18th November 2004, 4:32 PM
Quote:Ah. You misunderstand. That statment you quote there is absolutely correct. However, you have failed to analyze it. Think. What have I been saying? What was I saying then? I was saying that, if the text was meant to be a integral part of the film (that is, when they were working on making the movie there were worrying to a good extent about what should go in the text and how that would affect the people's experiences with the movie), then I would say that it may well count as text as well as visual. THIS IS NOT IMPLYING THAT THIS IS THE CASE FOR ANY SPECIFIC MOVIE HOWEVER! I even specifically stated, multiple times, that I thought that that was NOT the case for the case of 'The Passion'! So that quote there is absolutely correct, but it's a theoretical stance that I do not know of any real-world application of. Certainly not for the film in question here.[
Once again, my statements have not changed. You just "misinterpreted" them into meaning something else (this is so systematic of you that I have to seriously wonder if you do it on purpose...).
If by "misinterpreting" you mean that I proved your point to be laughable and false then yes, you are correct.
Like I've been saying this entire time, you don't understand the definition of any of the terms that we are using. You don't know what makes a video game. You don't know how to classify mediums. You don't know what cinematic means. You don't know what influence means. You don't know jack shit.
This is getting very old. Continue this way and I'm leaving this thread.
Quote:Not my entire case. It is a good enough portion to get me to argue the issue, since the fact is that text-based adventure games are a huge thing in the favor of saying 'books have greatly influenced computer games', but it's not the whole thing. It's probably more about the fact that your position is so ubelievably stupid.
Haha, your unbelievable stupidity really cracks me up. Read above post.
Quote:But as I just explained it's irrelevant if they are "video games" or not! That arguement, is, from every way I can see the issue, completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. They are obviously in the same category as every other kind of computer games, but if you really must be an idiot about this (and I keep repeating "computer games" for a reason: to me, "video games" means console games, as they are played on a TV Video display as compared to a computer monitor... I don't go to my PC to play video games. And besides, "computer games" does not include some moronic definition you can abuse into discarding whole genres. And as for console games in this arguement, you've been talking about them, not me. I don't think I've mentioned any other than the two you brought up, while I have talked about a lot of PC games.), well then, how about I discuss King's Quest, Wizardry, NetHack, and Castle Adventure? It might dillute my arguement slightly, but not overly much. And it wouldn't bring back this idiotic arguement.
Overall, the conclusion is the obvious: they take influences from many sources.
So, how do those four games fit into the discussion of influences on games from outside sources? First, King's Quest (I, mid '80s). The game uses now-simple, but then great (16 color EGA!) graphics to create the world. You move around with the arrow keys, and interact with things by moving near them and then typing simple two or three word commands -- 'talk king' for instance. If you press the arrow key, you'll keep moving in that direction until you hit something. This could be compared to a graphical version of Zork -- you can move off the screen in four directions, wander around this region, pick up items with commands, solve puzzles with wits or items... avoid dangerous creatures... and just like how it clearly has decended from Zork it has clearly decended from fantasy literature. Simple? Yes, definitely. Equal to a book? No. But the ideas the game uses obviously come from books. Graphics in those days didn't have the finesse to do a whole lot from film (or animation, though this would be a bit more pertinent because it's got a cartoonish art style)... it's like playing a simple fantasy story.
Wizardry? Wizardry VI, that is (1991). As well as Castle Adventure (a simple but entertaining game) and NetHack. Clearly the biggest influences for these games are D&D. Each game has its own style, and it's own system, but the basic idea is to do something like a pen and paper RPG on a computer. So you have lots of combat and some descriptions of areas and, in some games, conversations. Now, fantasy includes films as well, so here the influences are more widespread, but... writing clearly plays a role. For instance in NetHack, items don't have new written descriptions; instead there are quotes from various books and poems and the like. The areas themselves don't have descriptions. Dungeons are randomly generated, so it's just up to your mind... but the literature they use for item descriptions are often great. In Wizardry, each room has a description when you enter. No graphics here to differentiate the rooms, just standard "wall", "floor", etc. tiles. So it's all up to the sentences they use to describe it. And sometimes it's just mediocre. But sometimes the writing is great. So far into the game, this is my favorite room description (from the hint guide, so it's exact).
LEARN WHAT INFLUENCE MEANS AND HOW THAT RELATES TO MY ARGUMENT!!!!!
I refuse to repeat myself for the tenth time! I've explained this to you in GREAT DETAIL yet you've ignored it/couldn't comprehend it each time!
Quote:Quote:
Fibrous shreds of stained rot cling to the walls where colorful tapestry once proclaimed sovereignty in this official chamber. With grim mockery, the sweeter taste of a mighty throne perched high above the room has long turned sour, as it sits condemned to languish in its own final sentence. If there is any last judgement to be decreed upon this fallen chamber and tarnished throne, it must be gleaned from the decay that it laps upon its own dais as itself festers and rots, bearing witness to emptiness, filth and stench, silently weeping tears of its owned despoiled substance.
This is not something a graphical medium could convey in the same terms. This is not something that is "wholly a graphical medium".
If that's a text-based game then it is not a game. If it's an actual video game and uses excerpts from novels then it is a video game. Movies can show quotes from books as well!
Quote:Look, either just stop responding to anything about "cinematic" or say what is so horribly wrong about what I'm saying. More insults will not get anywhere.
With anybody else I would, but since you can't even understand a single one of my easy-to-understand sentences, there is no point.
Quote:Then you are wrong, simple as that, as my previous response should make abundantly clear.
Yeah your previous response is as inane as all of your posts have been so far. You don't even know how mediums are classified, so you're just making yourself look like an even bigger moron.
Quote:Influence does matter. It says how something got to be the way it is. More important is the results, though, which I've also been trying to describe... but influence does matter. Yes, they come from many places, but you can identify major ones, or at least try to, and it definitely helps explain how something gets to be the way it is...
No, it does not! So if I create a game that's mainly influenced by grass, does it change it's classification as a medium?? Idiot.
Quote:I can see calling books 'digital' (though it's a bit weird when that term generally means something electronic and books are best on paper)... and yes they are different from film, or drawings or what have you. There are clear similarities, but books leave more room for imagination and for the person experiencing it to interject their own thoughts or opinions onto the medium... with film that is possible too, but to a lesser extent because of how they are visual. So the user interacts with each in a different way, yes. This is not the problem with your arguement.
The problem comes when you try to equate games with film -- that is, when you say that just like film games are primarially a visual medium. As I've said throughout, this is just not true. I know you keep denigrating games for not having graphics that express themselves as well as movies do, and that is a good complaint, but they do the best they can and their efforts do not count for nothing.
The reason why you've never heard books being called digital and continue to call books a “written medium” is because like I said you are completely, 100% ignorant to every aspect of this debate. Every aspect. This is like some moron kid arguing with a contruction worker over how cranes work. It's pathetic.You sir, are pathetic.
Quote:Mario? Stupid example. That game doesn't really have a story, controllable or not -- and for some games this is okay. Zelda? There are cutscenes, but they are limited in length and number relative to the rest of the game. And they are often put around pieces where you have control, so the player doesn't sit around doing nothing for a long time. Seriously, you talk about (or very strongly imply) how great you are and how stupid I am and then you come back with standard OB1 non-responses to serious matters... shows how well you live up to your own "standards".
And I did not say that games are horrible just because they fail to include more interactivity. I said that it should be an ideal because they are the interactive medium! The whole POINT of games is interactivity. So giving the player something to do and making them feel like they are really a part of the world and are in control and direct what is happening -- even if (or especially if, that might be more accurate) it is all an illusion -- is GOOD. Trying to involve the player more in a GAME is a good goal! it is something that should be applauded! More games should seek to be like that when it comes to the story! Yet you mindlessly attack it. Pitiful.
You're projecting again. That's all you can do. Project.
Mario and Zelda are linear games. It does not matter that there is little story in Mario because you follow a set path and have to interact within bounds. If you added two hours of cut scenes between levels in Mario 3 the gameplay would be no different. Your idiotic argument is that MGS2 is bad because there are non-controllable cinemas in between gameplay. I just tore your argument to shreds. You can't stand that, so you project. You are a very pathetic person, Brian.
Quote:It's told well, and it has what I was talking about_: the illusion that you are in control of events, and some amount of real control over events on some fronts (like who you kill or if you use wits or might to solve a puzzle), while the main game and story progresses regardless of your actions. So the story is derivitive... true, so are most stories in that category no matter what media format they are on.
The story isn't even told well. Compared to BG's atrocious method of story-telling it's good, but that's not saying much.
Quote:The point is though that a large aspect of Metroid is the adventuring in a world by yourself... move it too much towards lots of story and you run the risk of losing some of what makes people love Metroid games... it just seems to me that a more cohesive story would make them want to make it more linear perhaps so that you follow along the story more. Maybe not, but it seems like it'd increase the likelihood...
That's idiotic. Since when do you need a crowded cast of characters to tell a story? I guess Cast Away sucked because it was just Tom Hanks and his imagination.
Quote:Could you possibly be any more arrogant (and hypocritical)? Well, we'll see...
You've forced me to be. I've had enough of your ego. Ego is bad enough when someone does know what they're talking about, but when it comes from someone as ignorant to the topic as yourself it's a hundred times worse.
Quote:It obviously completely depends on what they were talking about and how it was written... yes, a setup like that can lead to boredom. But if what they are saying is interesting, or well written, it can be very worthwhile and definitely possibly not boring. And that isn't a great comparison to games because the backgrounds change, conversations end and then you go do other things, etc...
I don't know of anything quite like what you describe. The closest I can think of is Charlie Rose -- two or three people sitting at a table in a completely black room talking in normal tones of voice for half an hour or more. With maybe a break or two for clips of a film if it's a movie star; otherwise no breaks. Is it a boring show? At times. But when what they are discussing is intresting, it is not...
This basically sums up everything about your opinion on the matter. I'm glad I finally got you to answer it.
You think this would be entertaining, when nobody in their right mind would think so. You can only compare it to Charlie Rose, yet even that has people actually talking! Try removing the talking in Charlie Rose, all hints of emotion and animation from the people talking, and replace everything with text. I doubt even you would find that entertaining. Or maybe you would, all things considered...
That is what Baldur's Gate is.