"When you see something in a game...

No. Games are a consumer product and should be judged for what they provide to the consumer and not on the intent of the creators. Unintended things have had significant impact on games for better or for worse.

Depends on the medium. For games and movies, which have a lot of moving parts, this is definitely applicable. Books usually go through plenty of revisions before being published so this doesn't apply as much for them.
death of the authorfags are subhuman and use the concept to wank off about their own ideas and insert shit into their idea of the thing being analysed that don't even apply

>that don't even apply
ayy lmao

In terms of subjective enjoyment, sure; however for proper analysis one must see accept everything as part of the whole.

So when your horse walks up a 90 degree angle in Skyrim it’s intended? That all horses in the realm are herculean gods?

It's a fine line. Death of the author can go too far. There was a parody webcomic where some shitty journalist played Super Mario Bros. and gets killed by the first goomba in the game. He then writes an article titled "To Jump Or Not To Jump," insinuating that that specific moment in SMB has a lot of depth to it. If death of the author ever has to go as far as that parody webcomic, then yeah, it's a load of shit. Otherwise there's lots of wiggle room.

Death of the Author is best used to see how the story effects the reader/watcher/player, but if you're trying to figure out what's actually happening inside the story, then you need to look at it from the author's point of view.

lol fuck no, why would I give a shit of bunnyhoppimg is deliberate? it enriches my experience. anyone who cares about authorial intent is a fucking bootlicker and should be disregarded utterly

>rather than speculating about what it means for the world or the story or anything like that
I don't think he's talking about bunnyhopping, user, he's talking about story shit.

what does it matter whether it's intentional or not?
If it works, it works.
If it doesn't seem like it works, maybe it doesn't, or maybe you don't get it.

Overanalyzing and dumb interpretations happen either way, its normal for humans. Except people will insist that the author intended that shit and glorify them as brilliant minds instead of acknowledging that it might just be an unintended consequence.

nothing is 'actually happening' inside a story, the only thing that matters is what you can draw from the text. if the author wants you to come away with a specific understanding, then he needs to carefully craft his narrative to make that theme readily apparent and minimize chances to interpret the text in other ways

Not sure how you go from the idea that the intent of the devs should be considered when discussing or analysing a game to glitches or exploits should not be used under any circumstances because they are unintended.
Bunnyhopping is a good example to look at when thinking of authorial intent and its effects on games: the devs made a mistake and then incorporated such a "mistake" into later titles because it had a positive effect on the game (even if Quake 1 bunnyhopping is fairly different than quake 2 or 3's incarnation)

Attached: 1515881883678.png (865x526, 65K)

What a shit thread.

Attached: 1517805094335.png (500x500, 26K)

even if you cite death of the author, you still have to back your interpretation with specific examples, in fact it's even more important to do so because you can't appeal to authority to back your interpretation

>making broad sweeping generalizations about an entire entertainment medium

no I'm saying that developer intent should never be considered for any reason whatsoever, why the fuck would I care what they wanted me to feel or think about anything, it's my game and I'll understand it however I want

>you still have to back your interpretation with specific examples
Well...yeah. Doesn't that go without saying? Nobody should ever listen to a claim if its reasoning is shit, or if they have no reasoning at all.

It's retarded to sit around with your thumb up your ass and wonder about if shit was "intended" or not. It's unbridled autism.
Not true. The point of author death is to infer meaning from the unintended. Shit souls was literally a death-of-the-author wet dream by the admission of the author himself because he couldn't read English well. The autist completely missed the point.

you would think, but given how often I see retards misinterpret doa as meaning anything you can say about media is valid, it's clearly not

The Undead Merchant petting an invisible cat.

It should go without saying, but any time death of the author comes up people who seem almost hysterically opposed to it make up absurd examples of mundane things being interpreted fantastically for no reason.

Suprise suprise, someone who just plainly states "Death of the author." as if its the only way to understand art is a pompous, condescending idiot. Color me fucking shocked.

I think both kind of questions are equally important and warranted when the other one doesn't fit with you. For example, if you really enjoy a game in a way that is contrary to the devs intent, then the devs intent is not that important. At the same time, if you're not enjoying yourself, then it might be worthwhile to try to understand the devs intent in case you misinterpreted how the game is supposed to work and maybe then there's an opportunity for you to enjoy yourself in the end.

But above all, you should always do your research on a game first to make sure you're even into its concept in the first place. Else it would be like buying Payday and complaining that it's not like Monopoly.

>Books usually go through plenty of revisions before being published
That's not even remotely true.

the context of the quote isn't about utilizing unintended features of a game to make it more fun, more difficult, easier, etc., it's about analysing an aspect of the game and determining if such a thing is the result of cut time, user error, or to what extent it was fully realized by the developer.
It's autistic to discuss video games period, yet here you are on a board dedicated to such a topic.

Preaching to the choir, man.

No because I don't play games from some meta perspective, that's retarded.

Depends on the context of your analysis.

>It's retarded to sit around with your thumb up your ass and wonder about if shit was "intended" or not. It's unbridled autism.
That really depends on what you're analyzing and how you're analyzing it. For example, it's perfectly reasonable to consider whether something is intended if you're trying to figure out what the author was trying to do and whether or not they were successful in that endeavor.

All intent really does is determine how much credit/blame the creator gets for whatever they did. Intent may get you to weasel out of making bad decision under the veil of ignorance but ultimately a good thing is a good and a bad thing is a bad thing.
I think the better question to ask is what does it mean IF something was intentional?

Attached: 1537212910600.png (413x500, 310K)

I seriously hope none of you actually take these e-celebs seriously

The generalization is more centered around how games are made, which more than likely doesn't vary between game companies. There's always going to be cut content, and content appropriated from its original use. Using the Undead Merchant as an example, he may have had a sword or a cat or something placed where he was petting in an earlier build of the game, but the developers thought that him picking up the sword to fight you would be too hard to implement, or that the cat would confuse players when they reach Darkroot Garden and encountered Alvina, or any number of scenarios that might have happened. Matt goes on to say that the developers know they can get away with some things like that because of the vague nature of the story, so the petting animation might have been left in to let players build their own stories in their head about what the Undead Merchant is doing and why.

>Depends on the medium
>"When you see something in a game..."

Retard ahead or Could this be a based?

This is literally the opposite of that where all interpretation must come grinding to a halt so autists can pine over questions literally intended to be up to interpretation

It applies here when retarded autists like MM want to put everything on hold to discuss shit purposely left open.

We're in agreement.

SPAM MITOSIS
my.mixtape.moe/hbxlwb.webm
my.mixtape.moe/xggiqw.webm
my.mixtape.moe/fmirst.webm
my.mixtape.moe/mskgzx.webm
my.mixtape.moe/fkawtc.webm
my.mixtape.moe/iscogi.webm
my.mixtape.moe/pacqxc.webm
my.mixtape.moe/packet.webm
my.mixtape.moe/ljqbsi.webm
SPAM MITOSIS

Attached: 1486547165658.gif (300x262, 1.84M)

>Matthew "No one called those damn darkies Niggers and I didn't see any lynchings" Matosis

I'm talking about the example of Dark Souls where literally nothing has been confirmed. In this case it is pointless.

If the author straight out says the curtain is blue because it's blue should Death of the Author apply?

Yeah, see Quentin Tarantino insisting that his movies have no meaning for years then sitting down and actually discussing it proper and acknowledging that meaning emerges naturally from the types of characters and interactions he writes.

I miss MrBtongue

it doesn't really matter unless you need a way to validate your interpretation of something but it can still be interesting to know if the creator intended for it to be significant in some way

death of the author should always apply, because the authorial intent should be properly expressed and noticeable through their work. if it isn't, it means they're a shitty writer.

Are we talking about games or narratives in general? When I see something in a game I don’t immediately start analyzing what this means in the world I start thinking how am I meant to interact with this shit.

pretty sure he is talking about objects in games not necessarily the written narrative, like seeing a dead body in barrel and wondering how it got there and why