Your idea and why it sucks

by narcogen , Andover, Massachusetts, Sunday, June 02, 2013, 01:14 (4191 days ago) @ Cody Miller
edited by narcogen, Sunday, June 02, 2013, 01:21

And you really think a text, that I guarantee you was not written with Bungie in mind and has no connection to them whatsoever is the best way to do that?

I don't believe I need to assert that. By providing a limited list of things such a reference could be employed to achieve, you implied it could not be employed to achieve anything else. I don't have to prove it was the "best" way of doing it. I'm not even sure how that applies. Surely there may have been dozens if not hundreds of different ways to illustrate a point with no clear objective scale in sight along which to assign a value of "best". I'd be more interested in figuring out what can be learnt from the choice and what it might say about the work.

For a guy who calls out sources he barely understands, you've got a lot of gall to suggest that what this is is Bungie being pretentious. Then, to back that up, you spew some pseudophilosophy with a side order of Matrix references. Good grief, who do you think you're kidding?

Kipling, in 1894, was not writing with Bungie in mind-- a company that would not open for another hundred years? You don't say. As for how it is relevant, you can't say, because it isn't. There is no prerequisite for a work to be created with the intention of later being referenced or modified in order for that work, in whole or in part, to be employed for other purposes. One might as well say that Marathon and Halo are intellectually bankrupt and unoriginal because Greek epic poems weren't written with video games in mind.

Why not write something of your own tailored specifically to this ad, and to Destiny? Further, explaining how your game works doesn't really count as creative expression… unless you pretend it does.

Are we still talking about a tv commercial, or not?

Did you miss every single reference or allusion to other works of fiction or poetry in all of Bungie's previous games-- and their promotional materials-- or is this one sticking in your craw for some particular reason that you've not written? Because most of this is rather nonspecific vitriol and grandstanding.

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.

Which means Destiny will be full of clichés and generally not the thing that gets people to admit games are serious when it comes to stories.

It's strange how most writers will readily admit that there are a fairly limited number of story structures that resonate with audiences. What generally separates those referred to as "tropes" or even "classical" from those derided as "cliché" is usually the quality of execution, which you avoided talking about because you said it was well done.

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 do they like injecting it? Again if you want to explore the same themes as somethign you inject, you had better extend the analysis. The best works do not reference. They are referenced.

Not going to address that first point, eh? Thought not. That last point is first class, grade A rhetorical nonsense. Are all of Shakespeare's plays inferior to the Italian originals he ripped off, then? Not to mention that it creates an infinite regression, where the only actually GOOD work is the very first one, since everything else is a reference to it.

You're spouting vile nonsense, even for you.

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?

Dude, being a fan of someone isn't a good reason to cast them. You cast someone because he is best for the part. For the record, I'm not going to criticize his casting, because frankly it is awesome and effective at doing what was set out to be done.

So what are we talking about again? You brought up the casting. But now you're not going to criticize it? Which is it? Maybe they thought he was right for the part? Equal amounts threatening and avuncular? Someone with a distinctive voice? I'm still really not sure what you're getting at, except to say that if they wanted somebody like him, they should have just cast somebody like him, but not actually him, because of course to hire an A list TV actor is putting on airs.

You're being a snob, pure and simple. You're essentially saying that Bungie is casting talent out of its pay grade by hiring a good actor and a good director to do a TV commercial for a game that you don't think is worthy. Which is ridiculous, since Favreau is best known for pop entertainment: two out of three good Iron Man flicks, Zathura, which I liked, and Cowboys and Aliens, which was dreck. Heck, maybe they'd even have him in to do all the in-game cinematics, if he had the time. He'd probably be good at it. What exactly is it about making a few profitable action movies that makes doing a TV commercial for an action game such an unforgivable act of hubris on the part of Bungie in specific, or the gaming industry in general? I'm just not seeing it.

Also let me remind you of the shitty job Laura Prepon did in Halo 2 as a marine.

I disagree completely and wholeheartedly.

She might have been a fan, and they might have been a fan. So what? Her performance was bad and it hurt the game.

Except it wasn't, and it didn't.

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.

This to me is prima facie about the games industry envying, and wanting to be takes as seriously as hollywood. I cannot believe this is not apparent to anybody else, but I understand why such a thing will be denied.

Most of that is going on inside your head. You might want to ask yourself why that is. Somehow you've aligned some insecurity you're feeling, either about yourself or your interest in games, and are projecting it bigger than life size onto the entire industry. Or else you've aligned yourself with "Hollywood" and view these changes as aspirations to something the gaming industry doesn't-- in your learned opinion-- deserve.

That the industry is itself going through certain transitions, and has individuals in it who aspire for their creations to be classified more as high art than commercial art, is one thing. To come to the conclusion that an increase in budgets and production values amounts to delusions of grandeur is quite another, and I would say is unsubstantiated, especially when you try and lump in Bungie's literary references as well, which is a trend that has been going on for far, far longer.