Neon Genesis Evangelion

[Arac]

No I’m not. The extensive simulation of one-on-one personal combat including technical gameplay is the exclusive purpose of fighters.

See, I don’t think you can include technical gameplay as part of the purpose, because, if you can, then why not include “technical gameplay in a realistic, 3-D environment” versus “technical gameplay within a strategic, 2-D playing field.”
Because, honestly, Tekken’s not very technical at all.

Brawlers never aim for technique and any other genre either has the control of combat presented in a vastly different manner (RPG) or doesn’t have it at all.

What genre, besides interactive fiction, gives no control of combat? It’s the combat that is, really, important. The level of control is much more “method” than “purpose” in my mind.

Maybe a few adventure games might come close, but the focus given to combat techniques in fighters is unmatched by any other genre, and predictably so, as this is precisely the genre’s defining element.

Yes, but the focus given to close combat versus varried and ranged combat, and frantic versus strategic gameplay, are defining traits of 3-D and 2-D fighters, respectively, and each is absent in the other genre.

It’s not, you’re just going to the other edge and taking it too far now. Like you said, the difference IS bigger than between 2D and 3D fighters, and that alone makes all the difference in the world.

Yes, but the difference between 3-D fighters and “Beat-em-up” games like Dynasty Warriors is smaller than the difference between Fighting Games and Turn-Based Strategy, yet Beat 'Em Up and Fighting are still different genres.

Entertainment is the master intent in any form of… well, entertainment, but by that logic you might say that all video games, anime, novels, etc are the exact same thing as they all aim to entertain. You might as well eliminate the word “Genre” altogether.

No, I simply disagree on what creates a genre. Genre is all in the method, whiel its overall, fundamental purpose is the same. Like I said, we are arguing on the semantics of our definitions here, and that is silly. However, also as I said, different genres may be easily compared with as much validity as any other opinion-based comparison.

The way one might go about creating a thriller horror story differs considerably from how one might conceive a comedy because from the very beginning, the intent (To cause fear/laughter) is different. Once again, it’s possible to compare whether 2D or 3D does a better job at being a fighter, but if you try to compare whether Dracula or I, Claudius does a better job at being a horror story, you hit a dead end as once of them had no intention of being a horror story in the first place.

No, you don’t run into any sort of a wall. Dracula does a much better job being a horror story. It has a huge advantage, sure, but it’s still true. I, Claudius isn’t frightening at all.
However, for a more “fair” comparison, you could simply compare which story is better. When I compared Fighting Games to RTS, I didn’t say which made betters fighting games, in my opinion, I said which made better games.

There’s a middle ground brought by common sense. What you say is true, but the fact that for centuries there’s been such a thing “romance novels”, “horror stories”, “comedies” and the like is pretty good evidence that I’m not the only one who thought of getting a bunch of works, listing underlying differences and creating groups to categorize them by.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with categories, I’m saying there is something wrong with the idea that works of two different genres cannot be compared.

There is not a single game ever whose design was based on the purpose of defeating someone or something, No development team ever has the prompt “let’s create the best system by which to defeat [Boss]”. Like a fighter is meant to be an extensive simulation of personal combat, RTSs are meant to simulate strategic management of armies, and Graphic Adventures are meant to be extended puzzle games. You are confusing the purpose in design with the final stretch of a storyline. That, and even if you look at as little at the story itself, the argument still falls for every game whose story is not meant to be an epic, but based on character development, in which the boss is merely another element and the real focus is in your party’s interaction.

We, again, have different imagings of purpose and method, which are mere semantics.

You have GOT to be kidding me. This is EXACTLY what Epic said in the first place. If a person does not like a genre to begin with, no matter how spectacularly the work itself is pulled off, it will still not have a good effect on that person, therefore trying to proclaim that one anime is the best anime ever, when anime is merely a medium in which there are diverse genres, is useless. Why are different genres not comparable? Look above at all the rest.

Yes, but that person has preferences within a genre, as well. If I’m a martial-arts anime freak, and so are you, but you like the discussion of martial arts philosophy, but I only care about the fight scenes, our opinions are going to be completely different. No-matter how amazing the writing, I’m gonna hate it without kick-ass fight scenes. So, am I now only allowed to analyze things in the same genre, but also in the same style?

It IS possible to analyze something in an objective fashion, provided you are rational enough. I can recognize that some things I hate are actually pretty well done, and some things I like are total crap.

Give objective defitions of “well done” and “crap.” You’re operating on biased, opinion-based precedents, such as “developing characters is good,” most likely, which is still a matter of opinion. There are people who don’t give a fuck about that. Their opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. Besides, where you might see last-minute development, I may look at it as a literary Joycean revelation, thus giving totally different opinions on the development.

Granted, it’s a loose rope to walk through and you need to be very centered. The analysis of the execution can be done rationally to an extent even if it’s rather fruitless, but the argument between genres is not who does the better job at one thing, but which aim in design is the best, and THAT is entirely reliant on subjective opinion.

But my point is that who does the better job is entirely subjective, too. You can logically back it up, of course, but the logic will almost always work its way back to your personal preferences. For instance, SG’s reasons on 2-D/3-D are entirely subjective, as well-thought out and argued as they are, if I want the features he lists in a 3-D fighter, but he doesn’t like, I’m going to side with 3-D figters, because that is what a like. The same is true in individual games; I like King of Fighters because many of the special attacks require joystick moves as though they were weight-shifts, which makes them intuitive for me, who thinks of how I would do it in a real match then tries to replicate that on a much more skilled level with a little guy on screen; because I find the characters much more visually and personally interesting than those in Street Fighter (although, this was better in the Alpha series); I find the more varied attack combinations (In that it doesn’t have, like, four characters with the exact same moves to different effects, and half the combinations to produce attacks are the same character to character). You get what I’m saying. If I recall, SG doesn’t like KoF too much, at all; he prefers Street Fighter. This is because, within a single genre, and even two very similar games in the genre, we still want different things.

That actually wasn’t meant to get an answer, as I realize simply sitting the genre itself is useless. It’s what was below that I wanted you to compare.

And I did. If you look, the only difference I want out of the two works is the emotional connection I have to them.

Then do it. C’mon. Try to compare the execution of those three animes by the same standards, without putting weight on how the differing purpose will alter the design from the beginning. Do it while ignoring the genre barrier.

Never seem Saikano. You want me to just PM GaoGaoGaiGar versus Excel Saga, reviewing only what the both genres share, or simply reviewing them as though they were one genre that contains what both genres do?

Then pay attention to what’s being asked. Arac did the exact same thing before you, it is not the genre which I ask to be compared, but specific works within them. Purpose is subjective, execution is partially objective.

Again, not really. See the bit earlier on rushed, last minute versus epiphony in character development.

In fact, your argument is the perfect example of why this analysis doesn’t work: You prefer how fighters work over how RTS’ work, so you’ll like fighters best. Well, here’s a comeback: I don’t. How do you come up with an effective objective answer to that?

Look earlier in this thread; within Evangelion, a single series, you and I have a difference of opinion on high and low points, and probably overall quality, based on my love of madness-tinged rantings put on film, a love you do not share. There’s no objective answer to that. Within the scope of Joyce, people fight over what was his best novel, because their criteria for a good James Joyce novel is different. Objective analysis is totally impossible, unless you want things you can quantify; number of words, length of words, amount of alliteration, number of characters, et ceteras. Just rating based on these things would lead to a pretty terrible idea of the greatest novel ever.

[Cidolfas]

I think the whole semantic “purpose” thing is getting tripped up, because “purpose” is just as tiered and layered as technique is. At a high level, yes, everything has the same purpose - to entertain. But once that’s done, most works have secondary purposes - to enlighten or to induce laughter or tears or just to waste time. Arac, I think, is concentrating on the higher purpose and uses that as a general way to compare things, while SE appears to be claiming that that higher purpose doesn’t provide enough impetus to compare things whose secondary purposes are so different.

I still see SE’s points better than Arac’s. It’s very difficult to say that, for example, Pirates of the Caribbean is a “better” movie than Schindler’s List. People say it, but I think such a statement is totally meaningless.

[Arac]

But it is equally meaningless to say Pirates of the Carribean is a better movie than Pirates of the Carribean 2 or 3, even though they’re in the same series. It’s all opinion. My point is that there is no valid, objective way to critique something, since objective traits must be quantifiable, and those traits which are aren’t very meaningful, at least to me, in such analyses.

[Cidolfas]

It’s not meaningless at all to say that. I’m not talking about objectivity or quantifiability (not sure where those even came in). I’m talking about making sense. It makes no sense for me personally to say that Pirates is better than Schindler’s List, because I would then have to gauge whether the thrills I felt when watching Pirates were somehow “better” than the sadness I felt when watching Schindler, which is not something I can do. But I can very easily gauge how the thrills I felt when watching Pirates 1 compared to the thrills I felt when watching Pirates 2 or 3 - and I can also say whether one of those movies helped me feel things more than just thrills, which would also help to indicate if it was “better” or not.

[Seraphim_Ephyon]

To be frank, I’m getting very tired of this but…

Yes, any sort of analysis of anything, particularly anything meant to entertain, will be charged with subjectivism. Even within a single genre, different people will like and dislike different.

But is it entirely so? I respect the value of personal opinion, and will not just bang on someone and try to force my views on them, but even if you can’t justly define what is “good”, you can sure as hell tell when something is very bad. There is such a thing as rushed development, lack of development, out-of-character behavior in writing that can’t simply be explained by “this is how the writer intended”. Shitty writing exists in a fairly analyzable manner. The same way a fighter game can be unbalanced allowing for a few cheap tricks to be used eternally, there ARE empirical quantifiable factors in any production. Subjectivism comes to play when the subject in question is over the grey line over which only opinion goes either way. You can tell me you prefer 2D fighter to 3D for so and so reason, but you can’t tell me that using Sub Zero’s freezing move+uppercut over and over in MK3U was an “intended feature” and “up to the player’s preference”. It was a blaring fuck up in design, period.

I loved BoF, one of my favorite games. It’s also among the worst RPGs I’ve ever played. It’s dry, lacks story, the characters barely even speak, the boss is one-dimensional and the gameplay has some very awful flaws (Fuck you, Second Wave). I loved it, but if I take an objective look at it and try to find it’s strong points, I’m left blank. There IS a fanbase to it, but I’ve yet to see anyone come up with any form of justification for it.

I’ve heard people speak wonders of Saikano as a tragedy. I’ve seen it and read it, and the narrative does a great job at showing the sadness of the situation. I also hate it with passion as I mostly watch this shit for amusement and don’t want to be left with my heart in pieces when I’m doing something for fun. It does it job wonderfuly, but it’s the polar opposite of what I like.

Recently, Gurren-Lagann is just about my favorite show. It’s awesome and very entertaining if you are into over-the-top stuff. It’s also tremendously silly and predictable. Seriously, you can tell what’s going to happen from a mile ago. It has absolutely zero redeeming value for anyone who might not be into Super Robots and Shönen.

You are saying that all analysis is subjective… then why are you even bothering to speak? Why would you even bother to talk about something with someone else, or why would any such discussion take place? Because there IS a level of objectivity present. The most common (civil) answer to these discussions is “yeah, I can see how that could be but I still like it” or “no, I don’t see it”. The first answer DOES occasionally occur, and that is because, even if they may not be determinant, there are some points which can be seen on an objective light, even if one’s opinion is still not swayed in any form.

Which brings me back to the one thing that matters in all this mess: If opinions might vary with a single genre, what do you expect in a crossover? If one person doesn’t like tragedies and loves comedies, you can get him the most masterfully created tragedy and he’ll still shove it aside. The vital point f all this: Saying Eva is “The Best Anime Ever” is a huge blunder, as not only you have to justify it being the “Best Sci-Fi/pshychological mindfuck Anime Ever”, but anyone whose not into that kind of story will ignore it completely regardless. “Anime” is not a genre, it’s a medium.

[Arac]

Cid: See, you can’t judge that, but someone may definitely know they like thrills or sadness better. Maybe you can’t decide, but many people can.

Seraphim: Yeah, but I bet a lot of people who weren’t very good at games otherwise really, really liked that fuck up and thought MK3 was a great game. Even if it was a mistake, they’re equally valid liking it as you are not liking it.
As for BoF, even without justification, if you love it, that’s equally valid as people who can write a term paper on why they loved Chrono Trigger. Maybe it’s a “bad” game, but you evidently love something in it.

Finally, I agree that calling anything the best is a titanic mistake; I reject canon in literature, too. However, I don’t think calling something your favourite is a mistake, and I just think “the best” is synonymous with it, in many places, nowadays.

[Seraphim_Ephyon]

The uselesness of calling something “The Best” is precisely what started all this. So I guess we pretty much agree on that.

And for the record, whenever me and my friends started to play, it was a rule that more than two successive executions of that move would warrant a beat up. Like, real life beat up.

[Arac]

That is a totally warranted rule. The same rule should go for anyone who plays Rain in UMK3. Fuckin’ lightning attack. Whose idea was that? There was no way they didn’t know that was broken. I mean, one of the most damaging attacks, auto-hit, unlimited range, leaves them vulernable after you hit, but not really you. Ugh.

[Skankin_Garbage]

Then pay attention to what’s being asked. Arac did the exact same thing before you, it is not the genre which I ask to be compared, but specific works within them. Purpose is subjective, execution is partially objective.

Competitive Gameplay is still a far too broad criteria, as you might as well throw FPS, racing games, sport games, etc in the same saddle. It’s not competing, it’s what you’re competing AT.

In fact, your argument is the perfect example of why this analysis doesn’t work: You prefer how fighters work over how RTS’ work, so you’ll like fighters best. Well, here’s a comeback: I don’t. How do you come up with an effective objective answer to that?

ROFL! Dude, okay, pay attention to this:

• For starters, I’m the person who made the claim that making such comparisons is valid in the FIRST place, so I sort of started this argument.

-Secondly, you claimed that my 2D fighters vs 3D fighters comparison wasn’t effective in proving my point, because the ‘purpose’ of the games is the same; but, as Cid said, the ‘purpose’ of virtually any TV show or video game is to entertain, so you can shove THAT crap. What I DO think you mean though, is their means of achieving that purpose. I think you’ve sort of gone in and out of calling that execution, but that’s neither here nor there now, cos check this out:

• In my 2D versus 3D argument, I displayed how, while the purpose (as you admitted) was quite the same, the execution was different.

• In Arac’s 2D Fighters vs. 3D argument, he didn’t really point out any similarities, which you have to do in order to compare something; he also didn’t talk very much about gameplay features. In other words, you are completely wrong in saying that my argument is anything like his;

• Because, I’ve given you a DETAILED argument on how comparing 2D Fighters to 3D Fighters are the same thing as comparing 2D Fighters to RTS games: Different execution, EXACT SAME PURPOSE (i.e to have fun, BY MEANS OF competitive one on one play).

THIS, is exactly what you asked for from the moment you engaged in a debate with me, and I’ve given it to you, shown you the similarities AND differences, while presenting a rational, informed argument. And, to this, you’ve only said two things:

1. “Competitive Gameplay is still a far too broad criteria, as you might as well throw FPS, racing games, sport games, etc in the same saddle. It’s not competing, it’s what you’re competing AT.”

Oh!!! Ohhhohohoho!!! I believe you cried foul when I compared where one competes at the same thing! You said “Same execution, what I’m talking about is PURPOSE!” And NOW, you’re saying “Same purpose, what I’m talking about is EXECUTION!” What the hell is that shit? Lol! Okay, dude. I achieved exactly what you asked for, and now you’re telling me I’m wrong? I started this tangent of the argument to begin with - you’re the one countering me, and I’ve ONLY paid much attention to you to begin with. I think have a pretty clear scope of what we’re talking about.

And, by the way, if you want to come in and say that I should have compared something with “similar execution AND purpose”…well, should you get that urge, don’t do it - the very fact that it’s possible and reasonable to judge, qualify, and compare something against completely different things was my argument in the first place.

Oh, you also said this:

“In fact, your argument is the perfect example of why this analysis doesn’t work: You prefer how fighters work over how RTS’ work, so you’ll like fighters best. Well, here’s a comeback: I don’t. How do you come up with an effective objective answer to that?”

I don’t; it doesn’t threaten my argument AT ALL. Why don’t you tell me why? Oh, you don’t have to be objective about it: In fact, the fun of arguing is that everyone has a BIAS. It’s just a matter of whether or not you have an unfair one. In my argument, I’ve made a completely subjective, biased argument; however, it wasn’t unfair. You haven’t made anything but a statement.

---

Oh, and lastly, just cos this is amusing (it’s kind of tangental, but I couldn’t help but notice it):

“You can tell me you prefer 2D fighter to 3D for so and so reason, but you can’t tell me that using Sub Zero’s freezing move+uppercut over and over in MK3U was an “intended feature” and “up to the player’s preference”. It was a blaring fuck up in design, period.”

If you get hit by this, you deserve it; just as I said…

"In 2D fighters, this is more of a case-to-case thing, as you can take advantage of risky tactics and use them to easily dominate people who can’t combat them properly (i.e, excessive jump-in combos against people who don’t consistently use anti-air, using tough-to-escape tick throws versus people who cannot reversal consistently). " Though, I guess you could add "Using the freeze uppercut shenanigans against someone who can’t jump or block properly…

“…but there’s no honor in competition - there’s a winner and a loser.”

If you can’t understand and accept these things, then you don’t have much of a basis to talk about any competitive genre of gaming.

[Cidolfas]

Cid: See, you can’t judge that, but someone may definitely know they like thrills or sadness better. Maybe you can’t decide, but many people can.

But in that case they’re just judging whether they like thrills better than sadness in general. I doubt there are many people who can judge that the thrills they got in a particular movie is better than the sadness they got in some other movie. There’s simply no frame of reference to compare the two.

but, as Cid said, the ‘purpose’ of virtually any TV show or video game is to entertain, so you can shove THAT crap.

Way to take me out of context. When I said that I accompanied it with the point that that was the “ultimate” purpose, but that every work also has a secondary or tertiary purpose, and those often can be compared. Comparing how well two different things entertain in general is, to my view, totally ridiculous. But when we narrow them down, it begins to get less ridiculous.

Comparing FF1 GBA and FF1 PSP is definitely fine. Comparing Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross? Also fine, though arguable. Comparing Street Fighter Alpha and Devil May Cry? Losing it. Comparing Excel Saga and Lord of the Rings? Not even in the same planet, man.

The question becomes how narrow you have to go to really be able to compare things. Can you compare just the feelings they evoke? Their goals in terms of presenting a particular method of gameplay? Their overall storylines? Styles? Themes? Perhaps - but when you get that vague the comparison starts losing all meaning.

[Rigmarole]

Heh, you people must have been typing all day. Some good points all around though.

*as a very short comment, the difference between objective and subjective factors brings all the fun into arguing. Re: comedy and tragedy, some people do both.

[Skankin_Garbage]

Way to take me out of context. When I said that I accompanied it with the point that that was the “ultimate” purpose, but that every work also has a secondary or tertiary purpose, and those often can be compared. Comparing how well two different things entertain in general is, to my view, totally ridiculous. But when we narrow them down, it begins to get less ridiculous.

Comparing FF1 GBA and FF1 PSP is definitely fine. Comparing Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross? Also fine, though arguable. Comparing Street Fighter Alpha and Devil May Cry? Losing it. Comparing Excel Saga and Lord of the Rings? Not even in the same planet, man.

The question becomes how narrow you have to go to really be able to compare things. Can you compare just the feelings they evoke? Their goals in terms of presenting a particular method of gameplay? Their overall storylines? Styles? Themes? Perhaps - but when you get that vague the comparison starts losing all meaning.

Hey, sorry. I do admit that I only glanced at what you said. But still, as I even said in my last post, the purpose is to entertain, and it is achieved through a certain means. Either way, to put my simple answer to your query, all you need to do to make a comparison is to find some similarities. I think I’ve done that in this thread…twice.

If you can’t find a solid enough similarity, then sure, you can’t compare them; however, it’s still not hard to make an argument on why, say, myself or Sil would consider Evangelion the best anime series, period. When critiquing it or reviewing it, sure, I’d have to stack it up against pieces of work that are similar enough. This doesn’t mean I can’t explain in depth why I like it better than, say, Cowboy Bebop.

[Cidolfas]

Either way, to put my simple answer to your query, all you need to do to make a comparison is to find some similarities.

There are logical limits to that, and it can sound absurd. Elephants are wrinkly, and so are prunes. I think elephants are way better than prunes.

When critiquing it or reviewing it, sure, I’d have to stack it up against pieces of work that are similar enough. This doesn’t mean I can’t explain in depth why I like it better than, say, Cowboy Bebop.

This is the crux of the matter, though: if you don’t need to compare it against similar works to talk about its quality, why would you need to do so in a review? And if you do, how could you really say what causes you to like it “better” than something totally dissimilar?

[Skankin_Garbage]

There are logical limits to that, and it can sound absurd. Elephants are wrinkly, and so are prunes. I think elephants are way better than prunes.

If you can’t find a solid enough similarity, then sure, you can’t compare them; however, it’s still not hard to make an argument on why, say, myself or Sil would consider Evangelion the best anime series, period.

See below for my reasoning.

This is the crux of the matter, though: if you don’t need to compare it against similar works to talk about its quality, why would you need to do so in a review? And if you do, how could you really say what causes you to like it “better” than something totally dissimilar?

Because in reading a review about something, its genre is important. When I want to read a review of a game that is an RPG, I don’t care how it stacks up against Sim City. You’re evaluating only ONE thing, and within its own confines.

But, if I wanted to say why I enjoyed Street Fighter more than Devil May Cry, you’re going outside of the realm of critiquing one or the other, but comparing two things that you acknowledge to be different.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that people disagreeing with me are getting more caught up on the choice of wording; for example, if I were to say, “I like Evangelion better than Cowboy Bebop” as opposed to “Eva is better than Bebop”, there wouldn’t be much of a problem. We’re obviously talking about opinions, here. So, using my personal aesthetic, I can very easily determine what causes me to like something ‘better’ than something totally different.

[Cidolfas]

Perhaps it is a personal thing, then. shrug I know that the feelings I get with those two series are different enough to make them hard to compare. I can say that CB is a mediocre comedic space opera and Eva is an excellent serious sci-fi, but I can’t necessarily say that one is better than the other.

[Arac]

But in that case they’re just judging whether they like thrills better than sadness in general. I doubt there are many people who can judge that the thrills they got in a particular movie is better than the sadness they got in some other movie. There’s simply no frame of reference to compare the two.

Yeah, they are. I fail to see where there is anything wrong with that, as a basis of argument. If someone does not like sad movies, they’re going to think a thrill-ride better than a tragedy.

SG: I was comparing them in terms of my preference. There is no reason to list things that are the same; preferences are based upon differences.

[Cidolfas]

If someone does not like sad movies, they’re going to think a thrill-ride better than a tragedy.

Then, as SE said, that reverts to comparing genres rather than individual works.

[Arac]

Then, as SE said, that reverts to comparing genres rather than individual works.

Well, yes, but by comparing the genres, you compare the individual works within them.

[Cidolfas]

No, you compare all the works in that genre that ever were and ever will be. It’s not a useful comparison of one particular work with another.

[Arac]

I disagree. For instance, if I always prefer tragedy to comedy, I will always prefer a tragedy to a comedy, thus, when comparing a tragedy and a comedy, I will elect favourably of the tragedy. Think about it numerically. Compare numbers above and equal to/below ten. Taking one from the above ten “genre”, you know that comparing it against any one from the below-ten “genre”, it will be smaller, regardless of if it is the biggest number that is equal to or below ten or the smallest number in that set, and the biggest or smallest number above ten, the number above ten will be larger than the number less than or equal to ten. The same is true of genres when a genre presence is in place. Yes, while you’re comparing all of them, that “all” includes the specific ones you’re looking at.