By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Kojima: "Next level of gaming" not yet possible

Then I apologize, when I'm finished writing this post it's going to seem a lot ruder to you than I would have hoped.



Around the Network
Khuutra said:
DTG said:
rocketpig said:
From this, I can only conclude that some people have no appetite for nuance or interpretation in their games; a 'good' story to them is heavyhanded, oblique, obtuse, etc. Any subtlety will be unappreciated, uncaptured, and will be taken as a weakness in the work rather than a weakness in the viewer.

I've reached the conclusion that it is simply not possible to have any resolution with the people who prefer this other method of storytelling; they *want* to be led, hand-in-hand, through someone else's viewpoints, without any room for interpretation, without any level of thought going into it as well. If they are told 2+2=4, they will memorize it by rote; there is no thought behind the _why_ of 2+2=4. It's just a string of characters; the theory behind the 2, behind the +, all that is lost on them because it is neither what they want from a story nor what they are looking for in a story.

In short, it is just two different styles of writing; the 'fact based' method vs. the 'analysis based' method. I know which I prefer, and which leads to a deeper understanding of the concepts. However, some will never want this deeper understanding; they would rather just have the so-called 'facts.'


Well said. I guess arguing with people who praise Kojima's works is rather pointless. I particularly like the bolded comment. Too true.

 

The problem with that type of thinking is that it stems from you thinking too highly of yourself. You think "you" can do a better job interpreting a movie and finding it's meaning than someone with an incredibly high IQ who has changed the world with their thoughts. Kant didn't leave you to interpret his views, he shoved it down your throat and history considers him one of the most influential philosophers of all time. If someone has something to say that is beyond the average human comprehension (Kant, Neitzche, Kojima) they should TEACH it to us, tell it to us directly rather than let the ego of the average human think he is capable of discerning higher thoughts.

You

Cannot

Be serious.

Anyone who would spout that kind of horse crap while citing Neitzche, of all people, is either radically misinformed or being intentionally ironic. Now which is it?

 

My main example was Kant. Have you read Critique of Pure reason in its original form? It is extremely complex and abstract, far beyond what the average person would be able to create himself. These people spent their lives thinking, that's all they did and they are considered some of the most intelligent people in history.

But of course if you're saying that you could have written Critique of Pure reason and that you are as intelligent as the greatest thinkers in history, be my guest.



This is the thread that keeps on giving



DTG said:
Khuutra said:
DTG said:
rocketpig said:
From this, I can only conclude that some people have no appetite for nuance or interpretation in their games; a 'good' story to them is heavyhanded, oblique, obtuse, etc. Any subtlety will be unappreciated, uncaptured, and will be taken as a weakness in the work rather than a weakness in the viewer.

I've reached the conclusion that it is simply not possible to have any resolution with the people who prefer this other method of storytelling; they *want* to be led, hand-in-hand, through someone else's viewpoints, without any room for interpretation, without any level of thought going into it as well. If they are told 2+2=4, they will memorize it by rote; there is no thought behind the _why_ of 2+2=4. It's just a string of characters; the theory behind the 2, behind the +, all that is lost on them because it is neither what they want from a story nor what they are looking for in a story.

In short, it is just two different styles of writing; the 'fact based' method vs. the 'analysis based' method. I know which I prefer, and which leads to a deeper understanding of the concepts. However, some will never want this deeper understanding; they would rather just have the so-called 'facts.'


Well said. I guess arguing with people who praise Kojima's works is rather pointless. I particularly like the bolded comment. Too true.

 

The problem with that type of thinking is that it stems from you thinking too highly of yourself. You think "you" can do a better job interpreting a movie and finding it's meaning than someone with an incredibly high IQ who has changed the world with their thoughts. Kant didn't leave you to interpret his views, he shoved it down your throat and history considers him one of the most influential philosophers of all time. If someone has something to say that is beyond the average human comprehension (Kant, Neitzche, Kojima) they should TEACH it to us, tell it to us directly rather than let the ego of the average human think he is capable of discerning higher thoughts.

You

Cannot

Be serious.

Anyone who would spout that kind of horse crap while citing Neitzche, of all people, is either radically misinformed or being intentionally ironic. Now which is it?

 

My main example was Kant. Have you read Critique of Pure reason in its original form? It is extremely complex and abstract, far beyond what the average person would be able to create himself. These people spent their lives thinking, that's all they did and they are considered some of the most intelligent people in history.

But of course if you're saying that you could have written Critique of Pure reason and that you are as intelligent as the greatest thinkers in history, be my guest.

Not that you were asking me, but do you mean, have we read it in German? 

In that case, the answer is a resounding No.

You know why?  Because Kant in German is so poorly written that even Kant scholars read the English translations because they're more sensible.

However, I will choose to resort to ad hominem now, and say that if you want to use the example of a misogynist robot-man who had to hack into his philosophy a special exception so that the human race could survive (since his actual ethic can't reconcile even marital sex for the purpose of procreation without this special hack) as your sole example of a philosopher who taught by shoving things down your throat, I won't argue.

Instead, I'll point to Nietzsche.  I'll point to Sartre.  I'll point to Kierkegaard, to Hegel, to Camus and his Myth of Sisyphus.

I'll point to Plato's Republic with its famous Cave Allegory.

I'll point to Aristotle's Metaphysics.  I'll reference Hobbes' Leviathan, Rousseau's The Social Contract.  I will reference every well-regarded philosopher in history that has used symbolism, allegory, inference, metaphor, and all sorts of interesting literary techniques to try and get the reader to discover the argument, rather than be taught it.  Teaching doesn't cause understanding; only learning can cause that.  That is why almost all the 'great' philosophers of our day have tried to get you to learn.

Frankly, most of the philosophers you could possibly mention wouldn't give a damn if people understood their works. 

Nietszche referred to pretty much everybody on the planet in the same way we refer to cows.  What makes you think that he would care if these cattle understood his work? 

Socrates, and his intellectual children Plato and Aristotle wouldn't want people to learn their teachings by rote; 'the unexamined life is not worth living', after all.

I think you need to revisit all the philosophy you claim to have read.  In short, I don't think you're taking from it what you should.



Please, PLEASE do NOT feed the trolls.
fksumot tag: "Sheik had to become a man to be useful. Or less useful. Might depend if you're bi."

--Predictions--
1) WiiFit will outsell the pokemans.
  Current Status: 2009.01.10 70k till PKMN Yellow (Passed: Emerald, Crystal, FR/LG)

I think Hideo Kojima gives DTG a Solid Snake, if you know what I mean.

Please continue. I'm having a lot of fun reading through this.



Around the Network

Yes, this thread has been comedy gold.



Rofl whatever sun. I'll take you on in a "fine art" argument any day of the week. I'm about 99% sure I've spent more time studying art, literature, and philosophy than you.

You wanna be a dick? Fucking bring it. I'm ready and willing. Let's start with Postmodernism and your take on it. You have such a hard-on for Kojima, you should know the subject well.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Oh my god people are talking about sex with kojima.

SEX

WITH

KOJIMA

This thread has gone blue!



I hope my 360 doesn't RRoD
         "Suck my balls!" - Tag courtesy of Fkusmot

The thing that bothers me about DTG's argument is how it contrasts with (practically) everyone else's definition of what makes an artist good in every other medium ...

The fact is most artists who are considered masters in their field use the unique strengths of their medium, while minimizing the weaknesses of their medium, and deliver their message in a very subtle way.

People will go to The Art Institute of Chicago and stare at “Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte” by George-Pierre Seurat. The composition involves various members of the social classes performing activities in the park; the painting is massive and he uses pointillism which gives the impression of just a bunch of dots up close, but a beautiful vibrant image. Hideo-Kojima and DTG would probably dislike this painting because it is too low resolution though …

 



Starship Troopers >>>>>> MGS

Thats all I'm gonna say.



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away"