|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I thought watchmen was a decent interpretation of the source material. I was trying to give him some credit. 300 is a lot less his baby than Miller's. I'm also trying to give 300 the benefit of the doubt, since the stuff Miller's done since then sours me on him, somewhat like Alan Moore in that regard. But even then, we're arguing about 1 film in a sea of poor stuff. He might be a self-aware nerd, but it doesn't translate into anything other than confusing blockbusters with very ornate special effects shots.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:I was trying to give him some credit. 300 is a lot less his baby than Miller's. I'm also trying to give 300 the benefit of the doubt, since the stuff Miller's done since then sours me on him, somewhat like Alan Moore in that regard. Actually, his movies are really good by most standards people apply for artistic quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That sounds like you're talking about critique. I'm really talking about reviews, as in a summary that is supposed to answer the question: "do I want to play this", as opposed to critique, which is where I would expect more of "how does this fit within the context of the genre and/or society at large." I don't think you can really separate the two. Consumer Reports style 'should you buy this Y/N' reviews is a fake category made up by nerds who can't stand to see their toys be criticized. At least if you're of the opinion that games are an artistic medium and not toys And I think it is sustainable. Big outfits like Polygon can afford to pay (some) people, midlevel people use Patreon, Pewdiepie begs on the street from 12 year old children and does well for himself. If the market says the price of content is nearly free that's what it is
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I don't think you can really separate the two. Consumer Reports style 'should you buy this Y/N' reviews is a fake category made up by nerds who can't stand to see their toys be criticized. So Consumer Reports is a fake category?  quote:And I think it is sustainable. Big outfits like Polygon can afford to pay (some) people, midlevel people use Patreon, Pewdiepie begs on the street from 12 year old children and does well for himself. If the market says the price of content is nearly free that's what it is Much like with teaching, though, if the market says the price is low to an unsustainable level, eventually people will stop doing it. Polygon is one outfit who can afford to pay X amount of people. Since everything's on the internet, you don't need more than one or two such outfits to cover everybody. Where does the money come from? How do people eat? None of the models you're describing is sustainable in a world where potentially everybody in the English-speaking world is competing with Pewdiepie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Actually, his movies are really good by most standards people apply for artistic quality. Really? I didn't hear many people saying good things about any of the movies I listed (Watchmen was the best liked, but still not very loved) and honestly I didn't enjoy any of them that I saw. You get to have whatever opinion on films you want, but I'm going to tell you as far as I've seen he's just another blockbuster director.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So Consumer Reports is a fake category? I'd argue it's unhelpful in many cases. And it won't stop the nerd rage from happening as soon as their first beloved AAA gets a no buy rating for "political" reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Really? I didn't hear many people saying good things about any of the movies I listed (Watchmen was the best liked, but still not very loved) and honestly I didn't enjoy any of them that I saw. You get to have whatever opinion on films you want, but I'm going to tell you as far as I've seen he's just another blockbuster director. Blockbusters are usually popular, though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'd argue it's unhelpful in many cases. And it won't stop the nerd rage from happening as soon as their first beloved AAA gets a no buy rating for "political" reasons. I don't really care whether it affects nerd rage or not. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Much like with teaching, though, if the market says the price is low to an unsustainable level, eventually people will stop doing it. Polygon is one outfit who can afford to pay X amount of people. Since everything's on the internet, you don't need more than one or two such outfits to cover everybody. Where does the money come from? How do people eat? None of the models you're describing is sustainable in a world where potentially everybody in the English-speaking world is competing with Pewdiepie. There are still teachers, actually, and there will continue to be teachers, despite poo poo pay. People keep darkly insinuating some sort of mass extinction event where the games criticism will up and vanish and I don't buy it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Blockbusters are usually popular, though? Yes, but also of generally low quality in the critical community. Unless we're at the point where it's "a bunch of idiots like it, so it can't be bad", in which case might as well just toss culture down the drain. Hell, I've seen good blockbusters (examples: Empire Strikes Back, Fury Road) and neither of these two directors get anywhere near that level. They're both Uwe Boll with better special effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yes, but also of generally low quality in the critical community. Unless we're at the point where it's "a bunch of idiots like it, so it can't be bad", in which case might as well just toss culture down the drain. What? You're saying they're unpopular but also popular trash, and now you're saying Snyder's movies are so incompetently shot and directed they're on par with deliberate bungling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't really care whether it affects nerd rage or not. I get that, but the point is it's a bad plan since the compromise from a more substantial review. You lose the fidelity of being able to suggest anything other then buy or not, and the main offenders will still cause trouble as soon as their AAA ego replacement isn't praised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What? You're saying they're unpopular but also popular trash, and now you're saying Snyder's movies are so incompetently shot and directed they're on par with deliberate bungling. No, I'm saying they aren't critically acclaimed, despite being popular with the "explosions, hell yeah" crowd. I'm not a populist in the slightest, so I don't see quality as coupled to mainstream popularity at all. And I'd rather watch an incompetently shot Boll film (if only to laugh at, or trying to figure out exactly how hard up for cash Jürgen Prochnow was to work on House of the Dead) to the disgusting male gaze-a-thon that Sucker Punch was. I'd also rather see Boll than watch see Bay explain why it's totally cool to gently caress a 16 year old for five minutes, never mind the other disgusting poo poo he's thrown on screen. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I've been reflecting on some of the posts here, and I have to wonder: now that we have the possibility of seeing people review a game on Youtube, with all the live gameplay footage that entails, is there really a need for written reviews, as opposed to critiques? I know that if a game comes to me through other than "this is good" word-of-mouth, what gets me to play a game is seeing people actually play through the start of it, and their reflections as they play. There are still written pieces that straddle the line between review and critique that kind of have to be thought about and written down - not just narrated on the fly. When you read a review like something from Tom Chick you get a point of view on a part of the game you wouldn't have necessarily thought of or been able to articulate yourself. I always like reading his reviews as he has a deep knowledge of games and usually teases out a certain feature or mechanic in the game and explains why he likes or dislikes that particular aspect. Interesting to see that he is attempting to start a direct funding model via Patreon (doing pretty good on $1,700 a month already).
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:No, I'm saying they aren't critically acclaimed, despite being popular with the "explosions, hell yeah" crowd. I'm not a populist in the slightest, so I don't see quality as coupled to mainstream popularity at all. Mainstream critics are also notoriously incompetent at handling genres like horror. A movie where the basic plot is about the exploitation of women and their attempts to escape that exploitation surely is totally thoughtless and inane on gender and sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Interesting to see that he is attempting to start a direct funding model via Patreon (doing pretty good on $1,700 a month already). I expect this to gain in popularity after Jim Sterling was able to break away from the standard media model with it. Success with this model does require putting in year building your personal brand at Gamespot or the like, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I get that, but the point is it's a bad plan since the compromise from a more substantial review. You lose the fidelity of being able to suggest anything other then buy or not, and the main offenders will still cause trouble as soon as their AAA ego replacement isn't praised. I don't think you're going to lose anything by more clearly labeling what the aim of your piece is. If it's a review there is an expectation that this was written with the view of whether or not it is worth playing, with conditionals on what genres and gameplays the reader likes. For example, I would expect a review of Undertale to focus on the effectiveness of the main mechanics in drawing the player in, while it would not be out of place for a critique to talk almost entirely about how the game is inspired by Homestuck and Toby Fox's experiences within that community. The latter would be out of place as anything more than a side-note in a review. I think those are reasonable expectations. Edited for clarity(?) V for Vegas posted:There are still written pieces that straddle the line between review and critique that kind of have to be thought about and written down - not just narrated on the fly. When you read a review like something from Tom Chick you get a point of view on a part of the game you wouldn't have necessarily thought of or been able to articulate yourself. I always like reading his reviews as he has a deep knowledge of games and usually teases out a certain feature or mechanic in the game and explains why he likes or dislikes that particular aspect. Interesting to see that he is attempting to start a direct funding model via Patreon (doing pretty good on $1,700 a month already). I have never read anything by Chick. Could you suggest one to start with? I have noticed that Patreon is becoming more and more common as a funding model among critique creators. I hope it works out. Absurd Alhazred fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:
It's funny you think Snyder was saying "hell yeah titties" instead of "everyone who says 'Hell yeah titties' is gross".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Mainstream critics are also notoriously incompetent at handling genres like horror. How many actually good horror films come out, really? I heard good things about It Follows, but really the horror fans I know lost me the second they started talking about Saw or Human Centipede as quality movies. A good film has to transcend its genre trappings, and horror is usually not that great at being anything better than a good horror movie. quote:A movie where the basic plot is about the exploitation of women and their attempts to escape that exploitation surely is totally thoughtless and inane on gender and sexuality. Yeah, Sucker Punch was an attempt to push so much cool together into a single film that it's utterly confusing about what happens. And even with the fight scenes, the male gaze is still there and utterly despicable given the attempt. It's maybe a 5 compared to Transformer 2's 8, but the older I get the less tolerance I have for getting pandered to in that way. And honestly, the story within a story within a story makes the movie confusing in ways that even traditionally confusing films like Momento, Inception, or Pulp Fiction aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's funny you think Snyder was saying "hell yeah titties" instead of "everyone who says 'Hell yeah titties' is gross". I'm more along the lines of "ironic sexism is still sexism".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:I'm more along the lines of "ironic sexism is still sexism". So is Starship Troopers similarly problematic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:A good film has to transcend its genre trappings, this is some entry level high art / low art poo poo Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jun 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So is Starship Troopers similarly problematic? Yeah, that movie sort of goes without saying. You can like it if you want, but I rather dislike the film. Tuxedo Catfish posted:this is some entry level high art / low art poo poo Why is this an issue? Most genre stuff is stuck in the genre ghetto, which fits the whole Sturgeon's Law deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Why is this an issue? Most genre stuff is stuck in the genre ghetto, which fits the whole Sturgeon's Law deal. even when the actual message is, in fact, absolutely repulsive (Sucker Punch isn't even close, Michael Bay movies are possibly a better example) it can still be really rewarding to look at why and how a film does what it does, what its internal logic and contradictions are, and so on. turning away because you're uncomfortable is fine if you're speaking as a viewer, that's your business, but as a critic it's crippling the best horror movies are generally the most transgressive ones, not the least. both in terms of what they have to say and (often) in how well-constructed they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Oh god, CineD is leaking into D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Oh god, CineD is leaking into D&D. Yeah, how about we not derail too much towards film analysis/review/criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's funny you think Snyder was saying "hell yeah titties" instead of "everyone who says 'Hell yeah titties' is gross". aka 'the anime defense'
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
EDIT: Dropping derail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
They're all at his site - here's the list http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/review-list/ Some classics include the recent one star review of Stellaris. State of Decay which he did like. RIse of the Tomb Raider he was ambivalent about. Bruce Geryk also reviews wargames on the site from time to time including the recent Tigers on the Hunt
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:They're all at his site - here's the list http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/review-list/ Thanks! I will be sure to give them a read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I've been reflecting on some of the posts here, and I have to wonder: now that we have the possibility of seeing people review a game on Youtube, with all the live gameplay footage that entails, is there really a need for written reviews, as opposed to critiques? Reviewers are also less particular about what parts of the game they consider worth delving into. That's kind of why I think "offering a perspective" isn't really the only point of a review, a lot of what makes a good review comes down to providing useful information so people reading/watching it can figure out for themselves if they'll like it even if the reviewer isn't that interested. They are better if you want to see hour-long videos covering that one new feature from the latest patch though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So is Starship Troopers similarly problematic? I file Sucker Punch alongside Farcry 3 - satire and irony need to be more than just replicating the exact despicable traits of whatever you're mocking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:I file Sucker Punch alongside Farcry 3 - satire and irony need to be more than just replicating the exact despicable traits of whatever you're mocking. Again though (and I'm addressing FC3 since you mentioned it), that goes back to the Starship Troopers problem - do you really need someone facing the audience and saying "the thing you just saw? That's bad"? That seems extremely cynical, and more importantly it makes stories dull.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again though (and I'm addressing FC3 since you mentioned it), that goes back to the Starship Troopers problem - do you really need someone facing the audience and saying "the thing you just saw? That's bad"? Paul Verhoeven certainly thought so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkOqiweYfwQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Paul Verhoeven certainly thought so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkOqiweYfwQ 
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again though (and I'm addressing FC3 since you mentioned it), that goes back to the Starship Troopers problem - do you really need someone facing the audience and saying "the thing you just saw? That's bad"? You don't really need this with any form of storytelling. However, there's a lot of people out there who think that in order for Videogames To Grow Up, we need more of it. Sometimes this gets argued as being a necessary injection into franchises that otherwise have never really had much interest in sending a message to the player reminding them that bad things are bad. I think videogames can present some serious issues without necessarily needing to be as hamfisted about it as, say, Spec Ops: The Line. In practice, exceedingly few writers in the industry are capable of handling mature content without falling off the soapbox they're preaching from. It doesn't help that at the end of the day, a story to a videogame usually is influenced by the game itself. A dev team will more likely have a story edited to fit what they want to do with the game, rather than throw out parts of the game for the sake of a narrative. A good example of this is Uncharted 3, the narrative itself was basically wrapped around a bunch of action sequences the team wanted to put in their next game, and it shows. I'm not sure how this problem can be 'dealt with', and I'm not even sure this is a problem to begin with. Videogames that do or don't place a focus on their writing or overall narrative co-exist in the same market as is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again though (and I'm addressing FC3 since you mentioned it), that goes back to the Starship Troopers problem - do you really need someone facing the audience and saying "the thing you just saw? That's bad"? Given the apparent death of irony and satire (or at least, a change in what is perceived as ironic or satirical) in America's social consciousness, I'd say it's probably useful enough to outweigh the dullness it adds if you really want to drive home whatever point you're trying to make. But I'm not really sure how effective "This thing, you think it's good? It's actually bad."-style denouements actually are at making people think about the thing they've just consumed; Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream had at least one person write a review where the reviewer complained that Spinrad mucked up a perfectly good sci-fi adventure story with all this Hitler nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again though (and I'm addressing FC3 since you mentioned it), that goes back to the Starship Troopers problem - do you really need someone facing the audience and saying "the thing you just saw? That's bad"? If it's totally indistinguishable from the real thing it's hard to call it that. You can't just make a movie and then when someone says it's dumb go "psych it's really satire!" FC3 actually kinda tries to tell you it's bad but the attempt is really half-hearted and doesn't come off in the gameplay at all so it doesn't work. Most war movies take an anti-war stance but the presentation of war as cinematic in and of itself tends to come off as glorification even if you're not trying to do it. Portraying something like war with proper filmic technique that actually looks aesthetically pleasing and has an entertaining plot in and of itself is glorification. No game really says "war is hell", even if they try- it's always "war is a test of skill and wits for Skilled Players to solve", even in games like This War of Mine. It's still just a test of skill and wits- the definition of a good game. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Jun 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If it's totally indistinguishable from the real thing it's hard to call it that. You can't just make a movie and then when someone says it's dumb go "psych it's really satire!" This is why literacy in the medium is important, so that you can make distinctions. Also, there are entire schools of criticism dedicated to the idea that contradictions like "war is hell" and "war is a test of skill and wits" can or even inevitably do exist within every narrative, and depend on this when they interpret what the narrative has to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Satire can be good, and yet quite a few people don't get it. That's the risk in satire, irony, really anything humorous that requires critical thinking by the audience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2016 01:55
|
|