|
Onmi posted:Counterpoint, this just proves how Amero-centric your worldview is. You can see this because this is a huge issue to you, focused on an issue on going in your subsection of society. But as Americans often need reminding, they are not the centre of the world and not everything is about them. Every English-speaking nation (and many, possibly most, other nations) is presently dealing with their own brands of anti-vax (in fact, anti-vax is the prevailing opinion in some of them), so I'm pretty sure wherever the creator of Insurgence lives, he's aware of the issues. But, focusing on your second paragraph, this is an extremely reductive stance to take. There's such a thing as nuance when discussing death of the author, much of it related to Occam's Razor. It's not a difficult leap from "the one time this story features a vaccine, it's evil in exactly the way conspiracy theorists say vaccines are evil" to "the author believes, or at least holds as valid, said conspiracy theories". This is an inference that does not need to be sought out or justified through a long chain of logic. Anti-vax says X, game says X, game is anti-vax. When this happens unintentionally, as in this case, the fault still lies with the author for not properly thinking through their themes. To use a more extreme example of the end results of this sort of lazy writing, look at Save the Pearls, one of the most racist works of fiction of the last fifty years. If we take the author at face value and believe her claim that she was just writing a story about climate change and never intended to do a racism (unlikely as that claim may be), she's still an rear end in a top hat because she did not for one second step back, look at the astoundingly racist overtones of her setting, plot, dialog, and basically everything else, and ask herself, "Is this super loving racist?". At no point did she show this work to someone who might warn her, "Hey, the way this is written right now is extremely goddamn racist." That's on her, not the general public that got pissed about her dumbass racist YA novel. And yes, this is a fairly minor writing gently caress-up in a dumb, though mostly inoffensive, Pokemon fangame, but I was more using the revelation that the anti-vax subtext was entirely unintentional as a springboard to warn prospective and aspiring writers about the dangers of just throwing things into a story without analyzing how they'll impact the text of their work.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Explopyro posted:I'm going to have to agree with EclecticTastes here, even if the author didn't intend it, this plotline reads exactly like the kind of conspiracy theories antivaxxers love to spout. It's pretty unfortunate, and it really isn't subtle here at all. The modern antivaxxer movement is founded directly on allegations that vaccines cause autism in children. The plot here is closer to being modeled after conspiracy theories about fluoridated drinking water if anything. a busted-up mailbox fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Feb 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
a busted-up mailbox posted:The message you’re reading in this doesn’t actually exist in this case, as the modern antivaxxer movement is founded directly on allegations that vaccines cause autism in children. The plot here is closer to being modeled after conspiracy theories about fluoridated drinking water if anything. "Flu shots contain gubmint mind control drugs" was the original anti-vax conspiracy theory, contemporary with the fluoridated drinking water and "chem trails" (AKA contrails), and it has found itself folded into the broader anti-vax platform on the lunatic fringe, especially in North America (where it originated).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:"Flu shots contain gubmint mind control drugs" was the original anti-vax conspiracy theory, contemporary with the fluoridated drinking water and "chem trails" (AKA contrails), and it has found itself folded into the broader anti-vax platform on the lunatic fringe, especially in North America (where it originated). I don't think anyone's denying that. But is there any real sign that this whole mind-control thesis is any part of the Jenny McCarthy bullshit that's making affluent surburbanites refuse to vaccinate their kids because they're scared of thiomersal? Because I have never seen any sign of that, so from where I stand it's just a spurious connection based on the fact that they both involve vaccines in some way. If you have evidence that soccer moms wringing their hands over the possibility of the lizard people mind-controlling little Bobby via his measles vaccine is a thing that actually exists in any relevant fashion, I would be legitimately fascinated (and horrified) to read about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I don't think anyone's denying that. But is there any real sign that this whole mind-control thesis is any part of the Jenny McCarthy bullshit that's making affluent surburbanites refuse to vaccinate their kids because they're scared of thiomersal? Because I have never seen any sign of that, so from where I stand it's just a spurious connection based on the fact that they both involve vaccines in some way. The difference between the two theories isn't actually all that important in terms of writing narrative. Any plot point that implies a distrust of vaccination, regardless of the "bad effect" that results, can be construed quite easily (intended or not) as promoting a general distrust of vaccines. Much like how the people of Innsmouth loving the fishmen is a metaphor for Lovecraft's fear of mixed-race/ethnicity babies. He doesn't believe the babies will be horrid fish monsters IRL, but his more extreme allegory still reveals his prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
hello
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
PULL UP, THREAD!!Miss posted:hello
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 07:28
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:Any plot point that implies a distrust of vaccination, regardless of the "bad effect" that results, can be construed quite easily (intended or not) as promoting a general distrust of vaccines. What's the largest set of cults still active in today's world? Religion. The second largest? Government. The whole basis of Insurgence's (and most cult-based stories') plot is people who have been entrusted with power abusing that trust to further their own goals. The medical field unfortunately is no exception to this. Despite being one of, if not the most, stringent about upholding the standards and practices that earn them their trust. There are plenty of stories where medical technology is used for ill which can be construed as promoting a fear of medicine. That doesn't change that in the majority of those stories where it is abused also show that it is bad to abuse medicine; either by forcing people to abuse it or abusing it themselves. Speaking of abuse, there's also this thing that's very important to remember: Explopyro posted:I'm more than willing to acknowledge that Death of the Author has its downsides and is easily misused, but are you really going to say that it doesn't matter if tropes chosen for other reasons combine to form an unfortunate message? Stories are a form of communication and even when it's one way, there are at least two entities involved: the sender and the receiver. You can blame the sender for sending an incorrect message, you can blame the receiver for interpreting an incorrect message, and you can blame the medium/path the message takes between the two for how much noise muddles the message as it travels from sender to receiver. You can assign blame however you like but you cannot ignore that both the author and the audience are responsible for their side of the communication that's happening. And in this case I would assign more blame to the reader who looks at Insurgence and uses the whole mind control vaccine plot point as further evidence of their anti-vaccination beliefs than I would of the author for putting those elements into Insurgence. Mostly because it was quickly clear that this was a mind control plot abusing people's fear of the deoxys virus pretty much from the get-go. Edit: Also this
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
Miss posted:hello 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
Miss posted:hello 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 07:55
|
|
|
Miss posted:hello I agree, Trevenant, this is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 08:02
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:Much like how the people of Innsmouth loving the fishmen is a metaphor for Lovecraft's fear of mixed-race/ethnicity babies. He doesn't believe the babies will be horrid fish monsters IRL, but his more extreme allegory still reveals his prejudice. Yes. Lovecraft's. Not that of any reasonable person reading his stories in the 21st century, nor necessarily any subsequent author writing in that universe. In fact, Lovecraft's racial paranoia and his attempts to inject it into his tales, compared with the way those tales have actually come down to us, are excellent evidence for the opposite argument: that even when lines can be drawn from the original context of these stories to some pretty loving problematic beliefs, it doesn't leave the stories, or tropes, irredeemably tainted. Reasonable people can, in fact, read it, enjoy it (assuming the prose is to their taste), and have a fishperson just be a fishperson. If it resonates with a racist in a racist way, and they begin advertising this fact, the appropriate response is "gently caress off, racist." None of this, of course, is to deny that Lovecraft's intentions in writing it originally were extremely yikes, and analogously (to bring this back around), if there were any evidence that the creator of Reborn was pushing an antivax agenda (even "ironically"), then that too would be extremely damning of said creator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
EponymousMrYar posted:And in this case I would assign more blame to the reader who looks at Insurgence and uses the whole mind control vaccine plot point as further evidence of their anti-vaccination beliefs than I would of the author for putting those elements into Insurgence. This is just the literary version of "Sorry you got offended" (i.e., it is always the speaker's job to say what they mean in a clear manner, and if they fail to do so, that's their own drat fault; trying to blame the listener for their interpretation is a cop-out) and also one hell of a strawman. Nobody is going to use Pokemon Insurgence as evidence for anything (aside from, possibly, copyright infringement). The point I was making was that authors need to be mindful of their writing to avoid such obvious gently caress-ups as "accidentally let an anti-vax message get into their story". The actual plot point, as it is, is the narrative equivalent of mixing up your/you're. A rookie mistake that serves to remind us that this is 100% amateur hour, but I'm not planning to throw him in the stockades over it. This is not Reborn-level bad writing, but it is bad. As an aside, your story interpretation paints the writer as even more of a hack in this instance. If they wanted to make some big point about the abuses perpetrated within the medical community, then instead of going after the basically blameless field of vaccines, a smarter move would have been to create an allegory for the famously corrupt prescription drug industry, or any number of other issues with medical practice rather than the hands-down best, most reputable (among sane people) field. JerryLee posted:Yes. Lovecraft's. Not that of any reasonable person reading his stories in the 21st century, nor necessarily any subsequent author writing in that universe. Ignoring the author's intent entirely is just as bad an idea as making up wildly unlikely theories to support claims that aren't remotely reflected in the text. Ultimately, a reader missing the intentional themes is a bad reader in the same way an author missing unintentional themes is a bad author. The entire point of literary analysis is to understand the themes underlying a work, whether you're writing it or reading it. Sometimes, especially with older works, that paints the story in a deeply problematic light. Then, it's up to the reader whether or not they can still enjoy the story, warts and all. And, as mentioned already, works such as Fahrenheit 451 became enduring classics because of these unintended themes, because careless writing always carries with it the outside chance that the theme you accidentally included in your work turns out to be brilliant. Miss posted:hello 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
EclecticTastes posted:The difference between the two theories isn't actually all that important in terms of writing narrative. Any plot point that implies a distrust of vaccination, regardless of the "bad effect" that results, can be construed quite easily (intended or not) as promoting a general distrust of vaccines. Much like how the people of Innsmouth loving the fishmen is a metaphor for Lovecraft's fear of mixed-race/ethnicity babies. He doesn't believe the babies will be horrid fish monsters IRL, but his more extreme allegory still reveals his prejudice. Aren't most of his books generally racist and homophobic anyway? You'd have a hard time walking away with those without picking up on it unless you were a literal kid who didn't know any better. Like, I don't need to analyze in depth the picture of Dorian Grey to figure out that Oscar Wilde wasn't too wild about women. (Ironically, my entire class {including me} did need to have it pointed out that Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby was gay. So maybe I'm just dense.) Also, I do think it's a bit far fetched to say that it gives an anti vax impression and it's 100% the fault of the writing. Mostly because it's not like other works haven't used medicine to demonstrate some kind of "brainwashing." I'm pretty sure it's in dystopian writing 101. I don't recall if it was the movie or the book, but the giver had an injection that citizens were required to take daily to be complacent, and we happy few (I think) had their joy pills. A cursory google search tells me there are at least several different novels from the 20th century that use some kind of drug related brainwashing. It would be more reasonable to say that it promotes or represents a general anxiety of modern/new medicine rather than anti vaxing specifically. (Especially in the hands of a tyrannical authority figure, as two of the antagonists are authority figures. But even then medicine is typically used to demonstrate the absolute control the authority has over the individual rather than an innate distrust of a fuckin measels vaccines, but alas, I'm rambling.) They probably just used vaccine because it sounds less ominous and not-evil. Alternatively it could be anxiety over misdiagnosing/over diagnosing medicine, which is a serious problem that's been documented for the last few years (and I believe it also contributes to creating drug resistant bacteria). Also because the pokerus thing is a virus, so you'd treat it with a vaccine... And yeah, someone can basically twist anything to fit their narrative with a work of art (because art is meant to be interpreted). While it's arguably harder with some (after all you don't see Nazi's picking up any of Mel Brooks works) others are easier. A good, video game related example is Bayonetta. Often people praise it for empowering female sexuality, which you could definitely argue. But you could also argue that some angles and scenes are meant to ogle the character as well, and consider it objectifying. Edit: also I wouldn't be surprised if no one ever pointed out something that could be interpreted as racist or taken the wrong way in a genre like YA because certain books are just produced so cheaply and lazily that no one would care. I recall a story about a bunch of authors attempting to write the worst science fiction stories that they could possibly produce, squeezing every error and novice mistake a writer could make onto multiple pages to prove how terrible the editing process was for the genre at the time by getting the book published. Edit 2: I'd also like to point out that it's not the author's job to convey their point in a clear manner, and literally one of the major aspects of literary analysis is that some things are ambiguous. A perfect example of this is the poem My Papa's waltz where the diction makes it hard to determine whether it's a happy memory or an abusive one. Especially with the fact that the author himself has conflicted feelings about his father, and it shows in their writing. I feel like this is a faucet of something larger related to writing like "show don't tell" or checkov's gun that are told to beginner writers who take the basic phrases very literally because it sticks more than "if you mention this character trait, you probably should have your character actually act like they have that trait" or "maybe you shouldn't put something so pointless or random here" Edit 3: A Perfect Day for Bannafish is another good example, as it could either be about nihilism to someone or about miscommunication and innocence. A lot of people have no goddamn clue what the ending means but that's okay because sometimes there is no one answer. Lyumia fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Feb 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Lyumia posted:Aren't most of his books generally racist and homophobic anyway? You'd have a hard time walking away with those without picking up on it unless you were a literal kid who didn't know any better. My hypothetical 21st century reader will absolutely understand that Lovecraft is racist (nobody could read his descriptions of racial minorities, let alone his infamous choice in feline names, and not understand this). They'll likely even know, as a matter of literary criticism, that he intended to express that through the works that they are now enjoying. I think we've wandered far into the weeds with the implicit comparison of Reborn's author to Lovecraft directly, though, which is partially my fault for letting it drift that way. My original mention of Lovecraftian themes was specifically worded to make the point that other, later authors writing about horrible hybrids aren't tainted by original sin just because Lovecraft and others (Machen, probably) once used the same trope to do a racism. quote:(i.e., it is always the speaker's job to say what they mean in a clear manner, and if they fail to do so, that's their own drat fault; trying to blame the listener for their interpretation is a cop-out) The thing is that the author of Reborn has been pretty drat clear in "saying what they mean", viz., that in the storyline of their Pokemon fangame a bad guy is mind controlling a town using science-fiction drugs delivered under the pretense of administering a vaccine. That is, as far as we know, all there was to it. You can take that at face value or you can not, but ascribing additional meanings to it is literally adding on one's own questionable assumptions to what the author appears to "mean", until and unless there's some external evidence that places such an interpretation on firmer ground (like someone discovering anti-vax or pseudoscientific posts by the author somewhere else). Is it a bit uncomfortable for some people in the context of real-world events? Sure. I don't make that connection, but I can buy that it's a real thing for some. There are works I loved that are much less comfortable for me to read now because they've grown a lot too real in the political context of the past two years. I don't know that I'd say I'm 'to blame' as a listener for that, that's a weird way of putting it, but the author certainly isn't to blame for writing political spy thrillers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
It might be a bit early to be having this argument anyways. We should probably wait and see the resolution to this subplot before decrying the "message" it's sending. Arguing about this now is kind of like the people who think Born in the USA is a patriotic song because they only listened to the chorus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 09:00
|
|
|
HEY SO HOW ABOUT THEM POKEYMANS HUH I SURE AM GLAD THIS POKEMON LET'S PLAY IS TALKING ABOUT POKEMON AND NOT THE REAL-WORLD poo poo WE ALL WANT TO AVOID sheesh, guys. So with regard to our recent gym battle, I'm surprised the AI was so forgiving in such a hard game - the weird switching out and randomly using grass moves against Magnolia and so on feels more like something the main games would do, I've noticed that occasionally if I gently caress up and do a stupid the AI will play dumb for a move or two. Could be player bias but it does feel like it's giving you a chance to regain your footing instead of saying 'welp sucks to be you' and steamrollering right on over you. It's more a thing in the earlygame though, some of the newer first-rival-battles are literally unloseable because if you get into the red the AI will switch to nothing but Tail Whip or Growl and won't attack you again. also obligatory  Miss art
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 10:00
|
|
|
I went to bed after my last post telling people to chill about antivax stuff what did I...  Miss posted:hello Delta Trevenant is the best
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
I should have done this last night, but I was tired at the time. This is from literally the next update that I'm going to be posting on Tuesday.    Now can we please let the stupid derail die?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
DoubleNegative posted:I should have done this last night, but I was tired at the time. This is from literally the next update that I'm going to be posting on Tuesday. big deoxys is trying to hide the truth
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
By the way, the reason why Dragonite survived that first hit was due to it's ability, Multiscale, which basically allows it to tank any hit at 100% hp. The strategy was good apart from that one detail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 14:18
|
|
|
A massive derail over whether a plot point has a problematic underlying theme is, to me, a sign of a good game. These tangents didn't come up in the mainline game LPs, to my memory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
acab  big pharma  believe in qI'm eager for the update, I'm shocked that this fangame has me actually wanting to continue with the story, to be honest. Also I only now realized Nora's leavany in the one fight had the armor you can buy from the tech gym teacher on 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
Yes, plz let the derail die. I don't want this thread to be shut down too, for reasons not quite as stupid as "people would not stop talking about loving monkeys".
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Goodra didn’t take much damage from Thunderbolt because it’s pure Dragon type, which resists Electric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Goodra didn’t take much damage from Thunderbolt because it’s pure Dragon type, which resists Electric. Plus it has a base Special Defense of 150, making it difficult to take down even with super effective special moves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Some Numbers posted:Goodra didn’t take much damage from Thunderbolt because it’s pure Dragon type, which resists Electric. What the heck? I never noticed in all of my Pokemon playing years that this was something that's a think 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Kikas posted:What the heck? I never noticed in all of my Pokemon playing years that this was something that's a think Dragon resists the four 'basic elements' of Pokemon: Fire, Water, Electric, and Grass. Dragons are far too mythical and powerful and important to take full damage from such silly things as those. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Kikas posted:What the heck? I never noticed in all of my Pokemon playing years that this was something that's a think I'm finding lately that a lot of my "knowledge" of Pokemon is based off Generation I, which still had the rules, but due to the designs of certain Pokemon, weren't really shown. Like I recently learned Ghosts are strong versus Psychics and they weren't in the first games because the only ghosts were Ghastly and it's line which had the Poison secondary type, which meant the massively overpowered Psychics rolled right over them. And with the only Dragon-type you face is Dragonite, which has the Flying second type, which is weak the Electric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Kikas posted:What the heck? I never noticed in all of my Pokemon playing years that this was something that's a think Yeah, I think this is the reason Ash has his Pikachu go inside of Drake's Dragonite's mouth to electrocute him in the Orange Islands. Of course, Dragonite is Dragon/Flying, so it has no resistance to Electric. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Rabbi Raccoon posted:I'm finding lately that a lot of my "knowledge" of Pokemon is based off Generation I, which still had the rules, but due to the designs of certain Pokemon, weren't really shown. Like I recently learned Ghosts are strong versus Psychics and they weren't in the first games because the only ghosts were Ghastly and it's line which had the Poison secondary type, which meant the massively overpowered Psychics rolled right over them. And with the only Dragon-type you face is Dragonite, which has the Flying second type, which is weak the Electric. Ghost was supposed to be super effective against Psychic, but due to a bug in the programming, Psychic types were immune to Ghost attacks entirely. This was fixed in Gen 2, but Ghost was a physical type attack for some dumb reason, so even with Shadow Ball, Gengar couldn't do a whole lot. Technically, you also face Dragonair in Gen 1, which is pure Dragon. But your point is still valid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Rabbi Raccoon posted:I'm finding lately that a lot of my "knowledge" of Pokemon is based off Generation I, which still had the rules, but due to the designs of certain Pokemon, weren't really shown. Like I recently learned Ghosts are strong versus Psychics and they weren't in the first games because the only ghosts were Ghastly and it's line which had the Poison secondary type, which meant the massively overpowered Psychics rolled right over them. And with the only Dragon-type you face is Dragonite, which has the Flying second type, which is weak the Electric. I find myself falling into the same line of thinking constantly. Though thankfully there are a lot of helpful mnemonics for remembering a lot of the type chart. Stuff like... Psychic's weaknesses are common fears (Bug, the Dark, Ghosts) Dark is the "evil" type and is weak to Bugs and Fighting because they're heroic types Fairies are defeated by cold Steel and pollution also this
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
To be fair, a lot of the type chart has been internalized for a lot of us after 20 years of playing Pokemon games. Even with 15 types in the first generation, you could figure it out pretty fast through trial and error.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
The fourth gen even had a handy little type setter where you could mix and max how effective certain types would be against type combinations. The reasons why this has never made a comeback have thus far eluded me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
I think Sun and Moon's "analysis" feature (where the moves straight up tell you the effectiveness when you're picking them, as long as you've faced (seen?) that Pokemon before) is better, both because it's more transparent on what means what and because it's actually available in battle. ...So, of course, they removed it in Let's Go, which is explicitly aimed at people who wouldn't necessarily know the type chart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Sun Moon weakness analysis is a godsend because to this day I still don't know Cradily's weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
LiefKatano posted:I think Sun and Moon's "analysis" feature (where the moves straight up tell you the effectiveness when you're picking them, as long as you've faced (seen?) that Pokemon before) is better, both because it's more transparent on what means what and because it's actually available in battle. That feature is a godsend when you’re up against some of the rarer type combos. Even with a type chart propped up, it is a tremendous pain to try to remember exactly what works on a new Pokémon that may or may not have an ability that negates your types. I’m amazed that the Let’s Go games removed one the the best quality of life features like that when it normally is so dedicated to holding the player’s hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
I'm more surprised that, over 20 years in, people can still be surprised at Game Freak's love of discarding useful features. It's just how Pokémon works. You gotta accept and suffer it. Good things last a generation and no more. And, apparently, now even less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
So does the stock Pokemon romhackity architecture come with an effectiveness readout like sun/moon, or is that too recent/too for babies to make an appearance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:11 |
|
|
Geostomp posted:That feature is a godsend when you’re up against some of the rarer type combos. Even with a type chart propped up, it is a tremendous pain to try to remember exactly what works on a new Pokémon that may or may not have an ability that negates your types. They never brought back your dudes following you even though people loved it and they're models now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 00:01
|
|
