204 replies to this topic

[Theodur]

Let me put it this way: I am not arrogant enough to declare Tolkien's writing to be of bad quality just because I don't particularly enjoy reading LotR.

But that doesn't seem to be anything to do with what I asked.

Really? Why is that, I wonder?

Your defence of BG2's comedy moments was "it's popular". And so, I'm still asking, do you think that serves as an adequate defence of writing quality?

If your argument against it is 'Sim doesn't like it', then yes, it's more than adequate.

You really think it's that arrogant to suggest that "Run, my furry brothers!  RUN!!" isn't neccessarily a great part of literary history?

So you consider the other parts of the game to be a great part of literary history, then?

Edited by Theodur, 24 October 2005 - 11:33 PM.

[SimDing0]

Really? Why is that, I wonder?

Presumably because you've realised what a ridiculous statement it was, so you tried to throw up a smokescreen by introducing a completely different topic.

If your argument against it is 'Sim doesn't like it', then yes, it's more than adequate.

No, my argument is that it breaks the immersion which is essential to creating a convincing gameworld, and "thats just ur opinion lol" is a feeble rebuttal. As well as backtracking on your previous assertion on popularity, you're also continuing to evade providing any sort of meaningful objection to my argument, which leads me to believe that you don't actually have one.

So you consider the other parts of the game to be a great part of literary history, then?

...no, why would I? But you're the one saying it's arrogant to criticise it, not me, so you evidently hold it in high regard. (Unless you're contending that it's arrogant to criticise ANY writing at all, in which case I invite you to return to the Attic and post "More please!" in as many threads as you can find.)

Okay. In that case I don't know why you think someone else would be likely to find the experience of immersing oneself in Discworld horrible.

Well. I'd say it's enormously difficult to immerse yourself in a world which you can't take seriously-- if I know a world is intentionally (well, or unintentionally) a joke, I'd feel rather foolish trying to place myself within it. On the other hand, a believable setting is far easier to bring to life. I don't know. Would you say you find Discworld as immersive as some serious fantasy setting like LotR?

Edited by SimDing0, 25 October 2005 - 04:27 AM.

[Theodur]

Presumably because you've realised what a ridiculous statement it was, so you tried to throw up a smokescreen by introducing a completely different topic.

How is that statement ridiculous?

No, my argument is that it breaks the immersion which is essential to creating a convincing gameworld

Immersion. You're quite fond of that word, aren't you? I assume it also means something else to you than what it means for me. Probably 'Sim must be able to enjoy all parts of the game equally' or some such.

providing any sort of meaningful objection to my argument

You don't actually have any argument, other than fancily throwing around the word 'immersion'. Not to mention that there will never be united opinion on what is 'convincing gameworld'. If the appearance of the Spectator beholder makes the gameworld less convincing for you, all I can say is, well, tough.

Unless you're contending that it's arrogant to criticise ANY writing at all, in which case I invite you to return to the Attic and post "More please!" in as many threads as you can find.

Regardless of your fondness to tell other people what to do in their spare time, I will decide where to post for myself. Of course, if you'll extend the same courtesy to me, then I'll kindly invite you to return to PPG and perhaps do something worthwhile by perhaps fixing some of the still unresolved BG1 Tutu bugs.

[Idobek]

I am utterly confused as to how people are managing to interpret the word "immersion" differently in reference to gameworlds.

[SimDing0]

I am utterly confused as to how people are managing to interpret the word "immersion" differently in reference to gameworlds.

Yeh, it's weird, but getting Theodur to actually explain anything is probably a bit ambitious. Do you think I'm missing something in his posts here, or...? I guess I'll just have to back down in the face of "your opinion!!!"

Actually, yes. It is surreal and frequently contains parody of RL features, but I think it is, in its own way, just as 'serious' as LotR. It deals with topics such as xenophoby, importance of a small person, freedom of will, justification of slavery, mob mentality... the characters feel as real to me as characters in a different work of fantasy, I really can feel the grit of the streets of Ankh-Morpork under my boots as I read along. Perhaps it has something to do with how I perceive life in general - tragic, comic, serious and joke all mixed together without respect for genre lines.

Yes, the fact that real life is frequently comedic is a reasonable point. However, it's one that I think needs to be treated with care. In BG2's case, there's a fair share of in-context humour-- Minsc, for example-- to which I have no real objection (as much as I feel stories often tend to be stronger or more dramatic if they omit humorous elements); however, there are also some out-of-context jokes-- Bondari being the most obvious-- which undoubtedly does remind the player that it's only a game. I think the latter cases do tend to weaken the atmosphere quite significantly.
Okay, but that doesn't have much to do with Discworld. In its case, I'd consider that maybe the humour is overemphasised. They're meant to be funny books, and while I acknowledge the presence of the themes you mention, they're delievered in such a way that we're meant to take the ideas, but not the presentation, seriously. I guess since we're considering the virtues of writing styles, the question is whether a serious novel would be a more effective medium for delivery of these topics, and whether it'd make it easier for the reader to find the setting believable. I contend that it would, since a tale less ridiculous and closer to real life (even omitting conceivable comedy for the sake of drama) is surely one which we can more easily connect with?

[Jyzabyl]

I guess the conclusion would be: be careful when including humor...  since some people most likely will find it distrupting and annoying.

And some people might *gasp* enjoy it.

[Rabain]

To be honest Discworld to me is one of the more direct social commentaries you find in a fantasy book these days. More so even than most serious commentaries (or so called eg anything by Michael
Moore).

Anyway BG2 fourth wall breakage is mostly meaningless as the game has little or no social commentary to begin with. The setting is purely fantasy, the writing should be too. Yes there should be humour but no need to go beyond the setting. Does it break the immersion factor for a player, well that's up to the player but it definately doesn't increase it.

Did any of that make sense?

[Ghreyfain]

Anyway BG2 fourth wall breakage is mostly meaningless as the game has little or no social commentary to begin with.  The setting is purely fantasy, the writing should be too.  Yes there should be humour but no need to go beyond the setting.  Does it break the immersion factor for a player, well that's up to the player but it definately doesn't increase it.

Did any of that make sense?

I think so. *BG2 isn't a game intended to comment on anything outside the game world, so any time it does, it's breaking immersion.

*And yes, just because it does comment on things outside the world and we don't know the original intent of the developers, don't try and pull a semantic argument on me. I bought BG to have an adventure in BG, not to meet Larry, Daryl, and Daryl, or the Chinchilla. Did you?

[Delight]

To be honest Discworld to me is one of the more direct social commentaries you find in a fantasy book these days.  More so even than most serious commentaries (or so called eg anything by Michael
Moore).

That's exactly what I meant by writing that Terry Pratchett writes about RL.

[jcompton]

Probably it is a fairly postmodern device - at least I don't remember encountering such humor in, say, works older than from 20th century.

You're kidding, right? Drama going all the way back to the Greeks has fourth-wall breakage. Shakespeare is full of it. Etc. etc.

[Delight]

There's a little problem.
Role Playing Games are genre that focuses on playing the character and breaking the fourth wall destroys the immersion.