|
Optimus Subprime posted:I have absolutely no problem with a person not finding South Park or any edgy media funny, I haven't even played the game. What I have an issue with is the idea that it requires some level education or perspective to get the meaning of something "correctly". When a artist puts a piece of work out into the public space, it is at the mercy of the audience to how they interpret it. That's a personal thing, and the macro reaction to it is but a reflection of all these personal reactions, some of which the artist may have never expected due to their own personal perspective/biases. I believe that the audiences reaction to art is just as important, if not more important, than the artist's original intent as it reveals societal characteristics and trends of the time. I think the concern is more that South Park can, for example, teach schoolkids to use "Jew" as an actual nonironic insult. I don't buy that this doesn't happen, because South Park came out when I was in middle school and kids absolutely absorbed a lot of the surface level parts of that show without thinking critically about it, because the show is entirely watchable as simply a hilarious offensive thing. It's not a matter of people being "correct" or "incorrect"; there's lots of media that can be unpacked at a super deep level, and also can be enjoyed at a surface level, and who cares. But there's also some media that can very easily advance attitudes and speech that, in all likelihood, it does not intend to literally advocate, and I think it's entirely reasonably to bring that up as a matter for discussion and criticism without calling for censorship or elitism. No media is off-limits to criticism, and there are lots of reasons to criticize things.
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
sleepwalkers posted:I think the message that episode sends is more "society can define and redefine the meaning and connotation words have" moreso than "GO AROUND YELLING 'human being' BECAUSE IT'S OKAY!" So I haven't seen this episode but I think the point here is that it's SUPER EASY to confuse the intended message in a case like this. Some works can be dense or difficult to understand, or have a deeper meaning that hides behind something purely enjoyable, but that's kind of different to the message of a work being able to be taken in two entirely different ways (possibly even opposing ways) without needing to reach very far.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:After hearing it discussed on the last two or three episodes of Idle Thumbs, I'm still not on board with the staunch anti-objectivity stance with respects to game reviews. I wonder if it might be a difference on what "objective" means in my eyes vs yours. To me "objective" means that you're taking out any sort of personal connection or investment you might have in the work, and looking at it simply as-is. An example of this is that when I was in grad school, it wasn't out of the ordinary for my advisor to be skeptical or simply not believe in a publication put out by one of his collaborators, even if they were working with us on something else at the time. It was never a knock against the author, but at the same knowing and working with the author didn't stop him from looking at the argument of the paper with a critical eye, which is really important. Lack of strict objectivity doesn't necessarily mean "this reminds me of this experience I had in my life." That's ONE way of writing criticism but I don't think it's the only way to write personal or subjective reviews. What's more important is an ability to look at the game holistically, in whatever way seems appropriate for the particular game--contextualizing the game meaningfully, and evaluating the choices it makes relative to all the other choices it makes, as opposed to the traditionally "objective" style of game reviewing which seeks to establish some kind of consistent scale by which all games can be judged. I don't think the way I feel about this is heavily at odds with the way you do, depending on how one interprets the first sentence of your second paragraph.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Sankis posted:I'm astonished at how amazingly Danielle has fit into the podcast. She's fantastic. I'm so glad she's a regular host now. That's exactly why she became a regular! Pretty much all our guests are good friends but Danielle has fit in a really natural and easy way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:It's definitely on the verge of being run into the ground. Is it really? It only occupied any significant amount of time on a single episode and as far as I recall has only even come up again maybe one other time?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Haha, that business card is from 2004/2005. My girlfriend found it when we were reorganizing/tossing a ton of stuff in my apartment. (Edit: I thought it was funny to claim that I accept bribes because at the time literally nobody had heard of us and the idea of anyone offering us a bribe was utterly absurd. A decade later I have still never been offered a bribe.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:Why isn't Idle Thumbs using all their Campo Santo money to fund their podcast?(??) I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but just in case it isn't: This actually WOULD be unethical, in my opinion. The two companies are unrelated other than having some of the same people associated with them. Legally and financially there is zero connection. You could argue that we would essentially be committing some kind of fraud by diverting funds from one company to subsidize another. Also, ethical questions aside, I think it would be poor business as well; Campo already isn't in a position where it has money to spare, but let's say it were. If, in the future, Campo went out of business or had some bad luck, or whatever, but we still wanted Idle Thumbs to stick around, Idle Thumbs would have nothing in the bank, no financial cushion, since it would have been running for years off borrowed money. We'd have to build up a revenue apparatus from scratch (again) and it would probably be something of a rocky start at the very least. It would also just feel weird and dishonest. If Idle Thumbs is going to cost money to run, which it does, it should probably pay for itself. We would like to offer some kind of paid ad-free alternative, and we've been having conversations about it, but it would almost certainly not be Patreon or something like that; it would be something homegrown that we could control all aspects of to ensure we can run it in the way we think is best. This is the same philosophy we took with the store--rather than running it through a one-stop solution like Cafepress or something like that--and we're really happy with the results even if it results in some extra work for us and probably limits revenue in some ways. Any time we ask readers for money (or let them give us money), we want to be proud of the way in which we're doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Tae posted:That's loving nuts. I used to do that, and it made me quit editing because it's so tedious to listen for something 3 times as long as the actual podcasst at times. Back in the early days of Idle Thumbs, I used to edit the podcasts a lot more heavily than I do now. At this point I basically chop out a break, crop it to the beginning and the end, bookend it with some dumb garbage if something funny is available, and that's it. There are times I miss doing elaborate or experimental things with the editing, but the amount of time it took just becomes untenable when it's added on top of all the other things you have to do in a day. It starts to make it all feel like a chore, which is dangerous when the thing in question isn't your actual job.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
_jink posted:editing for professionalism is a fools errand, but what about comedy? Those aren't edits though!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 19:45
|
|
Purely auditory jokes are so rare, and so hilarious. Things like bringing up stirring music behind a Breckon rant (and cutting it at the right time) are seriously some of my favorite thumbs bits from the whole run.
|
Captain Invictus posted:Chris, I made a thread for great indie game music, if you'd like to post about your work, since I know you're good at that music "thing". Also, you're getting quite the discography under your belt what with you being the dude on Firewatch, right? Good on ya. Nice thread! I don't like the idea of recommending my own work on a public forum though. Feels different than if it's my own Twitter or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:I have to say, I'm surprised by this, because this is the first time I've heard anyone say their playtime was sub-20 hours. Everything else has been 20-25, 25, 28, and such. This kind of thing is so common in games. One of the things you learn as a developer is how you can never predict the range of ways your game will be played, both by people intending to play it in unexpected ways and by people who are just playing however they play and getting totally different results. It's one of the reasons I find it really tiresome when people complain about dollars per hour and how they're not getting enough value, because as a developer you'll see that somebody took four hours to complete your game and somebody else took 20 and they'll both claim this is just "how long the game is."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Someone should write in with fighting game balance knowledge to questions@idlethumbs.net
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
NmareBfly posted:Really glad the Thumbs like Talos Principle. Keep playing it, because they either weren't very far in or were avoiding spoiling some of the later metagameish elements, but once some of those things slot into place it goes from a good puzzle game to something a lot more. Reminds me a lot of The Swapper, for good reason. There are definitely a bunch of structural elements that open up that I didn't touch on at all because I felt like I was already being really spoilers and I didn't feel I had to go further to sell the game properly but yeah you're right that it just gets better and better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
The way we feel about the interview has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW WE FEEL ABOUT MOLYNEUX. I don't think interviews of that style are enlightening or worthwhile REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT. We are not giving Molyneux a free pass. I would feel exactly the same way (AND DO) when interviews are conducted in that manner with political figures who I believe have had a significant negative impact on society, and that's a loving huge amount more important than any video game thing. It is truly maddening to me that people can't seem to separate the two concepts. Just because someone is potentially dishonest and manipulative and irresponsible doesn't mean I am going to enjoy or appreciate or be in any way reasonably informed by the most aggressive and self-righteous possible interview of them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
I would disagree that "minor game journalist" is an appropriate characterization of one of the co-owners of Rock Paper Shotgun, but even if it were, I don't think it makes any difference if the interview in question ended up being one of the most widely discussed and widely read pieces of game journalism recently, which I suspect this was, at least in the circles that I am aware of. Is there anyone who is unaware of Molyneux's history who is now aware of it? I doubt it. If people are so sick of his bullshit, just stop supporting it. It's all been well-known for YEARS. I don't know how many more times people need to learn about 1) Peter Molyneux's nonsense, and 2) the risks of Kickstarter, before they just learn whatever lesson is necessary to learn. It's ridiculous. The notion that there is any actual gain from someone finally sticking it to Peter Molyneux (as if anything is gained, or anything new learned) is just exhausting to me. Maybe I'm overly fixated, that's totally possible. If I am, it's probably because it feels like an extension of a narrative and style of media engagement that I already find really depressing and frustrating outside the context of games, and then ALSO having it in games is just a huge bummer to me. So maybe I should have contextualized the source of my frustration better. I don't expect the endless-hype-followed-by-endless-disillusionment cycle to stop any time soon, no matter how many irate interviews are conducted. I don't think righteous catharsis helps with it, I think it makes it worse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
umalt posted:Hey, Chris and Jake, I am just curious about your response; do you guys think that there should be some degree of consumer advocacy in the enthusiast press. I can agree with your points about the tone and intent behind the article, and with other comments made about it; but I still agree with the intent, that consumers are upset with the product that Molyneux "sold" them and want to hold him accountable for the misinformation he gave. Do you think that websites should have features like this, though maybe in a different form or tone. While I don't see consumer advocacy as the principle responsibility of journalism, yes I definitely think that the mismanagement of Godus and Molyneux's pattern of irresponsible overpromising is a completely valid subject for reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:Man, there's "overpromising" and then there's "literally saying anything with no intention of backing it up, plus promising one thing and then doing the complete opposite as soon as the money comes in". Again, I'm not actually taking issue with anyone's objections to Molyneux's behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:Hey Chris/Jake, have either of you played Darkest Dungeon yet? I think it'd be right up your alley. It oozes style and has a significant Lovecraftian Dark Souls aesthetic to it. I've basically done everything possible at this point at just about 28 hours played, and they've still got 5+ more classes(to the existing 10) and two more dungeons(to the existing 3) to add. It's a really solid game, it's definitely early access even though it's incredibly polished for an EA game, but they'll likely work out the kinks in the next six months before official release. I bet it'd result in some really good stories about given characters too, since they kinda write themselves. I played it at PAX and thought it was really cool! I should play it for real.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I can't figure out Cara Ellison's accent on the latest IT and it's driving me crazy. She is Scottish.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
The Milkman posted:Her anecdote from the British map guy talking about how SimCity is unmistakably an American game was really interesting. Never really considered that perspective for a thing like SimCity before That was Cara, but yeah it was good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 00:54
|
|