslore · Posts: 262

Talbain wrote:

If I called a Kleenex a fireball, would it not be a fireball?

There'd be two kinds of fireball, then: the kind that's hot and blows stuff up, and the kind that's made out of paper and used to blow your nose. You'd be talking about the second kind.

winkerwanker · Posts: 2414

You know people are entitled to an opinion but the very fact that it is an opinion does not liberate it from being right or wrong.

You could think an orange was a penguin but you would be wrong.

Screwtape · Posts: 81

sethsez wrote:

So then I figured that, you know, if colors are all just different frequencies of light, then, like, maybe we could achieve world peace by just painting everything blue

Mr. Carpainter? Is that you?

extralife · Posts: 3316

I am going to let this thread run its course for a little while longer, and then I am going to rename it "Bozo and the Cat in Cambridge" and move it to Thread Fighter where it belongs.

sethsez · Posts: 1977

It really is very amusing. I'm used to seeing that kind of stoner pseudo-philosophy in other corners of the internet, but not here.

dhex · Posts: 2963

Zigfried · Posts: 15

Most of that fancy talk went over my head, but I did learn something valuable:
talking cats are realistic, whereas the DOA girls are ridiculous.

//Zig