Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Consumer satisfaction is based on [consumer expectation] / [consumer experience]. If expectation is met or goes higher, the consumer is satisfied. If the experience does not meet and goes below expectation, the consumer is dissatisfied. Part of that expectation is how much you pay for something, and how long it takes to consume it.
If you pay for a video game and it doesn't do what you want, you're stuck with it for twelve, thirty, a hundred hours. And you can't play a game from start to finish in one sitting, ordinarily. People have to find time in their schedules to play, and if it's not what they want, then that expectation is not going to be met.
Whereas you are expected to sit in a movie theater and watch it until its over, and it's a reasonable expectation. If the tone changes, it changes for an hour or slightly more and then you can deal.
And there's also the fact that movies are also sold by certain terms, like director, studio, or genre. Some movies are expected to contain tone shifts. You wouldn't go see a Steven Spielburg movie and expect a tone shift, because that guy makes pretty honest, earnest, straight-faced movies.
Well, tonal shifts only happen in games that are more story-centric in the first place anyway.
Usually the gameplay stays pretty similar despite the shift in tone, so if you're there for the gameplay, most of the time you'll be fine.
That said, I do admit that I'm usually more of a person who stays with a game because of its non-gameplay elements.
Also, I guess maybe if you're playing something that's both plot-centric but also has a great deal of personal control/customization or in-universe freedom, you might have thought up a certain goal just to have that goal dashed when something changes in the setting.
Consumer satisfaction is based on [consumer expectation] / [consumer experience]. If expectation is met or goes higher than expectation, the consumer is satisfied. Part of that expectation is how much you pay for something, and how long it takes to consume it.
If you pay for a video game and it doesn't do what you want, you're stuck with it for twelve, thirty, a hundred hours. And you can't play a game from start to finish in one sitting, ordinarily. People have to find time in their schedules to play, and if it's not what they want, then that expectation is not going to be met.
Whereas you are expected to sit in a movie theater and watch it until its over, and it's a reasonable expectation. If the tone changes, it changes for an hour or slightly more and then you can deal.
And there's also the fact that movies are also sold by certain terms, like director, studio, or genre. Some movies are expected to contain tone shifts. You wouldn't go see a Steven Spielburg movie and expect a tone shift, because that guy makes pretty honest, earnest, straight-faced movies.
I don't really personally understand the idea of going into something expecting a tone shift or expecting no tone shift...
Like, I understand the notion that someone could expect a shift or expect no shift, but it just seems like an "I don't think it works like that".
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Can you at least understand that if an artist's name is attached to a work, you will form certain expectations based on that artist's past work and reputation?
No, Mach is right, if you're familiar with the director, franchise or studio, that usually gives you some idea whether there will or will not be a tonal shift. Not always, but a lot of the time.
or i guess it is but that seems like a needlessly dysphemistic way of putting it when twists and unpredictability are usually considered the mark of a good storyteller
in general i don't like works of fiction that attempt to lecture their audience, which i feel is something that many games that pull that sort of thing often do.
or i guess it is but that seems like a needlessly dysphemistic way of putting it when twists and unpredictability are usually considered the mark of a good storyteller
in general i don't like works of fiction that attempt to lecture their audience, which i feel is something that many games that pull that sort of thing often do.
i guess.
i tend not to mind being lectured so much, so long as the lecture is interesting to me.
i might be off base here but i think it's sorta like how i tend to see 2 reactions to postmodern fiction
you get some people who love it, who think it's really clever and love the playfulness of it and the way things get turned on their heads
then you get other people who think it's dumb and feel insulted that the author thought they'd be impressed by it (the words 'smug' or 'pretentious' may be used)
or i guess it is but that seems like a needlessly dysphemistic way of putting it when twists and unpredictability are usually considered the mark of a good storyteller
in general i don't like works of fiction that attempt to lecture their audience, which i feel is something that many games that pull that sort of thing often do.
i guess.
i tend not to mind being lectured so much, so long as the lecture is interesting to me.
i might be off base here but i think it's sorta like how i tend to see 2 reactions to postmodern fiction
you get some people who love it, who think it's really clever and love the playfulness of it and the way things get turned on their heads
then you get other people who think it's dumb and feel insulted that the author thought they'd be impressed by it (the words 'smug' or 'pretentious' may be used)
I often feel the second way about the specific sort of thing I'm talking about. It's not anything exclusive to video games although it does seem to be more generally praised when it shows up there.
To trot out an old horse, the ending portion of the first BioShock game is an example. You're revealed to have been taking orders the entire time, and while I know what the intent is, to me it just falls flat. It's hard to make me feel any kind of bad for something when, by the simple fact that you, the creator, designed the game to specifically lead to this conclusion, I had literally no other choice except to stop playing, which as I've gone on (at length) about before, is not actually a choice.
I don't even really think it's pretentious because I think the concept works, at least in theory, it's just not pulled off well, but by not pulling it off well, you leave me feeling like all you've really done is insult my intelligence.
There's a second, related thing, where a piece of media pretends to be the literal opposite of what it is. Like Erasure. Or Gakkou Gurashi being marketed as a slice of life show.
Part of the point of games is for the interactivity to pull you into the world itself and make you experience the narrative through first-hand contact.
And lecturing in general is not an effective idea for communicating narrative, in my opinion. The whole "show, don't tell" principle, basically.
re "deceptive"
I would call surprising the audience deceptive, but then again I have no problem doing so since I don't consider deception an inherently bad concept, only dependent for its ethicalness on how it's used.
I felt that Madoka Magica spent a good amount of its time lecturing to me about setting details.
This is why I have suggested that it may have been better served to have more episodes, and thus more time to really show us (the audience), through experience/observation, how the setting works.
I should point out that for the most part I actually like the first BioShock game (I haven't played the other two), I just thought the ending was dumb.
I don't know, in retrospect I don't remember whether or not I found it obvious so I can't really comment on the pure narrative qualities.
also i guess wrt "media that pretends to be the literal opposite of what it is", that is a charge you could reasonably level at Madoka
however i think you might be misled only as far as the end of the theme song, you'd have to be pretty unobservant or seriously lacking in genre awareness to not pick up on the eerie vibes even in the first episode
also i guess wrt "media that pretends to be the literal opposite of what it is", that is a charge you could reasonably level at Madoka
however i think you might be misled only as far as the end of the theme song, you'd have to be pretty unobservant or seriously lacking in genre awareness to not pick up on the eerie vibes even in the first episode
yeah but it's just like....the reactions to such things tend to be really dumb?
Like I'm sorry. I haven't actually seen Madoka so I have no idea if it qualifies for what I'm talking about here, but like, the quality of pretending to be something else doesn't actually carry into the story, it's usually just found in marketing. The "big reveal" in Gakkou Gurashi* is, to my understanding, at the end of the first episode.
The reason it (and its fandom) bothers me is that this is treated like some brilliant takedown of the genre, which....it's not.
There I suppose my problem comes less from the thing itself and more from the thing's fans. I guess you then get into a wider question of how much of what a fandom does can be pinned on the thing they're fans of.
*this is that show that takes a slice-of-life cast and dumps them in a zombie apocalypse. I refuse to read it and frankly I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who would.
i haven't read that particular manga, i'm curious about why you'd be suspicious of people who read it though?
it doesn't sound like a 'brilliant takedown', it sounds like something people who are just not fans of the genre might enjoy in a mocking kind of way, like the people who responded to MLP threads by posting a character tearing a pony in half
i haven't seen that particular show, i'm curious about why you'd be suspicious of people who watch it though?
it doesn't sound like a 'brilliant takedown', it sounds like something people who are just not fans of the genre might enjoy in a mocking kind of way, like the people who responded to MLP threads by posting a character tearing a pony in half
KHORNE COULD MURDER RAINBOW DASH, ERGO MY FANDOM IS BETTER THAN YOURS
A lot of fiction seems to be about people suffering, though. Like, the entire horror genre, along with most 'serious' drama, soaps as well, all 'dark' comedy . . .
i haven't seen that particular show, i'm curious about why you'd be suspicious of people who watch it though?
it doesn't sound like a 'brilliant takedown', it sounds like something people who are just not fans of the genre might enjoy in a mocking kind of way, like the people who responded to MLP threads by posting a character tearing a pony in half
KHORNE COULD MURDER RAINBOW DASH, ERGO MY FANDOM IS BETTER THAN YOURS
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Suffering is central to narrative, but at the same time, there are so many different kinds of sufferings that seeing the same sort over and over in mass media is just really boring.
i was kinda assuming that something clever would end up happening later in the series because like the novelty factor of "its a zombie show with a slice of life cast" doesnt seem to be enough to like hold up a whole show
but then again, people always like indistinguishable, repetitive zombie shows for some reason so maybe not
which i should clarify i wouldn't have a problem with if there was a point to it.
not too long ago i read a very weird manga called MILK Closet. It was disturbing at times and outright horrific more than once, but I'd call it recommendable simply because there was actually a story that went somewhere.
i was kinda assuming that something clever would end up happening later in the series because like the novelty factor of "its a zombie show with a slice of life cast" doesnt seem to be enough to like hold up a whole show
but then again, people always like indistinguishable, repetitive zombie shows for some reason so maybe not
the manga's been running since last year I think and afaik no major plot developments have really happened
granted i do not know if it publishes weekly or monthly
And that theory is that "unsubtlty," "preachiness" et al. are *universally* misdiagnoses of underlying problems, and it usually boils down to two things: *I don't want to hear what this is trying to tell me *I feel like the thing this is trying to tell me is dishonest, is presented dishonestly, or is incongruous with the rest of the work
There's nothing wrong with being obvious. A work loses nothing inherently by being accessible (though most often sacrifices must be made to this end).
Because with media, all qualities end up tangled up with each other. Subtlety is often tied into matters like nuance and depth, both Good Things, but it is not equivalent to them. Any individual element can never be truly isolated with art but it is often necessary to focus on certain elements.
And that theory is that "unsubtlty," "preachiness" et al. are *universally* misdiagnoses of underlying problems, and it usually boils down to two things: *I don't want to hear what this is trying to tell me *I feel like the thing this is trying to tell me is dishonest, is presented dishonestly, or is incongruous with the rest of the work
There's nothing wrong with being obvious. A work loses nothing inherently by being accessible (though most often sacrifices must be made to this end).
even if we take this entire statement as 100% true it does not change my problems with any of the works I gave as examples, nor the dozens of others that fall into similar categories.
Comments
They function pretty similarly to shifts in narrative tone in other media.
If anything, the fact that videogames have a longer engagement time can mean that the shifts in tone have more impact.
Not every game has to be for everyone, and that's ok.
Well, tonal shifts only happen in games that are more story-centric in the first place anyway.
Usually the gameplay stays pretty similar despite the shift in tone, so if you're there for the gameplay, most of the time you'll be fine.
That said, I do admit that I'm usually more of a person who stays with a game because of its non-gameplay elements.
Also, I guess maybe if you're playing something that's both plot-centric but also has a great deal of personal control/customization or in-universe freedom, you might have thought up a certain goal just to have that goal dashed when something changes in the setting.
Like, I understand the notion that someone could expect a shift or expect no shift, but it just seems like an "I don't think it works like that".
Personally, I generally don't pay much attention to the origin of the work before experiencing it, though. Afterwards, sure, but not before.
I expect the work to lead me through whatever tones it has, including whatever tonal shifts there are between them.
big names, ongoing series, and of course, things that i know fairly well by reputation before watching/playing/reading them
...I wonder if that's why I sometimes like to watch series I know nothing about.
i tend not to mind being lectured so much, so long as the lecture is interesting to me.
i might be off base here but i think it's sorta like how i tend to see 2 reactions to postmodern fiction
you get some people who love it, who think it's really clever and love the playfulness of it and the way things get turned on their heads
then you get other people who think it's dumb and feel insulted that the author thought they'd be impressed by it (the words 'smug' or 'pretentious' may be used)
Part of the point of games is for the interactivity to pull you into the world itself and make you experience the narrative through first-hand contact.
And lecturing in general is not an effective idea for communicating narrative, in my opinion. The whole "show, don't tell" principle, basically.
re "deceptive"
I would call surprising the audience deceptive, but then again I have no problem doing so since I don't consider deception an inherently bad concept, only dependent for its ethicalness on how it's used.
But this is pointless semantics, honestly.
I felt that Madoka Magica spent a good amount of its time lecturing to me about setting details.
This is why I have suggested that it may have been better served to have more episodes, and thus more time to really show us (the audience), through experience/observation, how the setting works.
i didn't see it as being about making the player feel personally bad as much as about springing a surprise on the player
and that surprise was effectively foreshadowed but cleverly concealed
however i think you might be misled only as far as the end of the theme song, you'd have to be pretty unobservant or seriously lacking in genre awareness to not pick up on the eerie vibes even in the first episode
it doesn't sound like a 'brilliant takedown', it sounds like something people who are just not fans of the genre might enjoy in a mocking kind of way, like the people who responded to MLP threads by posting a character tearing a pony in half
A lot of fiction seems to be about people suffering, though. Like, the entire horror genre, along with most 'serious' drama, soaps as well, all 'dark' comedy . . .
i dunno. It depends how it's done, i guess.
it does sound pretty weird and a bit disturbing
but then again, people always like indistinguishable, repetitive zombie shows for some reason so maybe not
And that theory is that "unsubtlty," "preachiness" et al. are *universally* misdiagnoses of underlying problems, and it usually boils down to two things:
*I don't want to hear what this is trying to tell me
*I feel like the thing this is trying to tell me is dishonest, is presented dishonestly, or is incongruous with the rest of the work
There's nothing wrong with being obvious. A work loses nothing inherently by being accessible (though most often sacrifices must be made to this end).
What inherently is wrong with a work being obvious and unsubtle if it is not being dishonest as a result?