Great masterpieces... that suck!

Recommended Videos

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
HT_Black said:
1984 was paced like a snail in an igloo, was filled with unlikable characters (and excriuciatingly bad softcore), and spent over 200 pages explaining on vague terms what could be made succint and pungent with a Post-it note and half an hour on a Saturday morning.

So you could say that I don't really like it.

Also, Twilight Princess was clearly about pedophilia, which automatically puts it on my "reprehensible" list.
1984, Farenheight 451, Brave New World, and similar books lose a lot of their "oomph" when you grow up seeing the same material covered in a much better fashion since your a kid. The evil, oppressive, facist goverment is pretty much a stock villain nowadays, back when those books were written this wasn't the case. It's sort of like when you look at the cyberpunk books written by guys like William Gibson, or "classic" anime like the origina "Bubblegum Crisis" and can't figure out what the big deal was. Back when those things came out the corperate subculture as we know it now was just developing, and the idea of evil companies with their own inherant internal world was new. While it arguably didn't start there things like "Genom" inspired fiction that moved into the mainstream.

Not familiar with "Twilight Princess", however I'm familiar with a lot of arguements about Pedophilia. If you look at things like the movie "Pretty Baby" people have been addressing the topic in one way or another for a while.

Even if disturbing and reprehensible, I think understanding differant mentalities is important. See, one thing that a lot of people tend to forget for example is that people today are ridiculously long lived compared to previous generations. A complete fat slob who doesn't take care of themself can live 60, 70, or even 80 years. People breaking 100 years are not as uncommon as they once were. It's hard to realize that in previous generations people might have died from natural causes at the age of 30. Generations moved quickly, and people were a lot differant then both physically and mentally. When you look at things from that perspective having a wife who is like 12 or 13 years old is proportionate to the lifespans, and girls CAN breed that young (albiet with some problems, which probably contributed to early child mortality rates). Consider also that not all societies have progressed, some have pretty much remained culturally stagnant for hundreds if not thousands of years. Every once in a while you see articles about how people still live throughout Asia, Africa, and even a few obscure parts of europe where time seems to have stood still. In China for example you have huge, modern cities, but then entire sprawling messes of thatch huts where people live fundementally the same way they did around the time of the dark ages, and even share lodging with their livestock (which is how SARS got started). The Middle East is also pretty stagnant as the theocratic goverments went through a lot of effort to prevent change (sort of like Christians tried in Europe, except there the theocrats more or less succeeded). Some of the more barbaric customs (forcing women to marry their rapists, stonings, etc...) exist because that is how they have done things for thousands of years. From that perspective, even with long lifespans from some access to medicine and the like customs involving child brides in those places aren't that surprising. After all if it's been okay to marry off 12 or 13 year olds for 5,000 years, why stop now? Not saying it's right (I believe quite the opposite) simply that it's interesting when you consider it, and it helps to get a grasp of what your dealing with when it comes to certain issues. Japan in paticular is a nation that has gone through a LOT of cultural growing in a very short period of time due to the loss of World War II and the influance of American culture/occupation. In the scope of things child-brides have only become a taboo fairly recently, a lot of people see all the pedophile stuff in Anime and the like and just don't "get" that there are conflicts between the way things always were, and the changes coming with a greater degree of knowlege, civilization, and education. Intellectually the Japanese understand the Pedophilia is wrong and why it needs to be stopped, culturally and emotionally on the other hand there is still a bit of pressure there, with young wives/lovers being a status symbol, and childlike apperances being an accepted standard of beauty. I've read a bit about it there in paticular.

At any rate the point of that huge, and probably disturbing and nearly incoherant paragraph, is that if "Twilight Princess" is what it sounds like from your description, the point of having you read it was simply to gain a perspective on things like that. Understanding how other cultures see things or why they might still practice backwards customs can be important. Leading you to understand something, does not mean that the person having you read it actually expects you to agree with, or practice it. Sort of like how reading Nazi propaganda can give you insights into history, but nobody expects you to embrace Hitler's philosophy even if what your reading tries hard to sell the ideas.
 

Snarky Username

Elite Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,528
0
41
archvile93 said:
Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
Snarky Username said:
archvile93 said:
Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.
The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.
 

Snarky Username

Elite Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,528
0
41
archvile93 said:
Snarky Username said:
archvile93 said:
Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.
The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.
You can if you start using the camera...
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
Snarky Username said:
archvile93 said:
Snarky Username said:
archvile93 said:
Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.
The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.
You can if you start using the camera...
The camera can throw itself into a functional trash compacter where it belongs. In most games where I choose to limit myself for extra challenge I can easily decide that it's too hard and immediately go full power without any effort. Bioshock, no, I have to use the godamn camera to stand a chance which is incredibly difficult to use properly, since it immediately results in death when every enemy and their dog attacks when it's used. Why have a character jump through a bunch of arbitrry hoops in order to stand a chance later, that's horrible game design. It'd be like if in an RPG I had to let an enemy drain at least half my health before I attack or else I won't gain any experience from it.
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
Patrick West said:
Snarky Username said:
archvile93 said:
Snarky Username said:
archvile93 said:
Whatever you say, but as someone who has played it with the camera, using it would make a lot of your problems nonexistent. Playing without it would be something like playing Half-Life 2 with just the pistol. Sure the pistol works fine, but going off of it alone would cause some problems that shouldn't be there.
The difference there is that the only thing limiting my abilities is myself and I can stop at any time. Can't exactly do that with Bioshock.
You can if you start using the camera...
to true plus from the way you ***** about your problems your probly on hard right? any ways you rly shouldnt play games if your going to nit pick
I hardly consider calling out horrible game design nit picking. That would be like saying this is nit picking.

House Salesman: And as you can see, this place is spaciou, beautiful paneing and in a great neighborhood.

Me: Yes, but I noticed Cthulu is living in the basement, so I don't think this one is right.

HS: Oh come on, now you're just nit picking.
 

Vibhor

New member
Aug 4, 2010
714
0
0
Deus ex
That game simply sucks.
No matter how good story or choices you make,if the gameplay sucks the game too sucks.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
ive never been a big fan of the Mona Lisa. its the most well-known painting in the world, and everyone loves it... people enjoy her "mysterious smile" or whatever they call it.

it just looks very regular to me. nothing against DaVinci, but that painting is just very ordinary in my eyes.

also, i dont like how people can make art a thousand times more spectacular nowadays, but nobody will remember them nearly as much as paintings like the Mona Lisa.
 

Vibhor

New member
Aug 4, 2010
714
0
0
Vykrel said:
ive never been a big fan of the Mona Lisa. its the most well-known painting in the world, and everyone loves it... people enjoy her "mysterious smile" or whatever they call it.

it just looks very regular to me. nothing against DaVinci, but that painting is just very ordinary in my eyes.

also, i dont like how people can make art a thousand times more spectacular nowadays, but nobody will remember them nearly as much as paintings like the Mona Lisa.
Actually,I myself don't find anything good about the painting.
Maybe it was because of the graphics? As I have seen many old paintings and they looked so shitty compared to mona lisa.
We can say that Mona lisa was Crysis of its time and it also proves that graphical whores existed before the invention of computer
 

DkLnBr

New member
Apr 2, 2009
490
0
0
The Mona Lisa. you walk through the Louvre seeing these huge, majestic paintings everywhere, but when you get to the Mona Lisa all it is, is a separate wall in the middle of the room, a guard on either side, and velvet rope in front. You also have to fight through the 70 tourists to actually see anything. All for a 1' x 1' painting that you've only seen 100000 times in TV and Movies.
After seeing it I only had a feeling of "meh"

EDIT: Maybe i should have read a little further, got Ninja'd by Vykrel...
 

Atticus89

New member
Nov 8, 2010
413
0
0
I enjoy reading, and a few stories listed I enjoyed.

However, I didn't enjoy "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens, "Frankenstein" (and we complain about horrible adaptations!?), or "A Tale of Two Cities" in high school.
 

Ethylene Glycol

New member
Sep 21, 2010
83
0
0
James Joyce wasn't a genius, he was just trolling everybody.

Ayn Rand was an autistic ***** who should've had her brains knocked out at birth.

BioShock is overrated, pretentious garbage that abuses lens flare and blur more than every shitty artist on deviantART put together.

Pink Floyd only had three good albums.

H.P. Lovecraft just needed to stop doing so many drugs writing, period.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was impressive when I was in third grade--but that was a very long time ago. It takes a lot more than purple prose and elf cities to impress me now.

I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's dick for Anne Frank or her diary. Yeah, the Holocaust happened, thirteen million people died just because Hitler was prejudiced against them, I get it, can I put this loathsome piece of trash down now? Just because she died in a concentration camp doesn't mean Anne Frank was any less vapid, annoying, or worthless than the millions of teenage girls keeping diaries today.

Oh, and fuck Led Zeppelin, too. Robert Plant cannot fucking sing, period.

Vibhor said:
Deus ex
That game simply sucks.
No matter how good story or choices you make,if the gameplay sucks the game too sucks.
This.

HT_Black said:
Also, Twilight Princess was clearly about pedophilia, which automatically puts it on my "reprehensible" list.
Wait. What?
You do realise "turned into an imp" =/= "prepubescent", don't you?
Although, if you're right, I just might have to get a copy of that...
 

Ishamel

New member
Jan 12, 2010
24
0
0
Aw, there are so many worse singers than Robert Plant - if you don't like his vocal stylings, sure, but at least the screaming is in tune (I really like it but can see how it would grate with some.)

I agree - Mona Lisa shit
Romeo and Juliet shit - Shakespeare in general is mis-taught nowadays; you can get a much better appreciation for his work if you realise that with all his plays he was trying to make Halo and Bioshock at the same time. Most people would fail to do that.
The Beatles - they did a lot of stuff which was experimental for the time, which was then picked up by others who explored it more and did it a lot better. So, I can do without them in my library, but I appreciate that they were starting down the right paths.
All Dickens. Seriously, all the best characters are bad guys as usual and he takes far too long to say anything ever.
Jane Eyre is without doubt my least favourite book ever; I hid a Pratchett book in between the pages when we had to read it for school. I seriously wanted every single character to die in a fire.
 

somerandomguy76

New member
Sep 6, 2008
243
0
0
Eumersian said:
I can't fucking stand listening to Ravel's Bolero. I find it to be so boring. People claim to enjoy the melody, and I guess it's OK. It would certainly be a lot better if it and its sister melody weren't repeated virtually verbatim for six minutes. I've heard a couple of versions, and even the most creative ones are equally boring. It is one melody on one instrument, followed by a different melody on a different instrument. Then the first one on a different instrument, then the second on a different instrument, and so on. I simply don't find the melody fun enough to be repeated all that much, and remain good.
Ever tried playing it? Fun fun fun! Hard as all hell but fun.

OT: Anything by Jane Austen *shudder*
 

Johnwesleyharding

New member
Sep 26, 2010
40
0
0
Arsen said:
Drakmeire said:
Anything by Pink Floyd, the later work of the Beatles, and Radiohead. I know they are geniuses but I think as musicians they fail and produced some truly unlistenable music even if it was deep, meaningful and experimental.
I have to second Radiohead. Very commercialized "rock music" in the form of something trying to be artistic, but fails due to having a windbag vagina with a body attached to it that just so happens to be able to sing. Paranoid Android is laughable as to how they try to make it come off like a rock masterpiece. I blame the shallow nerds and their "intellectualism" air of a superiority complex who deem them a worthy act of the 1990's. So many other bands stand out above them.
I'm going to defend Radiohead. I don't have a superiority complex, and if it sounds like I do, I apologise in advance. Radiohead really earned their worth after OK Computer, when the music they made wasn't really rock at all, more like electronic Aphex Twin style stuff mashed together with Can and other krautrock bands from the 70s. The bands that influenced them weren't (apart from Queen and a few others) particularly commercial. Radiohead are commercial in the sense that they are experimental in the vaguest sense, and put more focus on hooky music than experimentalism. They cover ground already covered by less commercial bands like the (aforementioned) Can, Kraftwerk, and Neu, and make it commercial. Note that commercial =/= bad. In general the music is depressing as hell, and I can understand why someone would be put off by that.

As for the Beatles, their later music is not incredibly complex. The music is also very commercial. The music is popular because it is hooky, not because it is deep or meaningful. Take this lyric from Abbey Road for example from what is arguably the most challenging song on the album: "I want you. I want you so bad. I want you so bad it's driving me mad it's driving me mad".
 

tkioz

Fussy Fiddler
May 7, 2009
2,301
0
0
Oh there are lots of books I've read that are considered "classics" that I just plain detest. Ulysses by James Joyce for example is held up as one of the best novels of all time and it's fucking horrible.