You're right. e: I totally fall into the whole John Gabriel's blah blah internet thing sometimes.
@Nukerjsr: Yeah, now I understand why you feel how you feel about those characters. I guess for me I saw bits and pieces of people I knew (and liked) in the characters in Scott Pilgrim, so I liked them.
Magical realism isn't strictly a Latin American thing.
That's probably why he said it was generally a Spanish speaking movement that is often set in Latin America. No absolutes there.
Actually, there's an absolute right here:
Finally, and this is a silly reason, Scott Pilgrim is not in Spanish.
ProgShell, with all due respect, your argument is purely semantic. You're trying to draw a line between magical realism and fantasy/sci-fi when all I was trying to say is that characters taking for granted occurrences that exist normally in their own world is not a valid basis for criticism on its own.
I should also add I am a big fan of Márquez, so I am sorry if my use of the term "magical realism" was inaccurate, but I was using it as a term that describes a certain mode of storytelling rather than a strict literary movement, much like people still use the term "noir" to describe a certain type of story, despite the fact that noir is also confined to a specific time period and region.
I finished reading it and was very happy. I noticed some (occasionally disquieting) parallels to my own life, and I took a lot of important things away from it regarding what we need to do with ourselves. I have a feeling that ultimately Scott Pilgrim will be a very important work in my life. There's probably a reason it's the first series I've ever read to completion.
Magical realism is a very accurate description, and the above use was perfectly accurate. I've read enough of the stuff in two languages to know the difference quite well. Also, progSHELL is quite wrong. When studying Magical Realism in the Latin American and Spanish traditions, we're explicitly taught that the fantastic elements serve two purposes: they both actually happen, and are also symbolic of some deeper underlying truth. The author makes not attempt to hint at the credibility or lack thereof. Everything else is irrelevant. When I started studying Spanish Lit, the definition I was taught was that it is a genre that uses fantastic or impossible elements to express deeper ideas. No more, no less. Even SP's heavy use of meta elements are in line with how magical realism works.
Take the Wiki definition: "a kind of modern fiction in which fabulous and fantastical events are included in a narrative that otherwise maintains the 'reliable' tone of objective realistic report, designating a tendency of the modern novel to reach beyond the confines of realism and draw upon the energies of fable, folk tale, and myth while maintaining a strong contemporary social relevance. The fantastic attributes given to characters in such novels — levitation, flight, telepathy, telekinesis — are among the means that magic realism adopts in order to encompass the often phantasmagorical political realities of the 20th century." Scott Pilgrim is just that, but with the realities of love and growing up instead of politics.
Ramona: I don't feel like Ramona is a bad character, but there's a general lack of her initially. And while everyone else has some knowledge about the others at first, Ramona truly enters the book as someone new. But do we know much about her personality or why she wants to be with Scott? No. There's really nothing much there other than Scott's initiative to have an awesome girlfriend. And all we truly know about her is how she dealt with boyfriends and how she deals with drama.
The whole POINT is that she is a commitment-phobic enigma. It's all about opening up to someone.
I should also add I am a big fan of Márquez, so I am sorry if my use of the term "magical realism" was inaccurate, but I was using it as a term that describes a certain mode of storytelling rather than a strict literary movement, much like people still use the term "noir" to describe a certain type of story, despite the fact that noir is also confined to a specific time period and region.
I can respect that. God knows I've used "noir" that way. I was just taking the opportunity to rant about modernism, something I enjoy doing.
Finally, and this is a silly reason, Scott Pilgrim is not in Spanish.
He also said that it was a silly reason. That lead me to believe that he wasn't being entirely serious about it...
I can confirm that I was not being serious. The other reasons, however, are my concidered opinion.
Fun fact a friend just pointed out to me: Mae Whitman, who plays Roxy Richter, one of the seven evil exes, also was the voice actor for Katara in Avatar: The Last Airbender.
She would have totally made an awesome Katara, imo, if they ever did a live action movie of A:TLA.
Is there a reason why the Scott Pilgrim game is $10 on PSN and $15 on XBL when it comes out 2 weeks later? That's pretty lame, imo. Are there any perks to having it on XBL vs PSN?
Is there a reason why the Scott Pilgrim game is $10 on PSN and $15 on XBL when it comes out 2 weeks later? That's pretty lame, imo. Are there any perks to having it on XBL vs PSN?
Oh yeah, now I remember. 1200 XBux (or $15 in real money) is Microsoft's new standard price for Arcade games, that's why all of the Summer of Arcade games are also 1200 points. It's bullshit, but it shouldn't really be surprising coming from Microsoft.
Personally, I'm glad it was only $10 cause if it had been $15, I would've had to wait. I only had $13 left on my account, and I can't afford to put any more in right now.
That being said, having never read the comics, this game has virtually zero plot. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's meant to be an old school arcade beat-em-up, which it does extremely well. But, still, it would've been nice to at least have maybe a few small cutscenes beyond still pictures of Scott and Ramona making out. I also have a bit of an issue with the controls. They seem to be kinda laggy, especially when it comes to movement and trying to dash around. I'm getting used to it, and it does get a lot better once your character is upgraded a bit, but it just can't really get that same flow to combat that more modern games have. Just my opinion. Design-wise, the game is brilliant, and the game does a lot to help people who suck (like myself) power through the game, so I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I played it for about two hours and got through the first 3 (of 7, duh) levels, so I should have it done in a day or two.
Is there a reason why the Scott Pilgrim game is $10 on PSN and $15 on XBL when it comes out 2 weeks later?
Much like Li_Akahi said, $15 is the new $10 when it comes to XBL games. That trend started back around when Braid released, gained momentum with the $15 Modern Warfare 2 map pack, and is now pretty much set in stone as the base price for most XBLA content. $10 is "impulse buy" range for me, $15 is "stop and think about it" territory. That's not to say I won't get the Scott Pilgrim game, but for other games that appear that don't appeal to me as much (e.g. most of what they've thrown out there for the Summer of Arcade this year) that $15 price point makes me think long and hard about whether or not I really want to pick it up.
Much like Li_Akahi said, $15 is the new $10 when it comes to XBL games. That trend started back around when Braid released, gained momentum with the $15 Modern Warfare 2 map pack, and is now pretty much set in stone as the base price for most XBLA content. $10 is "impulse buy" range for me, $15 is "stop and think about it" territory. That's not to say I won't get the Scott Pilgrim game, but for other games that appear that don't appeal to me as much (e.g. most of what they've thrown out there for the Summer of Arcade this year) that $15 price point makes me think long and hard about whether or not I really want to pick it up.
Wait, did I pay $10 or $15 for that Castlevania game? Why can't they just list prices in dollars? Why can't they at least do what Wii does and have a nice round number to convert dollars to points?
Microsoft uses the point scheme to make people think that they are spending less money than they are. When you buy the XBux in the store, most people buy the 1600 point card for $20. So that means that 800 points is worth $10. Scott, you paid 1200 points for Castlevania HD, so I was $15.
But now that the game is $15 instead of $10, I might ask some of the people who want to play it with me to chip in a few dollars to go towards the point card.
It's also so that you end up with odd numbers of points remaining after buying things, which you either don't spend (which they make money on since you already paid for them,) or you spend on rather frivolous things like avatars.
It's also so that you end up with odd numbers of points remaining after buying things, which you either don't spend (which they make money on since you already paid for them,) or you spend on rather frivolous things like avatars.
Or you can do what I'm doing and save those points towards another purchase. I have 400 points left over from my last card, so when I get Scott Pilgrim I will have another 400 left, so Earthworm Jim HD will be mine.
It's also so that you end up with odd numbers of points remaining after buying things, which you either don't spend (which they make money on since you already paid for them,) or you spend on rather frivolous things like avatars.
Or you can do what I'm doing and save those points towards another purchase. I have 400 points left over from my last card, so when I get Scott Pilgrim I will have another 400 left, so Earthworm Jim HD will be mine.
Is the multiplayer relegated to being in the same room in order to play with someone or not?
Comments
e: I totally fall into the whole John Gabriel's blah blah internet thing sometimes.
@Nukerjsr: Yeah, now I understand why you feel how you feel about those characters. I guess for me I saw bits and pieces of people I knew (and liked) in the characters in Scott Pilgrim, so I liked them.
I should also add I am a big fan of Márquez, so I am sorry if my use of the term "magical realism" was inaccurate, but I was using it as a term that describes a certain mode of storytelling rather than a strict literary movement, much like people still use the term "noir" to describe a certain type of story, despite the fact that noir is also confined to a specific time period and region.
Magical realism is a very accurate description, and the above use was perfectly accurate. I've read enough of the stuff in two languages to know the difference quite well. Also, progSHELL is quite wrong. When studying Magical Realism in the Latin American and Spanish traditions, we're explicitly taught that the fantastic elements serve two purposes: they both actually happen, and are also symbolic of some deeper underlying truth. The author makes not attempt to hint at the credibility or lack thereof. Everything else is irrelevant. When I started studying Spanish Lit, the definition I was taught was that it is a genre that uses fantastic or impossible elements to express deeper ideas. No more, no less. Even SP's heavy use of meta elements are in line with how magical realism works.
Take the Wiki definition: "a kind of modern fiction in which fabulous and fantastical events are included in a narrative that otherwise maintains the 'reliable' tone of objective realistic report, designating a tendency of the modern novel to reach beyond the confines of realism and draw upon the energies of fable, folk tale, and myth while maintaining a strong contemporary social relevance. The fantastic attributes given to characters in such novels — levitation, flight, telepathy, telekinesis — are among the means that magic realism adopts in order to encompass the often phantasmagorical political realities of the 20th century." Scott Pilgrim is just that, but with the realities of love and growing up instead of politics.
And that's why I love it.
She would have totally made an awesome Katara, imo, if they ever did a live action movie of A:TLA.
Maybe we're better off.
Perhaps John Woo can direct.
That being said, having never read the comics, this game has virtually zero plot. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's meant to be an old school arcade beat-em-up, which it does extremely well. But, still, it would've been nice to at least have maybe a few small cutscenes beyond still pictures of Scott and Ramona making out. I also have a bit of an issue with the controls. They seem to be kinda laggy, especially when it comes to movement and trying to dash around. I'm getting used to it, and it does get a lot better once your character is upgraded a bit, but it just can't really get that same flow to combat that more modern games have. Just my opinion. Design-wise, the game is brilliant, and the game does a lot to help people who suck (like myself) power through the game, so I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I played it for about two hours and got through the first 3 (of 7, duh) levels, so I should have it done in a day or two.
But now that the game is $15 instead of $10, I might ask some of the people who want to play it with me to chip in a few dollars to go towards the point card.