I've never played Mass Effects since I'm not a big fan of shooters, but I know what you mean when any type of media seems to trump whatever you had in mind. I know the feeling all too well, but I usually think to myself, "Well, at least I have my personality". That and the fact that I make my story unique for many different reasons. In the end, it's not about what the other guy is doing but what you are doing.
Seriously, you sound like one of those guys who discredited television when it first appeared. You remember that don't you? Next you'll be telling us how you don't own a TV.
I am writing a short screenplay, and after I reviewed other people's screenplays, I felt slammed on when the writer wrote better than the one I am currently writting, so I think about writing what I learned from the writer whenever I start on my next screenplay. Sometimes, reviewing and reading gives me an idea of what to write next.
No, everybody needs to start somewhere then develop from there. That doesn't happen overnight or out of thin air. It takes work and a good amount of just plain stubbornness to get where you want to be. I'm not competing with other writer's, just myself.
Considering that television made its first public appearance in the late '30s, no. But I remember when most of the people I knew had sets that were B&W (including ours). I watched voraciously as a child. Mostly, I remember a few really good programs and some incredible events - the only time I ever actually saw someone getting shot (Oswald - my father immediately turned to me after the shot and said, "That was a .38"; to this day, I don't know how he knew); the Apollo mission that orbited the moon for the first time, and read from the Book of Genesis; mayhem in the streets of Chicago while we wondered if our experiment in democratic government was coming apart. But as time went on, I found most of what was on television to be boring pap - there were far better pleasures to be had in reading, listening, probing. As an adult, I find that where news used to be reported, it is now commented upon (endlessly); where dramatic shows used to feature quality writing and acting, cameras now follow boors around recording them make fools of themselves. And so I pay little attention to it, other than sporting events, films or concerts that I still enjoy. And I recall the warnings of Edward R. Murrow, who helped MAKE early TV in the US, when he said, "...but if all this (television) can do is to entertain and divert, then it is just lights and wires in a box, and we are lost." Tell you what...you go play a game, I'll do some of what I like to do, and we'll leave it like that.
A good movie or book inspires me. I think of what scenes I liked and why and what I might have done differently sometimes. For really good stories I leave with more motivation then I started with. Though it can feel a little daunting at times, but more of the 'what if I never finish.' In the end I write stories I would like and I can only hope there are others like me out there.
That's nothing to be proud of and I truly pity you. Can we start a fundraiser for you? You are missing out on some excellent writing. There are some fantastic stories being told through television. To discredit television would be foolish just as it would be to discredit other mediums such as video games.
A really good, well written movie makes me want to write - everytime I re-watch The Weatherman I want to write a screenplay, but sometimes when I'm reading crime novels about forensics and boiling bones and technical thing-a-ma-gigs I just think I'm too stupid and should probably throw my computer away. But then I realise I couldn't watch cats doing funny things on youtube anymore, so I don't. Its probably not a good idea to let others influence you into thinking you can't do something. I can't imagine successfull authors do that.
I don't lose confidence but I do often think, what's the point? Why read my nonsense when you could be reading Johnson or Dickens or Chekhov? Indeed, I would sooner people read Johnson than my own work. My unique perspective? Give me a break! It matters not how you measure up to the masters but that you do your best and that the work reflects you and your best efforts? The sort of idea that should inform one's politics and one's social conduct but not something that I've ever instinctively felt applies to my own efforts. A road that leads to rust and silence. Super.
You've clearly not played the better games then. Sure. Not all games are shining examples of art, most aren't, but there are some really really good games out there that focus on story and character. Silent Hill 2, for example, has a tragic and complex character and story which deals with the issue of euthanasia and the limits of human love and compassion. And since the entire game is the character's deepest psyche, you can be fairly certain that the protagonist is as complex as most characters in literature. Another interesting thing about Silent Hill 2 is that almost the entire story is drenched in symbolism and psychological metaphor. Bioshock too has a great story and back story dealing with Aristotelian political philosophy and critiquing Objectivism by presenting a form of 'Galt's Gulch' and pushing it to it's uttermost extreme. The characters in Bioshock can be a little token at times, yeah, but it's a noted flaw in an otherwise extremely good game and story. Some writers have done far worse. I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing this bias against video games because it's increasingly becoming inaccurate. How about if someone were to judge all literature by The Da Vinci Code? If you don't like games personally then fine, a lot of people don't.
Why would I want to go to the trouble of mounting a new game's learning curve in order to experience a critique of Objectivism? William F. Buckley did an excellent job of that back in the mid-1960s (not to mention that my own critique was formed when I read "Atlas Shrugged"). When I want to engage new ideas or challenge old ones, I prefer to do it directly. Burying it in a game smacks a little of the "spoonful of sugar" philosophy. Nice idea to get someone to think about the kind of selfishmess embodied in "who is John Galt?" who might never otherwise give it a thought, but it isn't the way I typically engage complex ideas or debates. There are a number of computer games that I thoroughly enjoy (I will confess to a compulsive delight in Football Manager) but at the end of the day, no matter what computer game you are playing, it is within a world created by a programmer and your existence in that world begins and ends with the programmers' conception of what that world should be. I don't consider this to be any kind of bias, it's just the way it is. When I sit down to write, I am not limited by technology or someone else's predetermination of reality - the sky is literally the limit. And that is why I do not see myself as drawing any kind of inspiration from a game, and certainly would never lose confidence in my writing because of one. And that was the question posed by the OP.
Don't compare yourself, instead try to learn from masterpieces. Be glad there are such good teachers available.
Okay, this is off-topic now, but I feel I need to prove that games can have writing equal to a movie. This is from Mass Effect 2- a game which allows you to steer the story and your interactions with characters. The reason there's so much reference to "hugging" is because one option for this scene is to hug Tali, the Quarrian character. Among Talimancers, it's widely regarded as evil not to hug her during this scene, in fact.
Ugh, I don't even have a work to compare great books to, and I already feel lazy. I feel like I will never be a good writer -- not good enough to write good books. And it's difficult not to feel lazy when I am always reading and feeling like I will never have a good idea.
It may not seem like much comfort, but the people I know who are most critical of themselves and have the least faith in their ideas, often have the greatest skill. I'm not sure why. Maybe they simply hold themselves to high standards. Just don't give up. Sooner or later, if you want it badly enough and try long enough, you'll have great ideas and opportunities to succeed. I won't promise that you'll invariably be great some day, but perseverance is the first step, and that you're critical of your own writing speaks well of you.
That's me in a nut shell... I do write a lot -- 2,000 words per day, for four months now -- but I never feel satisfied with what I write D: It always come around as silly to me. And so my ideas. One day I will get there.
Oh well, I doubt we're going to reach a concensus here. You're of course entitled to your opinion. Time to shift back to topic, I think. (Just wait, the topic will die now. It always seems to after I say "time to shift back to topic.")
Six Feet Under is one of my favorite television shows of all time. Those characters were amazing! It motivates me. I love seeing work that inspires me and challenges me. Just remember that everyone starts writing the same way......staring at a blank page. I see great work and think "I want to be able to write like that!"
In BioShock the critique of objectivity isn't 'buried in the game'. It is the game. It's the main focus because of it being very story-driven. And this theme is reinforced through images in the game. You literally can't miss it. If it's not the way you like to discover new ideas or concepts then fine, you can't like and do everything, but to say as you did that 'there is absolutely nothing of particular value that I could see coming from it, either as material to consume or to inspire me to produce' just strikes me as casually glossing over the merits an entire artistic medium because of personal opinion. Now I'll admit most games are not great, not even very good, but the good ones are worth keeping in mind. And yes. Games are a visual medium. So what? So are films and yet you have no problem with those. Personally I don't judge a game by it's graphics, but it's story and what (if anything) it is trying to do and say. If I wanted a picture to make me think I'd go to an art exhibit. Surely the main thing for a writer is to input a message into their writing, and good story, which is what most good games give. And images? Seriously? Have you read Moll Flanders? Sure in some books images are elaborated on and very precise, and that's all very well and good. In things like Dante's Comedy they need to be because the message and images are interwoven. In this case I just need to point to Silent Hill 2 as an example of a game whose story is based around images and symbols rather than actions and plot. Subjectivity in images in books only goes so far because everyone is imagining essentially the same thing on their head with minor variations. Unless you imagine the section where Stephen Deadilus teaches children in Ulyesses happening on a tropical beach. Another thing in the video games favor is accessibility, because of popularity. I know more people who have heard of, and then read Ayn Rand because of BioShock than because of Buckley. Now, if you personally don't see the merits of story telling in video games then that's fine. I'm not going to argue against personal opinion and tastes. I really have to object to people saying games are not as relevant for story and message than other forms of medium, because it's increasingly not true.
