I Saw Dasein

I think you're right that that kind of editing might improve games as storytelling vehicles, but I don't know that it would improve games as games. A shorter the Last of Us might make a better story, but I'm really enjoying the moment-to-moment gameplay and I'd be sad to get less of that.

Sorry, I'm at work so I haven't had time to listen to the podcast. I apologize if I say something that's already been brought up. I disagree with your basic point, though (that the traversal and combat water-down the narrative). The Last of Us is a story about two people learning about each other while on a dangerous journey. The combat and traversal both reflect and inform that narrative. Most of the narrative of in the Last of Us centers around Joel and Ellie defending themselves from monsters and other humans. That is the basic conflict in the narrative. Thus it is entirely appropriate that most of the game would also be about fighting monsters and humans: that's what the story is about! GTA4 is an interesting comparison. In the narrative of that game, Niko struggles with his violence and criminality. During gameplay, Niko is a total maniac who jumps stolen trucks into buildings. In the narrative of the Last of Us, Joel is a cold-hearted killer who slowly becomes attached to Ellie. In the gameplay of the Last of Us, Joel (and the player) behaves like a cold-hearted killer who (at least in my case) slowly becomes attached to Ellie. So in my view, the combat doesn't distract from the story but instead really is the story. I agree that the ladder parts are lame, but that's because they aren't particularly engaging in terms of gameplay. If you replaced the ladder parts with (for example) more elaborate traversal puzzles, then I'd be quite happy with that aspect of the game. I think what the ladder bits are trying to do is kind of abstract one of the basic themes of the story: that Joel and Ellie have to contend with the landscape as well more immediate threats. Getting across America in the post-apocalypse is hard. It's not a point-A to point-B kind of exercise. A lot of the (admittedly basic) traversal moments in the game reflect that aspect of the narrative, in my view. In other words, the traversal elements aren't just there as gamer tax, but also to provide an in-game demonstration of one of the narrative's basic themes (two people on a dangerous journey). It's quite possible that all of these themes could be explored more simply or more quickly, or indeed in a different medium altogether. But I like the moment-to-moment gameplay, and I'm glad that the gameplay is married to a story that suits it (in my opinion). From my point of view, I'm happy with the length of the game.

I guess it depends on whether or not you find the gameplay itself pleasurable. I am (so far) really enjoying the stealth and combat in this game, so I don't mind being asked to do it over and over. If you view the gameplay as something that you have to just get through, then yeah the game is too long. If you view the gameplay as itself enjoyable, then the length of the game is kind of beside the point. For example, Chris played many many hours of Zuma. That doesn't mean that Zuma is too long, as long as Chris enjoyed the time he spent playing it. Or a thumsier example: I killed a million dudes in Far Cry 2, and I never minded that all I was doing was killing dudes, because killing dudes in Far Cry 2 is itself pleasurable. The reason I enjoy the gameplay (specifically, the combat) is that it feels intense, unpredictable, and high stakes. In an average fight I have very few bullets. I start by sneaking around, trying to take a few dudes out. Inevitably I get spotted, which turns the game into hide-and-seek with shotguns. I am playing without the magic hearing, so I have to pay a lot of attention to audio cues to figure out where the other guys are. I have to make intelligent use of my limited resources. I have to consider flanking and being flanked, since most of the combat sequences take place in more-or-less open areas. If I screw up, I'm probably dead. My pulse is pounding the whole time. I find all of this very enjoyable. The fact that these action sequences are punctuated with a pretty good yarn and decent characters is just gravy. My biggest criticism is that death is kind of meaningless in this game. I would have liked the stakes to be a bit higher. Perhaps you should lose your crafting supplies if you die or something, a la Dark Souls.

I don't think that's really true at all. If you think back to the history of film (and theatre, for that matter), music is often used to set the scene, establish mood, and punctuate action. Music and film/theatre have been intertwined since at least the ancient Greeks. It's hard for me to accept that all of those movies and plays and operas are not good because they use music as a way of cuing the audience. I don't think that movies MUST use music in that way, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with using music in that way. I do agree with you that using music to tell the audience that they can relax for a minute can diminish tension--but that's exactly what the music is intended to do. I do like the Halloween movies (Halloween I and 2 also have excellent scores), but they are unrelentingly tense, and while that's one possible goal for a game, not every game needs to be that tense. The "safe" parts of the Last of Us gave me a chance to breath, to listen to the characters banter, and to appreciate the scenery. I honestly don't know how much I would have enjoyed the game if I'd spent the whole time creeping around worried that I was about to be jumped. I like that the game has quiet and calm moments.

Everyone is faking everything, always.

The premise is great, much of the ensemble cast is great, the soundtrack is great, but Tom Hanks just totally ruins it for me. His accent is atrocious and he doesn't sell his persona at all, IMO. Also, I hate the poop jokes.

You can look forward to revisiting Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruely!

I don't really agree with any of this. I am playing on hard and have basically no ammo at any time. I just started the part with the "Hunters", and my inventory contains: 3 shotgun shells, 3 arrows, a medkit, and a board. This makes fights feel very tactical and I really have to think about firing even a single bullet. I die a few times in every fight before making it through. I'm not great at Video games, but I'm not terrible either. I honestly do feel like I am scrounging for every. single. bullet. just to survive. I agree with you regarding dying though: I wish there was some consequence to it. Maybe losing crafting materials or something? I think this is an interesting point. Most other kinds of media do something similar--for example, in movies and books you will often have a period of calm after a highly emotionally charged scene. Movies that remain tense all the way through can be quite unpleasant and exhausting. And of course, in movies the music will often kick in just as an exciting fight scene begins. That doesn't bother me in most movies at all. So I think what is going on is that Naughty Dog is taking certain pacing tricks from movies and books and applying them to games. Whether or not that works for you is a matter of taste. For me, I don't think I would want to play a game that was all tension all of the time. Even stuff like "Stalker" or "Left for Dead" has safe zones and moments of clearly sign-posted calm.

A Serious Man is good, but I'd say: 1. Miller's Crossing 2. Barton Fink 3. Fargo Runner up: the "reasonable doubt" scene in The Man Who Wasn't There.

Make sure you rinse the quinoa! Another nice thing about that salad is that the kale stands up to the dressing without wilting. I often make a big batch to have with dinner and have it for lunch the next day.

I love this recipe lately. Mad kale every day. Filling and delicious: http://foodess.com/2013/03/shredded-kale-quinoa-salad-with-creamy-tahini-dressing/

That's a really interesting way of putting it. I hadn't thought of Cromwell as a pragmatist. I thought of him as someone who was completely loyal to whoever his master was. But I guess in a sense, in the world Cromwell is living in, there's not always much of a difference between loyalty and pragmatism. The consequences of disloyalty are just so harsh. So I guess the question is then whether Cromwell is loyal because he is pragmatic, or whether he behaves in a brutish and pragmatic way because he is totally loyal to a brutish and pragmatic king. One other thing I thought about the book: it seemed strange and interesting how much of Cromwell's formative experiences happen "off-screen". We see Cromwell as a child/adolescent, and we see Cromwell as uber-competent apparatchik, but we don't ever really see how Cromwell changed from child to adult. A lot of his younger life is hinted at, but we never really learn how Cromwell came to be the competent, ruthless, indispensable functionary. I wonder if this was a deliberate choice, or whether it was a result of a gap in the historical record. It just strikes me as strange that we don't really ever get to see Cromwell grow or change as a character.

Alan Wake did cool "last week on Alan Wake" bits between "episodes". As far as TV goes, I really liked the "next weeks" on Twin Peaks. Partly because the bits they chose to show were always really weird and nonsensical, just like the show. Twin Peaks is the greatest btw.

Interesting article. Strange that it's in the Financial Post, but still interesting.

I see what you mean, but then it's as if the novel as the first part of a narrative arch (Cromwell's rise to power) but not the rest of the narrative arch. That's kind of what I mean when I say the novel lacks a narrative arch. It's a bit as if this is just the first act of a three-act play, and taken on those terms it feels incomplete. It may be more coherent when all three books are completed; but in that case, you'd have to wonder why it should be released as a trilogy at all (instead of as one complete whole). I think Mantel intends Cromwell's life to be a tragedy, but the essence of a tragedy is a reversal of fortune. Here we have the fortune, but not the reversal. That left the book feeling (for me) strangely anti-climactic.

Well pretty much no games are about sexual coming of age, so if you don't like that topic you've got a lot of other choices to pick from. I also don't really think that "coming of age" is particularly hackneyed; a lot of really great books and movies are about those topics. Even bad-ass action movies can involve that theme, Hanna being a recent example. Personally I'm kind of sick of games about "pirate ships", for example. I have some sympathy for the PA dude, but seriously, if someone ever tells you that they are offended/hurt/upset about something you say, the correct response is never to insult them.

Getting chased by an O with an umlaut is not a memory soon forgotten.

Technically ZZT is like Kingdom of Kroz, since Kroz predated ZZT and ZZT carried over many of Kroz's graphics and conventions. Or so sayeth wikipedia. All I know is that Kroz is amazing and incredibly hard and I was equal parts baffled and in love with it as a child.

I was going to hold off talking about this until the podcast, but I am starting to forget what I wanted to say so I'll just write it now. I basically like a lot about the book. It's pretty well-written and plotted, and parts of the prose are incredible. I really enjoyed a lot of the fever dream sequences, which is odd because I often hate those parts of books. I am going to focus on what I didn't like, though, on the premise that criticism is more interesting than praise. Here is my problem: I don't really understand what this book was "about". It felt like a whole sequence of events without any particular overarching theme. So, we start with the death of the Cardinal, proceed to Cromwell orchestrating the marriage of Henry and Anne, and conclude (more or less) with the death of Thomas More. These are all important parts of Cromwell's life, but they don't really connect in an important or interesting way (for me anyway). For this reason, I felt that the novel didn't really hold together as having some central narrative arch. Cromwell is pretty much the same at the end of the book as he is at the end. So is the King, the Dukes, and so on. A whole bunch of stuff happens, but I didn't feel like I learned anything about any of the characters or that any of the characters really developed. That's not to say the book doesn't have certain themes, like the relationship of master to servant, the concept of nationhood versus religion, and exploring some enlightenment ideas. I just felt like something was missing at the center of the book. So while I enjoyed the book, I guess I was left asking "what is the point"?

I finished "I Captured the Castle". Super, super charming book. The narrator is about as lovable a character as I can imagine. It reminded me quite a lot of Jane Austen, in that much of the book turns around the lives of young British women, but to me it felt a lot deeper. It also had a lot to say about the difficult and joy of writing. There is a passage at the end where characters discuss the impossibility of capturing a particular sense of being head-on; instead, we have to go at certain concepts obtusely, through poetry, puzzles, song, and art. Pretty existential for a romantic comedy about a seventeen-year-old girl! Basically if you have any affection at all for Jane Austen or the Brontes, I really recommend it. Even if you don't, it's short, funny, and beautifully written.

I think of it like trespassing. If you trespass through private property that is currently being used or occupied, you're kind of a jerk. If you trespass through an empty lot that no one seems to care about, then you're much less of a jerk. You're a trespasser either way but you're not equally jerky, in my opinion.

There is no such thing as abandonware, really. Software is copyrighted for decades (in the US I believe 60 years after the death of the creator). What people call abandonware is just copyrighted software that is not actively being protected by its copyright holder. Whenever you use abandonware software you are breaching copyright, you're just hoping that no one cares enough to come after you.

Most digital media is totally fine without a reliable internet connection. For example, when I travel I load up a bunch of kindle ebooks and digital music on my tablet and I have no trouble accessing that material. The same is true of movies through the Google store. Of course, DRM can be done intrusively or badly, but that doesn't make digital media bad per se, nor does it make it inherently "anti-consumer". In terms of licensing, frankly I don't care. I am totally happy to purchase a software license, even a highly restricted one, as long as it is offered at a discount when compared to the "purchased" version of the same media. So I will happily spend $25 on a license that I can't transfer and might one day lose instead of spending $40 bucks on the hard-copy of a game that I can in theory trade or sell (not that I regularly do either of those things). Basically, I think it's unfair to label all digital media as "anti-consumer". It feels arrogant to label it in that way, because for many consumers digital media are not at all anti-consumer. They offer ease, convenience, and value, and if that comes at the cost of giving up some control over the product, then that's a trade-off that many are happy to make. I think that consumers are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not a software license is a good deal. If some consumers think that a software license is a good deal, then I don't think it's fair to call that model "anti-consumer". It just means that some consumers value certain attributes of a product (e.g. ease of access, lack of depreciation) over other attributes of a product (e.g. ownership rights, resale).

Yup, a big chunk of the Lucas Arts catalog is not available for sale anywhere, because Lucas Arts became a bad company that deserved to die, basically.

Out of curiousity, where are you getting the games? I've always wanted to play Full Throttle and Day of the Tentacle, but have never managed to find a copy. Feel free to respond via sly wink if necessary.