Says the one who doesn't understand what corvo is trying to say.
I understand it.
Anime has a lot of potential.
No. He is arguing for the superiority of a medium. A medium whose main goal is to tell a story. And when said he is arguing about the superiority of a medium, he says he isn't except in terms of storytelling, and thinks that somehow excuses it.
No one other than him is saying one thing is better than another. No one other than him is pushing one thing over another. No one other than him has the gall, the ing audacity to make such stupid claims.
I'm going to answer this by rephrasing your question.
"What is the point of these mediums other than telling a story."
Robot chicken, fan service and perverted crap, explosions, humor, and just the experience overall. You don't need a good story to make a movie/video game/book.
Robot Chicken is a collection of shorts. What is a short, you say? Let's consult wikipedia. Why, the proper name even has 'story' in it's name!
No one is saying you need a good story to be considered successful, interesting or humorous. But you're one weird Joe to claim that it can go without a story, or that the purpose of story-telling mediums is not to tell a story.
"Distractions" in video games is a very unique aspect of storytelling. Exploration in Bioshock allows you to learn more about its inhabitants and its setting. The same goes for Journey and Halo (yes, HALO).
Acting can give more feeling than animation. A kiss, a slight movement of a part of the body, a twinge in the facial expression... they can have more impact when acted by real people, and thus have a better story, than what an animation can be capable of.
Books lack visuals. That is true. However, you have the freedom to have whatever visuals you please, granted you have a capable mind.
That all said and done, again, no medium can tell a story better than another. It all depends on the story.
What I am arguing for is the ability of story telling in animation. That it is the best way to get across a story the exact way a developer wants too, as it doesn't have the distractions of video games, the freedom drawing gives over acting in movies, immersion in a world that movies don't have because of said acting, and the visual motion aid that literature doesn't have.
With video games the experience differs per person, and with visualization in books you may not be visualizing what the developer wants you to.
But it's because of these things that also makes these mediums great as well.
I never said animation wasn't good for telling a story, I said it is not better than the others.
Acting in a movie is more natural than in a drawing, if you're going to talk about advantages I should not that while actors may not be pinpoint precise in the way they act, they rarely hit the uncanny valley that animation has a problem with. In fact, animation benefited from motion captured actors.
While literature doesn't have visual aid, it is much easier to explore the thoughts of someone through literature and tell a story with even less restrictions than animation.
Videogames I will admit aren't at their peak, but they are great at interactive story telling and interactive story telling when done right is very immersive. They have potential is what I am saying.
There is no medium that can be seen as just better since some stories require different ways of telling them. It's a matter of preference at that point.
Somehow missed your post.
This can also be argued with my above answer to Vividkinz.
Says the one who doesn't understand what corvo is trying to say.
I understand it.
Anime has a lot of potential.
No. He is arguing for the superiority of a medium. A medium whose main goal is to tell a story. And when said he is arguing about the superiority of a medium, he says he isn't except in terms of storytelling, and thinks that somehow excuses it.
No one other than him is saying one thing is better than another. No one other than him is pushing one thing over another. No one other than him has the gall, the ing audacity to make such stupid claims.
I'm going to answer this by rephrasing your question.
"What is the point of these mediums other than telling a story."
Robot chicken, fan service and perverted crap, explosions, humor, and just the experience overall. You don't need a good story to make a movie/video game/book.
Robot Chicken is a collection of shorts. What is a short, you say? Let's consult wikipedia. Why, the proper name even has 'story' in it's name!
No one is saying you need a good story to be considered successful, interesting or humorous. But you're one weird Joe to claim that it can go without a story, or that the purpose of story-telling mediums is not to tell a story.
And that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing for a specific version of story telling, which is expressing exactly what the developer wants you to see, in which animation is the superior.
And I provided counter-points as to why animation isn't the superior genre in story-telling. But you brushed them off saying "Didn't read what I said".
And that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing for a specific version of story telling, which is expressing exactly what the developer wants you to see, in which animation is the superior.
Robot Chicken is a collection of shorts. What is a short, you say? Let's consult wikipedia. Why, the proper name even has 'story' in it's name!
No one is saying you need a good story to be considered successful, interesting or humorous. But you're one weird Joe to claim that it can go without a story, or that the purpose of story-telling mediums is not to tell a story.
Robot chicken is bad example then.
But your issue is calling them story-telling mediums, as that's not all they do. Explain porn movies, plot-less adult visual novels, action movies in which animation could never succeed in because animation isn't real life and therefore wouldn't pack the same punch. Things like that.
But your issue is calling them story-telling mediums, as that's not all they do. Explain porn movies, plot-less adult visual novels, action movies in which animation could never succeed in because animation isn't real life and therefore wouldn't pack the same punch. Things like that.
Movies can do the exact same thing. Animation can do more than actors, but actors can attach more feeling in actions than an animation. Animations can make more effects, but you don't need effects to tell a story.
Nonononono.
They cannot immerse you the way an animation character can. The animation character is part of that world, meanwhile acting cannot display that correlation between the two as effectively as they are just acting. Personally, I have watched plenty of chick flicks, but only anime has been capable of making me cry due to the immersion.
No. He is arguing for the superiority of a medium. A medium whose main goal is to tell a story. And when said he is arguing about the superiority of a medium, he says he isn't except in terms of storytelling, and thinks that somehow excuses it.
No one other than him is saying one thing is better than another. No one other than him is pushing one thing over another. No one other than him has the gall, the ing audacity to make such stupid claims.
Robot Chicken is a collection of shorts. What is a short, you say? Let's consult wikipedia. Why, the proper name even has 'story' in it's name!
No one is saying you need a good story to be considered successful, interesting or humorous. But you're one weird Joe to claim that it can go without a story, or that the purpose of story-telling mediums is not to tell a story.
With video games the experience differs per person, and with visualization in books you may not be visualizing what the developer wants you to.
But it's because of these things that also makes these mediums great as well.
This can also be argued with my above answer to Vividkinz.
It's impossible to even explain it in text. :V
No. He is arguing for the superiority of a medium. A medium whose main goal is to tell a story. And when said he is arguing about the superiority of a medium, he says he isn't except in terms of storytelling, and thinks that somehow excuses it.
No one other than him is saying one thing is better than another. No one other than him is pushing one thing over another. No one other than him has the gall, the ing audacity to make such stupid claims.
Robot Chicken is a collection of shorts. What is a short, you say? Let's consult wikipedia. Why, the proper name even has 'story' in it's name!
No one is saying you need a good story to be considered successful, interesting or humorous. But you're one weird Joe to claim that it can go without a story, or that the purpose of story-telling mediums is not to tell a story.
Do you even read what you write?
Im always the underdog.
Im not the underdog because im stupid either.
Im samrt i swear, i just have troubles getting the ideas/thoughts on paper.
I am here for you, Don't be afraid to send me a message.
But your issue is calling them story-telling mediums, as that's not all they do. Explain porn movies, plot-less adult visual novels, action movies in which animation could never succeed in because animation isn't real life and therefore wouldn't pack the same punch. Things like that. You reading what I'm writing? I got bored. :/
About anime... Hmm.
I am here for you, Don't be afraid to send me a message.
I really should stop.
It worked
What's there to argue about..?
So let's get stoned.
My DeviantArt, so sexy
I'm okay, sort of.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffUh. www.terriblefate.com is better.
They cannot immerse you the way an animation character can. The animation character is part of that world, meanwhile acting cannot display that correlation between the two as effectively as they are just acting. Personally, I have watched plenty of chick flicks, but only anime has been capable of making me cry due to the immersion.