By god, acknowledging the other side does not harm or "castrate" your own opinion. It strengthens it. An opinion is not a battleground. You do not have to present it as a 100% infallible utterance of truth. That is why it is called an opinion. Showing that you understand where people of the opposing opinion are coming from and stating that there is value there shows that you have actually considered all the sides of the issue yet have still come to the opinion you have. This is a good thing for the legitimacy of your opinion.AltogetherAndrews said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
N'Gai Croal on video game realism - talks Killzone 2 and more
- Thread starter Orlics
- Start date
proposition
Banned
I think that showing an understanding of the opposing opinion is relevant if there's some kind of factual basis for the opinion (e.g. opinions about capital punishment or the economic situation). But there isn't here. N'Gai is saying that he personally prefers the Gears mantra 'destroyed beauty' over the his postulated mantra for Guerilla's effort; 'decrepit ugliness'.Nirolak said:
What is there to understand about the opposing opinion? What is there to comment on? 'Some people disagree with me'?
The article is fine without making any references to what other people think.
The thing is, this is just a blog. Since this is just a blog, he can state his opinion without going anywhere else.Nirolak said:
Edit: Wait, this was in Edge as well? Eh, an editorial is still an opinion piece. Unless it isn't an opinion piece, in which case I already stated what I thought about what he said.
TheRagnCajun
Member
I just have to say one of the best artistic merits of Killzone 2 is how it contrasts a typical 'realism' grey and brown colour pallete agasint high-contrast colour effects like explosions, lighting and lens flare. Its really quite unique and striking. It is as though the environment is the canvas, and the effects are the brush.
Liara T'Soni said:
You're right. No need to be dickish. I'm sorry. Though, its hard to come to page 5 of a thread and see that the argument that was taking place on page 2 is still being misunderstood.
But now I see that you actually took a different definition of the word as your basis than the one that works in context to N'Gai's piece. And its funny, that definition really is the opposite of what he was saying there. He meant "close to actual reality", while you thought "close to implied reality of the literary piece", which, when you think about it, can mean totally different things.
lawblob said:
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Book on scriptural literatures: And verily does the Lord your God's....
Essay on 2LiveCrew: Shit, bitch, they think we're sick....
Article on Burnout: Most dudical!
Read something other than the MiniPage if verisimilitude strikes you as absurd. Or think your propositions through before you attempt to argue them.
creativity
Member
tfur said:
Regarding the story, I agree that it's lousy---that's obvious. In fact, for a long time before it came out, I thought I would hate Killzone 2. On paper, it's a laundry list of things that irritate me: first-person shooter, post-apocalyptic setting, harks back to WW2, and so on. But its visual excellence drew me in, and now I think the story is the second most interesting thing about the game. It focuses on a bunch of hypermasculine, dumb brutes who have no idea what's really happening around them, and you're asked to share in their anger, confusion and grief over the course of the game. As it's impossible for any sane, mature person to take these characters seriously, the result is a kind of alienation. For a game whose real purpose is its visuals, being put into a state of distanced appreciation, rather than immersion, is appropriate, I think. Instead of thinking about how important it is to stop the train, I'm thinking about how unbelievably beautiful the light is shining over it. I imagine that's what the artists at Guerrilla would want.
Anyway, I do think it's regrettable that all of this beauty is confined to a game where the only thing there is to do is endlessly shoot people in the head.
I don't mean to set the thread aflame, but this appeared in print in Edge 200.
They printed "verisimilitude!" And N'Gai's intentionally inflammatory diatribe (sorry, I mean rant) about Killzone!
Time to break out the pitchforks (sorry, garden forks), people. Truly an affront (er, a screw you) to gamers everywhere.
They printed "verisimilitude!" And N'Gai's intentionally inflammatory diatribe (sorry, I mean rant) about Killzone!
Time to break out the pitchforks (sorry, garden forks), people. Truly an affront (er, a screw you) to gamers everywhere.
dasupremeone
Member
Hey N'gai,
Was Killzone 2 atleast fun?
Was Killzone 2 atleast fun?
JonathanEx
Member
oh god not againAstroLad said:
DangerStepp
Member
From reading half of the posts here I'm pretty sure most of the detractors missed the whole point of the article. I have a hard time believing that you could actually read it all way through and come away feeling that it's a knock against Killzone 2.
Then again... this is an Internet message board and it is Spring Break for a lot of kids which means they're out of school. So...
Then again... this is an Internet message board and it is Spring Break for a lot of kids which means they're out of school. So...
I'm not gonna lie... I was hoping there would be a level like the one in the original Warhawk PSX...
(fast forward to 6:24)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQqsw9YP2A&feature=related
kinda like the ending in the movie Matrix Revolutions, I believe....where the scenery is war torn and gritty....then all of the sudden....either you fly up above the clouds, like in Warhawk/Matrix, and its totally different....like in the Matrix case it was beautiful above the clouds....
either that...or the city scenery changes in real time to something beautiful...... maybe in Killzone 3?
but that's just me...... either way I enjoyed Killzone 2 from start to finish.
(fast forward to 6:24)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQqsw9YP2A&feature=related
kinda like the ending in the movie Matrix Revolutions, I believe....where the scenery is war torn and gritty....then all of the sudden....either you fly up above the clouds, like in Warhawk/Matrix, and its totally different....like in the Matrix case it was beautiful above the clouds....
either that...or the city scenery changes in real time to something beautiful...... maybe in Killzone 3?
but that's just me...... either way I enjoyed Killzone 2 from start to finish.
RedRedSuit
Member
First of all, to say that there was no beauty in KZ2 is to not have played through the entire game. There were several moments, particularly on the cruiser, that were quite beautiful. Even the
levels had a certain amount of twisted beauty, much like the same thing in Call of Duty 4.
Secondly, to dismiss the atmospheric lightning/weather effects in levels 2-4 as "decrepit ugliness" is surprising to me. It is an oppressive world, and that's the point, but to claim that it's not awe-inspiring in its own way strikes me as bizarre. I could see that statement making sense for the first level (Corinth River), as that one really is quite gray without much else going on, but beyond that -- no clue what he's talking about.
In summary, I think what it comes down to is that he really likes pretty colors (which KZ2 does have, but not in the first half of the game). Which is all fine and good, as everyone's entitled to their opinion. I wouldn't want every game to look like KZ2; that's for sure. But then his positive reference to Gears 1 is really strange. That is one of the most gray/brown games I've ever played. Color-wise, it's far more boring, as the gray/brown really only goes away on the
, or perhaps during the rain storm (where everything becomes green, IIRC). The references to beautiful Seran architecture are utterly puzzling. Sure, they're not industrial environments a-la Helghan, I'll give him that, but there's nothing particularly beautiful about them. IMO, Cliff and N'Gai both are overselling the whole "destroyed beauty" thing. As I was playing it in 2006, I was going ??? about that very issue, wondering where this supposed beauty was, in all the various bombed out gray courtyards.
post-nuclear
Secondly, to dismiss the atmospheric lightning/weather effects in levels 2-4 as "decrepit ugliness" is surprising to me. It is an oppressive world, and that's the point, but to claim that it's not awe-inspiring in its own way strikes me as bizarre. I could see that statement making sense for the first level (Corinth River), as that one really is quite gray without much else going on, but beyond that -- no clue what he's talking about.
In summary, I think what it comes down to is that he really likes pretty colors (which KZ2 does have, but not in the first half of the game). Which is all fine and good, as everyone's entitled to their opinion. I wouldn't want every game to look like KZ2; that's for sure. But then his positive reference to Gears 1 is really strange. That is one of the most gray/brown games I've ever played. Color-wise, it's far more boring, as the gray/brown really only goes away on the
train at the end
flarkminator
Member
Wow...wow.
Apparently, pretentious is the "Bad Art(tm)" of journalistic critiquing.
Apparently, pretentious is the "Bad Art(tm)" of journalistic critiquing.
Mr.City said:
lol it really is. I'm amazed at the people who think game writers shouldn't write using "big" words to a video game audience. As if the entire audience is full of idiots. Isn't the stereotype quite the opposite for hardcore gamers AKA nerds?
Either way variety is the spice of life.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
RedRedSuit said:
You have got to be shitting me.
AltogetherAndrews said:You have got to be shitting me.
I get it, he doesn't like his environments crowded with debris and objects, all the bombed out stuff he likes should have very clear open paths and only destructable stuff should be cracks on walls
Basically he wants a CLEAN apocalyptic area as opposed to Killzone's.edit: and he doesn't like terrain, flat floors work better at showing beauty
AltogetherAndrews
Member
icechai said:
Evidently not
AltogetherAndrews
Member
It's meant to demonstrate interior and exterior detail and decor that goes beyond industrial purpose and flat functionality. Whether you like the actual architecture and props is less important.
icechai said:
You're right, those shots of beautiful seran architecture don't showcase the beautiful seran architecture in Gears of War 2, especially not when put up against the beautiful seran architecture in the masterpiece of modern gaming that is Killzone 2.
I am pretty sure that 75% of the backlash in this thread is because someone dared say something slightly negative about Killzone 2, and the other 25% is "oh my god what do these WORDS MEAN??"
AltogetherAndrews
Member
Triphos said:
Blatantly so. And it's damned near infuriating because it's not a negative. If you enjoy the atmosphere of KZ2, then rejoice, because Guerrilla did a damned good job at maintaining the atmosphere, as is evident by the fact that this "negative" article even exists. If you don't enjoy it, then that same mastery of oppressive imagery will likely leave you wanting something different.
Banana Kid
Member
On the realism topic: Frankly, I'm sick to death of realism. Ever since this generation began I've had more than enough bleak, gray/brown shooters. Even when they get colorful, like a Crysis or a Far Cry 2, it's still just too much for me. Every so often I'll get into a game like that (Bioshock is an example, but it did have its retro-futuristic 50s vibe that I am way into). I prefer Saints Row 2 to GTA IV, Fable 2 to Fallout 3. I get lost in Viva Piñata and Pokémon. I play Guitar Hero and Rock Band so I can be a rock star. And I like Gears of War not because of the great action or "gripping, emotional storyline", I like it because I love the big, dumb linebackers who run around shooting shit. I want games to have worlds I actually want to visit, not ones that depress me. I want them to focus on being fun. Everything else is just window dressing.
And, to tie this into the meta-argument that's built up around this article: that's kind of what I want out of game journalism, too. N'Gai can keep writing his deep artistic critiques. He's good at it, and I'd rather it be him than somebody who can't back up the "pretentiousness" by being actually intelligent and a great writer like he can. But I really don't want to read it. I want to be entertained. And, frankly, I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I don't know what the fuck "versimilitude" means. There's a middle ground between the lowest common denominator of Top 5 lists and sticking boobs where they don't belong, and the high-concept (probably not the right phrase to use here, but you get what I mean) debates on games as art and whether some game's racist or not. Basically, I want to be entertained without being condescended to, I don't want it to get too serious, and an occasional boob is fine with me.
In summary: I want my games to focus on being fun. I also want my games journalism to focus on being fun. Some games can try to be more (and some journalists can try to be more), but I don't really see the need. The fun is enough for me.
And, to tie this into the meta-argument that's built up around this article: that's kind of what I want out of game journalism, too. N'Gai can keep writing his deep artistic critiques. He's good at it, and I'd rather it be him than somebody who can't back up the "pretentiousness" by being actually intelligent and a great writer like he can. But I really don't want to read it. I want to be entertained. And, frankly, I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I don't know what the fuck "versimilitude" means. There's a middle ground between the lowest common denominator of Top 5 lists and sticking boobs where they don't belong, and the high-concept (probably not the right phrase to use here, but you get what I mean) debates on games as art and whether some game's racist or not. Basically, I want to be entertained without being condescended to, I don't want it to get too serious, and an occasional boob is fine with me.
In summary: I want my games to focus on being fun. I also want my games journalism to focus on being fun. Some games can try to be more (and some journalists can try to be more), but I don't really see the need. The fun is enough for me.
DangerStepp
Member
Evlar said:
That would be too rational of a thought for some folks here to process.
I read the entire article, yet feel as if I read nothing...it literally had no point really.
KZ and Gears are stunning, period. We should be able to enjoy the various atmospheres that are offered in games without comparing or complaining (yea right...I know).
Though I will say something towards realism of characters / environments, I do feel that sometimes the "Im playing a game this is fun!" is lost when things get too real, I find this mainly in sports games, which I cannot tolerate anymore (it was all I played).
Shooters, I can really appreciate the realism, even if its startling or even depressing, but I also still play Warhawk (<3) and it offers a change to a bright, more art based graphic.
(I do think the author was taking a negative stance towards KZ though, but oh well)
KZ and Gears are stunning, period. We should be able to enjoy the various atmospheres that are offered in games without comparing or complaining (yea right...I know).
Though I will say something towards realism of characters / environments, I do feel that sometimes the "Im playing a game this is fun!" is lost when things get too real, I find this mainly in sports games, which I cannot tolerate anymore (it was all I played).
Shooters, I can really appreciate the realism, even if its startling or even depressing, but I also still play Warhawk (<3) and it offers a change to a bright, more art based graphic.
(I do think the author was taking a negative stance towards KZ though, but oh well)
icechai said:I get it, he doesn't like his environments crowded with debris and objects, all the bombed out stuff he likes should have very clear open paths and only destructable stuff should be cracks on walls
edit: and he doesn't like terrain, flat floors work better at showing beauty
I really don't think you get the whole idea behind the phrase "Destroyed Beauty". Looking at the crumbling architecture of Sera, you can envision what was there was beautiful once, or what it could have been. But if you look at the shanty towns and buildings on KZ2, even if not "war-torn", its not much better...
Though, I don't think destroyed beauty was N'Gai's main point. At least what I got from the article, was that it was the incessant barrage of the oppressive and ugly, one can say maybe the TRUTH of war, realized all too well in KZ2, that created what N'Gai felt.
Evlar said:
Thank you! Exactly.
DangerStepp
Member
GodofWine said:
I think you missed the point... completely. Perhaps that's why the article meant nothing to you.
I think most people are just saying that this is N'Gai basically just off-handedly giving his rough impressions of the game, and that journalists should be held to a higher integrity. Anyone who has read his column for a while knows that this is just Par for the Course.
If I had a column in the back of Edge magazine, you can bet your ass that I would take it seriously and use it to tackle more big-picture issues and actually try to help gamers and the industry, rather than make things worse like N'Gai often does.
If I had a column in the back of Edge magazine, you can bet your ass that I would take it seriously and use it to tackle more big-picture issues and actually try to help gamers and the industry, rather than make things worse like N'Gai often does.
DangerStepp
Member
AstroLad said:
We've been Astrolad'd.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
zaidr said:
Killzone 2 had me questioning the sense in trying to find entertainment in this grim world that Guerrilla presented me with, and I think it was a combination of this hopeless world, and also a lack of mystery, or wonder. HL2, for example, has an even darker current, but there was a sense of purpose and a mystery surrounding the oppressive force. It made it feel borderline surreal at times, and made it easier for me to digest.
And whereas a game like COD4 portrays war as hell, it does so in environments ranging from mountain valleys to middle eastern villages and back to mountain regions. KZ2 is war, in hell, and portrays an invasion based on retribution. Its design is not a flaw, but it makes it harder for some to digest. And for my part, I sometimes wonder why we are so attracted to the dark and the hopeless.
ViperVisor
Member
This is a good description of why some of us like Mario Galaxy's visuals more than any other game this gen.
Kobun Heat
Member
I'd heard about this thread, but didn't believe it until now.
JimtotheHum
Member
Having listened to Ngai and read his articles, its hard to believe that he, of all people, is this controversial and divisive...:lol
CrushDance
Banned
:lol This shit needs to be archived.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Not really, he just used that as an introduction to piss on Killzone 2.Evlar said:
Not that I mind Killzone 2 getting pissed on. I disagree with him about the visuals largely, but the story, characters, and dialogue are inexcusable. What does that one chick say? "Helghan used to be the power plant for half the universe." or whatever on that desert part. Really? REALLY? I cringed on both of my playthroughs.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
A few things.AltogetherAndrews said:
HL2 does not have darker content than Killzone 2. Its sci-fi is so over-the-top that it really can't get very dark, it doesn't have the foundations for it. Raven-whatever just felt silly to me.
CoD4 portrays war as an arcade game and suggests its hell by having a nuke go off, having the most creepy on-rails shooting sequence ever, and a few other things. The CoD series is almost offensive in that way.
KZ2 does a better job of portraying war as hell than CoD4 did, but neither do a very good job. At least KZ2 brings in questions of futility and such.
edit: On the other hand I think Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway has darker content than all of these games because of its respectful basis in real events. That game is colorful as shit, but man does it make you feel some emotions. The content was much heavier than these other games mentioned here.
Similar threads
- Poll