Your idea and why it sucks

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Saturday, June 01, 2013, 21:25 (4191 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Why use an established text in your work? Maybe because it says perfectly what you want to say. Well, if that's the case then you don't need to say anything do you, since the work that already exists is already saying it! And so your work is unoriginal.

There is nothing new under the sun, so to speak. Ultimately the difference between borrowing content and stealing it is execution.

You may use it because you wish to extend and add to what it says. This is good because it's more efficient. But Bungie didn't do this. Point me to a new idea that springs from that work with the proper insight only they can provide. Can't? Dang not looking good.

You may also use it to explicate part of your content, which Bungie did here, illustrating how what appears to be otherwise ordinary looking gameplay sequences (one dude takes out a bunch of dudes, then three dudes face off against one big dude) illustrates a key concept in Bungie's new world-- emphasis on cooperative play not as an afterthought but as a core concept of the game, and a world built to exploit that concept: a world that punishes lone wolves and rewards the pack.

You may use it to set tone, which Bungie did here. Mythic science fiction, as they have said, taking a classic adventure story and transplanting it into a science fiction seting.

The other reason is to appear smart. I can reference this because I'm literary. How many people watching that ad do you think read the original? I'm betting few.

I think you're projecting your own insecurity onto Bungie. Bungie, I think, references literary works they like in games they make because they like those works, because they like exploring some of the same themes as those works, and because they like the idea of injecting a bit of literature into popular entertainment.

Why use Giancarlo Esposito? Why use Jon Favreau? I'm serious, anybody could have directed that piece.

Maybe they like him? Maybe he'll be doing a voiceover in the game? Okay I admit, Favreau maybe was just a bit of name-dropping, but many film directors start off in commercials and some even move back and forth. Esposito, Favreau, and Bungie may just be fans of each others' work without it meaning much of anything beyond that. If Bungie/Activision can afford them and they are available, why the hell not?

Are you saying you put in a bid on the job? :)

The reason is for the name. The reason is to make it look serious.

Take us seriously. This literature is serious. This actor is serious. This director is serious. We're serious.

The director name-dropping was, but if you're looking for something pretentious and out of place in that ad that deserves a call-out, it's not the use of Esposito or the reference to Kipling, it's the unnecessary "From the guys who paid for Call of Duty" reference to Activision.

But it's not, because if it was then that would be apparent on its own.

ZOMG TAKE THIS GAME AND OUR INDUSTRY SERIOUSLY. If you have to say that, then you're not ready.

Disagree. Some people feel it is ready, and some may agree with that, but not be aware of it. Sometimes an announcement is necessary and appropriate.

(Please note I am saying nothing of the craftsmanship of this piece, as it's obviously very well put together and that doesn't suck. What sucks is the idea of it.)

What sucks is the meta idea you've projected onto it that comes more from your head than anyone else's. Yeah, I agree, that kinda sucks.