Quote:Original post by sunandshadow
Re: Estok's Math and Charts Wow that's really serious. You're right, it definitely does look like Technogoth read some of the votes backwards. o_O

To be fair on Technogoth, one of those mystery voters was me, and I'm pretty sure I put 8 ahead of 4 (as second last and last place respectively). I've lost my voting scoresheet but I'm probably "voter 2" in Estok's list. Admittedly I was pretty exhausted and slightly unwell when I voted, and so the block-text of entry 4 really harmed it in my mind. Also from memory I had the top four or five entries within a few fractions of a point so I couldn't decide which one I prefered.

That being said, I'm not sure why we are dissecting the voting process to this level of detail...

Re: TrapperZoid
Well I guess you missed it, but there were some weird errors. A list like this:

4
1
2
3

was read by TechnoGoth as:

E2 > E3 > E4 > E1

Instead of:

E4 > E1 > E2 > E3

There was no right or wrong way, just ambiguous.

Ah, okay. Don't mind me then [grin]

Re: S/S Assessment

A) Ambiguous Ending

I don't think it is just for you to bring in the animator argument. It wasn't meant to be read by a designer or a publisher. But either way, it doesn't matter. If you think that it should be ambiguous, then the animator is supposed to make it ambiguous. What is the difference? The Entry simply refered to a hands opened, and there was a bell. The music is replayed with the changed verses. As the player doesn't know whether the monk has died or not, the player also doesn't know whether the maiden won't be okay: because the poem said that she was the only one left. So it echoes pretty well to be ambiguous.

Maybe if the player plays differently, the player will reencounter the scene with different fates for the monk. Note that the intro itself is ambiguous on what measure the maiden is going to make. Is she going to kill a lot of people? Is she going to dissolve the conflict differently? No one knows in the begining, because it is up to the player to shape the path of the main character. (And for this design, the main character has an arsenal of skills that allows her to solve problems lethally or non-lethally.) So maybe if the player chose a violent path, the monk will die, otherwise, the captain that had been engaging with the maiden, would spare the monk, due to an inner respect of what she was doing. Maybe that will be one way the maiden get out of the conflict alive--when the returned cavalry captain let the maiden go after assassinating 'the evil leader'.

Suddenly, it doesn't seem that bad at all to be ambiguous.

B1) Sound Imagery

Quote:You can't bury anything in a sound. The fact that the monk can't see rubble is interesting, but the maiden and/or the player could see it. And I think you should have emphasized that the fire hadn't been out very long, painting a strong clear picture of the environment.

The fact that the fire hadn't been long for long wasn't a symbol. It wasn't that important. But the monk can't see smoke. So either way, the player won't know that explicitly. Visually, the player will know that the fire hadn't been out very long, because as the monk mentioned the big bell, the camera will be looking at the bell, and the burned logs will crumble a litle bit. It doesn't really matter that much whether the fire has been out or whether the logs were just unsteady. The stronger argument you could have used, was that since the moaning of the bell was an audio respond to the monk, the use of the rumble is redundant. I mean,

The monk said, "the bell there has fallen."
<The camera looks at the bell in the courtyard.>
At this moment, only one audio respond is needed from the object to reply the monk. If I were to choose between the rumble of the logs or the moaning of the bell in the wind, of course I will keep the moaning. So the rumble is redundant.


B2) Shattering

Two riders stomped across the courtyard, cracked tiles shattered beneath their heavy feet.

should be:

Two riders stomped across the courtyard. The cracked tiles shattered beneath their heavy feet.

So yea.


B3) Fallen
ok


C) Representation of Scent

The monk is not the main character, but the intro has a lot to do with perception. Therefore his blindness wasn't irrelevant. I answered your arguments both ways: if it is a text game, and if it has visuals. It wasn't posed as a contraction. I was simply showing you that maybe you were thinking too narrow. It would be fine either way.

Quote:Either way, I can't evaluate based on "the reference frame of the writer" unless you tell me what it is.

The point is, it is just writing, you don't need to evaluate every aspect. If I don't tell you, maybe I am preserving some trade secrets. There are ways to do or to project scent visually. I don't see it as a problem at all. But usually, scent is absent. To see scent, is to see visual suggestions. Since the monk is blind, it become appropriate to use some exaggeration on the visuals. You know that everything on the screen are not the actual objects but the interpretations of the monk. So if a the maiden opened the package, and it was visually stuffed with flowers, it would still make a lot sense.

You should think about it like this: remember the times when you think, 'there is no way this book can be turned into a movie' and then someone just do it and you go, 'I would have never thought of that.'

Write first. There is always a way to implement it, depending on who you ask.


D) Complex Emotion

Quote:I regard complex emotions as being equally interesting and valuable as pure emotions. I did understand that there were complex emotions in your piece, and I did feel them, I just thought that they weren't intense enough for an introduction where you are trying to draw the player into the game.

When creating an introduction you are trying to deal with the problem of taking a completely ignorant and uninterested audience and conveying to them as quickly as possible a situation, a character, something happening, and a reason to care strongly about all. To get the audience to care strongly it is important to make them feel some sort of intense emotion, and it is difficult to make a complex emotion come across as intense. For this reason it is probably best not to try to convey any complex emotions until after the audience understands the basic situation and the initial incident has happened.

It is hard to make complex emotion intense. You are correct. I don't plan to step down from that path. There is no reason to avoid something difficult. For this particular entry, I think the intensity was killed by the conversation. When you talk about emotion, it is like an outlet. The emotions are leaking air, being relaxed. I think that was what killed the intensity. The companion (the old monk) in the scene softened the emotion by listening and connecting to the maiden. That could be the design flaw in the emotional presentation.

Another flaw was that the dialogues wasn't done right. The monk penetrated too quickly. I need a few more lines to create the illusion that the monk believed in her peace, before the monk pointed out that the song wasn't about the bell. Just a little bit more delay, and the player will feel a much stronger contrast when the monk took down her mask. For example, after the monk said that one of the strings was missing, the maiden could reply that it was broken. Then the monk and reply that it couldn't be broken, instead it must be intentionally removed, as he commented on her silk, and the material of the nails she was using. Then we get a much strong sense that the maiden was hidding something.

[Edited by - Estok on October 1, 2005 5:55:16 AM]

Re: 5MG

Your link doesn't work. This is an itemized list of what I said:

Estok's Itemized Criticism on Entry 5
[size=12]Note that I don't focus on the big, thought-level issues. Similar to s/s's evaluation, not all criticism expressed are presented as a valid judgement of the evaluation.


A) Story Depth
Reactive, lacks intrinsic motivation and decision.
Explanation: The story is uninteresting because the characters have shown no notion od decision making. By presenting the rebellion as a normal and only reaction of the farmers, the author had denied any higher semantic conflicts of the setting. The emotion presented by the piece is one dimension and simplistic. The introduction also suffer from thematic simplicity because the only two forces presented--namely, the barbarian and the villagers (represented by Shai)--poses a black and white situation without encouraging any inquiry. For this introduction, the author had failed to allow the viewer to observe any semantic, emotional, and thematic depth through the introduction.

Quote:A1) Original Quote:
Est: The invaders are undisputably bad, and the main character is justified of her action. There is no dimension to the story.

Quote:A2) Original Quote:
Est: You can't hammer emotion into the viewers. The reason that your entry was bad, was that your presentation was one dimensional

Quote:A3) Original Quotes (weak defense)
5MG: The whole point of the Barbarians was to make them morons to show that people without civilization who allow themselves to be consumed by their primal instincts.
Est: If you believe that this should be the point of your piece, than the whole writing is just a big duh--'who doesn't know that barbarians are barbarians because they behave like barbarians?'. So your whole story had just said nothing. Nothing interesting for the viewers to discover, to learn, to understand. By definition, it makes your piece [semantically] worthless.

Quote:A4) Original Quotes (weak defense)
5MG: They were also barbarians to show that people in todays society including all nations act with immorality, disrespect, and are uncivilized.
Est: This is not in your piece. If you dressed the attackers in uniforms, who fight like barbarians, then you would make this point, but you didn't. For example, you can make a scene in which officials in the Red Cross is doing something questionable. Then you have a point.

Quote:A5) Original Quotes (weak defense)
5MG: The woman is there to show the reaction, my reaction and hopefully your reaction. She is there to symbolize how a mother, one who is supposed to nuture and protect her young, was unable to do so because of these barbarians.
Est: You are misusing the word 'symbolize'. The mother is not a symbol of a mother, she IS a mother. You are correct that her role in the scene is to present a viewpoint involved in the situation. To be accurate, you should say that, you introduced the mother in the scene to anchor a viewpoint hoping that the viewer will identify with her point of view. But this is bad presentation. You can't induce a viewpoint in the viewer by simply displaying a viewpoint. On top of that, the viewpoint isn't particularly interesting semantically. All you did was presenting a victim. It is a very easy task, and a very meaningless task by itself.
...
To convey emotion, you can't use the thematics alone. You need a lot of semantics supports.

Quote:A6) Original Quote
Est: Semantics, emotion, and thematics are the major focuses of a writing. When you see Entry 5, the semantics is ignored, the emotion is simplistic and forced, and the thematics is incoherent and uncreative (uncreative because it was just a group of barbarians raiding a village, how many times have you seen it in RPG, RTS, and movies? Incoherent due to the use of mixed voices and the mentioning of camera and scenic directives, they were like constant reminders to the viewer that it is all made up, and that just destroys immersion.)

B1) Camera - Immersion
Inclusion of scenematic directives broke immersion.
Explanation: In terms of the art of writing, the use of camera directives is redundant. Through descriptive focus and presentation, camera directives are already established. The use of explicit description of the camera is a sign of weak command of visual focus through writing. By mentioning the camera, the author distanted the reader by repeatedly reminding the reader that he is in a theater, not the actual environment where the events were taking place. This breaks immersion.

Quote:Original Quote:The [art] of writing is to induce the camera actions without saying the word 'camera'.

B2) Camera - Contents
Distracting cinematic content because the style of the presentation does not match the setting of the story.
Explanation: The style used to accompany the scene did not match the kind of thoughts or perspectives expected from those involved in the scene. This breaks immersion. In B1, the argument was on the writing. In B2, the argument is on the actual content of the visuals.

Quote:B2a) Original Quote - Matching Theme
Est: [If] you pick a cultural setting, the voice needs to match the setting. It tells you that simply having a scene is not enough, it needs to have a meaning behind the scene. These are the two main things. Besides those, a writing should be rereadable. The use of hidden meanings is only one of the many way to achieve rereadability. (So don't draw the conclusion when I said a writing needs to be rereadable, that it needs to have hidden meanings.) If the piece is about a particular theme, then, not only the scenery, but also the dialogues, the meaning of the dialogues, and the construction of the writing, should match the theme.

Quote:B2b) Original Quote - Matching Theme
Est: S/S thought these were good. I don't share her judgement. In a medieval setting, I probbaly won't show a written word unless I am sure that the character that the words related to was literate. Why would words fade into the clouds? You were presenting a presant in a humble village, the style you displayed was inconsistent with the setting. This broke immersion, it made the visual seemed fake and forced, a perspective imposed onto a farmer by the designer. This is bad, and that was the reason. The style you choose, needs to match the setting and the minds of the characters involved.

C) False Advertisement
The introduction ended with a meaningless question, destroying the integrity of the presentation.
Explanation
In the ending of the introduction, the author made an ill attempt to introduce player decision by suggesting that the player can choose to be a greatest warrior or a bitter villager. The second choice is not a choice. The ending is ill because it seemingly exposed a flaw of the design that won't have been considered a flaw otherwise (i.e. It would have been a fine linear story, but the author condemned linearity and showed no evidence of non-linearity) The author invited attacks to the game introduced. This is a writing flaw.

(no quote included because this is obvious)


I don't criticise something as very bad unless it is very bad. Your intro was bad mainly because of A. I understand that many people won't see that as very bad. But I don't see things normal. Therefore I gave you my perspective and reasons. To tell you how you could have argued against this, these are some of your options:

1) You could have simply said that you disagree with my perspective. This is often misused as an excuse, however.

2) You can disagree with my scale (i.e. so what I consder 'worthless' is 'acceptable') To a degree you tried to to this by reminding us that the entry was written in 20 minutes. However, the points I maded had nothing to do with time contraints. They were all high level concepts. In other words, your ideology was wrong, not the implementation.

3) You can provide legitimate reasons and motivation behind the way you wrote them that I have not observed (This is the kind of defense I had for my own entry. The keyword here is being 'legitimate', meaning that the 'evidences' must be in the entry itself.)

4) You can argue that I had misinterpreted something.

I am not provoking you to continue the argument. From my perspective, you are out of cards. You need to understand that I am not trying to get my criticisms across. I already presented them, whether you accept it or not is none of my business. I am posting this because you said that I had no reasons behind my comments. If you want to counter any of them just pick the item and one of the four options (there might more secret options).

The narrator is a meta voice that addresses the reader by 'you'.

It is like the voice of a teacher telling what the students need to know instead of showing the material onthe blackboard.