I was mainly trying to make a point about cost analysis but personally, I could rewatch Madoka and still be happy.Candidus said:I think a food analogy here is terrible.Izanagi009 said:While I understand the subjectivity point with us having very different views on how much we like the yuri action, I find the novelty thing to be a tad mootCandidus said:I just want to address this, because this kind of argument... I see it a lot, and I'm not sure whether its wielders are intentionally throwing around a fallacious argument in order to slow down their opponents, who must stop to address it-- so, being malicious; or whether they actually believe this crap flies and are earnestly using it.Izanagi009 said:I understand people want to watch a show with fanservice and mechs but other media have done those components better so why waste time on the lesser of the spectrum when you can watch something better.
The notion that you should always exclusively access the best versions of a type of content or else be wasting your time is fallacious because it forgets novelty AND subjectivity.
Sure, I've seen better tits and ass, and I've seen better mecha, and I've probably seen better tits and ass and mecha together. But that's just it, I've seen them. Whereas Cross Ange is new. Edit: Also, I'm NOT sure I've seen better tits, ass, mecha and non-consensual yuri together. So there's novelty.
And as for subjectivity, in contrast to you I happen to love it. I expect I'll drop it once the male character becomes central and disrupts the coerced / forced yuri action, but up until now it's been excellent.
I will have to use a food analogy but I heard it and it wasn't that bad. With food, you make a choice between accessible and cheap but not that well prepared fast food or high quality but either out of the way or expensive al carte meals. In this situation, it's a cost analysis between quality and ease of assess.
With anime or any visual media, the ease of assess is pretty much the same. You can find them on streaming sites easily, buy the whole season for the same, if somewhat high, accumulative price per episode and even if it is not streamed or for sale on dvd, fansubs are present. As such, ease of assess is removed from the cost analysis so only quality remains. Quality is subjective as you have stated but my media consumption time is limited compared to the span of all media so I need to pick and choose.
In addition, novelty is a relatively short term engagement tool. It can get you in the door but it can't hold you there. If novelty was truly that important, something like Chiaka the Coffin Princess or Rage of Bahamut wouldn't do that well.
to summarize, while you may find the novelty to be engaging enough to keep you there and the show to be good, I find the novelty to be cheap shock and awe with a bad foundation.
I think cheesecake is excellent and I want to eat it all the time.
I think Ghost in the Shell Arise was excellent, but once is enough.
Just because non-GITS-franchise-cyborg-anime-A isn't as good, doesn't mean that watching GITS again instead is the better option.
Which leads me to how you've misinterpreted my use of the word novel. "As an abnormality or curiosity".
That's not what I mean. I mean novel as in: something I haven't already seen. Novel as in new.
Every episode of everything you ever see is novel the first time you see it. So the point is hardly moot.
Think about it this way, If I had a choice between two different anime in the same season with the same base concept but one was done far better, I would take the better one unless I want to watch the lesser for schadenfreude.
Also, while the episode you see is novel in terms of it being new to your memory the first time you see it, the story and tone may be old. Chiaka for as good as it is can't be considered new on the story front even if it's a new show temporally.
At some point, temporal novelty will give way to your own internal analysis and if the show doesn't stand up to that, then the novelty will have worn off and there will be nothing to stand on.
Our internal analysis clearly differ, that I think is agreeable. But i guess our contention this time is how we view novelty both in definition and impact.