[AdmiralRalwood]

Playing Skyrim for 120 hours is considered a lot and you've pretty much done everything you can in the game.

* AdmiralRalwood glances at Steam's recorded playtime for Skyrim: 657 hours

Yeah, 120 hours isn't really considered "a lot" for any BethSoft RPG.

You are small time, sir.
I have a friend with over 2000 hours of skyrim playtime 

Yes, that was the point... :/

[Dragon]

'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

Complexity is something that characterizes many great works of literature. But it's not a requirement for greatness. One can make a simple story that nonetheless touches very fundamental philosophical questions (though it requires incredible skill. Stanislaw Lem pulled it off beautifully in a number of his works). One can also pile up religious metaphors, obscure references and foreign words, hoping to be mistaken for something deeply philosophical. The rest is then done by interpreters of various sorts. When you analyze something for long enough, it's almost certain that you'll end up with meanings the author never intended. This is especially high for works with high literary value, as defined above. As such, I tend to treat "literature scientists" and their ilk with suspicion.

I think that a great story is one in which you can find hidden meanings, but don't have to. One that seamlessly combines deep philosophy with good pacing, interesting characters and enjoyable setting. Not every widely-accepted classic is a great story (though many of them are), despite being praised by high school teachers (and those who compose "required reading" lists).

[Lorric]

'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

Oh, is this for things that are open to interpretation then? Like for Freespace you could ask questions about the motives of the Shivans and the motives of Bosch, which are unclear, the kinds of things that produce large threads here vs if you asked questions about the motivations of the Kilrathi or Admiral Tolwyn, the story tells you everything you need to know.

[Aesaar]

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

No, **** it.  I don't have the words to explain how mind-bogglingly stupid this statement is. I'm not going to bother.  Not my job to explain what good writing is to someone who thinks looking at more than the words on the page is "misinterpreting a work".  If the extent of your attempts at analysing fiction is high school lit course, then I really shouldn't be surprised.

Attempting to discuss this topic with you is like discussing evolution with a creationist.  I'm out.  Forget I said anything.

[Lorric]

Well isn't that lovely. Just when I was thinking "Oh, Aesaar did pick something you can weigh and measure then."

But he can't actually be bothered to explain why or what he means. He just says WC = bad, and expects us all to believe it because he says it is so. Something is stupid because he says so but can't be bothered to actually explain why but can be bothered to throw insults around.

[Aesaar]

I expect you to do nothing.  No, I don't expect you to think WC3 is bad because I say so.  I just know that Dragon will never agree with my reasons for why because anyone who thinks something as ****ing stupid as this:

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

isn't going to be convinced.

I don't know if it's willful idiocy or not. Quite honestly, I don't care.  I know when an argument is a waste of my time.

You can think whatever you like.  If you feel like claiming victory, fine, go ahead.  You win.  I crown you king of the ****pile.

Planescape torment, I bought it on gog last year, after seeing so many people mention what a great game it's supposed to be and it being on the same engine as two of my favorite other games (BG&IWD). I could not get into it at all, probably didn't played more than 2 hours (left the morgue, spend some time in the town outside) before I left it be. The combat mechanics are ****awful and the whole atmosphere was nothing but grim despair and brown grey surroundings. I didn't liked it.
Subjective opinions, ho!

I had a similar problem the first time I played.  It's a really slow start, and the "wtf do I do now" feeling is really strong at first.  That the combat is terrible really doesn't help.  Still, I encourage you to give it another go.  Find Pharod, at least.  There's a reason the game has the reputation it does.

[Dragon]

FIY, I was making a joke about how literature interpretations, especially with classical literature, tend to go so far beyond what was written that you start to wonder what did they need the book for. From the sound of it, you may be one of those guilty of this sort of interpretations. You can try to convince me there's merit in this sort of grasping at straws, but I've discussed it before with other people.

Not my job to explain what good writing is to someone who thinks looking at more than the words on the page is "misinterpreting a work".

You don't need to explain because I know very well what it is (or at least people who read my writing seem to think that. If you know Polish I can send over a sample). Good writing isn't merely about leaving half the things unsaid for the reader to figure out. Anyone could do that by setting out to write a trilogy and quitting after the second part. Reading between the lines is fine, but I often find it overdone. And not only on high school level (though my formal education in it stopped there, and I'm glad about that), I've interacted with actual literature majors as well. Academic analysis of literature is grossly overrated, and often prone to finding meanings that are not there (at least not according to the author). There's an anecdote about Asimov attending a lecture about one of his own books and, when it ended, telling the woman who did the lecture that it was completely wrong. Her response? "Do you think that you know what it's about just because you wrote it?". Dunno if it's true or not, but the attitude certainly is.

Some measure of reading between the lines is fine, but it's important not to go overboard with it. A well written story is not one you need to read with an encyclopedia and the author's biography on your hand. True greats can actually be enjoyed either way. Good writing is hard to describe precisely (we wouldn't have bad writers if it was possible to encompass in a forum post ), but it certainly does not require piling up metaphors. One can pull off a heavily metaphorical story with multiple interpretations, but it's important to keep it readable.

[Hades]

dragon ur a stupid asshole, stop posting

e: poland is an irrelevant country in terms of sheer political power and other such things that defines a land's importance in this day and age

e2: wing commander is terrible, the characters are all one dimensional, the mission structure is boring and not innovative, and the overall plot is a more boring WW2 in space

e3: also the ship designs suck

e4: actually I'd go as far to say that they're some of the worst ship designs in the genre. Not only are they typically boring and unimaginative (like the rest of the game), they're also often times just outright bad, not just bland.

[Lorric]

I expect you to do nothing.  No, I don't expect you to think WC3 is bad because I say so.  I just know that Dragon will never agree with my reasons for why because anyone who thinks something as ****ing stupid as this:

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

isn't going to be convinced.

I don't know if it's willful idiocy or not. Quite honestly, I don't care.  I know when an argument is a waste of my time.

You can think whatever you like.  If you feel like claiming victory, fine, go ahead.  You win.  I crown you king of the ****pile.

Well, it looks like there's been some sort of misunderstanding here with Dragon.

I don't want victory. I just wish we all could get along better and be nice to each other. I don't understand where your anger comes from in the first place over something like this.

And there's another post and Hades wtf...

[Dragon]

You might've made a misunderstanding about my joke, but I think that the real problem is that I'm questioning the very point having such course as literature at universities. It'd undoubtedly tick off anyone who did such a course and now produces academic papers on various works of literature, because I'm effectively be calling what he's doing useless. Well, I kind of am. It's not the most popular stance, but I've seen enough of literary interpretations to hold it pretty firmly. While reading is certainly not simple, IMO it isn't a skill that need a whole institute devoted to it. I also see it as a somewhat of a personal thing (though this is mostly important with poems rather than prose).

As for Hades, don't mind him. He only has one good point (I probably should be writing my stories in English, so I could sell them for money, as opposed to Polish Zlotys), and it's the only least relevant to the discussion. Funny thing that the only thing I can agree with him on is a poorly disguised ad hominem, but it really is that kind of country.

[Scotty]

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

This is unironically the greatest thing you've ever posted.

[Spoon]

Yes, that was the point... :/

I...I know that was the point... I was trying to make a joke.
S-sorry.

[NGTM-1R]

e3: also the ship designs suck

e4: actually I'd go as far to say that they're some of the worst ship designs in the genre. Not only are they typically boring and unimaginative (like the rest of the game), they're also often times just outright bad, not just bland.

The words of a man who did not play the first two games trying to sound intelligent on a topic he does not know much about.

Seriously though I have no idea how you can say this about the non-3D games, particularly in light of some of the Kilrathi designs like the Jrathek, Krant, and Jalethi.

[Spoon]

The words of a man trying to sound intelligent.

You give Hades too much credit 

[Phantom Hoover]

e3: also the ship designs suck

e4: actually I'd go as far to say that they're some of the worst ship designs in the genre. Not only are they typically boring and unimaginative (like the rest of the game), they're also often times just outright bad, not just bland.

The words of a man who did not play the first two games trying to sound intelligent on a topic he does not know much about.

Seriously though I have no idea how you can say this about the non-3D games, particularly in light of some of the Kilrathi designs like the Jrathek, Krant, and Jalethi.

i think maybe because we've been explicitly discussing wc3 and onwards he was specifically talking about them?

[NGTM-1R]

Aesaar didn't mention anything like that in his post that started this tangent and I rebuked that post with a mention of an event that takes place in WC2 at the very start of this conversation, well before anyone brought up 3 or 4 by name. Dragon explicitly discussed 3 as the least-inspired story while suggesting all the others as better.

The only person who's been explicitly limiting themselves to 3 and 4 in terms of this conversation seems to have been Lorric, apparently because he has no experience with the others. Hades and Aesaar both made blanket statements regarding "Chris Roberts games" and "Wing Commander games" without specifying which ones, therefore probably meaning all of them.

I don't think your assertion of limited scope holds up, Phantom. Perhaps because Hades worded his reply very poorly, but still.

[FrikgFeek]

There's a concept called "The death of the author" based on a French essay from the 60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor

The basic idea is that the author of a work can't declare what it's about, that job falls on it's readers. There's no "right" way to interpret a work of art as every reader's personal interpretation is what's best for that specific reader. Therefore there's no way to "misinterpret" a work, as there's no "right" interpretation to deviate from.
Literary value is not just determined from on-high by literature majors and people who analyse art for a living, but there has to be something to actually interpret in order for fan theories to exist. I think pretty much everyone who played them can clearly see that there's really not much to interpret in Wing Commander games.
If your work is straightforward and only meant for enjoyment then it's not really art. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but those kinds of works really have no literary merit and no amount of snarking about literature majors and what you think of their jobs will change that. Enjoyment and literary value are not mutually exclusive though, it's not like you either have to be a dumb summer blockbuster or a super vague and serious work of art no normal human can actually sit through(like 2001:A space odyssey).

[karajorma]

Calm down people.

[TrashMan]

'Literary value', what a delightfully pretentious thing to say, what does that even mean.

It's the amount of ways you can misinterpret a work times its length. It's good for measuring how much time a given work can sustain a literature major. Generations of them made a living off "analyzing" such classics such as "War and Peace", for which this value is highest. Scales linearly with length and complexity, so FS2 and Planetscape: Torment are good candidates, while more straightforward (and more enjoyable) works such as WC3 rank low.

"Literally value" has little real value for me.
I understand why some like it that much.
It gives ones ability to project himself into the work.
Also it gives literary majors material, but hey, you can really analyze everything if you really want to.

I read a long eassay once on why Super Mario has a anti-capitalist message...

When you analyze something for long enough, it's almost certain that you'll end up with meanings the author never intended.

Indeed.

I think that a great story is one in which you can find hidden meanings, but don't have to.

I personally don't care about hidden meanings.
As long as the story impacts me on a emotional level or entertains me, I'll consider it better than all the literally acclaimed titles in the world

[Colonol Dekker]

Calm down people.

Totes.