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.
I didn't think it would.
I just wanted to explain why a particular criterion for quality seems to me to be not necessarily meaningless, but a mask for other issues.
Subtlety is a neutral quality (granted, some people may prefer subtlety and find it more personally rewarding, while others may prefer obviousness and find it more broadly valuable)and that is often mistaken for positive qualities such as nuance or depth. As such, a lack of subtlety is often perceived as a lack of nuance or depth.
When nuance and depth are lacking without another positive quality to compensate, the quality of the work suffers.
If someone perceives a lack of subtlety, and then perceives this lacking of subtlety as a lacking of nuance or depth, they may often miss the value of the work on superficial grounds. Or, if they perceive a lack of subtlety along with a lack of nuance, they may see the lack of subtlety as the problem rather than the lack of nuance.
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
I wonder if I was too spoiled for Madoka Magica to enjoy it.
Then again, it's a bit inconsistent...
"dark take" on magical girl genre: spoiled, felt meh end of episode 3: spoiled, felt meh the various things that happened to Sayaka: not spoiled, felt kinda meh Kyouko's character development re Sayaka: not spoiled, felt meh timelines: not spoiled, actually felt impact final result: not really spoiled, felt meh
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 seen that particular show, i'm curious about why you'd be suspicious of people who watch it though?
wanting to see a cast of (regular, not super-powered in any way) high school girls suffer is weird to me.
Based on the posts above, I doubt you would like the Madoka series very much. My reaction to it was pretty much the same as your reaction to Gakkou Gurashi, including the bit about not liking how it was discussed as a brilliant takedown/deconstruction of a genre. Granted, I did not come into it with high expectations, partly because I had seen its "twist" hyped up a good bit on TVT and got a negative impression of it from that, whether or not that is fair.
As for whether games should be "cinematic," I do not really have strong views on that. I have seen very few games universally praised for their stories and have gotten the impression that it is pretty common for people to believe stories in games do not have much potential. If you have that perspective, I think it makes sense to not want cutscenes and plot and such to be a big emphasis in games, since to you the effort directed toward them rarely produces something good and could actually take away from the core gameplay.
Personally, I think games with an emphasis on production values and story can be enjoyable and can coexist with stuff like Super Mario Maker. I also feel like games can have really interesting scenarios and be relatively subtle in how they go about showing the player what is going on in the game world (e.g., Majora's Mask). Basically, it seems to me like there is room for all sorts of different approaches to story and gameplay in games, and I dislike it when this sort of thing is discussed as an "either or" type of choice when it really is not.
Basically, it seems to me like there is room for all sorts of different approaches to story and gameplay in games, and I dislike it when this sort of thing is discussed as an "either or" type of choice when it really is not.
Comments
I just wanted to explain why a particular criterion for quality seems to me to be not necessarily meaningless, but a mask for other issues.
Subtlety is a neutral quality (granted, some people may prefer subtlety and find it more personally rewarding, while others may prefer obviousness and find it more broadly valuable)and that is often mistaken for positive qualities such as nuance or depth. As such, a lack of subtlety is often perceived as a lack of nuance or depth.
When nuance and depth are lacking without another positive quality to compensate, the quality of the work suffers.
If someone perceives a lack of subtlety, and then perceives this lacking of subtlety as a lacking of nuance or depth, they may often miss the value of the work on superficial grounds. Or, if they perceive a lack of subtlety along with a lack of nuance, they may see the lack of subtlety as the problem rather than the lack of nuance.
Then again, it's a bit inconsistent...
"dark take" on magical girl genre: spoiled, felt meh
end of episode 3: spoiled, felt meh
the various things that happened to Sayaka: not spoiled, felt kinda meh
Kyouko's character development re Sayaka: not spoiled, felt meh
timelines: not spoiled, actually felt impact
final result: not really spoiled, felt meh
am i wrong?
As for whether games should be "cinematic," I do not really have strong views on that. I have seen very few games universally praised for their stories and have gotten the impression that it is pretty common for people to believe stories in games do not have much potential. If you have that perspective, I think it makes sense to not want cutscenes and plot and such to be a big emphasis in games, since to you the effort directed toward them rarely produces something good and could actually take away from the core gameplay.
Personally, I think games with an emphasis on production values and story can be enjoyable and can coexist with stuff like Super Mario Maker. I also feel like games can have really interesting scenarios and be relatively subtle in how they go about showing the player what is going on in the game world (e.g., Majora's Mask). Basically, it seems to me like there is room for all sorts of different approaches to story and gameplay in games, and I dislike it when this sort of thing is discussed as an "either or" type of choice when it really is not.
i am strongly in agreement.