Patrick R

Some persons seem to like you, and others seem to hate you, and you must wonder why. They are simply liking machines and hating machines.

Falling in love again is scary and dumb and fun and exciting and weird and scary and dumb.

ZEUS. THAT COMMERCIAL. GAHHHH.

All cereal everywhere, basically. Who doesn't want oceans of chocolate rocketing in their mouth? Also, I maintain that my Batman action figures were never sufficiently fun because they didn't come with all those translucent blocks that the commercials promised.

The Stoner, added to the ever-growing list. Also, wherefore art thou Idle Book Club Podcast? You got me to get off my duff and finally read an Ernest Hemingway novel like I should have already and now I feel tricked. If you're gonna trick me into reading like I'm seven, the least you can do is throw some sweet Pizza Hut coupons my way Also, still throwing hard for the Thumbs to cover Ragtime. Because that book exploded my brain. Also, also, also, also.

I recently became aware this was a thing. Probably old news to the internet, but Ninja Turtles and Bugs Bunny and Muppet babies and Alf and Alvin and the Chipmunks and Garfield all talking about how marijuana ruins lives (and combating the evil puff of smoke played by George C. fucking Scott) is amazing. Especially love that the arcade is cast as a den of sin where rotten 12 year olds walk around with pocketfuls of loose crack rocks. UGK would be proud.

hahahahahahahah that is amazing.

I played a shitload of Hotline Miami after I first bought it (which was shortly after the Thumbs talked about it on the podcast) but always hit a wall at the "final boss". I reinstalled it recently and played up to that point and beat it in 5 attempts. Crazy how something like that can just click out of nowhere. I love how creepy and transgressive it's willing to be, but I found myself wishing there was some actual point to it. The "explanation" at the end of the game feels like a giant cop-out. Still, that game is hella fucking fun.

Yeah, I guess I'll have to play it again with the journals turned off to really see if what I'm saying holds up.

The Departed's editing is a marvel. They cut back and forth between Leo and Matt Damon IN THE MIDDLE OF LEO'S FLASHBACK. Plus there's a million continuity errors. It's the most deliciously sloppy film I've ever seen. Purposeful, of course. Very punk. Again, the form is more important than the story. But I will say that if you find the assholes funny, like I do (I think that whole movie is hysterically funny), it helps pull a lot of the weight as far as not hating them.

It reads as insincere because "Mike Krahulik" is in the byline.

How much Frasier have you watched in preparation?

Funny you define it as naturalistic. I never thought of Goodfellas that way. Goodfellas is all about the momentum and editing. To me, the violence is heightened, the emotions are heightened, the filmmaking is heightened. But perhaps it's because I'm a fan of a lot of 70's crime movies (including Scorsese's own Mean Streets) that tend to be waaaaay more low-key and naturalistic than Goodfellas. For me, the restaurant sequence is more about the emotions behind how Henry Hill describes the process than the process itself. It's a great example of how the mafia are these locusts who consume the lives of innocent people, and the utter glee with which they do it. "Fuck you, pay me" is such a childish refrain. If you want to start cutting scenes from Goodfellas because they aren't "vital" to the story, you're gonna find a lot that can go. But that movie lives for the details. It takes such joy in it's individual sequences. My favorite part of is all the digressions they take. JOE PESCI'S MOM PAINTED THAT AMAZING PICTURE WITH THE DOGS. So good. EDIT: Also, I'd love to hear movies that have more momentum than Goodfellas. That's gotta be a really short list.

I should say, I'm not judging anyone morally by whether or not they attend PAX. Capitalism is kind of a gross system in general, and leads to situations where we financially support companies who do things you don't agree with. We're probably all talking to each other right now on computers that were built by exploited workers. Compromise happens. Especially for people in the industry.

Whether or not they're separate in your mind, they aren't separate in reality. Financial support is just about the only support a company cares about. Someone (I can't recall if it was in this thread or in an essay I read) brought up how quickly PA rescinded a comic when threatened with legal action by that greeting card company. Money talks. I don't see anything wrong with Chic-Fil-A's sandwiches but that doesn't mean I'm ever gonna spend a dime there. Mike, Jerry, and Robert have influence. What they say matters, and has ramifications. Supporting them financially means securing their influence, means giving them a platform to continue this sort of thing. Specifically, a platform at PAX. Now I'm not really a convention goer. I'm not the kind of person who would have gone to either PAX. So I am speaking from a place of ignorance. So let me ask: What is so important that any convention (or conventions) that replace PAX be exactly that big? From what I've understood about the growth of other conventions, like Comic Con, the bigger it gets, the more corporate and less special it gets. It sounds like PAX has done a pretty good job not being co-opted by corporate interests (the gross nature of the actual company that runs it not withstanding) but I am curious as to what makes it's largeness something so desirable that replacing it doesn't seem like a good idea?

Nothing better to do except sleep. She took the red-eye home, and is probably jet-lagged as hell.

How have efforts to change Mike Krahulik's mind gone so far? At a certain point, creating safe spaces away from regressive assholes is just a better goal than trying to save the world from hate.

Why change PAX? Just replace it. There's a billion ways gamers are brought together as a community in 2013. PAX only got as big as it did because it was a more palatable alternative to E3 for many people. Boycotting makes perfect sense.

For me it's what I already said earlier in the thread: Katie/the player acts completely differently because they're hearing the journal as audio logs. It makes the entire premise of uncovering story by exploring an environment feel that much more false and contrived because a normal person wouldn't assume that if they scour enough notes and letters and pieces of paper scattered throughout the house, it would all come together like a puzzle, slowly opening up different areas. It's still a compelling premise, but it rings false. I'd have the same complaint if any character's actions in any fiction felt like completely false contrivances that only existed to keep the story going. Luckily, the innovative gameplay, attention to detail, and really really great writing (not just in narration, but in the notes and letters you find) are all more than enough to redeem the game as being something really special and worth playing and supporting. But if this kind of gameplay is to be further explored and iterated on, that'd be something to address.

And I think it matters because Katie's actions are your actions, and you as a player are primarily motivated by things Katie can't even hear. It doesn't ruin the game by any means, but it is a level of dissonance that kept me at arms length from the emotions of the story.

Yes, but from the perspective of The Person She Knows Who Knows He Is Not Going To Assault Her, those stats don't really read the same. As someone who has never sexually assaulted anyone, I know that she has a ~0% chance of being assaulted by me.

Harassment sure, but I'm pretty sure the potential for actual assault is higher at night.

These are people I know well, am close to, and whose homes I have been to. Obviously I wouldn't insist to the point of following them home against their wishes (because hey, now you're a creep!) but yeah, you guys are right, obviously their call.

Here's a question about something other than the well-documented fact that the dudes at Penny Arcade are assholes. I date women (and female-assigned gender-queer people who have the same risk of sexual assault as women) who live relatively far away from me in Chicago. We often will have a date somewhere and, at the end of the night, take public transportation opposite ways to our homes. Recently after a date like this, a partner had two men follow her for 2 blocks before she got close to her apartment and sprinted inside. It was a horrifying story to hear related to me and made me wish I was there walking her home that night. But if I had did that I probably wouldn't have gotten home until 1 AM at the earliest, because she lives several miles in the opposite direction. So if I had offered (or offer to other partners in the future) to walk her home, I probably would have gotten (or will get) a firm "No, that's ok", right? In that instance, is it appropriate for me to insist? And if so, how much? It's not that I think I'm the big strong man whose job it is to protect his women, but it is a fact that women are more likely to be harassed and/or potentially assaulted when they're alone and I'd like to prevent that sort of thing if I can. Am I being insulting or thoughtful?

Dr. Fred! More than anything, hearing Nick Jameson's voice again made me so excited.