>That is an interesting video. On the one hand, it is
>interesting that enjoyment value might be higher for those who
>have a plot spoiled; on the other, there is something to be
>said for authorial intent.

First, I want to tackle the premise of authorial intent. Specifically that it matters, kind of at all. Let's look at some real life examples.

Neon Genesis Evangelion is considered by many people to be a great work of anime. And has had a profound impact on peoples lives. The author's intent was not to create something like this, in fact he derides people for finding meaning where he intended to create none. It's a fascinating phenomenon that is worth brushing up on, if you aren't already familiar.

Another example is (and I'm failing at my google fu to find it) a couple of people created a book of poetry that was... word salad. The specific intent was to show how silly poetry was as a genre, and yet the book got some favorable reviews, even after it was known it was created specifically to subvert the process. The art they created was experienced in a way beyond their intent.

There are plenty of examples of unintentional art, which if we care about authorial intent, can't be art kind of at all. I'm not saying that authorial intent is merit less, but it is hardly sacrosanct.


>The other day I finally watched
>Gone Girl, having zero idea what the movie was about.
>My enjoyment of that movie was based on not knowing what was
>going to happen; I don't think having it spoiled would have
>made that a better experience. Maybe the general populace is
>just to lazy or impatient to enjoy quality story telling. :p

The video specifically talks about unspoiled media still having value. Your experience is anecdotal, but I've had the same. I watched the movie Crank in the theaters with my wife. That movie is not, by any stretch, a great film, but a combination of factors (including us having basically no idea what we were in for) resulted in a great experience. We actually own the movie because it allows us to recall and to some extent relive that experience. If we had been more informed, we probably don't have that same experience. However, people watch bad movies they know are bad going in and have great experiences. It isn't always about what is on the screen.

The general populace being lazy or impatient is a dangerous line of thinking, and is really unfair to people who enjoy things differently from yourself by implying their experience is somehow less that yours.


>That said, movies involve a passive audience. As an extreme
>example, would it be fun to solve a puzzle with spoilers?
>Like, if you saw the answers to a crossword puzzle before you
>started it, would that actually be an entertaining experience?

Yes. It is both possible and something people do regularly. You can enjoy and appreciate the subtleties of a puzzle without actually solving it yourself. A jigsaw puzzle is a perfect example of this, in that you (almost?) always know exactly what the end result will be. The picture is spoiled from the start... In fact it is usually right there on the box, but the mental exercise of putting it together is the enjoyment, not the "solution".

I, as an anecdote, have very little enjoyment for crosswords, but I do sometimes like to look at the answers and enjoy the understanding of how they crafted the clue. I experienced that, somewhat, with your 6th age crossword, despite having zero success in doing it myself.


>This may just be a culture shift. Those of us who started with
>tabletop gaming didn't have walkthroughs to consult before
>entering a dungeon, so much of the magic of gaming involved
>exploration without helps.

This, couple with the earlier comment about general populace being lazy, is, I think, harmful and a form of gatekeeping that is unfair and frankly offensive. It's also probably a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. No true gamer would play with a walkthrough. The only valid way to experience the real magic of gaming is to explore without any help. That's crap. To say it was done that way back in the day is also only as true as those things weren't generally as available. You can't get a walkthrough for Zork off the internet in 1990 because the internet basically don't exist. Does that mean anyone enjoying Zork today while using a walkthrough is having an invalid experience? Can they not enjoy the game in a different way that those of us who completely bumbled through and spent hours and hours mashing random keys hoping for a different result?

Old games, generally, increased difficulty to artificially increase the time investment and give people either more bang for their buck, or to get people to continue to pump in quarters, but that isn't a good design, at least if the goal isn't purely to suck as much time/money from players as possible for minimal game design investment. If instead, you want people to enjoy playing, be engaged with the game, and get other people excited and engaged, you can no longer force this kind of play on people. There are other games in town.

Finally, the kind of person that really gets into crawling through a game to find every easter egg and hidden bit of content can still enjoy that play, even if walthroughs are available, or the content has been spoiled elsewhere. They can simple choose not to spoil it for themselves, in much the same way the dude who made the video made it to 2017 without spoiling The Usual Suspects for themselves.