My Blog

My Blog

Judging from a single scene

General StuffPosted by Nicole Mon, February 26, 2018 12:50:03

[On realism in arts]

Well, that plus the trailers. ... I realize that my 'verbal agility' is really low right now. I can't formulate things the way they are in my mind because their complexity defies my ability to write. As in physical terms. For once do I find my body hard to move. In a sense, ... like laziness. In my head I'm also a few steps ahead, ... and usually I then forget what I thought. So I now write based on an incentive to write about something, leading up to which there is a story. But I don't even remember.

I definitely have a problem with handling myself - and right now is not a time to change/do anything. (8:50 pm). I would say. But when is the time?

Medical Aid is complicated. Doctors right now still seem to be a bit confused about who is supposed to do what. After a lot of back and forth, two of them finally have come to communicate with each other to clear out some basics of what one wants from the other. I am telling and telling - 'listen, ... gain weight ... how?' - and from here to there I almost ended up in a psychiatry due to the possibility that I may have had a psychosis some years ago.

Sigh. Thats what I was afraid of.

Because I equated the Antichrist to a Troll pulling strings from behind, and am a Mormon, and that I have some message I want to share. I ... "tell you"./no kidding. When the one tells it the other so it sounds ... put forth I'm somewhat diagnosed with something about being psychotic and then telling something about being Mormon and a Message for the world - in that small isolated context - well, it sounds a bit crazy. But all I do/am is someone who studied scriptures, drew some sense from that and eventually hopes to conjure it all up in a way that can be of benefit to society. i.E. a book maybe, ... or wrapped up in a piece of software. Like this.

I totally forgot what I wanted to write about! [A good nights sleep later] But now I remember.

So, the head-title (??) refers to Star Wars. There was the Snoke death scene on YouTube - and, generally ... well, ... "wow". Now, this isn't a wow attributed to anything I wouldn't have expected. And I guess I've heard that visually the movie is great. Not having seen the movie ... I'm a bit conflicted - and after the initial "hype" was settled I really had no ambitions to see the movie ... anymore. But the thought sparked back up.
This headline has been on my mind for a while, ... following me having seen that scene as to write a piece on how it doesn't change my mind. Or how I get to judge the movie the way I do based on a single scene. Or - not even that. And this is some sort of ... "thingy topic" - saying ... stuff about how my taste eventually got to change due to things God contributes to my perception of things.
(For reference: I do believe that God generally has a hand in everything - but for sakes of clarification I would argue that 'non-enlightened' people rather have something as a "Demo Version" - 'if any' - as, the way how God would manipulate you shouldn't (wouldn't ... ??) happen in a way that would not sit well with you if you knew about it. SO, if you're generally a douche about God, ... you got none of it ... I suppose; Or ... you get some fiendish response. Well - but this is pretty much just speculation.

So, ... eventually I find myself in a position where I have "returned" to some state of "nothingness" - regarding my regards of something I haven't seen - so, ... there's the spoilers so frivolously shared on the interwebs ... and not havin a first hand handle on that, ... I eventually don't see them as personal reasons anymore. My personal reasons at that point are 'passive' ... or 'indirect'. At those points it is then easy for a single scene to come in and ... impress me. And ... thats what you/they/we would want?
Well, ... how did it impress me? I can see what they were going for - and I even wrote about it. "Trying to look all cool and epic" ... that stuff. But as I was so 'flabbergasted' for a moment - mixed with some discomfort about eventually maybe getting to like it - my mind on one side inched towards giving the movie a chance while on the other side I got something of a rundown of what I would be getting myself into and since I've seen a lot of those spoiler reviews ... well yea ... I ... figured ... . Its not that I didn't/don't believe that they could do certain things well. There is actually one single thing in the all I've seen so far that I find ... worth applauding. And that led me to what I then wanted to write about.

Its 'in' the visuals, the space shots, ... where I see some attempt of makin these huge Starships look more like 'real' Starships. I mean ... vessels in space. That ... 'huge' void ... surrounded by nothing ... where the reality of space-travel as we know it is a bit more 'grim and dark' compared to the 'classic' Star Wars vision.

I would applaude it the same way if it were in a Dragonball movie. Where ... I couldn't care less about such a thing. By which I mean ... well, ... OK - its a bit different since its in a Space-settled movie ... but its nothing as far as the ... 'substance' is concerned. To put it differently: SUch visuals would in my opinion work best in some 'Anime' based SPace flick ... Macross or Gundam ... . I would argue that its heavily Macross (Static Art) inspired ... even.

Well, it would even seem like a Macross movie - at all ... if you threw out the Jedi and Casino and Hoth scenes. Except ... for the shapes of the vessels I guess.

The next step in the story may at first seem a bit counter-productive. Its about the ambition for realism in art; And thats what I wanted to write about. First thing to note is that 'realism in art' is a concept I generally do look down upon. I ... don't like it. The way 'this' is different is that its realism, ... but not in a realistic way. Its an attempt of conveying realism through certain visuals ... "putting things into perspective" ... but not sacrificing the visuals through an attempt at realism.

And in that regard ... one thing to notice is that when thinking of "Antichristianity" ... err ... Roman Catholic Stuff ... 'realism in art' is a huge thing. I mean, just think of all the drawings ... err ... paintings by ... 'Michaelangelo and co.'. Which also goes against the spirit of God in the Old Testament where the 'hardline interpretation' goes to say that we shouldn't try to copy reality. And I can coin a wisdom from that, even: Try to look for realism in reality, rather than fiction - and something about saying that if you look for realism in art you might end up with a fictional concept of reality.

I would think ... that the drive towards realism in art might be a direct response to that hardline interpretation.

And as of that I would come to write ... do come ... about a ... an experience, basically, from my Childhood/Youth. Looking for the success of "unreal" art we don't have to look far. 'Blizzard'. When it gets to Blizzard there is the 'Activision side' I'm pretty much not that fond of. It concerns me. But there is also the other side that I know ... which is the story of a relatively small dev team making games for the SNES that ended up with a smash hit at their hands ... named Warcraft.
Warcraft is an RTS game, ... and its main contender at the time was Command and Conquer. Command and Conquer pretty much featured a 'realistic' style - even going as far as having live-acted cutscenes and photographic icons when it gets to unit representation in the build menus. Warcraft on the other side used a much more fantastic style.
On another page we could also compare Street Fighter to Mortal Kombat.

[I have to real quick start another writing][That I think will be the next article; Which so far should be an interesting supplement to this]

In regards to the latter, ... I think MK vs SF is more of a cultural thing of controversial potential 'yet' - while the CaC vs WC is more on the 'solved' end of the spectrum. Well - if 'solving' anything is a thing. But my own impression was that MK always looked inferior to me. A try-hard "rip off" of you so will that only managed to gather some fanbase based on what its arts had to offer vs SF. And maybe some gameplay aspects. I mean - to be fair - that ... well. No. In other words then. I would argue that 'back then' 'player choice' was a bit more subjective. I mean - 'ambiguous' - compared to today where we can basically speak of specific values of 'deliberate' choices in comparison to altern... hmm. The thing is that back then connectivity was a bit more thinned out. Getting more than 4 people together to play 1 game was more of a special event scenario rather than the/a norm. So opinions regarding one game would be less ... educated. If you so today want to get into Street Fighter it helps to know its history in order to fully comprehend its mechanics - speaking of 'cancels', basically. So - that initially was a bug or glitch in SF2 whereby a special move could be executed while a normal move was active, thus leading into a combo that the opponent couldn't block. Today it performs as a 'feature', being a 'tool' to assist a player in beating the opponent. Its a way to 'extend' the own offense while being dependent on your 'skill' to evaluate. If you cancel into a special move while the opponent blocked your attack, you generally leave yourself open to a counter-attack. And pretty much does Street Fighter revolve around a players potential to beat the opponent. And competing today, ... is competition in a time where that knowledge has been evolved and refined multiple times already - and you basically can't compete if you don't know your 'basics', which go way beyond the simple inputs.

[By the way: One of my 'major' complaints on the Destiny art-style were ... basically that its too reminiscent of a 'realism shooter' - in that the outlines of the Guardians, within a PvP perspective, well - they don't supplement the 'general tone' of the games "fantasticness". ... (Which is just 'criticism' - which, were I a 'developer', would translate into ... an, uhm ... "Can I change this?" ...)]

So MK eventually evolved too while looking for ways to distinguish itself from SF - and also adapting a more cartoon-ish artstyle as the technical capabilities of early 3D environments eventually required; As to also complement its ... "basic art direction" in terms of Characters and Grittiness. And thats also how I respect the latter more than the earlier. Except ... yea, Sub-Zero was cool! And such. As mentioned.

Warcraft also just barely resembles what RTS is nowadays - or ... Starcraft II for that matter. But it doesn't look particularly 'realistic' either. Not even trying. Yet it works perfectly well and is perfectly comprehensive within the framework of the RTS gameplay. Of Starcraft 2. In that 'huge wars' are basically just played out between a bunch of units based on a concept of resource management. Starcraft 2 is a 'game' in that the maps are clearly laid out based on 'bases' - as minerals are conveniently placed between sometimes apparently 'magically' appearing vespin geysers - so, 'not even trying'. But so the game is ... 'set'. You know the map, you know the places - and that also puts your opponent down a similar route; As it is in chess. There is only 'forward' - and only 'so much' your opponent could do.

We could say that its iconic art-style made it iconic - but also ... function on an iconic base.

We could also talk about 'realism vs phantasm' 'instead' of linearity vs non-linearity. Realism begins to impose standards of 'accuracy' - demands of 'specificness' - that then inherently restrict 'game fantasy'; As maybe very easy to understand when comparing the map design of Duke Nukem 3D to Duke Nukem Forever - to so stay within a single box of things. And not invoke CoD outrage.

Duke Nukem 3D played in Episodes of Maps - where each Map was its own self-contained Universe. Like a Maze. We might compare it to Pacman stages. In DNF however the 'realism' aspect tries to now mold this sense of subsequence into a coherent (I'll get to Dark Souls (any) vs. Dark Souls 2 later) map. So - it seems logical, but now is a step away from what it once was. The issue is that now a Level ends up as a linear segment that is to connect one with the other - rather than being its own contained "Microverse". While each DN3D map has a clear beginning and end - they all have their ways of being non-linear experiences. Well, depending on 'Level complexity'. It may very well be possible to create a linear map in that the key to a door would be placed at some point along the way that maybe takes a forced turn just right in front of the respective lock - "and how is anything else different?" ... ??? ...


*facepalm*. Dark Souls 2 defenders might prefer it because its divergence from trying to be a cohesive whole offers a greater degree of phantasm - and yea, thats ... the way it is. But this here happens to a degree that goes into the abstract. It distorts the vision of the 'objectively present'. In that sense we should look as the entirety of a Dark Souls world to a single map in DN3D. Just ... bigger. More complex. In essence it only marginally matters. On one side the "wickedness" of DS2 arguably 'fucks up' the spacial perception of the player while on the other side it yet maintains the yet 'pathway' esque side of the DS Level design. So - the issue that its scale exists as based on interconnected segments. Which is what we now could argue is what DN3D "would be" if it tried to also 'force' non-linearity into this idea of a whole.
The bigger problem with DS2 - I believe - is that its design is more focused on 'being difficult'; Where now the 'base' of DS fans might feel an agenda to express that that isn't truly what DS is all about. So - Dark Souls is famed for being difficult; But its not specifically ... "that kind of hard". Its rather 'Super Mario' than 'Kaizo Mario'. And I believe that the "its hard" narrative kindof ... well ... 'smears' the image of Dark Souls. This is an agenda I do can get behind.

The value, thats now the point, of DN3D vs DNF (or in general) now is that it is basically a 'map pack of gameplay' - where in a sense each map has a somewhat similar value to a modern AAA title in its entirety when it comes to an application of problem solving skills. Objectively.


Dark Souls so doesn't make as real an attempt on being a puzzle game - as it does on being a puzzling game. Uh, to say - here Dark Souls is really just a difficult "hack and slay" - where difficulty is though more of a consequence to the 'chosen dimensions' of gameplay. Or so - to make the Player Character less powerful compared to the enemies as, ... vs Dynasty Warriors for instance. Thus adding more depth to the immediate experience of growth and overcoming. So, not to say that Dark Souls is 'easy'. And so its difficulty ultimately still is a part that contains a huge amount of its value, but one that rather ... well, it ... condenses the experience ... of the environment. So, the positioning of enemies is one important factor since they aren't the average 'trash mob' in the sense that one easily waltzes over them - thus, ... yea ... the 'time:space-covered' ratio is ... 'slower'; So increasing the value of each segment. In comparison to DN3D this shows how DN3D is more of a puzzle game, the map layout being more that of a maze that has value in its structure rather than its atmosphere.

In a sense does Dark Souls here lean more into the 'realism' side of things, ... but ... really? Sure - it does, but there still is a 'lot' of realism that could be added ... to ... make it less enjoyable in consequence.

[Taking a break]

Before trying to fake real sword-fighting in the VR, maybe try encouraging people to pick up on HEMA.

... I lost my track ...