Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Seeing a thing you like for its flaws
I remember playing the Pokemon games as a kid. It was just so magical. Everything about it was perfect: the monsters were cool, and...yeah, that's pretty much it. Now that I'm older, I realize that yes, Pokemon has its flaws. It has glaring flaws, in fact: there are design elements in the games that are very, very bad.
And then I realized that I didn't care, and now I still play Pokemon.
This is the true test of whether one likes a work or not: not because of its strengths, but despite its weaknesses. It's the reason why I still enjoy Powerman 5000 despite it being a really, really generic industrial metal band with songs that are mediocre-sounding at best. It's like if Yoda came down to Luke Skywalker and told him that "yes, I too was young and foolish once". It is that moment when a work stops being the Gold Standard that you thought it was that the work truly comes alive.
Comments
A good example of this in effect is the Electric Six cover of Radio Ga Ga:
Yes, Dick fails to hit some of the notes that Mercury did. Yes, they completely bastardized the lyrics. Yes, I love it to bits. There's something that is so right about the main riff being played on an electric guitar.
Which design elements are very, very bad?
Just curious (I have a hunch, but I want to see which elements you can't stand)
If you want a textbook example of a poorly-designed game, look no further than R/B/Y.
To be more specific, the water routes in R/S/E.
I was aiming more for something that is wrong with most, if not all, of the main Pokemon games
Can I say I do not like the framerate in DPP? Nor the 'Saving Lots of Data' crap. Or the fishing mechanic in RSE?
^This. Though the saving lots of data thing was allegedly put in to prevent cloning glitches.
Also, how shitty the online play always is.
^ Yeah, THAT worked out well for them. I think I heard that you could STILL dupe the GTS in the 5th generation (tricking the game into thinking your computer is the server)
I tend to fastforward through Quentin Tarantino/ Kevin Smith films whenever the 10th talk in a row about other films/ comic books springs up. But of course, those honestly are quality films, so it'd be a total disservice to not grit through all of that.
The 'Clark Kent is Superman's criticism of humanity' speech is the one that makes me want to rip out Tarantino's jugular.
huhahaha
The sheer lack of difficulty, as long as being a long, samey grindfest kinda puts is probably Pokemon's biggest flaws.
If they made it so the Gym Leaders had strategic AI with a strategic team that, while mainly focusing on a specific type, had one or two unfitting Pokemon to balance team synergy, I would so buy that game.
Not that I'm not going to buy B2/W2, but that's mostly because I'm a stupid consumer who gets easily addicted.
I'm inclined to disagree with the premise of this thread--flaws can only weaken a work. That's why I think artists have a responsibility to not just recognize, but consciously avoid the flaws of the works that inspired them, and why I get so frustrated with artists who mimic all the flaws of their inspirations. (And, for that matter, when artists who avoid those flaws while mimicking earlier artists are bashed precisely because they avoided those flaws--something you see a lot in video games.)
To give an example of what I'm thinking of, Ode to Kirihito is the best exploration of alienation and dehumanization I've ever read. However, out of four important women in the story, only Helen can be viewed as a multidimensional character in her own right, rather than a vehicle for the growth of the male characters, and the only one who can't be summed up as "a pure-hearted girl who gets raped" is Reika, who can be summed up as "an impure girl who commits rape." I still like it, but I can't help but think that it would be a stronger work if the female characters had more of a voice.
Flaws can appeal to someone just as much as qualities do.
As for Tarantino's Clark Kent speech, I think it's good not because it's true, but because I'd like to think it represents how Bill sees the world and Superman and not Tarantino himself.
Clark Kent isn't a criticism, an act. Superman really was that awkward when he was young, and he still is. Clark Kent is not only his means to connect with ordinary human beings, but also his emotional outlet when he feels stressed and tired and helpless.
Batman wears his mask as his face, like a shaman. Superman wears both faces openly, like a god.
It's a kid's game. To a kid, the game can get plenty difficult.
^^For all the flaws of Superman II one contrast I like is when Superman brings Lois to the Fortress of Solitude and she asks 'So you live here?' and he says something like "No Lois, I live a block from you in Metropolis." A few scenes later you get Luthor coming into the fortress and his first comment is "This is his home!" It's a good contrast of how Luthor sees Superman and how Superman sees himself.
Which might have been what Tarantino is going for. Bill being so evil he sees Luthor's point more than Superman's. However I think at that point you're supposed to see truth rather than megalomania in Bill's words.
I speak about something similar to this in my blog:
A common trend I’ve noticed…everywhere I go, is that people tend to equate things they dislike with things that are bad and I think people should stop doing it. The things you like are not necessarily good and things you dislike aren’t necessarily bad. I’m going to use myself as an example here; my all time favourite movie ever is DragonHeart, while a film that I generally don’t like watching is Titanic.
I’m sure you can see the problem. One is a beautiful story about two people from totally different backgrounds, forced together through convenient circumstance only to form a love that transcends all logic, facing adversity from their peers with a truly heartbreaking ending featuring the death of one of the main characters, and the other one isTitanic.
As much as I adore DragonHeart, I can’t deny it has some glaring flaws. Its budget was, while not small, was far too small for the ambitiousness of the project. Draco looks perfect in the film, and you can honestly buy that this dragon really existed, but the amount of money poured into creating this magnificent creature reflects poorly on the rest of the film. The costumes look fake, the camera quality is poor and the crowd scenes are severely lacking. On top of all that, most of the actors in the film, beside the two leads and the token females give very wooden performances.
Titanic on the other hand, is very well made, with wonderful camerawork and acting and each scene wonderfully moves the plot along while telling a story of its own. Despite that, I still enjoyDragonHeart more because it has a massive dragon in it, voiced by Shaun Connery. Is that an irrational reason for loving a film? Of course it is but it doesn’t matter because I still love it.
The reason I love DragonHeart is because it offers and experience that no other film does and that’s the way you should approach any media. Don’t tell yourself you are enjoying something just because it’s well made and don’t pretend you hate something because it doesn’t have high production values. Rate media based on the experiences that you can get from it.
I keep playing Every Extend Extra Extreme. Getting a good score is kind of a matter of luck and the endless modes are super shitty (I've seen an LPer keep the game going for four hours).
But it's so pretty~ And the stage 1 theme is quite possibly my favorite track in the EE series. I keep coming back to play Stage 1 Limited.