I was hoping the DLC story wasn't with Silverhand

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderator: Please, keep discussions friendly, respectful, and topical. There's no need for personal skirmishes. Thank you.
 
First of all, I won't be getting on that quote train with you. You're taking that ride on your own, so if I miss anything... then you need to simplify.
Well, if it makes it easier I'll just quote this part of your post. Apologies if quoting individual portions of your posts was getting in the way.

It's fair to say it's not as ambiguous as it would be if we were just going off the words being tossed around. I agreed with this point in my post. The writer sets boundries to remove the ambiguity. Certain interpretations of these ambiguous concepts are set and defined for the story.

Yeah, the story has a who. Saying it isn't about the characters is probably a poor phrasing. My comment was questioning which parts are assigned the most importance. There are no heroes in this story, it's all futile, the character is out for their own self-interests, there is no saving the world, the character has to end up completely screwed, the list goes on. Run that list far enough and the characters begin to appear.... less important. "This is Cyberpunk" can overshadow them.

At this point we reach Interactive video game for another round. I do not think all of these boundries fit the medium. Interactive RPG's fundamentally boil down to character expression. Pick an area, any area. They all serve the same purpose. You assume a role and behave as this role would, based on how it's defined (either by the game or player).

Once those boundries begin to pile on the room for this expression diminishes. Obviously, any well crafted story will have boundries. The nature of the setting, what is or isn't feasibly possible in the world, the plot, etc. Regardless, when the list grows too large it can become oppressive. Frankly, it drove me up a wall.

Let's assume you're understanding of writing is superior (looks like it and I am not ashamed to admit it) and the story was about Johnny. I could get past it. I wouldn't care. So long as it was an interesting story. I couldn't get past it's oppressive nature. That part is ultimately why it didn't sit well.
 
Robocop is considered as a cyberpunk movie and there are enough articles explaining why.
[...]

Learning the difference between good and bad sources is a rudimentary function of critical faculty. Robocop is primarily satire but its core themes are entirely western - sci-fi hybrid. The very fact that it has a defined hero and defined villain makes it, at the very least, not cyberpunk, and any 'articles' alluding otherwise are wrong.

The western part is rarely discussed or understood, but many of the core themes are there. Robocop’s Detroit is an urban Wild West, where innocents are oppressed by corruption in high and low places. Robocop is the law-abiding gun-slinger, Lewis his faithful partner. The final showdown between the resurrected Murphy and his killers evokes western classics like High Noon, where both a community’s welfare and a man’s soul are at stake.

And then there's the stylisation, which is often less important but helps highlight what a genre is intended to be. Just look at how he draws and flourishes his gun, what kind of gun it is, and where he holsters it. Listen to the music that I linked - it is western to the core. Finally, and most importantly, Neumeier, the creator, set out to write it precisely to evoke western themes. It is INTENDED as a western and the story plays out as a western. And if you go to film school of any kind, a conversation about westerns being the origin of pretty much all genres will inevitably come up, probably early in the course, using Robocop as a reference, and if not Robocop, then maybe Firefly or something else that hybridises various genres with western themes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You say this as if you couldn't possibly be wrong, and frankly, I hate that. People unwilling to depart from their preconceived notions and consider alternatives to what they believe are inflexible and you would be right that at this point, we can simply stop discussing it, but not for your reasons, but because you're not worth having a conversation with if you aren't willing to bend on what you think you know.

The fact is, you brought it up, and have yet to justify it as a cyberpunk narrative. You just asserted that it is one as if it is self-evident. Meanwhile, I have challenged your implied proposition that it is and... what, we can just stop discussing it? I've explained precisely why you're wrong, and in no uncertain terms, about it being cyberpunk. If you have an alternative understanding then instead of getting mad, perhaps just try explaining why you think you're right.

The story does, indeed, satisfy a few of the themes of cyberpunk, especially the theme of what technology might do to us rather than, as sci fi usually presents, what it might do for us. However, there is a very clear hero and villain in The Matrix, which is where it loses any resemblance to a true cyberpunk narrative.

What you could call it is post-cyberpunk, because it envisions a future that has gone beyond the cyberpunk world where the man v machine /technology dichotomy, a central theme of cyberpunk, has been completely subverted. But as long as the overarching narrative is represented by a hero's journey, ie Neo, then it is not cyberpunk.

But sure, we can stop discussing it. Genre definition is quite off the rails for this particular thread anyway, but in future, if you're not willing to have a discussion about a topic because being told you're wrong about it might upset you, then don't bring it up.

What I'm doing here is attempting to avoid getting into an argument based on the fact that the two of us flat out are disagreeing on the premise of our point. It's not meant to be an insult to you or your passion of cyberpunk but I also feel like it would be insulting your intelligence that I attempt to go into the deep discussion of the subject to tell you, "No, I think your definition of cyberpunk is objectively wrong because it is needlessly limiting and restricts the genre from being able to evolve and grow. The Wachowski Sisters were obviously inspired by the cyberpunk genre, its anti-authoritarian nature, the aethstetic and style, as well as its roots in works like Grant Morrison's punk The Invisibles before expanding it to include more philosophical as well as spiritiual gnosticism." It GREW the genre from its nihilistic noir roots and is now a foundational principle of a new movement in the cyberpunk library.

Just like Tolkien took fantasy and made its permanent stamp on it but George R.R. Martin has now created his own variant.

Cyberpunk to be a living work must have great variety that can come to dramatically different conclusions about what constitutes its makeup.

And telling you, "No, you're wrong that it is cyberpunk" seems like its dismissive and insulting when it is a matter of very different definitions. A genre should be open, fluid, and growing to me.

But I don't think you believing that cyberpunk should be closed and restricted to certain ideas is WRONG, though, because it's your definition of cyberpunk.

But mine is different so we're not discussing the same subject.

[...]

Learning the difference between good and bad sources is a rudimentary function of critical faculty. Robocop is primarily satire but its core themes are entirely western - sci-fi hybrid. The very fact that it has a defined hero and defined villain makes it, at the very least, not cyberpunk, and any 'articles' alluding otherwise are wrong.

Basically, this exact reason.

You have dismissed one of the seminal dystopian scifi movies about corporate overreach, misuse of technology, near future abuses of power, and an inspiration for Cyberpunk 2020 because it doens't fit your definition of cyberpunk. The fact it is considered a foundational work of the genre to many and is one of the most famous examples of the genre known to the public doesn't enter into your equation because you have decided that "cyberpunk is this and only this."

It's wrong for me to tell you you are incorrect but I absolutely feel that you arguing with me about why Robocop and The Matrix aren't cyberpunk isn't going to benefit anyone.
 
Last edited:
...because it doens't fit your definition of cyberpunk.

Woah, okay, let me stop you right there.

I'm not applying my definition of cyberpunk.

I'm applying THE definition of cyberpunk.

As I've stated previously, it is not an ambiguously defined genre. Nor is it a subjectively defined one. Robocop isn't cyberpunk in the same way that water isn't fire. What defines a narrative genre is not something that depends on personal/subjective interpretation, and I'm not presenting matters of opinion, but matters of academic fact. Because genre is an academic topic. When you talk about cyberpunk, or sci-fi, or westerns, you are discussing categories established by academia in the same way that talking about apendectomies and coronary bypasses would be discussing topics of medical authority. Fiction genres are not subjective ideas, they are objectively defined categories within which items of fictional narration can be categorised by scholars and, conveniently, by audiences.
 
I'm not applying my definition of cyberpunk.

I'm applying THE definition of cyberpunk.

As I've stated previously, it is not an ambiguously defined genre. Nor is it a subjectively defined one. Robocop isn't cyberpunk in the same way that water isn't fire. What defines a narrative genre is not something that depends on personal/subjective interpretation.

This is where we're running right into it because, of course, you have stated not only is it THE definition of cyberpunk but anyone who argues with it is wrong.

DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF CYBERPUNK:

1. A genre of science fiction set in a lawless subculture of an oppressive society dominated by computer technology.

Which absolutely fits Robocop.

And the Matrix.

And frigging Ready Player One for that matter, even if it's the worst example of the genre.

But it's the fact you're attempting to appeal to authority when there is no authority as genres are words defined by the public's use of them. Also, you can argue with that but I have my Masters in Literature and if someone is telling me that Martin isn't fantasy because fantasy is defined as this thing, the obvious question is "defined by who?"

Who exactly set out the definition of cyberpunk that it can't fall into and let's ask if Robocop qualifies.

Edit:

The irony being this exact argument was the one I wanted to avoid.
 
Last edited:
removed
Post automatically merged:

This is where we're running right into it because, of course, you have stated not only is it THE definition of cyberpunk but anyone who argues with it is wrong.

DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF CYBERPUNK:

1. A genre of science fiction set in a lawless subculture of an oppressive society dominated by computer technology.

Which absolutely fucking fits Robocop.
First of all, dictionaries are references, nor sources.

Secondly, dictionary definitions oversimplify everything.

Thirdly, whatever dictionary you got that from is wrong. Yes, dictionaries can be wrong. Especially American ones.

The definitions of fiction genres are established by academic study and consensus, not the dictionary. There are still dictionaries that define marriage as 'between a man and a woman'. Are we to accept that just because the dictionary says so?

And yes, the definition of cyberpunk is academically established well enough that anyone who argues with it is, in fact, wrong, until they prove otherwise. That's how academics work. And you don't prove otherwise using circular logic like 'the dictionary says so'. That dictionary definition you just provided actually also makes Star Wars a cyberpunk story, as well as a whole host of science fiction that quite simply is not cyberpunk.

Again, your desperate attempt to cling to preconceived notions, your desperate need for Robocop to be cyberpunk even when it's demonstrated to be untrue, is on you. You could be learning something here. Instead, you've chosen to get reactionary and start hurling vitriol at me.

Fun fact: when you're wrong about something, you have two choices. Learn from it, or continue being wrong and throw a tantrum. Which do you think is the mature thing to do? I, for one, wash my hands of it. If you're going to start hurling this kind of infantile petulism at me, then we're done.
 
Last edited:
First of all, dictionaries are references, nor sources.

Secondly, dictionary definitions oversimplify everything.

Thirdly, whatever dictionary you got that from is wrong. Yes, dictionaries can be wrong. Especially American ones.

The definitions of fiction genres are established by academic study and consensus, not the dictionary. There are still dictionaries that define marriage as 'between a man and a woman'. Are we to accept that just because the dictionary says so?

So the dictionary is wrong, the internet is wrong, and we're wrong.

But you are right.

You know, absolutely, 100%, go for it. Your definition of cyberpunk is correct.

Everyone else is misusing the word.

This is not me being sarcastic. Your definition of cyberpunk is different than the one being used out here and thus, yes, 100% not what other people are discussing. Which I said earlier and why I think I should have stopped at the Matrix example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom