In this day and age Imagination is Imaginary

Recommended Videos

dekkarax

New member
Apr 3, 2008
1,213
0
0
Now, I'll bet you wonder what the hell the title means, my answer to you is, what ever you want it to mean

To me, it is the current state of modern mainstream media (yay! alliteration!) in that the case now is that innovation seems to be the exeption, whether it be a movie, music track or a game or etc; chances are there is another movie/piece of music/game/etc very similar to it.

Case One: Psychonauts.
Oh you were expecting this weren't you? Well, there isn't much to be said about this that has not already been said, so I'll just say this: Psychonauts was an imaginative game with generally good reviews; however, the game sold approximately 10.8 copies initially, devastating it's publisher (the only publisher willing to give the game a chance I might add) financhially. It only gained the recognition it deserved much later when multiple sources (like ZP) that are generally well recieved by the mainstream audience that originally snubbed 'nauts told us that actually, it was rather bloody good; ironic is it not that those sources are usually widely imitated?

Case two: FPS...es
Gaming seems to be a media that goes through different phases-the platformers of old, open worlds, telekenesis, "urban" racers and good/evil endings are just to name a few, but none are as big, or as popular as the FPS craze, now I rather like FPSes but c'mon this is bloody ridiculus! every other game is one now; look gaming industry, just because I bought Halo doesn't mean I'll buy Haloish shooter y and I wont buy Haloish shooter Z either, no matter what FPS I come across nowadays: it's either a WW2 shooter, a "realistic" COD4 clone, or bloody Halo in disguise! the only difference is there may be a few gimmicks which don't really make up for the fact that that I bought the same game yonks ago; No, I don't care about how good the multiplayer is, I've probably seen it before, and that's not a good enough reason to mingle with people who always seem to be, as Sean Connery said "the shlime of humanity" (though most of them are not Nazis). Unfortunately, the days of deep shooters like Marathon and System shock; gone are the undead cowboys, replaced with the "ideal" game character: a white male with short brown hair, in various states of unshaveness and likely wearing space armour. And all because the mainstream supposedly "demand" it

Case troi: the Horror movie genre
Horror movies make me scared; not that something's out to get me, but that if I get so much as a papercut then I will lose half of my blood and my torso will detatch from my legs as if I were a Lego man. If I said that I find blood was sickening and disgusting in my opinion to my a group of "average" people in my school, I would likey be branded "a wimp". But, I reason, I don't watch horror films to be digusted, I go to be SCARED, and how is mere claret terrifying? unfortunately, horror films these days seem to wear 18 certificates like a badge of honour, also the modern horror film is either a slasher (Oh thank you very much Scream for resurrecting that cheatnut) or a so called "torture" film (think Saw) OR a remake. Am I the only one who wishes for films in the style of Nosferatu? (A film that is genuinly terrifying, and uses almost no blood). Modern films seem to almost ecluesively use two things: blood and shocks, nothing that makes you feel scared AFTER you leave the cinema or turn the tv off, films that mess with your mind, films that feed the little worry centre of your brain, things that feed your Tingler (anyone spot a reference?); but oh no, that needs imagination and, like I said earlier, imagination isn't allowed is it? We can't let the real fears that we don't understand, like darkness (Doctor Who's doing it now-A FAMILY PROGRAM!). It is such a shame that we forget how to do these films well, and ironic that those films that dared to be different are being remade.

I suppose the reason that media is like this now is because, as a medium grows, it becomes more commercial and therefore, an idea that has worked in the past is likely to work again, and make money. But I my opinion another reason is because of us;probably 80% of people are stupid, there minds unable to handle complexity, and when it arises, they shun it, in favour of the simple films that don't make them feel stupid.

Discuss.
 

WlknCntrdiction

New member
May 8, 2008
813
0
0
i didnt read all of that but i know exactly what you mean. ppl dont want to take a risk with something that works, in the worst outcome the game or piece of media doesnt make enough an doesnt generate a "profit" as such. its like if you're at a restaurant you've been to for 7 yrs and you order the same thing all the time but htink one time "hmm i wanna try something new", you pick something that is the same price but you're not sure if you should because what if you dont like it? thats your money wasted, its that same mentality that makes sure inovation stays rare and monotony reign supreme.
 

Melaisis

New member
Dec 9, 2007
1,014
0
0
I suggest you come back when you've seen the gameplay footage for FEAR: Project Origin - it includes all of the aspects of gaming you seem to be looking for, as well as some new, original elements being brought to the forefront. Honestly, go check it out: It even impressed me, at least for now.
 

Anarchemitis

New member
Dec 23, 2007
9,102
0
0
Imagination in new video games may be an illusion at best, but thinking up cool ideas that are original in general is alive and kicking. Imagination exists, it's just stagnant for video games. Recently I found out that the EA games place in Burnaby (Vancouver Area. My cousin works there :) won't take game maker people who don't have a degree in creative story writing or at least a nice art degree.

Check this [http://www.itchstudios.com/psg] site out for an imaginative fellow who does cool art for some video games.
He also originated the painting of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 

NotPigeon

New member
Feb 26, 2008
117
0
0
This is how it's always been. I agree wholeheartedly, outside of 'in this day and age.' I'm sick of people saying that these things are unique to right now. They're not, you were just too stupid to notice it beforehand.
The thing with originality is that it's mostly dead in the mainstream because people just don't like to take risks, but then something new comes along and everyone copies that.
Let me break it down, with examples:
1. Something is the current hot trend.- Example: Hair metal or whatever the hell the late 80's had.
2. People start to feel burnt out- Not continuing the same example, we'll return to that: This thread.
3. Something new comes along and becomes the new big thing- Example: Nirvana's massive success with Nevermind spawning the mainstream grunge scene of the early 90's.
4. Everybody copies it. Example: The subsequent popularity of bands like Pearl Jam.*
5. Lather, rinse, repeat.

*Now, this brings up an interesting point. I say 'everybody copies it,' but it's less the artists and more the company in this example, and really most examples. Grunge was around before Nirvana; Nirvana just made it mainstream and therefore profitable, and then everybody started signing grunge bands.

Basically what I'm saying is that it's cyclical.
 

The Potato Lord

New member
Dec 20, 2007
498
0
0
I spotted the tingler reference. I know what it is but i only saw the second half or third of the movie.
 

Undeed

New member
May 22, 2008
228
0
0
People fear most what they least understand. The most unpredictable and controlling factor in a consumer based economt is the will of the consumer. It's not that originality is dead, it's that what little there is is being hidden because there's no percieved gain, or there's no way to break in to the market. Certainlty there's a much smaller audience somewhere, but it never reaches the mainstream. But you don't seemed to be concerned with smaller outfits. Certainly there's some argument to be made for webcomics, some of which prodouce exeptional material. Case-in-point: http://www.rice-boy.com/ And sometimes when these small outfits gather enough of a following, they break into the media at large, and disrupt the current trend. But, by disrupting it, they probably draw enough attention to perpetuate the cycle mentioned above.

If you are unwilling to accept that train of logic, then we go to the opposite end and say that every idea has had some inspiration and cannot truly be considered original, even if that inspiration was from a psychadelic and therefore unshareable experience.

As with any issue in a consumer based market, the solution is in our hands. If you value originality so much, that's what you need to support. Buy innovative games over games that are actually good. Go to experimental films. Listen to every indie band with a "new sound". I guess what I'm trying to say, in really douchebaggy way, is that this cycle, while squelching originality at it's core, is also a manner of quality control. Economic & Intelectual Darwinism, if you will. Survival of the strongest ideas, measured in th only way that matters: The all-mighty dollar.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
wow...

something popular is seen often?... this... this is madness!

THIS. IS. CAPITALISM.
 

Ultrajoe

Omnichairman
Apr 24, 2008
4,719
0
0
Darth Mobius said:
Thank you UltraJoe. I hope people got your point and will finally quit bitching about something that always has and always will be around.
no, i don't think they will.



but i will persevere all the same
 

roo18

New member
Oct 8, 2007
129
0
0
Ultrajoe said:
wow...

something popular is seen often?... this... this is madness!

THIS. IS. CAPITALISM.
THIS. IS. SPARTA.

Sorry.

I see your point. If its popular then it'll sell.
 

Frosk

New member
Mar 12, 2008
170
0
0
dekkarax said:
Halo

Marathon
I only highlight this because both games were created by Bungie.

Agreed with your point, but I'm not sure what can be done to help.
 

werepossum

New member
Sep 12, 2007
1,103
0
0
Games have gotten extremely expensive to produce, and publishers prefer to spend money on proven IP or game formats (or both) rather than take a big chance. Psychonauts was supposedly a good game (I bought it just to support creative thinking in gaming, but haven't fired it up) but it's a platformer; gazillions of those things have been made (and I hate them.)

I thought F.E.A.R. did a fairly good job with its story. It definitely added atmosphere (which is good), but had little affect on the gameplay (which is bad) considering that if you had no clue who Alma was or what had happened to her, the game played pretty much the same. As a player your choices were limited to which path to take through this office suite and had no affect on story, but I still enjoyed the game. Actually, if I remember correctly System Shock's gameplay also had no affect on the story and vice versa. It must be difficult to really work the story into the gameplay.

And I'd have sworn EA was staffed exclusively by accountants and marketing types. Go figure.
 

TheMadDoctorsCat

New member
Apr 2, 2008
1,163
0
0
Hmmmm... lemme see... latest great blockbuster (let's say "Bad Boys 2", "The Matrix: Reloaded" or "Star Wars: Episode [<4]") comes out. All the above mentioned films were IMO iredeemably awful, but people still spent vast amounts of money on them and their merchandise. Result: the films get more widely publicised, shown in more cinemas, and more money is spent on other films emulating them and producing sequels.

Brilliant but little-known movie comes out in a few arts cinemas. Nobody sees it, nobody makes anything near enough money to publicise it properly. Result: a few people really enjoy it, the rest don't know what they've missed.

Unfortunately it's the way the world works. You have to seek out the good stuff, it won't come to you. Of course, everyone NOT throwing money at the likes of "Sex in the City" and "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" would help to stem the tide of over-hyped spin-offs and sequels. Do you really expect these films to be any good anyway? I sure as hell don't.

Werepossum - I sort of agree with you, but I think you've got it the wrong way around. EA is staffed with programmers and designers, the same as anywhere else in the industry. Unfortunately the net effect of rampant capitalism is turning content producers into marketeers, and that's what EA (and the film industry) has done. If you produce any kind of content these days, you're also producing advertising. If you don't have the money and marketing skills along with the programming and design nouse, you're sunk, because nobody will know what you've created. Unfortunately the marketing process is now tied in so deeply with the design process that very little can be created unless it fits a set marketing strategy.

Quick example: I was pointing out on this very forum that a scene in the recent Bond movie "Casino Royale" was there for the sole reason of showcasing a car and a GPS system. It didn't advance the plot or the characters, but then neither did most of the movie. (We're talking here about a film where a major scene was changed - against all artistic common sense - from an easily-understandable-and-filmable baccarat scene, to a complicated poker one that most people watching the film wouldn't even understand, for the sole reason of keeping the poker website sponsor happy. Who the heck wouldn't understand baccarat, even if they'd never played it? Your cards have to add up to a total of as close to nine as possible to win. It doesn't exactly require complex game theory, unlike poker!)

It didn't take a marketer to "add" that scene with the GPS, or change the simple tense game of baccarat into a complex and unwieldy poker bout. The writer simply wrote it in, as he was paid to do. Because that's what writers are nowadays - it's what they have to be, thanks to the system they have to exist in. People pay for commercial art, it's how writers make money. The problem now is that we've lost the balance there: we've got so fixated on the commercial that we've forgotten about the art.
 

Anarchemitis

New member
Dec 23, 2007
9,102
0
0
Too true. At least we can look forward to games with User [http://www.spore.com/ftl]-Generated [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LittleBigPlanet]-Content [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry%27s_Mod] or some innovation, like Mirror's Edge.
Neek Neek Necro!
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
NotPigeon said:
4. Everybody copies it. Example: The subsequent popularity of bands like Pearl Jam.*


*Now, this brings up an interesting point. I say 'everybody copies it,' but it's less the artists and more the company in this example, and really most examples. Grunge was around before Nirvana; Nirvana just made it mainstream and therefore profitable, and then everybody started signing grunge bands.
ummm hate to break it to you but Pearl Jam is really just another reformed Mother Love Bone after their lead singer died. they were actually going to get the push that Nirvana got but their lead singer died a couple days before the album was released

tho i will say that less new stuff coming out and most is just a retreading of what has already been done or something similar because it's familiar territory and they know it will work.

as for the horror films, i disagree on the lack of originality, for mainstream yeah it's just slasher but there's a ton of other better ones that aren't slasher or torture, just have to go a bit off the beaten path