Mrowak
Arcane
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 3,947
Disclaimer: Sorry for the delay. Was on a massive binge. Still sobering up. The essential non-trite lecturing part is in bold.
Gruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer, my dearest bro. What the hell did I do to deserve this label of a spit foaming, nerdrage filled, basement dwelling fat geek that goes "waaah, it's all shit, because it doesn't fit my headcannon!!"? I know that I can be a self-righteous prick at times, but I thought that I maintained pretty balanced profile, being rather open-minded about various issues, remembering never to go ballistic on anyone in a discussion, trying not to champion absolutes or downplay opinions.
Believe me, I know what objectivity means and how a work needs to be judged by its own merit. I actually do a lot of that in my reviews and debates, trying to distance myself from binary "it's shit"/awesome shtick we Codexians love so much. So what gives now? Did me mentioning that *I* did not like the trailer for this and this reason made me a deluded fool, with limited perception? Can I not have my personal opinion? Can I not share it with anyone, because, duh, it's biased by "the shackles of context"?
I should not be going into that, because it's all the stuff we know, but the hell... While I can certainly see the context and legacy issues can cause bias, completely downplaying them is the opposite end of the vile spectrum. For the purposes of this discussion I will use and the example of Diablo games.
What got me and many people into Diablo series, was the atmosphere of gothic horror, the cheap thrills that came with it, the level design, the judeo-christian themes, good singleplayer with randomly implemented quests etc etc. Now, when Diablo 3 came in people were legitimately concerned about appearance of those elements in the sequel. And the concerns were founded. Now, am I and those people a bunch of dumb-witted whiners, who should have shut up and enjoyed D3 for what it is - a(n admitedly) great h&s about hoarding loot and killing monsters in colourful explosions with friends? Or are we right to be disappointed by the elements that we enjoyed being substituted by elements that we do not like? In a review of Diablo 3 do people do not deserve to be informed that certain features they might have liked before are not there anymore, and there's nothing new to fill the void, so there isn't a point on spending the money? Lastly, does the fact that something is good at something else than I want must mean that I will enjoy it at all on this different level? Must I like apples, because there are no oranges in this particular fruit basket, anymore?
Forgive me my mood for trite grade school "wisdom", but looking back at the entirety can be quite limiting... and liberating at the same time.
So when in that other reply to @MasPingon you say
I say, yes it does. But not in the binary sense of "good" and "bad" *quality*, but having certain descriptive *qualities* or lacking them.
I dare you find my quote saying that those games are objectively "bad". Look into my Diablo 3 review - I spend a lot of time comparing it two earlier pieces - that's true. But the ultimate conclusion comes from judging the game on its own merits (the "good game, bad product" thing).
Jesus, Gruuuunkeeerrrrr? Where did I demand a fan-service? In fact I am very much against it. Hell, I thought that the fact that as a TWitcher game fan (who finished both games 4 times), I can distance myself and criticise my favourite studio for inconsistencies and cheap money grabs, makes my more unbiased in the larger scope of things. But apparently now I am blind fanboy. Meh...
Oh, and as history proves you are so wrong in saying that descriptive quality does not depend on marketing or fan-service, but I am not in the mood for taking our discussion in this direction.
Let's make it clear, once and for all: the only thing I criticised was the trailer. The only thing I criticised in the trailer (which is expertly done, with beautiful models and animations, great horeography and generally attention to detail, all topped by terrific music) was the disappointing resolution - in the exact *same* vein you did on page 1 of this very thread. I did so because I get to call shenanigans at the company swearing to be faithful to the material in their marketing, (similarly to how Vault Dweller or VenitlatorOfDoom can call bullshit on alleged "true RPG experience"), when from the trailer it seems they do not understand it.
Does this one, little criticism make me bitter inside so much I scream "betrayal!!" at 2 am at night as I wet my bed crying in impotent rage? Fuck no! I am hoping that judged for its own merits (as in the case of TW1 and 2), I will like the game, as at least based on our current information it's shaping up nicely. I will, however, hold my right to call out any fanboy claiming how thematically aligned TW3 will be with the novels, if - by my own judgment - this will not be the case... and discuss the matter, just as I always do.
Mrowak said:No, they are not. See Fallout 2 -> Fallout 3 or Diablo 1 -> Diablo 3.
Mrooooooooooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak, for fucks sake. Firstly, those games are direct sequals, secondly, they are crap because they are crap, not because they do not adhere to their original works. In fact, we have a review right here on this very side, by none other than VD, saying how Fallout 3 is an average game. And he would be right. It only becomes shit the moment you keep it beholden to some arbitrary standards based on what the original was. "It's shit because it's first person and the original was isometric" i.e. "it's shit because it's a dog and not a cat."
Gruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunnkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer, my dearest bro. What the hell did I do to deserve this label of a spit foaming, nerdrage filled, basement dwelling fat geek that goes "waaah, it's all shit, because it doesn't fit my headcannon!!"? I know that I can be a self-righteous prick at times, but I thought that I maintained pretty balanced profile, being rather open-minded about various issues, remembering never to go ballistic on anyone in a discussion, trying not to champion absolutes or downplay opinions.
Believe me, I know what objectivity means and how a work needs to be judged by its own merit. I actually do a lot of that in my reviews and debates, trying to distance myself from binary "it's shit"/awesome shtick we Codexians love so much. So what gives now? Did me mentioning that *I* did not like the trailer for this and this reason made me a deluded fool, with limited perception? Can I not have my personal opinion? Can I not share it with anyone, because, duh, it's biased by "the shackles of context"?
The legacy on its own gives you certain expectations and once they are not fulfilled, well, I think there are legitimate reasons to criticise the thing, or not buy it (e.g. there is a reason why I won't purchase expansions to Diablo 3.
I don't care about your expectations. Nobody cares.
I should not be going into that, because it's all the stuff we know, but the hell... While I can certainly see the context and legacy issues can cause bias, completely downplaying them is the opposite end of the vile spectrum. For the purposes of this discussion I will use and the example of Diablo games.
What got me and many people into Diablo series, was the atmosphere of gothic horror, the cheap thrills that came with it, the level design, the judeo-christian themes, good singleplayer with randomly implemented quests etc etc. Now, when Diablo 3 came in people were legitimately concerned about appearance of those elements in the sequel. And the concerns were founded. Now, am I and those people a bunch of dumb-witted whiners, who should have shut up and enjoyed D3 for what it is - a(n admitedly) great h&s about hoarding loot and killing monsters in colourful explosions with friends? Or are we right to be disappointed by the elements that we enjoyed being substituted by elements that we do not like? In a review of Diablo 3 do people do not deserve to be informed that certain features they might have liked before are not there anymore, and there's nothing new to fill the void, so there isn't a point on spending the money? Lastly, does the fact that something is good at something else than I want must mean that I will enjoy it at all on this different level? Must I like apples, because there are no oranges in this particular fruit basket, anymore?
Forgive me my mood for trite grade school "wisdom", but looking back at the entirety can be quite limiting... and liberating at the same time.
So when in that other reply to @MasPingon you say
Mrowak's point was that a derivative work's quality was dependant on its adherence to the original.
I say, yes it does. But not in the binary sense of "good" and "bad" *quality*, but having certain descriptive *qualities* or lacking them.
The quality of something owes nothing to what you expected, those are completely normative, subjective things that are fundamentally uninteresting to discuss. When I discuss the quality of a movie about pirates I don't waste 30 minutes establishing what the other party expected considering his 15-year backstory in shipping.
You can care, and it can be your explanation for why you think Diablo 3 or Fallout 3 sucks, but it isn't a fundamental reason for why the games are bad.
I dare you find my quote saying that those games are objectively "bad". Look into my Diablo 3 review - I spend a lot of time comparing it two earlier pieces - that's true. But the ultimate conclusion comes from judging the game on its own merits (the "good game, bad product" thing).
But... that doesn't change the fact that legacy *is* one of the most important factors when continuing a franchise.
Important in which capacity? Important for fan-service? Sure. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing descriptive quality. And that does not depend on marketing, fan-service or anything else.
Jesus, Gruuuunkeeerrrrr? Where did I demand a fan-service? In fact I am very much against it. Hell, I thought that the fact that as a TWitcher game fan (who finished both games 4 times), I can distance myself and criticise my favourite studio for inconsistencies and cheap money grabs, makes my more unbiased in the larger scope of things. But apparently now I am blind fanboy. Meh...
Oh, and as history proves you are so wrong in saying that descriptive quality does not depend on marketing or fan-service, but I am not in the mood for taking our discussion in this direction.
Let's make it clear, once and for all: the only thing I criticised was the trailer. The only thing I criticised in the trailer (which is expertly done, with beautiful models and animations, great horeography and generally attention to detail, all topped by terrific music) was the disappointing resolution - in the exact *same* vein you did on page 1 of this very thread. I did so because I get to call shenanigans at the company swearing to be faithful to the material in their marketing, (similarly to how Vault Dweller or VenitlatorOfDoom can call bullshit on alleged "true RPG experience"), when from the trailer it seems they do not understand it.
Does this one, little criticism make me bitter inside so much I scream "betrayal!!" at 2 am at night as I wet my bed crying in impotent rage? Fuck no! I am hoping that judged for its own merits (as in the case of TW1 and 2), I will like the game, as at least based on our current information it's shaping up nicely. I will, however, hold my right to call out any fanboy claiming how thematically aligned TW3 will be with the novels, if - by my own judgment - this will not be the case... and discuss the matter, just as I always do.
Last edited: