prettyunsmart

Sorry to get a bit too lit-crit-ish in this KR0 discussion, but I'll add that the game's magical realism works especially well for me because the genre is particularly associated with narratives of economic crisis and instability. This is probably too specific but this article (which I can't find the full text of right now) provides a short history of magical realism and how it usually deployed in cultural contexts that are in economic flux. So to me, it seems like the more surreal elements of the game fit with the deeper roots of the uncanny elements of the setting.

You've now reached the point in the game where (at least for me), it stopped being immensely frustrating and then was just an intense but awesome series of boss fights.

Your post implies this, but I think one of the key parts of a work that is "so bad it's good"is earnestness, or at least the appearance of it. The Room or Troll 2 are more interesting than the Mega Shark movies because they seem naïvely incompetent rather than cynically constructed to provoke a reaction. I was interested in your comment that "so bad it's good" doesn't really exist. I get that the movies or games that are really the worst just end up being dull, but are you saying that we should think of these things as accidentally kind of good, our more like so bad that they are mildly interesting?

The Rifftrax/Cinematic Titanic rift has always seemed like a missed opportunity for me. If they could overcome some of their differences, I think both groups could cancel each other's weaknesses out. Mostly, I think the Joel-aligned CT group might have some stronger joke writers among them and the Mike-Aligned Rifftrax crew are stronger performers than a few of the CT folks. EDIT: This is also probably an appropriate place to note my in-game character naming convention: In most RPGs I end up naming my characters "Dirk Steakface," "Big McLargehuge," "Slab Bulkhead" or some other stupid thing inspired by the many names of the hero in Space Mutiny.

I'm from/still live in the same kind of area, so the post-industrial midwest is a setting I really appreciate and understand. For me, the game plays off of that uncanny feeling you get in the countryside where farms have gone untended or in cities where factory areas have been abandoned. What I meant more specifically is that people who don't spend as much time in these places may not immediately identify with that feeling and so the game might not work for them as well. "The Entertainment" spells out a few things for people who aren't a part of that specific culture, so it might work to clear things up for them.

The Luftrausers debate is the big issue of the week. I wish I had something smart to contribute to the discussion, but I really just don't know how I feel about it. I did want to chime in on the comments about obtuse indie game storytelling that in some ways acts as a cover for what really matters to the creators of the works. Either Chris or Sean brought up Kentucky Route Zero as a case of that. I think that is totally true in the case of the actual episodes, but I think that thematic elements of the game come forward in the interludes, particularly in "The Entertainment." I'm not going to spoiler tag this since I'm just speaking in big thematic terms rather than any actual specifics about the plot. Anyway, throughout the first two acts of Kentucky Route Zero, there is a general sense of decay and post-industrial/post-agrarian abandonment. This lends the setting some of its wild and even magical elements. Since it is a forgotten landscape, it is a site for the unexpected. The problem is that the game never makes explicit why this place is forgotten and left behind. "The Entertainment" does a better job of this. Without giving too much away, the interlude takes the form of a one act play that addresses issues of rural life in the early 21st century, debt, and banking corruption. It still does so in a weird metatextual form where the player controls a non-speaking character on stage and can look out at the audience and read their reactions to the play, but the thematic elements are way more explicit. I hope that some of this comes over into the main parts of the game later on, because that really does seem to be the more grounded story that the developers are interested in telling. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had played the interludes and if they felt like they did a better job of avoiding the too-vague style of the first two acts.

I just wrapped up Episode 3. My non-spoiler-y impressions are that I'm still really enjoying the series, and I find myself caring less and less if they work in action sequences. I still kind of like playing detective as Bigby, even if that mostly amounts to "walk around this room and click all the interactive bits" but it still feels like I'm a wolf detective on a mission. The writing is still strong, and I think it is doing a good job of carving out its own space in the Fables universe.

I'm playing it as it gets released, but my game-playing time is getting cut short with all of this obnoxious work stuff. I made it as far as the credits, was enjoying myself, then realized that I should be doing other things. I'll probably try to finish episode 3 tonight if all goes well.

Idle Thumbs: like NPR, but with video games and poop jokes. Also, welcome!

For some reason, buying a sticker pack compelled me to also buy a "Video Games" shirt from the Campo Santo store. What am I doing with my life? EDIT: Wow. My stickers went out in around an hour. You folks are speedy.

I'll chime in quickly to endorse the helpfulness of the Dark Souls thread. I posted about how I was quitting the game after getting stuck for far too long, and Bjorn and a few other people helped me get past that part. I ended up blowing through the rest of the game rather quickly. I now would consider it one of my favorite games ever.

So Giant Bomb just put up their Quick Look of the PC version. Signs point to a good port and better performance overall. To those of you who have been playing the console versions, has the experience held up for you throughout the game? I'm tempted to pre-purchase the game on Steam, but something is holding me back.

When Noby Noby Boy came out, I heard somebody on a podcast say that it wasn't a good game, but it was an amazing toy. That's kind of how I ended up feeling about Goat Simulator. I had fun with it for a couple of hours (one running around myself and another watching my wife do the same) and I'll probably come back later on to check out what new levels people make for it. I'm happy with it overall.

Hey, they made their goal! This is actually the only Kickstarter that I'm looking forward to forgetting about completely until it's out. That will make the surprise all the sweeter.

Monument Valley joins Republique and a bunch of other iOS stuff that I look forward to playing in a year or so when they find their way onto Android.

I don't think it's a bad thing to feel uncomfortable with your position, and it seems totally normal to struggle with some parts of such a big, complicated issue. I'd say that if you are setting out to treat people respectfully and consider your own privilege, you're far from part of the problem

So now that we know that Danielle Riendeau is a fan of the site (as revealed in the most recent podblast), will we see her featured as a subjective reviewer of the month in the near future?

This adds nothing to the discussion, but I have to say that: 1) Emily Nussbaum is generally awesome 2) The day I got to argue with her about Girls over Skype was one of the highlights of grad school for me so far. EDIT: This post is dumb and I wish I could delete it. I was reading the thread a few pages back and got excited that The Argobot referenced a TV critic I like, and now this post is just sitting here, out of context, messing up the flow of the thread.

But we don't experience language without connecting it to our subjective experiences, so I don't see how this is a useful distinction to make. EDIT: I must have been looking at an old version of the thread. Several people raised the same objection, so forget I repeated it.

brkl's response to your original comment covers part of what I was going to say about the interconnection of language and culture as well as the example of the word "gay" (I was going to say specifically that it seems like the association more recently that people would have with the word would be a friend, family member, co-worker, or other actual person rather than an amorphous idea of something inferior and different). As I'm typing this, I saw your response to his response, and I'm not sure if I can agree with the idea that without language these ideas would still exist. That gets into an ontological problem that is probably over the head of anyone with dual PhDs in linguistics and philosophy. I take your point that slurs that get appropriated just get replaced with new slurs, but even these new slurs can get appropriated too. What I'd suggest is that any new slur will lack the power of the old because it doesn't have the same history. You bring up the term "faggot" which isn't new, but has been around for quite some time. However, if that were to get re-appropriated and replaced by some new invented term, it wouldn't carry the same historical weight as its predecessor.

Outright, deeply-rooted hate is hard to change, and reclaiming a term likely wouldn't do much for someone who hold extremely strong prejudices against women, racial minorities, LGBTQ people, or any other group. On the other hand, altering the connotations of a term from undeniably negative to a more mixed or positive association could do some good for other people. To me, it seems like reclaiming words is powerful more for combating the casual kinds of discrimination that happen just through daily acts of language by people who wouldn't otherwise think of themselves as prejudiced in a particular way.

Star Wars 1313 Confirmed to be Un-Canceled. Video Games.

Not to belabor this point too much, but the idea that a writer/blogger/cultural critic saying, "hey, we should talk about this thing that is potentially kind of messed up" means that that piece of media should be enjoyed by anyone is a little off base. Raising concerns about a work doesn't mean that it doesn't have the right to exist or that others aren't allowed to enjoy it. It is just one of many possible responses that people can have to it. Shutting down that whole branch of critical response in the name of some ideal of journalistic objectivity seems misguided at best. If Sean loves the South Park Game and Danielle plays it and has some problems with it, that sounds like the makings of a fruitful conversation, not something to be avoided at all.

So if I go in expecting that part to be kind of not great, there are other good things that make it worth a look? In other news, I finished Far Cry 2 last night. The game finally clicked for me the third time I tried to play it, and I spent the last week or so playing pretty much only that. I ended up loving the mechanics and the environments, but feeling a little mixed on the story. Still, my hangups aside, I really enjoyed my time with the game. I probably won't do a permadeath run any time soon, but I'm glad I saw it through to the end.