Why Bungie gets visual storytelling wrong (Destiny)

by Leviathan , Hotel Zanzibar, Monday, July 27, 2015, 02:56 (3407 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Well, for one thing, you are a man and she is a woman. Color me sexist, but it's not usually the men bawling their eyes out when people die. If she had seen it on TV first, you can bet the reaction would have been more intense.

Yep, your color is sexist. Fun fact: I definitely cry far more than her. :) And I'd bet against you, because... well, I know her, AND I know how she usually gets far more personally and emotionally attached to the characters she sees a world through in a good novel rather than in a film or TV. I've actually seen her so rarely sad from a film that I remember asking about it like a year into our relationship. Here I am crying on the 32nd viewing of Fellowship of the Ring and she's just sitting there watching...

Powerful, but not in the way films are. Writing is not specific and continuous like the 24fps of a movie are. You are perceiving Westeros with your imagination in the books, but in the show you are perceiving it via sight and sound. That is not the same at all.

I just gave you an example from my experience where my imagination provided sights, sound, feelings, and more, to the point where it surpassed a film. I can keep providing you with more examples, but since you disagree, I have a feeling you're just going to throw those out the window too. Films USUALLY provide a better sensory experience in the way you're describing, but a good book can rival or surpass it.

There are novels that have made me feel wind in my hair and the gallop of a horse beneath me and the impending doom of a loved one I'm racing towards. The feelings and imagery surround me while a film must remain in the window I'm looking through...

Why do you think books are less popular? The GoT novels told the same story. Books are cheap. You can buy the paperback for a few bucks. Cable plus HBO costs a lot. By that measure alone they are more accessible than television. People are hungry for entertainment, so if books provide it better, they'd pick those over TV. But they aren't, and that's because audiovisual media is simply better at manipulating your emotions. If you had watched House of Cards, which was released all at once, you'd know everybody freaked out and talked about SPOILERS Frank killing Zoe END SPOILERS.

I completely disagree with you here. Why are books less popular? Because they require work, commitment, more time (most of the time, unless you're comparing to 50 years of Doctor Who or something), and a calm in your brain that allows you to focus and immerse yourself in the work. Books are a code; your brain the engine that creates the experience. Because of that, the medium has the potential to change your life, but the cost of the effort to take in and understand all of that code is much higher.

A film lasts only a few hours. Network TV shows tend to wrap everything up in a bow (and a song-of-the-week) by the end of 45 minute segments. They give "Previously on Game of Thrones..." now so you don't have to remember what happened before. This medium is generally more accessible and easier to process. You can often just let films or shows wash over you and let your eyes and ears experience the content without actually analyzing it. And the films that do require work to be put into them like a novel? They do not tend be anywhere near as popular...

Isn't this sort of admitting the greater power to audiovisual works? Nobody like their stories in a vacuum, and if you say that they are better able to reach more people that should be a flat out plus for them, and a minus against books.

Not following you here, I think. Just because everyone and their dog went and saw Guardians of the Galaxy didn't make me enjoy it anymore. Sharing an interest with a few friends is fun, sure. If my friend loves to play Halo co-op with me, that's great. But I don't need Halo to be the greatest selling game of all time for that to enrich my experience. I've never met anyone that's read one of my favorite novels of all time, A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov. That doesn't mean it had less of an impact on me.

Fast food chains are able to reach people through advertising and marketing and sheer number of locations. Their food is quick and requires no effort from the consumer. They tend to be cheap. A lot of people eat it so you can go together to the joint, too. They're accessible.

Does that prove they're tastier or healthier than a good home-cooked meal with fresh ingredients?