What is the Ulysses of video games? That is to say, a game that is:
>overly pretentious
>plot so ""deep"" only a liar would claim to understand it
>praised by pseudo-intellectuals as the greatest work of fiction ever made
>seen by intellectuals as thoroughly mediocre
>horrible pacing
>unlikable protagonist
>epic meta "humor"
You knew this was an MGS2 thread before you even started it.
The first third of Ulysses is legit.
Morrowind
Deus Ex
>>overly pretentious
>>plot so ""deep"" only a liar would claim to understand it
>>praised by pseudo-intellectuals as the greatest work of fiction ever made
>>seen by intellectuals as thoroughly mediocre
>>horrible pacing
>>unlikable protagonist
>>epic meta "humor"
you're thinking of finnegans wake, user
Oh, god, don't even pretend people on this board have actually read the book, you pathetic shitface.
read Ulysses again when you aren't fourteen OP
I tried to read it in high school when I was in my autistic "While you were chasing girls I was studying the blade" phase. Even back then I knew it was fucking garbage.
I don't think there is one. At least not one that's remotely mainstream. Video games take too many people to make to get into the kind of 'so deep oneupsmanship' that authors can indulge in.
...
Don't blame pseuds for your own plebbiness. Ulysses isn't even close to difficult. Finnegans Wake is what you're thinking of, and that is still a great book from the two pages I've read of it.
So, I guess, Dwarf Fortress. Or Aurora.
>OMG user you're playing THAT GAME? It's so difficult hehe losing is fun losing is fun losing is fun carp elephants (I read this on reddit) xD
Fuck off
You really were autistic.
Fallout New Vegas, and not just because of that one guy's name is also Ulysses
> MGS2 is deep or complex
Hello my pleneian friend
C'mon, Finnegans Wake just shouldn't have been published. It was just an extremely elaborate meta-shitpost, to the degree that Joyce even forgot what the initial point of it was. It's not suitable for throughout reading, that would be like enjoying a BRAP pasta. You just skim through, mildly amused that someone took their time to write all this shit out.
Pathologic
Sure, user, everyone's as -- no, everyone SHOULD be as lazy as you.
>plot so ""deep"" only a liar would claim to understand it
You wot, mate? The "plot" is simple in Ulysses. I mean, there isn't really much plot.
What's difficult are references to existing and historical people/events/places and just comprehending what you read.
This. Then it just stops being fun.
But seriously, what is a game that's considered good, maybe even "art", perhaps with a good story/characters, but made in a way that makes enjoying it impossible and it's a chore to even play it?
Because that could be our Ulysses.
EYE
> he didn't read the novel that details one single event in the Iliyad (delivering Hector's corpse to Achillies) stretched over 230 pages.
undertale
I've read through it tho. I just think it's a fucking retarded, if fun, book. Not everyone has the same opinion as you.
sounds like a Yoko Taro game
Undertale.
Dark Souls is the first thing to come to mind. It even has that "overexaggerated reputation for normie-filtering while simultaneously being wildly popular" thing OP's yammering about.
And you are wrong to have that opinion, user ;)
Metal Gear Solid 3
Ulysses is good, and video games's Ulysses is Braid.
Pathologic is pure Russian classic literature.
>Opinions
>Wrong
Stop posting any day. Also, Any classic Russian lit>>European lit>>>>>Power gap>>"American" lit. You are bottom of the barrel, burgers, deal with it.
>talking about James Joyce
>swerves to shit-talk Americans
You can argue about opinions you dumb motherfucker. What do you even think this board -- this site -- is founded on? Or literary criticism, for that matter. Or a e s t h e t i c philosophy.
I'm not a burger and I don't disagree with your ranking.
back to sosach
James Joyce's letters to his wife are his greatest works. They're fucking incredible.
Pidorashques don't actually like Russian lit though
It's predominantly Western hipsters who do so
russians are literally subhumans. the usa is known for its writers. you can't take that away from us you fucking non white piece of shit
>I hope Nora will let off no end of her farts in my face so that I may know their smell also haha
monkey cocksuckers
Erry fucking time I fucking do this. It's a stupid fucking retardation where I genuinely somehow forget that Joyce was just Irish, not American Irish. Also, what's with Joyce shitposting on Sup Forums these last few days? Is it a grand new meem?
None of your writers are remotely as good as Dostoevsky. You can take Tolstoy, he's just about as much of a whiny pseudo-christian moralfag as you reatards like.
*sips decaf soy latte*
ahhh
/ourguy/
So, shitty hipster, you don't have an argument? Good to know. I hope your latte is filled with nigger semen.
Big surprise, people were disgusting fetishists even back then.
Did you read OP's post, dipshit?
Nier. All 6 of them.
> reads slavshit trash
> calls others hipsters
lol
Yes. Did you?
>Pathologic
>a game that's considered good, maybe even "art", perhaps with a good story/characters, but made in a way that makes enjoying it impossible and it's a chore to even play it
Hmm.
Even old Drakengards and Nier 1 don't have gameplay bad enough.
>Dark Souls
People play it mainly for gameplay though. And a lot of normies like it.
That could be right, but Braid has a fun gameplay.
>Any classic Russian lit>>European lit>>>>>Power gap>>"American" lit.
>Any
Some.
>the usa is known for its writers
Europe.
What about Nabokov? I wouldn't call him a moralfag.
Also, you're both retarded, if you can only enjoy one country's/continent's literature.
no, there's nothing of value in that series.
Lol tolstoy is better than dostoevsky
>Even old Drakengards don't have gameplay bad enough.
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew
Taro games
>People play it mainly for gameplay though.
Fuck no. Vaati made his career off the sodeep lore.
>And a lot of normies like it.
Exactly.
You wouldn't call Nabokov a moralfag? He wasn't actually advocating for paedophilia you know.
>okay so first I'll make a 2d cardboard cutout of a character
>wait wait it needs to be "realistic"...
>I'll give it a neat little quirk that's *just so like us!* Haha, that old commander really enjoys shouting, haha.
>I'm a genius.
Tolstoi is a hack.
The Witcher 3 hits every mark, except maybe the meta factor.
At least I don't think I had as little fun playing them as I did reading the second half of Ulysses.
But normies don't like Ulysses. They just pretend they read it.
>has no idea what good literature is
>doesn't know Russia has top lit
>pretends to be knowledgeable on an anonymous imageboard
I doubt you're even American. In fact, I think you're a fellow shitposting slav.
Lolno. Enjoy your moralfaggotry instead of an epilogue for 150 pages.
Nabokov is as tight as delish lolita pussy, but his short form is seriously better than his novels. The guy was a revolutionary of writing form, but his thematic structure in bigger works is often lacking. Also, I enjoy all the literature I can get my hands on, I just think Americans overpraise their authors. Yes, guys, we know you had a lot of cool guys from 19th century onwards. Please, educate yourself about the rest of the world, we've got a lot of stuff too. It's something Americans often do with art, saying shit like "movies didn't get good before Welles and moviebrats made them good". This shit is enraging.
the plot isn't really pretentious or deep, and Geralt isn't particularly unlikable
What is the Ulysses of music, TV, cinema? Oh wait, comparing media is fucking stupid.
It was wildly popular when it came out. Plus, I'd bet a lot of the people who buy DS don't finish it.
>plot
user...
For me it's the McChicken
FW = Trout Mask Replica though
are you saying Witcher 3 doesn't have a plot? Because that's objectively false.
Last Year at Marienbad, if you want the "lolsodeep" comparison OP tried to make. Ulysses is actually pretty okay, it's just been overpraised by deranged literature critics.
that honestly would be A-ok by me, as long as it's not meta shit
it's ok to explore deeper themes but the moment you start going meta is when i stop supporting it, unless you were aiming at it from the start and it doesn't feel like an asspull (it's consistent throughout)
keep your shit contrived, if witcher 3 is like that then i might actually play it
not him and i havent played witcher 3, but maybe he's saying other elements of the narrative that's not the plot that hits the shit he's saying
You and that poster both seem to agree that MGS2 isn't deep, so why did you call him a "pleneian"?
You know nothing of true myth-fanfiction horror.
>what if those maids who slept with the suitors were all geniuses and literally perfect people and Odyssesus was EBIL
>what if I add an epilogue chapter taking place in a theoretical women's studies class and go to the effort to make up a grumbling man in the audience just so he can be laughed at and mocked to validate my own points more.
Geralt is extremely unlikable. He's just a shallow cunt with no development or personality beyond whichever arbitrary decision you make for him that lasts a whole one line of dialogue.
Also the plot goes full-blown time/reality hopping and space apocalypse in the final act. It's pretentious as fuck and thinks it's a Godsend for having 450,000 lines of absolute shit writing. It's pretentious because CDPR and that smug retard at the helm are pretentious.
OP:
>plot so ""deep"" only a liar would claim to understand it
MGS2 raises interesting questions but isn't complex at all, unless you consider Inception or Matrix to be deep too.
Russians are good, but even in the 19th century, their best, the english put out a better body of literature. The Russians devoured english novels, and both tolstoy and dostoevsky revered dickens. American lit rivaled russian lit in that century with hawthorne, melville, poe, emerson, thoreau, whitman, and twain. But in the twentieth century no country put out a better body of fiction than the americans. In addition to all the great modernists (fitzgerald, hemingway, faulkner, dos passos, gaddis) and postmodernists (pynchon, delillo, roth, barth, barthelme, coover) and others (updike, mccarthy, mailer, kerouac, burroughs), they also invented crime fiction (hammett, chandler, woolrich) and put out some of the best sci-fi. You cant list the best novelists after 1945 without naming a bunch of americans. They simply took the novel over. Poetry is another story.
I fucking hate Atwood so much reeeeeeeeeee
I'm not even a frothing anti-SJW she's just so shit.
It did get referenced by Pynchon.
>450,000 lines of absolute shit writing
See: most SFF
Can anyone giive me an example of an intelligent person who doesn't like Ulysses?
Just look at all the anons in this thread ;)
After some research I only found a reference to MGS1 and one character is a kojicuck.
What? Do you demand more from our glorious muse Tommy Pinecone? Disgusting...
Sup Forums - Classic Literature
Also, Pinecone is a fucking degenerate with no skill.
It's not pronounced Pinch-uhn?
It's a meme. I always say it as Pine-chown, because fuck it.
You're the kinda guy who pronounces Camus Cah-moo
Youre seriously dismissing tolstoy as "moralfaggotry" and lauding dostoevsky? Dostoevsky was the ultimate moralist. All his novels are about how the evil nihilist atheists are gonna destroy Russia because they have no morals. Its what crime and punishment is about - raskolnikov is an atheist who commits murder because he wanted to prove to himself he was a "great man" unlimited by conventional morality, and at the end hes reading the gospels in prison, headed for salvation. Tolstoy was way less of a dogmatic writer than dostoevsky. He became religious late in life and wrote some moral fables, but his great novels were written much earlier, and they are not moral tales. They simply capture life. Nothing escapes tolstoy. He noticed everything, every little gesture people made, every facial expression, every subtle feeling. Anna karenina is about everything: men, women, children, politics, birth, death, marriage, adultery, the city, the country. To read anna karenina and dismiss it as moralizing just because levin has a conversion experience at the end (a lame ending) misses the totality of tolstoy's work. Dostoevsky didnt have this sense of proportion, he was obsessive. Every novel hes railing against the new generation, the atheists who had no morals. And even in translation they read like they were written in haste because they always were. He was always gambling his money away and writing on deadlines to make it back. Tolstoy was a better writer, a better psychologist, had a broader view of life, and to get back to the whole reason i started writing this- way, way less of moralizer than freaking dostoevsky.
>Last Year at Marienbad
idk if they are rly that similar
That lesbian investigation game.
nwn2 motb
Nier: Automata