A candle that burns for half as long doesn't always burn twice as bright.

#11AnAuldWolf(Topic Creator)Posted 4/27/2014 2:28:10 AM
@5

I wrote up a nice, long reply to this post. I gave your points due consideration and you can find my reply at the pastebin link below. Tossed there due to the post character limit GameFAQs has. (I'm sure someone will mistake this for being a blog post, too!)

http://pb.lui.li/474102e0128f76bb
#12AnAuldWolf(Topic Creator)Posted 4/27/2014 2:39:09 AM
@6

Cute.

"I could go much more into the social, political, scientific points in more depth and detail [...]"

Well, you can't, but you'll say you could. I'd be delighted though to see what you actually have to offer beyond these hollow, empty words of yours.

"I have some interesting book recommendations I could make if the subject interests you."

I'd love to read them! Please, name your recommendations.

"But for now I'll just say I was disappointed at your lack of an open-mind, [...]"

And I'm disappointed that you'll throw around buzzwords in the defence of the emperor's clothes. How do I not have an open-mind, precisely? For not being gullible and believing the words of snake oil salesmen? I'm not a religious-minded person, that's just not my thing, you know?

And honestly, considering the kinds of ideologies you buy into, I feel confident that you couldn't be more wrong about me, anyway. Not one of your posts has had anything of worth to it, they've all been dessicated things, like a walking corpse, a zombie of an opinion. All words and bluster, but where are the actual thoughts? I gave you mine, but where are yours?

"[...] and the extremely limited and narrow ideological constraints which tie you down, [...]"

Which are? That I don't think the modern world is an evil place? That I don't hold the opinion that technology is the enabler of our destruction?

I'm sorry to tell you, but you're using buzzwords again to justify your own position. A position held out of ignorance and fear.

"[...] all of which are symptomatic of the prevailing paradigmatic orthodoxy existing in mainstream cuture."

Hint: You mean para-dogmatic.

And here we go again. Not wanting to go back to the dark ages means that I embrace all contemporary zeitgeists. Crikey! I must be a complete boor, then, eh? I'm so mainstream, me. Ha. I think you need to understand what a false-dichotomy is.

And, in general... do you even know what any of what you've said actually means? Goodness gracious me! This is exactly what I'm talking about. You read like a press release more than a person, you're trying to sell me your opinion with big words that you hope other people won't understand.

Okay, explain to me in layman's terms what you think that means. What you just said, right there. Because you likely have no idea.

This is precious.

"[...] and all from a self-confessed "wistful" daydreamer and "creature of novelty". how disapointing indeed."

Ooh! Finishing on an insult. Actually, I don't mind that one. That was a nice jab. Bravo! Encore!
#13AnAuldWolf(Topic Creator)Posted 4/27/2014 2:52:37 AM
So, the crux of conduit's post is that in order to have a genuinely open-mind, free of all the restrictive jetsam and flotsam of life, you just have to become incredibly gullible, in tune with religious opinions, and you must want to cast aside the modern world in favour of returning to the dark ages (without ever realising that the commonly held romanticism of those times is hardly accurate).

You know, given that, I'm quite happy to be restricted and narrow-minded according to his views. I'm all dogmatic, me, what with these new age, pro-science views of mine. I'm very mainstream in how I agree with the most commonly held views about Journ--oh, wait. Well, let's just say that's the case.

But honestly, I can see how Journey, with its tenets of Unifornity, Creationism, and Neo-Luddism would appeal to someone like conduit who was unable to hide his own agenda, even amongst all of those hollow buzzwords and base insults. (Again, I have absolutely nothing against insults, but if you're going to insult me then I'd prefer you be insightful about it. A hollow insult reflects poorly upon the person using it, rather than the person assumed to be insulted by it.)

The herd loves the whole dark ages thing of late -- just look at the popularity of medieval fantasy RPGs. Yep. I'm sure it'd be all stats, devils, and things. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that these people live with these fantasies from their chairs, without ever considering the dangers. And honestly, it's boring.

Give me some Myst any day of the week. Or perhaps a little Iain M. Banks. Even some Douglas Adams, in a pinch. Medieval fantasy is the most boring setting we've ever conceived, and I'm a little weary of the steadfast troopers who defend it, and how much better life would be if we were all suffering with incurable plagues.

No thanks, conduit. No thanks.
#14conduitPosted 4/27/2014 4:15:04 AM
wasn't expecting such a vitriolic response tbh. I'm not trying to damage your pride or hurt your ego or anything. I don't waste my time with personal attacks, I don't know you and I'm not interested in insulting you. but I love to debate concepts and ideas, so lets try to focus the debate on content. A lot of the other stuff you posted is merely intellectual posturing and I'll politely ignore it.

I had the game pegged from the outset, it was the propaganda of a very closed-minded religious person, one who was quite incapable of what art should actually be. That so many lack the perception to realise this is surprising to me.


yes, and this a major part of the problem imo. that you came into the game with this preconceived notion about how a game developer was trying to force some religious agenda on you. Its pure paranioa, nothing more. its completely unreasonable. for all your comments about uniformity, creationism, religion, neo-luddism, I saw absolutely none of those, and still don't. I'm guessing you do because you chose to see them. and thats fine. subjective analysis is fine.



and herdthink? we are all guilty of this to some extent, regardless of introversion/extraversion. although if you deem it relevent my personality type according to the MBTI is INTP, 'thinking' being my weakest prerference, thus INFP being my secondary type. This means my preference for logical thinking sometimes gives way to my consideration for emotional factors. and my Introversion actually comes out 100% every time.

But as social creatures humans have evolved to survive in groups, as individuals we are pretty much forced to adapt to the needs, standards, expectations, and pressures of our group in order to survive. so from a very early age we are subconsciously internalising the base assumptions, beliefs, opinions, and prevailing myths of the majority in our society, in order to find our place and be accepted, and thus conform to certain ideological constraints.

"Once a functioning social order is firmly established, an individual who must find a (relatively isolated) place within it in order to survive will tend to think its thoughts, adopt its assumptions about the inevitability of certain forms of authority, and in general, adapt to its ends. The costs of an alternative path or a challenge to power are high, the resources are lacking, and the prospects limited." ~ Noam Chomsky

To read more on propaganda systems and ideological constraints you could try:
Disciplined Minds A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System that Shapes their Lives, Jeff Schmidt
Vital Lies Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception, Daniel Goleman
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Noam Chomsky
---
~we are a part of the process, not instigators of its progress~
#15conduitPosted 4/27/2014 4:20:24 AM
And that's what Journey is. Its clothes, its art, are a well-conceived scam that a great number of people have fallen for, without ever stopping to question it.


You didn't stop to question it though, you simply applied your own pretermined answers, thats my point. There was very little real genuine questioning of the game, instead you projected what you wanted to see. In order to maintain a truly open mind we need to learn to understand the root of our own biases in order to compensate for them, and try to leave our own false preconceptions at the door.

"The defences our bastions against painful information operate in a shadow world of consciousness, beyond the fringes of awareness. Most often we are oblivious to their operation and remain the unknowing recipient of the version of reality they admit into our ken. The craft of teasing out and capturing defences in vivo is a tricky endeavor." Daniel Goleman, The Psychology of Self-Deception


Its obvious that I have approached this game from an entirely different angle to you. I admit to not knowing much about art, or religion, my interests are mainly in complex systems theory, ecology and environmental science. So regarding what I consider to be the main subject matter of Journey (or that which interests me the most anyway) - the collapse of complex civilisations - the following reading is useful imo;

Immoderate Greatness: Why Civilizations Fail by William Ophuls
The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joseph Tainter
Limits to Growth by Donella H. Meadows
Collapse: The Crisis of Energy and Money in a Post Peak-Oil World, Michael C. Ruppert
The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century, James Howard Kunstler
The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability, Paul Hawken
A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It by Nafeez Ahmed

As a brief, the cause of collapse of civilisations is mostly a complex combination of factors: exponential growth, resource depletion, expedited entropy, environmental distasters, ecological catastrophe leading to extinction, and excessive complexity leading to practical failures by a society to manage systemic problems.

I'll read the stuff you posted on your link when I get time though I can't guarantee I'll respond to it.
---
~we are a part of the process, not instigators of its progress~
#16conduitPosted 4/27/2014 5:31:57 AM(edited)
What do you think of when you think of 'God?' Beams of light from the heavens; a divine glow from above; a man clad in white; an overpowering sense of presence, showing you how small you are by comparison?


haha, no. not at all. though this is the common imagery projected by mainstream culture.

I'm reminded of a quote by someone, I cannot remember who, some scientist or natural philosopher of old, but to paraphrase, "I believe in the god that reveals himself through the natural order of things, not the grey-bearded man that lives in the clouds and concerns himself over the fate of mankind."

What do I think of when I think of "god"? I think of nature, the universe, the cosmos. I think of the complex dynamical processes and inscrutiable natural laws and universal forces that consipre to shape the course of events and determine how the world works.

Each vision of the white cloth eventually becomes clearer the closer you get to the mountain. But to me the white cloth starts off as more of a wise teacher or spirit guide, than some superior being or godlike entity. (clearly they cannot be that superior since their civilisation failed dismally). Rather they are the presence of a being, much like your own character, who existed a long time ago. They tell you the story of their history, how they came to be, and what was their fate, and the mistakes they made, so that you may learn and take advantage of their knowledge.
They also seem to display pity for the player characters suffering, the cause of which relates back to their own story. They try to help the player character understand the meaning and context of its existence and of course that the reason for their suffering is the result of events which occurred in the past. Trying to understand the nature and cause of these events is a tricky issue, and ultimately an open-ended question. Your interpretation that it was all down to technology I disagree with, because the story seems to hint at resource depletion as being the primary factor, which itself could have many causes, exponential growth, over population, environmental disaster (the white cloth city is engulfed by dust storms in the cutscenes).

You can argue that the White Cloths made mistakes in the past, which successive generations are now paying the price for. You could argue that the white cloths are guiding the red cloths back to the source of light in order to maintain future life, or simply out of pity of the red cloths suffering, since their only other option seems to be to die alone in the desert. You could argue that the white cloths befell some natural disater or calamity for which they were not prepared and resource scarcity forced them to war against each other and kill themselves. You could argue that it was natural and inevitable result of a combination of naturally occuring factors, or you could simply argue that it was all the fault of the white cloths, for their ignorance, greed, exploitation and violence. But I certainly wouldn't argue, as you do, that the white cloths are some superior evil race hellbent on the enslavement of future generations. Though its definitely an original interpretation of the story that I haven't really heard before so kudos for that. :P

As for a lot of the religious mythology and symbolism that everyone else always talks about, I don't really see it. But being from the UK I live in a predominantly atheist society and have had virtually no exposure to religious doctrines.
---
~we are a part of the process, not instigators of its progress~
#17conduitPosted 4/27/2014 5:37:06 AM(edited)
And as for my supposed 'creation'? Oh deary me. I've already presented the evidence countless times that this agenda actually exists, both in my original post, and in the texts above. In that there was no agency to restore or explore the technology gives it an ominous aura, that it's meant to be left to decay. That's not an opinion, that's something that the game ham-fistedly hammers you over the head with.

It actively tells the story of the downfall that the Hubris of Science brings them, and how they should be good little herd creatures and obey their god, to achieve ascendance. Telling me that I created that when it's already so omnipresent in the game is like telling me that I created the colour green for the grass.

If it wasn't about that, then why present technological ruins? Why show their rise via Science? Why show their fall from grace because of that? Think, really. Please do.


No, I disagree. Their rise wasn't "via science", whatever that really means. In my opinion their rise was due to an abundance of resources and ideal and favourable environmental conditions which facilitated their growth. But the nature of their origins is an open ended question which players are free to interpret anyway they see fit, as is the cause of their eventual demise. But I just did not interpret these aspects the way you did, so it certainly was not the case of the game developers forcing a specific agenda down anyones throat.


I actually let out a long, wistful sigh when I read that. You're very young, aren't you? Your mid teens, I'd guess?

Statistically we're seeing more people living to an older age than at any other point in history, medical science has provided for that. You need people to make art. Also, our connectivity has lead to more people being able to express themselves to a wider audience, so the person who would have been a slave a century ago today has their break thanks to someone browsing their deviantART account.

Science is an enabler of growth. Your own trending towards neo-luddite thinking doesn't change that.


No. Science is not an enabler of growth. Energy is an enabler of growth. Thats just basic physics. Also I'm 28 btw.

And my comment that you are responding to ("150 years of growth") is actually an allusion to the start of the industrial revolution, and the exponential explosion in human population growth..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg ...which is not solely the result of technological development or scientific understanding I can tell you. Technology itself is merely the product of combined environmental conditions and factors such as easily exploitable energy resources. Technology doesn't just come from thin air.


You mean... the evils of the modern world?


Nope. No evils. Just emergent recurring phenomenon and cyclical patterns of institutional behaviour that are as old as human civilisation itself. climate change, peak-oil, resource depletion, the perils of exponential growth, ecological ctastrophe, escalating wars, wealth inequality and economic stratification increasing the probability of social collapse, all of these are imminent threats to advanced civilisation. and most of them are not new either but are as old as human civilisation itself.
---
~we are a part of the process, not instigators of its progress~
#18conduitPosted 4/27/2014 6:03:57 AM(edited)
"[...] all of which are symptomatic of the prevailing paradigmatic orthodoxy existing in mainstream cuture."

Hint: You mean para-dogmatic

Okay, explain to me in layman's terms what you think that means. What you just said, right there. Because you likely have no idea



look up the word "paradigm"; cognitive framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, accepted by the majority.

To rephrase in "laymans" terms I was pointing out that the base of your criticism seems rooted in this conventional "framework" which is itself the product of mainstream culture. In effect, you brought too much unnecessary baggage, most of which turned out to be not only irrelevent, but a severe impediment.
---
~we are a part of the process, not instigators of its progress~
#19Flipsider99Posted 4/27/2014 11:57:28 PM
Whoa, that's some heavy debate.

AnAuldWolf posted...
My issue was, from front to back, a failure to allow for expression. I feel that in an interactive art form, if you're not allowing the player any form of expressive agency, you're missing the point and what you've created is the equivalent of a short film.


Well, that's an interesting way to put it. Part of the confusion might be that I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "expressive agency." Maybe I'm wrong, but it kind of sounds like you're talking about gameplay depth. For example: in Bayonetta, there are thousands of ways to string combos together with various weapons, and even at the expert level no two people play exactly the same. There are many different potential play-styles, and each player's style is their own unique form of "expression." That's only the case because of the massive amount of gameplay depth. Is that what you mean by "expressive agency?" Just curious.
#20conduitPosted 4/28/2014 1:33:18 AM
^^he may be talking about gameplay mechanics. but he could also be talking about the intellectual expression, since his main criticism of the game seems to be that he is not free to interpret the story how he wants because the game developers are forcing some biased agenda hown his throat (uniformity, creationism, neo-luddism, etc). I tried to argue that these were simply his own subjective interpretations.
---
~we are a part of the process, not instigators of its progress~
More topics from this board...
It's coming to the ps4INCEPTlON57/28 8:26AM