|
David's apartment might be "realistic" but a problem presents itself that prevents me from removing the quotes: the apartment appears over-designed. The apartment strikes me as a set from a sitcom. While the characters are moving a talking, you don't notice the background details. But, once you start to focus on the setting, it reveals itself as a set. The set, such as David's apartment, is suppose to suggest a lived-in feel, to give some type of characterization. The set is suppose to be alive. It is suppose to be a place where actual people we know aren't actual people live in order to convince us that they are living people. This works as long as you don't explore what the little details mean. I didn't think about it until I saw the dining table with salt and pepper, a red squeeze tube, a yellow squeeze tube, a fern, several empty bottles of alcohol--maybe vodka, three small unidentified containers, one of which might be hot sauce, four chairs, three placemats, a single shot glass, and a photo of his wife. The shot glass and the photo are the only objects that give any sort of character or story relevance. The other objects are just present to fill in the scene. They add needless details, which makes me feel that the game takes place on a set. The game hopes you see the objects but not take the next step into analyzing them. Once you start to analyze the setting the lack of a uniform character theme becomes apparent.
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
On the other hand, it is a set, and we just saw an intro straight from Law & Order. I really don't have a problem with letting D4 cheat on its set design considering that A) it's a love letter to American supernatural-crime shows and B) there's a reason why TV shows cheat like that and for the most part the reason applies here, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:EDIT: about the Amanda situation: David is surprised to find white cat hair on his bed and apparently only remembers Amanda-the-cat during his flashbacks. Kaysen is also fine with a grown woman who can't speak and eats cat food but he might be really open-minded, who knows. There's is Maybe Amanda and Kaysen don't actually exist? I mean David seems to have a lot of other bizarre hallucinations that don't phase him at all. Personally I think it would be great if we got through the entire series without explaining Amanda beyond "some weird scantily-clad woman who thinks she's a cat and lives in my apartment for some reason" because I love the absurd japan-ness of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:IActually what other games have had ordinary "realistic" rooms that the player spends a lot of time engaging with? I can think of Silent Hill: The Room and maybe Heavy Rain, but it feels like D4 is charting unknown waters in apartment-based gameplay here. The Blackwell games were quite good in that regard. Rosa's apartment was pretty realistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
David's apartment has one bedroom and two full bathrooms. I've never seen an apartment like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:David's apartment might be "realistic" but a problem presents itself that prevents me from removing the quotes: the apartment appears over-designed. The apartment strikes me as a set from a sitcom. While the characters are moving a talking, you don't notice the background details. But, once you start to focus on the setting, it reveals itself as a set. The set, such as David's apartment, is suppose to suggest a lived-in feel, to give some type of characterization. The set is suppose to be alive. It is suppose to be a place where actual people we know aren't actual people live in order to convince us that they are living people. This works as long as you don't explore what the little details mean. I mean, does every object have to serve a purpose? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of the word used here, but to have every single object serve a purpose feels MORE overdesigned here. Like, you listed chairs, placemats, and salt and pepper among the things on the table that are there to fill the scene. I think most people just sort of have those, they don't NEED to have some character meaning. Admittedly, the small containers and squeeze bottles are a little odd, but my guess is that Swery's eaten in American restaurants more than American homes, so that may be where that's coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Bobby The Rookie posted:I guess this game is to 'Memento' what Deadly Premonition was to Twin Peaks, they're laying the parallels on pretty thick. I hope it won't be that simple, it's sort of hard to tell with Swery. I was thinking that too, after Kaysen's comment to Amanda about just wanting to give David a reason to keep living.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
It's apparently been a while since Amanda first showed up, I think Kaysen has just acclimated to having an itinerant catwoman hanging around his friend's apartment by now. Also these are characters in a Swery game, taking insane nonsense in stride is like, every Wednesday morning for these people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
Veyrall posted:David's apartment has one bedroom and two full bathrooms. I've never seen an apartment like that. Real estate in boston is real loving weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Jalathas posted:I mean, does every object have to serve a purpose? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the meaning of the word used here, but to have every single object serve a purpose feels MORE overdesigned here. Like, you listed chairs, placemats, and salt and pepper among the things on the table that are there to fill the scene. I think most people just sort of have those, they don't NEED to have some character meaning. It is hard to explain, mainly because I have never met anyone else that has the same problem. Not every object needs a purpose, but none of the objects appear to be random. Each object appears to be place intentionally, but with the intention of trying to create/falsify a livable environment. If anything, the fact that objects aren't placed randomly shows this intent more. The best way I can describe it is that, of course David has two ferns on each windowsill, because that is what a "person" is suppose to have on his windowsill. Of course the salt and pepper go on the table, because that is where "people" use salt and pepper. Nothing taste better on a bowl of Frosted Flakes than a dash of pepper and a heaping of salt. The setting shows that the designers put thought into the setting. It's just I think that sometimes that thought focuses too much on adding "stuff" rather than "junk." Stuff adds physical details, but "junk" shows the accumulation of life. To repurpose a quote from James Woods' How Fiction Works "The selection of detail is merely the quorum necessary to convince the [player] that this is 'real,' that it 'really happened.'"
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
I'm so glad you're taking this opportunity to showcase your vocal range, SGF. I just hope there's some excuse to hear Mike/Nervous Man again.  Also, I couldn't help but notice in the costume selection for David we had the choice of Special Agent Suit and Spy Fiction Outfit. I love a callback. Oh, one of the pictures on David's wall seemed... familiar.  Coincidence, or long-lost twins?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Also, Kaysen looks really weird without glasses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
And More posted:David seemingly survives on booze and chewing gum alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Can someone gif Kaysen eating the five slices of pizza all at once? That, the 'intro' and Amanda all in quick succession made me feel like I was having a stroke, which is the true mark of a Swery game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:It is hard to explain, mainly because I have never met anyone else that has the same problem. Not every object needs a purpose, but none of the objects appear to be random. Each object appears to be place intentionally, but with the intention of trying to create/falsify a livable environment. If anything, the fact that objects aren't placed randomly shows this intent more. The best way I can describe it is that, of course David has two ferns on each windowsill, because that is what a "person" is suppose to have on his windowsill. Of course the salt and pepper go on the table, because that is where "people" use salt and pepper. Nothing taste better on a bowl of Frosted Flakes than a dash of pepper and a heaping of salt. Is that really a weakness, though? SWERY loves to put theatrical/"off" notes into his games and that's one of the big reasons they're so charming. Putting Forrest Kaysen into all his previous games or having a 4th wall breaking device/player insert like Zach also highlight how the game is, in fact, a game. But they're some of his most interesting choices as a director. People have already mentioned that D4 is heavily inspired by TV shows: the prop-heavy oddness of David's apartment is probably intentional. Like compare him to Kojima in this sense. When Kojima puts unrealistic or self-aware elements into MGS is he's extremely blatant about it. People start messing with your game controller, everyone starts ranting about memes, you take time out to photograph bikini models, etc. With SWERY (especially in DP and D4) there's just this unquestioned strangeness about everything from the mechanics up and I think that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
As a real-life Bostonian, I can confirm that that's exactly how we eat pizza: five slices at a time with a side of clam chowder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
My thoughts on Amanda: Amanda is really a cat but David just perceives her as a women for reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Little Peggy was actually his dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
"Look for (another) d[og]." And of course Kaysen is just David's Teddy Ruxpin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Bobby The Rookie posted:"Look for (another) d[og]." The whole detective delision just comes from watching his cartoons, it's all coming together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:My thoughts on Amanda: Amanda is really a cat but David just perceives her as a women for reasons. Considering David appears to be a delusional alcoholic who perceives his cat as an anime, it makes me wonder what Teddy actually is. Gonna go ahead and guess that Teddy is his Teddy, considering Teddy referred to humans as "humans". No one visits David. He spends every day alone, with his cat, drinking, eating pizza, and pretending to solve mysteries with his "friends". I guess it probably isn't that extreme, but still. crime weed fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Kjoery posted:The cat eats from a cat bowl during the clam chowder scene. Seems like a cat to me. Please don't kinkshame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
"Hmm, I wonder who's at the door..." *click* "Ah, SWERY, good to see you! I'm glad you could make it!" Also, The_White_Crane posted:Oh, one of the pictures on David's wall seemed... familiar.  It's like when I realized that the main character from Ghost Trick was actually Lupin III in disguise!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:My thoughts on Amanda: Amanda is really a cat but David just perceives her as a women for reasons. but then what's happening when he pays her money to get food
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Acne Rain posted:but then what's happening when he pays her money to get food He dissociates and goes buys the food himself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:Is that really a weakness, though? SWERY loves to put theatrical/"off" notes into his games and that's one of the big reasons they're so charming. Putting Forrest Kaysen into all his previous games or having a 4th wall breaking device/player insert like Zach also highlight how the game is, in fact, a game. But they're some of his most interesting choices as a director. People have already mentioned that D4 is heavily inspired by TV shows: the prop-heavy oddness of David's apartment is probably intentional. First off: I'm not talking about the "off" things. As far as those go, I have no real opinion at the moment because I am just waiting to see how things play out. I am merely just talking about the details in the scenery/set/background. The prop-heavy oddness is not one of those "off" things. There is nothing off about the amount of stuff scattered through the apartment. There just happens to be a lot of stuff in David's apartment. Second: It's not really a weakness. Like Bobbin Threadbare said earlier, the game reminds him of certain television shows. If this was the affect Swery attempting than it works in that aspect. It just also happens to be something that bugs me in television shows. It doesn't mean the show or the game is bad, it is just something that scratches at the back of my thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:... of course David has two ferns on each windowsill, because that is what a "person" is suppose to have on his windowsill. Of course the salt and pepper go on the table, because that is where "people" use salt and pepper... There are plants on all the windowsills in my house and the salt and pepper live on our dining table, so I'm not sure what you're saying here? I sort of get what you're trying to say but it seems to mostly just be 'this is not a real place and therefore someone deliberately put all these things here' which doesn't really require pointing out. Yeah, most of the props are placed with some kind of purpose, but people place things in real houses with purpose; there's plants on my windowsill because my mum has this one friend who keeps giving her plants and if you don't keep them on windowsills they die, and the salt and pepper lives on the table because we're all very lazy and don't put poo poo away. Probably if someone was designing my house in a video game they'd put those things in those places because that's where those things go, but those things go there because that's where real life people put them. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding your point, which is totally possible and if so I apologise and assume you have good reason to feel the way you do about it. Hell, I assume that anyway, I'm just not sure I understand what that reason is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Lareine posted:He dissociates and goes buys the food himself. Since Forest talks to Amanda behind David's back, my own theory is that amanda's someone who Forest sent to help David for his own purposes since he became such a mess and all the cat stuff is from David's imagination (peggy's cartoon tastes included horrible anime)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Acne Rain posted:Since Forest talks to Amanda behind David's back, my own theory is that amanda's someone who Forest sent to help David for his own purposes since he became such a mess and all the cat stuff is from David's imagination (peggy's cartoon tastes included horrible anime) On the other hand, Forrest Kaysen might just be talking to a cat because everyone talks to cats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
GirlCalledBob posted:Unless I'm totally misunderstanding your point, which is totally possible and if so I apologise and assume you have good reason to feel the way you do about it. Hell, I assume that anyway, I'm just not sure I understand what that reason is. I'm just talking about a contradiction in that a creator needs to create a fake environment that appears to be real, but in doing so an observer can scrutinize the details to reveal the fake-but-appearing-real environment as fake. There is a risk in that the more a fake environment tries to appear real, it will reveal itself to be fake. Why are the salt and pepper on the table and not next to the beaters beside the blender? Why are the beaters on the counter? How often does this character have to beater food to leave the beaters out? Oh, because being able to see these things out of the corner of our eye gives us a subconscious sense that the apartment is a real place. It doesn't matter if David is the type of person to leave the salt and pepper on the table. What matters is that leaving the salt and pepper on the table is something that a real person might do. Therefore it happens in the game. The only reason why it is brought into question is because they exist within the game. It is a small trick done all throughout fiction that once you are aware of it, it's hard to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Alternate theory: Amanda is a woman who acts like a cat. The most unexpected angle in a SWERY game is the straightforward one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:I'm just talking about a contradiction in that a creator needs to create a fake environment that appears to be real, but in doing so an observer can scrutinize the details to reveal the fake-but-appearing-real environment as fake. There is a risk in that the more a fake environment tries to appear real, it will reveal itself to be fake. Why are the salt and pepper on the table and not next to the beaters beside the blender? Why are the beaters on the counter? How often does this character have to beater food to leave the beaters out? Oh, because being able to see these things out of the corner of our eye gives us a subconscious sense that the apartment is a real place. It doesn't matter if David is the type of person to leave the salt and pepper on the table. What matters is that leaving the salt and pepper on the table is something that a real person might do. Therefore it happens in the game. The only reason why it is brought into question is because they exist within the game. It is a small trick done all throughout fiction that once you are aware of it, it's hard to ignore. So... what way could the game handle things that you WOULD accept? Because it sounds like you're just someone who will overanalyze things regardless. If they only showed the character-building details, it would be criticized for being strangely empty. Since normal things are included in places they might conceivably go, you can notice that fact and feel that they were added to fill the space. So what's the alternative?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Mr. Highway posted:I'm just talking about a contradiction in that a creator needs to create a fake environment that appears to be real, but in doing so an observer can scrutinize the details to reveal the fake-but-appearing-real environment as fake. There is a risk in that the more a fake environment tries to appear real, it will reveal itself to be fake. Why are the salt and pepper on the table and not next to the beaters beside the blender? Why are the beaters on the counter? How often does this character have to beater food to leave the beaters out? Oh, because being able to see these things out of the corner of our eye gives us a subconscious sense that the apartment is a real place. It doesn't matter if David is the type of person to leave the salt and pepper on the table. What matters is that leaving the salt and pepper on the table is something that a real person might do. Therefore it happens in the game. The only reason why it is brought into question is because they exist within the game. It is a small trick done all throughout fiction that once you are aware of it, it's hard to ignore. You could really say that about literally anything in a work of fiction. Like why is this person crying? Well, he's an actor and his character had a friend die so he's crying to give the impression that he is sad. Or, why did little peggy die? It was because swery needed a plot. There's always an in-story reason and a real world reason and whether you have this problem depends on how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
Jalathas posted:So... what way could the game handle things that you WOULD accept? Because it sounds like you're just someone who will overanalyze things regardless. If they only showed the character-building details, it would be criticized for being strangely empty. Since normal things are included in places they might conceivably go, you can notice that fact and feel that they were added to fill the space. So what's the alternative? And here we have the meat of the contradiction. Truthfully it's a case-by-case matter. Yes, I do overanalyze things. But, I really just wanted to point out the contradictory nature and that there is a balancing act of sorts when exploring an fictional environment. Truth be told, if I were playing, I would probably focus too much on playing the game to really notice the background. On the other hand, there may be nothing the game could do to not make me think that I am playing a game. Maybe David's apartment just needs less "stuff" or, better yet, maybe have some "illogical" placements. In a real persons room, not every object is in it's "logical" place. Arbitrary Number posted:You could really say that about literally anything in a work of fiction. Like why is this person crying? Well, he's an actor and his character had a friend die so he's crying to give the impression that he is sad. Or, why did little peggy die? It was because swery needed a plot. There's always an in-story reason and a real world reason and whether you have this problem depends on how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief. Except its not the same. The two examples you give are plot. Little Peggy dying is part of the plot. It is necessary for the narrative of the game to unfold. The scenery is arbitrary. All you need for scenery is the basics of a place. The scenery is dependent on the whims of the one who made it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
I suppose the issue is that while the clutter makes sense for filling in space it doesn't necessarily make sense in this specific instance based on what we know of the character. Why would David have salt, pepper, and squeeze bottles on his kitchen table when he apparently survives off of delivery pizza and alcohol? He can fix something as fancy as clam chowder when his only friend comes over to visit, but when that happens he needs to make room for the pot on the table anyways. And why would a shut-in have plants on his windowsill? Even if he took care of them there's a good chance they wouldn't survive past a year, and Amanda doesn't seem like she'd be interested unless the plants were catnip. So the complaint is that while the set designer did the proper thing here and designed the apartment with David in mind--stacks of boxes with old paperwork, a refrigerator full of old leftover pizza and bottles of beer, racks stuffed with old copies of hockey and supernatural magazines, that sort of stuff--he or she then filled in the empty spaces with relatively generic clutter because the empty spaces would have (oddly enough) drawn more attention than if they were full. Presumably this is also why the pantry was full of even rows of boxes rather than being empty except for a couple soup cans and a half-full box of cereal. I can understand how this happened--it's and old trick and a good trick and the set designer presumably has other things to do beyond perfectly mapping out a single apartment. It doesn't particularly bother me, but I guess it can be distracting to someone who knows what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
Bobbin Threadbare posted:I suppose the issue is that while the clutter makes sense for filling in space it doesn't necessarily make sense in this specific instance based on what we know of the character. Why would David have salt, pepper, and squeeze bottles on his kitchen table when he apparently survives off of delivery pizza and alcohol? He can fix something as fancy as clam chowder when his only friend comes over to visit, but when that happens he needs to make room for the pot on the table anyways. And why would a shut-in have plants on his windowsill? Even if he took care of them there's a good chance they wouldn't survive past a year, and Amanda doesn't seem like she'd be interested unless the plants were catnip. My earlier post was made under the impression that the problem was that it was possible to analyze the reasons behind placing things in the environment, which was breaking immersion/suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:On the other hand, Forrest Kaysen might just be talking to a cat because everyone talks to cats. Occam's Razor, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Rincewind posted:On the other hand, Forrest Kaysen might just be talking to a cat because everyone talks to cats. Pets in general, really. Everyone has one-sided conversations with their pets at some point. Dogs will occasionally make it two-sided if they hear certain words ("food," "walk," "fetch," etc.). Why she was at the dinner table, is a bit stranger. Pets don't usually go on the dinner table. That's how you get cat hair in your pizza. My girlfriend and I still had the same "  " reaction when she showed up, but don't really know how much of this is in David's head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
StrifeHira posted:Pets in general, really. Everyone has one-sided conversations with their pets at some point. Dogs will occasionally make it two-sided if they hear certain words ("food," "walk," "fetch," etc.). Eh, I always loved it when I was younger when my cat would come eat from her bowl near the dinner table. I'm assuming that in this case, Forrest knows David sees her as something else and so just puts the food dish on the table since he knows it helps David. I could totally see a cat getting on its hind legs on a chair with paws on the table to eat from its dish if it was put there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Amanda being an actual cat fits well with my theory that Forrest "Teddy bear" Kaysen actually is a bear. Pretty obvious considering his nickname, not to mention that he eats a lot and sometimes walks on two legs. Also I love the Let's Play so far - fantastic as always, supergreatfriend! The game has the same subtle surreal feel as Deadly Premonition, full of little gags and weirdness and I like it
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 14:09
|
|
