Article - The Moral of the Story
Pages
| Author | Topic: Article - The Moral of the Story |
|---|---|
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:12
Profile
Ok, I'll answer quote per quote to some points of you post. quote:Yes you are wrong, I gave you a quote and it's not even a dragon talk but a story comment so no lie. We could be both right and the scenario wrong. [quote] quote:But why? The issue is that she doesn't have any motivation not to tell the Empire about possible problems, at least not any given in the games. [/quote]Wrong, I gave you plenty quotes that gave good reasons of this behavior. [quote] And the reason that her motivation is important is this: without additional motivations, Vannia appears to choose not to clean up the pollution because she is in favor of pollution. No major point of view in real life has been pro-pollution; they've been pro-business and willing to allow some pollution in order to get their business done, or something like that. [/quote]Yes and that exactely what I quote from the scenario, Vinnia wants more power. [quote] quote:But you're assuming that they got something out of the cover-up, which VoDT never says. [/quote]Wrong, I gave you BoE quotes. [quote] quote:Except for the part that I questioned, which is that time was the biggest deciding factor in why the waste mechanisms weren't activated. All I said was that we don't know why the waste mechanisms weren't activated, which is, as above, critical to the moral of the scen. [/quote]I think it's wrong, check my explanation, just avoid a suicide and no time to build a better solution or a teleport portal. [quote] quote:Now you're inserting your own views into the scenario. VoDT never mentions anything even remotely close to this. It's a related issue, but VoDT does not cover it at all. [/quote]Lol, I agree. [quote] About 4: I should've said, "I don't think that's the most important part of what we're discussing here, in that no one has mentioned it yet (other than you). [/quote]Wrong, see post I quoted. [quote] " It is an interesting narrative technique. It just doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. [/quote]Well perhaps but I think it's an important choice of the scenario that explains why the 100 years old history isn't so obvious. [quote] VoDT does not reflect the issue of radioactive waste at all.[/quote]Ok, I agree in part and disagree in part but I don't want to discuss about this poiint so you're right! Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:16
Profile
Homepage
Okay, at your request, I'll try once more. About 2: they clearly had mastered teleportation and did have time to set up the portal. Who else do you think made the machinery that you activate to clear out the waste, if not the mages? No one has been there since them. Nothing had changed since they left. All you do is turn on the waste disposal system. They could've done this just as easily. 3: Yes, you're right. I found the quote: "For over a hundred years, I have stared at these miserable walls, eating worthless food and going out of my mind with boredom" (t8Storage Levdlg.txt, node 8, text2). So we have two conflicting dates, the one I cited above, and the one that the dragon gives here. I am inclined to believe the one above, because the dragon doesn't really have a reliable way of telling time, but it doesn't really matter. 4: The post you mention, by coreyh, only says that he likes the fact that the place was already abandoned. He doesn't say that the setting is important to the morality of the scen, which is what we're talking about. You're reaching, here. 5: I know that Vinnia was seeking power for herself. It was abundantly clear in the scenario. But how does leaving pollution behind in the school give her power? That's what I was saying. I was arguing that the scenario does not give motivations for her actions with regard to the pollution. Point 5 is really the only important thing here, but I just answered the rest of them for completeness. EDIT: Hmm, you're very quick to say I'm wrong about things. Careful with that word. And it WAS the dragon who gave the figure of eighty years, NOT the narrator. Go to the node in the script that I mentioned and check if you don't believe me. But again, it doesn't really matter. [ Sunday, May 23, 2004 22:25: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:28
Profile
Ok, I don't have a lot to add than I already mentionned. But about point 5 as you want more explanation: Vannia used the opportunity to discredit the two other mages. Is she succeed she will discard two concurents, so more power instead to share it with the two other mages. Furthermore she used the oportunity to please to the Emperor. He doesn't care about future pollution that will happen when he will be dead. He just want to hear that the school is closed ASAP as he asked. She hides the problem because not doing so was to admit that the school should not be closed or at least that its closing had to be delayed. This could have unpleased to the emperor and furthermore she would have lost an oportunity to discredit the two other mages. If you answer me that it's not explained in the scenario, I give up. [ Sunday, May 23, 2004 22:31: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:If I'm reading you correctly, this is exactly the point I disagree with. If a moral doesn't make sense within the logic of the scenario, either the scenario should be altered so that the moral makes sense, or the moral shouldn't be shoehorned in there. Maybe there could be some reason for not pushing the button, but it isn't explained, and to try to contrive an explanation is to give the scenario far too much credit. As for cleaning up the waste delaying the closure of the School, I don't see how it could have. The cleanup itself didn't seem to take long when the party did it, and as previously mentioned, the portal in and out was already there. In any case, the School was given a week to close, which should have been more than enough to go down there and push a button. [ Sunday, May 23, 2004 22:35: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:33
Profile
Thuryl, it's not the moral that doesn't make sense on this point, it's the scenario. Don't you see that point? In fact you are giving too much credit to it by supposing there's in fact a morale explanation. Can't you imagine another explanation? As a technical problem? Until the school isn't empty he can't do it. Then no time to do something at a point and later he is dead. I don't say it's the explanation but just that this aparent scenario incoherence has no link to moral. [ Sunday, May 23, 2004 22:37: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:36
Profile
Homepage
I was going to say something, but Thuryl is a far better human being than I am, and he said it better than I possibly could. To tack on my own point: So basically, Vent, you're saying that Vinnia didn't want to clean up the pollution because it would take more time and delay the closing of the school, which might displease the Emperor. I can say to this only what I said to TiaraLi: this kind of makes sense, but it is the story that you have thrust upon VoDT, rather than the story that VoDT has given you. If one of the notes from Vinnia said something like, "We must hurry. The school's closing must not be delayed" or something like that, then I'd say that your point is completely valid. As it is, it is only your explanation and not VoDT's. So basically, what Thuryl said. EDIT: And what he said right below me, too. [ Sunday, May 23, 2004 22:38: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, May 23 2004 22:36
Profile
Homepage
The moral should make sense within the context of the scenario. If the scenario's plot doesn't make sense, then the moral is inevitably incoherent as well. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2628
|
written Monday, May 24 2004 06:52
Profile
Homepage
Vent, you can come up with all the theories you want. It won't change the fact that the moral in VoDT is badly done (which was the initial point at the start of this thread). If VoDT was done better you wouldn't have to come up with those theories. It's badly done because it's treated shallowly. Jeff did a much better treatment of the subject in Geneforge in my opinion, the zone with Corata in particular. There we understand that steps were taken to try to store the waste as effectively as possible before the island was abandoned, explanations are given about where the waste comes from, why it was dealt with in the way it was, and why nobody has subsequently dealt with it. We see it's effect in the surrounding zones, which were inexplicably barren (no longer inexplicable when we came across the source of the problem). We don't even get to deal with the problem - it's too complex for our apprentice character to do so. Geneforge relates much better to the real world experience of hazardous waste (whether chemical or radioactive) than the unrealistic and shallow treatment in VoDT. I've seen you make lengthy posts explaining away every point that has been raised about VoDT in this thread. I've seen your point of view (repeatedly and at great length). The point several people in this thread have tried to make (and that you don't seem to understand) is that explanations should have been in the game. The fact that explanations weren't made in the game means that what could have been a great moral scenario failed to deliver it's moral effectively. I played Geneforge before I played BOE and I found VoDT was a big disappointment after the far better treatment the subject of pollution was given in GF. Put simply, VoDT lacked the depth and the detail to deal with the subject effectively. EDIT: several typos. I hope this edit caught them all. [ Monday, May 24, 2004 06:57: Message edited by: Kyna ] -------------------- We meet and part now over all the world; we, the lost company, take hands together in the night, forget the night in our brief happiness, silently. -- Judith Wright My website Posts: 512 | Registered: Wednesday, February 12 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Monday, May 24 2004 07:29
Profile
quote:So my point is completely valid thanks to agree with that. A note you can found: Don't forget. Caretaker key left with Provost. Healing Scepter still with Apothecary. Be sure to recover. If only we were given more time. Vinnia will have my head if they're left. Be sure not to forget. That note shows the urgency, if that doesn't refer to both school closing and Vannia, well I could nothing for you. Kyna, is that and all quotes I did, just a dream? You are speaking about facts but I saw nothing in your post. quote::D Nice joke. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 24 2004 08:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:If you weren't such a jerk about it, then it might be easier for people to discuss with you. EDIT: And while I'm at it, having thought about it a bit more, I retract that statement. I was wrong, because of something that Thuryl pointed out: the waste disposal took very little time (quickfire spreads pretty darn fast) when the party did it, so time being the primary issue still doesn't make sense. [ Monday, May 24, 2004 08:21: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Monday, May 24 2004 15:52
Profile
Calm down, Kel. Vent doesn't have perfect English, I doubt he realised that sentence came out so smug. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2628
|
written Monday, May 24 2004 15:55
Profile
Homepage
Vent, I also spoke of opinion. Perhaps I made a mistake in using the word 'fact'. It didn't mean you could ignore the rest of my post, which was clearly addressed to you. Let me restate without using the word fact: Opinion 1: GF treated the moral of pollution much better in my opinion. This means that Jeff has demonstrated that he is capable of much better than VoDT. Opinion 2: It shouldn't take several pages in a thread with one person explaining how VoDT was done well and that the explanations are in the game. Most of us are reasonably intelligent and should be able to see and recall those explanations for ourselves if the story had been handled well. Since we don't (at least not without pages and pages of posts from you) either (a) we're stupid (which we're not); or (b) VoDT is flawed. Opinion 3: Quite frankly, I still don't see some of the justifications you talk about, and I think you are sometimes grasping at straws and that you are stubbornly refusing to admit that other people have a valid point of view about VoDT. Opinion 4: Why did GF do pollution much better in my opinion? On the issue of pollution GF was detailed, it had depth, it was clear, VoDT was none of these things. GF had no obscurity about the issue which VoDT had. Go play Geneforge and see for yourself how Jeff can do a decent treatment of pollution (and several other complex moral issues in the same game). Opinion 5: I don't think I've seen you seriously rebut the point that explanations should have been in the game. I've seen you say you don't want anyone to point it out again which is not the same as stating why you disagree with it. While there are some situations where ambiguity works well (as Geneforge also shows in exploring other issues) this is not one of those situations. I restate my opinion - explanations should have been in game, and should have been clear enough to be understood by the average player. Please explain to me why you appear to disagree with this point. Note that in none of these do I resort to minute examples of 'this character did ... that character said'. That sort of detailed discussion has sidetracked this thread from the main issues it was discussing, and I'd like to take this discussion back to more general level. ---===---===---===---===---===---===---===---===--- Ponders some ... it just occurred to me (after writing all the above). On an entirely unrelated note ... maybe some of the disputes in this thread are really about language ... when you play the game I assume you translate in your head to your native tongue. Or maybe you make notes with the translations. You seem to see stuff in VoDT that some of us who are native English speakers miss - perhaps the process of translation sticks this stuff in your mind. Maybe for those of us who don't translate, it doesn't stick in our minds when we're playing because it doesn't appear significant at the time. If that's the case then this lack of significance in English is a flaw in VoDT. I'm all for subtle clues, but not clues that are so subtle that intelligent people (such as Thuryl and Kelandon) would miss them. -------------------- We meet and part now over all the world; we, the lost company, take hands together in the night, forget the night in our brief happiness, silently. -- Judith Wright My website Posts: 512 | Registered: Wednesday, February 12 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Friday, May 28 2004 16:09
Profile
Jobs plus playing more VoDT BoE before detail it retrain me from coming here, that wasn't that bad! :D Kelando reactions became too much personnal , at this point it's useless to debate of anything with him, he just hate me, ok no debate and I'll survive. :P Kyna, your post and late coming in the debate are typical clan attitude that don't worth any answer because 99% it's useless stuff that are mainly uninteresting clan reactions. Think a bout that a little. I'll answer anyway to your last post because afterall beside saying people can't be wrong because they are clever, it has some interesting subsdiary points. ------------------------------------------------- Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Friday, May 28 2004 16:20
Profile
I take that last post back. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, May 28 2004 16:40
Profile
Homepage
Wow, Vent. I have no idea what you just said to Kyna (typical "clan" attitude?), but it sounded purposelessly insulting. And I just figured I'd let you know: I will no longer read nor respond to your posts, neither here nor on the Lyceum. It'll save the both of us (and everyone else) a lot of hassle. [ Friday, May 28, 2004 16:40: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 00:18
Profile
:D clan is a worse insult than jerk, lol english is a strange language! You are taking that too seriously, a lot. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 01:01
Profile
Homepage
There's a difference between insults and epithets. You're being dismissive of us, and the fact that that's insulting has nothing to do with the choice of words you're using. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2628
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 07:53
Profile
Homepage
I interpreted 'typical clan attitude' as meaning the opinions I stated in my post are similar to those of other posters in this thread. Maybe Vent sees us (posters on these boards) as a 'clan' or tribal grouping. (Completely off-topic side note: In my anthropology tute this week we briefly discussed cybercultures, so I can see where Vent is coming from on this clan thing) I think the 'uninteresting clan reactions' is referring to the fact that many of us have said VoDT is only so-so in the way it handles it's moral - many of the 'clan' reacted this way, and this reaction is apparently uninteresting to Vent. Vent may find our reaction uninteresting, but if he's planning on putting any moral themes into his scenarios, he'll have to take into consideration the 'uninteresting reactions' of the Spiderweb community. I'd say Vent's post means that Vent sees me in the same 'clan' or 'tribe' as Thuryl, Kelandon and The Creator. So ... I've been given a compliment :) -------------------- We meet and part now over all the world; we, the lost company, take hands together in the night, forget the night in our brief happiness, silently. -- Judith Wright My website Posts: 512 | Registered: Wednesday, February 12 2003 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2476
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 10:07
Profile
A clan reaction is what you understand it to be: a member of a group tuning into an argument to defend and support other members of the same group. But 'uninteresting clan reaction' does not mean that he is not interested in your opinions. It just means that he sees Kyna's post more as a 'clan reaction' than as an individual opinion. -------------------- Polaris Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done Rache's A3 Site, original version Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 12:28
Profile
I forgot about this interesting discussion for the past few days, and based on the past half dozen posts, it seems that this discussion has forgotten itself, as well. So if we can move beyond accusations and insults -- bidirectional arrogance, clannish behavior, and the relative temperment of the others posting, I'd like to share a thought on the subject. It seems to me that both sides of this debate seem to be making essentially the same point but they're concluding two different things about it. Let's assume the example of VoDT.. Because this scenario seems to be the focus on disagreement. There may be other scenarios which people disagree on, but there are also probably scenarios that one side or the other agree are good because they satisfy both sides in one way or another. The people who are saying VODT is a bad scenario are suggesting that it is indeed because the issue is not handled in a serious and logical fashion that it becomes another tedious mindless moral to file next to 'don't set your sisters cat on fire' and that the scenario has no real business talking about morality if it can't be bothered to treat it seriously. But on the other hand, the side that argues that VODT is a perfectly fine scenario is basically arguing that because the issue is NOT being tackled with a great deal of seriousness, it can't be considered preachy. This side is suggesting that the scenario is not really suggesting you file the lesson away next to any rules about burning animals, but rather that you should just take the scenario at face value and play. But what I essentially see here is a pattern that is true in all forms of creative expression. There are snobs and slobs (and remember what I called your other before you get angry with what I called you, if you see the truth of it in them, see it in yourself as well). Creative snobs believe that there is more value in art than entertainment, and creative slobs believe that there is more value in entertainment than art. In this: snobs believe that if a story touches morality, it should explore it fully and eloquently, and the slobs don't really care how intelligently it is explored, as long as the story is enjoyable. To someone on the snob side, the fact that they don't explore a moral issue completely means that they're obviously missing a lot of very good points.. And to them, this makes it seem preachy. They see the moral but they don't understand why it's there. To someone on the slob side, the fact that the moral issue is not fully explored is not especially pertinent. The only way to offend a slob with preachiness is by bashing them over the head with it. And I have to say, I favor the slob side of things. Not because I don't think the other side has the right to their opinion, nor even because I don't enjoy the higher forms of creativity, but simply because the snobs almost by definition always seem to complain the most about the things the other side enjoys. And I'm not trying to be critical of all criticism. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a crappy scenario.. and I'm not even saying that a scenario that is well put together is immune from any criticism. It may be boring, cliche, TRULY overbearing in its moralisms, or the author may have truly not accomplished what they set out to accomplish. Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 12:48
Profile
Homepage
EDIT: Okay, rewrite. Qualnor, that is not what I think at all. I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here has said) that all scenarios should have something deep and meaningful to say, even at the expense of them being fun. I'm saying (and I think the point of the Creator's article is) that IF the scenario makes the pretense of having something deep and meaningful to say -- which I'm not sure that VoDT does, but it could be interpreted that way -- then it should deal with the subject well. That, I don't think, is a controversial statement. Its application to VoDT is a bit questionable, but I think it's questionable for different reasons than anyone else has brought up so far. I don't think VoDT has anything to say about pollution. I don't think Jeff wrote it with the intent of making a statement on pollution. I think that's why the scenario treats the issue the way that it does. Thus, I don't think the Creator's points in this article apply. However, if we were to assume that the scenario was attempting to treat the issue of pollution, then we could examine what VoDT has to say about the issue. Assuming that, which I've been doing (with some reservations) all along, then VoDT treats the issue in a rather poor fashion. The most critical issue in pollution is: what are we willing to lose, environmentally speaking, in order to gain some outcome, usually with regards to business or profits of some kind? That is to say, the reasons that we pollute are of tremendous importance to the issue -- and of greater importance than any other aspect of the issue, I'd think. Now, VoDT has virtually no discussion of this. Aside from the one message to which Vent rightly referred, suggesting that the mages didn't have enough time to activate the waste removal system -- which still isn't particularly coherent with the rest of the story for the reasons that Thuryl and I gave -- VoDT does not discuss the reasons that we pollute. As Kyna rightly pointed out, if the explanation of the reason for the pollution is not in the game, or if it is so breezed over -- one hint buried in one message that was, if I remember correctly, in a drawer somewhere? -- that one need almost invent the explanation, then the game has in effect not dealt with this aspect of the issue at all. Since it does not deal with the single most critical aspect of the issue, it cannot possibly be said to have treated the issue with any sort of depth, thus violating the spirit of the Creator's article. I value scenarios for their entertainment value at least as much as, if not more so than, their artistic value -- but I don't know to what extent it is possible to separate the two in the case of a scenario that proposes to deal with a serious issue. I don't really think that VoDT attempted to deal with the issue of pollution, but if we assume that it did, then I think it dealt with the issue badly. EDIT 2: Moreover, I don't think anyone has said that the scenario is better for not dealing with the issue seriously. That would be rather absurd. Some people have tried to argue that VoDT *does* treat the issue with a certain degree of seriousness, and others have argued that it doesn't. At least, that's how I've understood the discussions. [ Saturday, May 29, 2004 13:14: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 14:39
Profile
Well let me say again, what I wrote was assuming that people felt VoDT was a good example of what is being discussed. I'm not claiming that the original posters points were invalid -- they were valid -- but I dispute VoDT as an example. I stick by what I said with regard to anyone who believes VoDT was 'preachy' because it dealt with magical pollution and a dead villianess who had been responsible for said pollution. And truthfully few people fall cleanly into one category or another. We are not caricatures playing out our part in an avernum scenario, and one simple classification does not suit us. But we do have influences. And some people are more concerned with what they believe 'quality' is than they are about how much fun it is. And some people are so concerned about 'fun' that they forget quality entirely and in the process either make their scenarios lose their fun because they lack spirit or perhaps become pornography if they take things too far along that track. Most people take influence from both sides of things, but some people take too much from one or the other, and I have to believe that anyone who takes VoDT seriously has forgotten about the 'fun' side. Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 14:58
Profile
Homepage
Well, if you want to talk about fun I could provide a decent synopsis of VoDT's ups and downs in that regard too, but that's not what this topic is about. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 15:46
Profile
Speaking as a designer, it's my firm belief that entertainment IS art. For a scenario to be fun, it has to be well made. It can't be good art if it's not also entertaining. The two are irrevocably intertwined. In VoDT, Jeff made a decision that pollution would be the 'baddie'. I guess that he thought that since it's something everybody KNOWS is a bad thing, he didn't need to treat it with a lot of depth (as compared to A Small Rebellion). The 'message' of the scenario is pretty simple. "If you pollute, bad stuff happens." I don't know that Jeff really intended it to have a 'moral'... but he did touch on an important issue without giving it the respect it deserved. Basically, I'm saying that Jeff's mistake wasn't so much that he presented a shallow view of the pollution issue, but that he included it at all. I don't think that every scenario needs a moral - only one of my six does. The article is simply an attempt to provide guidance for those who wish to do so. VoDT wasn't the best example, but I used it because it was one that everyone would know. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 20
|
written Saturday, May 29 2004 21:48
Profile
I mean no offense by it, but the belief that art and entertainment are the same thing is a common view among artists. And though I enjoy art and have a creative streak myself, it is not a view I share. You give the example of 'A Small Rebellion' as something treated with a great deal of depth, but I cannot say I agree with you overmuch. Although it was technically a choice, I felt no desire to choose to side with the empire, and could not imagine myself doing so unless I was exceptionally bored. Indeed, I was so quickly disintereted in the empire side of things that the plot of the game didn't make sense in parts because it assumed I had done things which I had not prior to deciding to join the rebels. Was there a choice? You could say so, but it was a choice between good and evil, not various shades of grey. But I don't want to turn this into a debate about that scenario as well, let's turn our attention to another scenario, say the third one, the time limited Zharazi Run one. There were different ways of getting where you were going in this one, and I didn't do everything there was to do, so I can't say for sure, but I never saw how the villains in this one were treated with any great deal of depth. Indeed, if you properly won the scenario you never met your enemy the entire time (at least by the paths I followed). Now maybe you will say that this means it lacks art and depth, fine, I disagree, but fine. But are you going to turn around and tell me that Jeff was trying to tell us that people who look different are evil and that racial differences will ultimately end in war? I don't know about you, but I'm reluctant to call Jeff a racist because his lizardpeople lacked proper moral dimension. And that's the equivalent of what you're suggesting here, that Jeff is trying to (or worse you accuse him of being stupid, and not realizing what he's doing) preach the evils of pollution simply because magical pollution played an insidious role in one of his games. When you put it in the context of preaching racial war it sounds silly. But though it may sound less silly, it is no less silly than the suggestion that VoDT is preaching treehugging hippery. Posts: 191 | Registered: Monday, October 1 2001 07:00 |