Chris

Idle Weekend January 15, 2016: Zombie Train Beyond Earth

Recommended Posts

Idle Weekend January 15, 2016:

847__header.jpg

Zombie Train Beyond Earth

The Weekenders travel wide and far, with thoughts on advanced space-cities and train travel for the undead. Bigger questions are tackled, including: is Resident Evil cheesiness good? Is it wrong to make a game about a terrible disease? Should we have any heroes at all? Strap on your "Don't Be A Piece of Shit" wristband, and join us on our journey!

Discussed: Civilization: Beyond Earth, 4X games, Resident Evil 0 HD Remaster, That Dragon, Cancer, Costume Quest, Brutal Legend, Dustforce, The Expanse, World Gone By, The Beginning: Making 'Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like stories about the experience of faith in extremity (particularly a person feeling the presence or absence of God in events). A lot of my discomfort with That Dragon, Cancer has come from a Radiolab/Reply All interview where one of the creators said quite specifically that the ultimate purpose of their game is "witnessing" for the Christian faith and that that's the reason why they and their son had to suffered. I haven't had an opportunity to play the game yet and maybe I won't ever get it, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with the thought that a game about such a difficult subject being presented with an agenda that purports to have an answer for why it happened. I can only hope that the witnessing is the passive recounting of events rather than the active construction of a narrative, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the PI schtick in expanse, I don't watch the show (nor have I read the books its based on), but I've read that it is meant to be an affectation adopted by the character specifically with the intent to annoy people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'll just post this here, though it is more relevant to the previous episodes, but it does have a loose connection to games as escapism as opposed to games as documentation/reflection of experiences.
 

The discussion about mechanics that can be attributed to specific cultures was really interesting to me.
I am currently struggling with a not really but kind of related conflict.

I live in Israel, and am working for a nonprofit organization working to narrow the technological gap between people of different social and economic status. My work there, specifically, is making educational games. I am currently working on a game that is structured in a very similar way to The Yawhg. I loved The Yawhg - it was one of my favorite things to play last year, which is partly why I chose to make a game similar to it in the first place - but we really wanted to differ from it in some ways. Most importantly, we wanted to look at what the mechanics conveyed, and "marry" that with the message we wanted to deliver.
 

Notably, The Yawhg is I guess what you would call a capitalistic game. All the characters start out with exactly the same stats regardless of gender or race (which I guess stems from Damian and Emily trying to make a point against people who try to justify social constructs that discriminate people based on their innate characteristics), and have to gain wealth and level-up different stats. In this way, the game is very fair, but also appears to me to have a very capitalistic point of view on success. Now, I see where the devs were coming from – if you make a fantasy world, which the world in the game I'm making will also be, you might as well ignore racism or sexism in order to provide escapism for all.

The thing is – as I've said, the game will make its way almost exclusively to the hands of children on the lower end of the social-economical spectrum, who are, at least in part, victims of the capitalist system. Furthermore, some of these children are probably going to be Arab Israelis and Palestinians, who don't have nearly as many opportunities in life as Jewish Israelis do.
 

Because of this, I feel like having a game with systems that imply that people have an equal opportunity will be both not representing of the experience these children had in their life so far, and selling them a lie.

That first point is crucial because one of our goals in combining the educational material with a narrative context is seeding the idea that there is use for the things that are learned in real life (this might sound a little far-fetched considering that the game takes place in an entirely fantastical world, but the point is to show how what the child learned can assist them in problem solving, and so we need to present our problems in a relatable way).
 

One way we approached this is designing the world around tropes and themes of middle-eastern folk tales instead of the European standard of dragons and castles of The Yawhg (think Arabian Nights instead of Grimms' Fairy Tales).

Other ways are making the game a little more "soft but unfair" as Foxmom Niamh put it. We also don't include a Wealth stat, and we randomly choose characters names from a pool of both Arabic and Hebrew names.

I was wandering how I could also change the mechanics to reflect values that will be both true to the experiences of the children (which, what with the occupation and everything, are very different for Palestinians compared to Arab or Jewish Israelis) and convey our point, which is that further fluency in technology can improve your life, open up new opportunities, and is very much a utility all around.

What do you think - am I thinking too much into this, considering that this is a really just a nice way to make the classes more engaging?

 

Oh, on an unrelated note, if you want a good example of culturally charged mechanics - I guess that the death mechanics in Cosmology of Kyoto are pretty much tied with some Buddhist concepts.

Sorry about the long post, and about the probably not perfect English, Have a great day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Foggy Cornslakes: That sounds really interesting. Not sure how you would go about reflecting peoples' lived experiences more without going into direct allegory though, like "here is the occupation analog" etc. I guess you could take the whole being in a non-oppressed majority is 'easy-mode' analogy and literally translate that back to games, like you have the same mechanics and tools that can give you an advantage as a player (eg fluency in technology), but your starting point is more or less difficult depending on your chosen character's background, like maybe you CAN acquire those same tools but you have to work twice as hard to get them...


Regarding the discussion about problematic heroes in this episode, I really disagree with the premise that if a person you respect holds a view you disagree with, even strongly, it becomes impossible to respect or appreciate anything that person does or stands for. If we discarded everything by everyone who had ever said or done a shitty thing we would have to pretty much bin 90% of human achievement. It's possible to recognize something or someone has problems without dismissing it or them entirely.

 

[edit: I think maybe Rob was onto something with the idea that we shouldn't look for idols to worship unconditionally...]

Everyone has their own lines of course, but there would be a lot less conflict in the world if we could manage to say "hey I really don't agree with you on this one thing, but we agree on this other stuff, so let's focus on that" a little more often. The assumption that one's own world view is correct and someone who disagrees is a bad person until they apologize and adopt your view is kind of a dangerous road to go down anyway. Plus, when people do say ignorant insensitive things, it's often because they literally *don't know* and it would be more constructive to educate than to ostracize them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, watching the Star Wars Episode One making of video Danielle mentioned... There definitely are a lot of fun awkward moments and now ominous lines. It's kind of interesting though contrasting that with a more technical behind the scenes like Cinefex (very much worth a read if you're into that sort of thing) as they really did do a lot groundbreaking work on those movies. It's easy to roll your eyes at Lucas complaining that the new Star Wars is too retro and everything should be new (paraphrasing), but without Lucas' crazy and sometimes silly ideas there wouldn't be a visual effects industry. He created ILM. George Lucas is to modern VFX as Walt Disney is to animation.

I guess this kind of weirdly connects to the you can dislike or disagree with some things a person has done while still appreciating their other accomplishments. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

 

That sounds super interesting. Maybe a way to try and systemise it is to think about what exactly you want to convey and frame your mechanics around that?

 

For example what if you wanted to do a Yawhg-like to show how society can undermine a certain group? You could have 2 separate groups of players, and both start with approximately the same stats. By visiting certain locations or performing certain acts you can up your skills just like in the Yawhg, except that one of the groups you can play as is limited by what they can do and where they can go. The flavour text shows that even things you're allowed to do have restrictions on them (they could be laws, social restrictions etc.) so even when you can perform an action or go somewhere, maybe your skills don't go up as high, because of other barriers. The result would be that in the end game your success is heavily weighted, even if you began from relatively equal footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks: I appreciate the discussion but I hope a topic from one episode doesn't continue to colonize all future episode threads of this podcast. It has generated REALLY long posts and I'm concerned that it will unintentionally dampen discussion of other topics that are more relevant to the episode in question. If you would like to have ongoing conversations about this, please create an actual thread about it in the general gaming forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent cast yet again. Waking up late, brewing a pot of good coffee, sitting back, laying my feet on the table, and listening to Idle Weekend has quickly become a Saturday tradition for me. I love the relaxed, thoughtful atmosphere of the show. Keep up the good work! :tup:

 

I like Rob's advice on idols (don't have them). You definitely see people trying to defend some inexcusable actions or comments made by people that are remarkable, inspiring, and generally not idiots in some other areas simply because of their status as an idol. I think that is quite natural, though. It is easier to admire and look up to a person as a whole than to admit that they too are only human and to enjoy and learn from only select aspects of their personality. Occasionally, when I come across some scandalous news, I toy with the idea of finding out that one of my favorite artists turns out to be a horrible human being. Would I still be able to listen to their albums? I have never come to any conclusion on that because the thought is too distressing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Foggy Cornslakes: That sounds really interesting. Not sure how you would go about reflecting peoples' lived experiences more without going into direct allegory though, like "here is the occupation analog" etc. I guess you could take the whole being in a non-oppressed majority is 'easy-mode' analogy and literally translate that back to games, like you have the same mechanics and tools that can give you an advantage as a player (eg fluency in technology), but your starting point is more or less difficult depending on your chosen character's background, like maybe you CAN acquire those same tools but you have to work twice as hard to get them...

Regarding the discussion about problematic heroes in this episode, I really disagree with the premise that if a person you respect holds a view you disagree with, even strongly, it becomes impossible to respect or appreciate anything that person does or stands for. If we discarded everything by everyone who had ever said or done a shitty thing we would have to pretty much bin 90% of human achievement. It's possible to recognize something or someone has problems without dismissing it or them entirely.

 

[edit: I think maybe Rob was onto something with the idea that we shouldn't look for idols to worship unconditionally...]

Everyone has their own lines of course, but there would be a lot less conflict in the world if we could manage to say "hey I really don't agree with you on this one thing, but we agree on this other stuff, so let's focus on that" a little more often. The assumption that one's own world view is correct and someone who disagrees is a bad person until they apologize and adopt your view is kind of a dangerous road to go down anyway. Plus, when people do say ignorant insensitive things, it's often because they literally *don't know* and it would be more constructive to educate than to ostracize them.

 

What I heard from Danielle's side is more that it becomes harder or impossible to champion or support a professional who has said or done something to a certain degree.  The line for me is whether or not the person's words or actions are affecting other people.  My goto examples of this are Tom Cruise,  Orson Scott Card and Mel Gibson.  Cruise and Card don't just have views I disagree with, they actively promote views and put their personal power and wealth behind spreading views that are harmful to people I love.  I can't support them, they don't just believe differently, they actively promote hateful and harmful ideas.  Gibson, on the other hand, had a bigoted rant and is probably a bigot.  As far as I know, there's no evidence he's ever actively worked to promote anti-semitism.  I don't view Gibson the same way I view Cruise and Card, because there is a radical difference in what they've said and done.  I'm not a Gibson fan in the first place, but I just don't really care what the guy does or doesn't do.   Rousey, to a lesser degree, wasn't just espousing an opinion, she was making an argument that a particular kind of person doesn't belong in her profession.  As a respected top level professional in her career, her words and actions (through what matches she accepts) aren't just opinion, they carry the weight of influence to help determine the policy of her profession. 

 

I'll be honest though, and say I don't know enough about the science and medicine behind transitioning when it comes to hormone therapy to know what the right call in sports is.  It's not something I have an opinion on, because I don't know enough.  But if other people more knowledgeable than me find her words and actions harmful, then I don't see how in good conscience they could continue to support her professionally.  I didn't hear Danielle arguing that Rousey doesn't get credit for what she's accomplished, but that she just can't support her going forward. 

 

I don't really buy into Rob's argument about not having idols though.  I've got a deeply cynical streak in me, but that's too cynical a stance for me even.  I don't think most people's brains work that way.  We connect emotionally with celebrities, often whether we want to or not.  Someone like Warren Zevon isn't just a musician whose music I like, in many ways he's the soundtrack of my adult life.  I don't know how someone whose work I've spent thousands of hours with can't end up in an elevated position in my brain.  I do think we can too easily idolize celebrities, while knowing little to nothing about them.  I suspect that what we do too often is build fake idols, imagining the person we want to exist, rather than the person who does exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair and like I said everyone has their own lines (Danielle seemed to come down pretty firmly on "I can no longer support this person at all")... What seems reasonable or debatable to one person may totally cross a line for another, but this also ties into just not knowing stuff and then saying things that if you did have that perspective you would realize were incredibly insensitive or even damaging. I think people get crucified for saying the wrong thing a little too easily sometimes. When the immediate reaction is to dismiss a person they don't really get a chance to learn and maybe change their mind.


What I took from Rob's argument was not that you shouldn't have heroes that you admire but that you shouldn't expect them to be perfect (for you) in every way. Appreciate what you appreciate about them and disagree with what you disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like stories about the experience of faith in extremity (particularly a person feeling the presence or absence of God in events). A lot of my discomfort with That Dragon, Cancer has come from a Radiolab/Reply All interview where one of the creators said quite specifically that the ultimate purpose of their game is "witnessing" for the Christian faith and that that's the reason why they and their son had to suffered. I haven't had an opportunity to play the game yet and maybe I won't ever get it, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with the thought that a game about such a difficult subject being presented with an agenda that purports to have an answer for why it happened. I can only hope that the witnessing is the passive recounting of events rather than the active construction of a narrative, I don't know.

 

I went back this afternoon and listened to the slightly longer Reply All version of the story to see if my original impression stayed the same on a relisten.  (side note to others: several of us discussed this subject a few nights ago in the slack chat, Gorm and I were both on the side of having some discomfort with the game).  I do think the parents are incredibly genuine in their desire to use the game as a way to process grief, to memorialize their son, to share the experiences.  But I also still have some really strong negative reactions to portions of their story.  I'm not sure I'm comfortable discussing those further in public though.  There's too many unknowns, where I think I'm filling in blank spots with my own issues with both religion and family that may or may not accurately map over to their story.  And given that we're only getting parts of the story, both from the interviews and the game itself, it's probably more generous to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

 

On another note, I suspect some of the negative reaction to the game in terms of both content (death of a child specifically) and exploitation comes from people who just don't have much experience with these kinds of stories.  Parents processing grief through telling their story publicly has a pretty long history, and can be valuable, not just from other people being able to learn from them but even from an historical standpoint.  The classic book Death Be Not Proud is the true story of a man's teen son dying from a brain tumor in the 1940s.  One of the things I found most fascinating about the book was its recounting of the state of technology in regards to cancer in the 40s, which was much, much, much further along than I would have assumed (early forms of both chemotherapy and radiation are used on the son if I remember correctly). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very much in agreement with Rob's position that having heroes idols is ill-advised. I think it is well and good to admire actions and qualities, and to admire people in particular ways, but turning an individual person into something more than a person, or assuming that certain actions and qualities indicate some kind of overall greatness, is generally destined to fail. I don't see it as a cynical viewpoint, either, just a recognition that humans are only human. There's still nothing wrong with admiring the great things humans can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all! Something I wanted to really briefly clarify re: my comments on Rousey: her initial comments on Fallon Fox were something I considered ignorant, but not necessarily malicious. She commented on fighting a person who was assigned male at birth, that there was an unfair advantage to a person who had gone through puberty and had the bone structure of an adult man.

 

Now, the science on that says that transwomen who have transitioned (i.e. who are taking hormone therapy) have essentially reversed their possible advantage, since HRT comes with side effects that present possible athletic disadvantages. Basically, science has refuted those comments. I don't crucify Rousey for saying what she initially said - she may have just simply not known, and those initial comments just read as basic ignorance to me, not like a mean or gross statement about trans folks.

 

But when she doubled down on her initial statement, she crossed the line, in my mind, from being perhaps insensitive to being fully gross and transphobic - she said "she can chop her pecker off" -- http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/news/436662/Rousey-Chop-her-pecker-off-Fallon-Fox-still-at-an-advantage/

 

I still commend the hell out of Rousey for what she's done for women's sports and women in combat sports particularly. And I would forgive her if she made an actual apology (with action behind it) to Fox and the trans community. (Not that I think Rousey would give a damn what some dorky video game podcaster thinks, I'm just illustrating where the line is for me with hero worship). I think there's room for forgiveness, as I've said, I've said and done some really awful things in my life. I like to give others the chance to make things better as well.

 

Just keep wearing your bracelets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very much in agreement with Rob's position that having heroes idols is ill-advised. I think it is well and good to admire actions and qualities, and to admire people in particular ways, but turning an individual person into something more than a person, or assuming that certain actions and qualities indicate some kind of overall greatness, is generally destined to fail. I don't see it as a cynical viewpoint, either, just a recognition that humans are only human. There's still nothing wrong with admiring the great things humans can do.

 

I agree in theory, but I also think it is very difficult for almost anyone to isolate their admiration for a person's achievements from admiration from the person themselves. It's a natural equivalency for anyone living in nearly any cultures, to me. I know that I do my best to have a mental auriga standing behind everyone whom I respect, reminding me that they are only human, but it's still quite easy to let that slip and to fall into the patterns of thought that make that great accomplishments (or talent or attractiveness or power or eloquence) a signifier of greatness (or, even worse, goodness) itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in theory, but I also think it is very difficult for almost anyone to isolate their admiration for a person's achievements from admiration from the person themselves. It's a natural equivalency for anyone living in nearly any cultures, to me. I know that I do my best to have a mental auriga standing behind everyone whom I respect, reminding me that they are only human, but it's still quite easy to let that slip and to fall into the patterns of thought that make that great accomplishments (or talent or attractiveness or power or eloquence) a signifier of greatness (or, even worse, goodness) itself.

 

That was the point I was trying to get at, that it's not a bad theory but I doubt it works for most people in practice.

 

I used the word cynical intentionally because, I feel like the argument as it was presented created an expectation of unforgivable fallibility.  Not only will your idols fail you, they will do so in a way that's irredeemable, or the likelihood is enough that it's just better not to have idols (that's my interpretation of that approach, may or may not be what Rob intended).   I feel like you can have someone as a personal idol or hero, and still acknowledge and expect their flawed humanity.  This may be a definitional issue, where the way we think of each of these words (respect, idol, hero, admiration) are varied just enough that we aren't as dissimilar in opinion as it seems. 

 

Some of the people I'd probably slot into the hero/idol status are people who were actually pretty broken, or have gone through some very broken periods or done shitty things or been shitty people.  Their very humanity is what makes them compelling to look up to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in theory, but I also think it is very difficult for almost anyone to isolate their admiration for a person's achievements from admiration from the person themselves. It's a natural equivalency for anyone living in nearly any cultures, to me. I know that I do my best to have a mental auriga standing behind everyone whom I respect, reminding me that they are only human, but it's still quite easy to let that slip and to fall into the patterns of thought that make that great accomplishments (or talent or attractiveness or power or eloquence) a signifier of greatness (or, even worse, goodness) itself.

 

Well, if we simply talk about what people are likely to do if they don't act intentionally, then it would be pointless to have a discussion about what actually leads to a healthier life, haha. I mean, in practice, people also eat unhealthily and don't exercise enough and treat other people shittily, but that doesn't mean that's a good prescription. I'm saying that, all else equal, I believe it's better not to raise people to idol or hero status. I think that not buying into a culture of lionization is absolutely achievable and to me, generally speaking, should be something adults strive for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we simply talk about what people are likely to do if they don't act intentionally, then it would be pointless to have a discussion about what actually leads to a healthier life, haha. I mean, in practice, people also eat unhealthily and don't exercise enough and treat other people shittily, but that doesn't mean that's a good prescription. I'm saying that, all else equal, I believe it's better not to raise people to idol or hero status. I think that not buying into a culture of lionization is absolutely achievable and to me, generally speaking, should be something adults strive for.

Hah, of course! I guess my point was just that it's as easy to be fallible about remembering people are fallible as it is for people to be fallible in the first place. In my experience, it's been better for me just to keep such things in mind and try not to defend "bad" behavior because it's "good" people doing it, rather than police my admiration too closely. For others, I imagine that the latter comes more naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks: I appreciate the discussion but I hope a topic from one episode doesn't continue to colonize all future episode threads of this podcast. It has generated REALLY long posts and I'm concerned that it will unintentionally dampen discussion of other topics that are more relevant to the episode in question. If you would like to have ongoing conversations about this, please create an actual thread about it in the general gaming forum.

Oh, I'm really sorry about that - I created a new thread to discuss that here:

https://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/topic/10670-can-game-mechanics-be-ingrained-with-cultureideology/

Again, sorry about sort of stumbling through the forums...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the idol conversation:

 

There's a difference between respecting someone for specific accomplishments and idolizing them. Idolizing implies ideals and causes us to fill in any gaps of intimate knowledge about a specific person, usually with the best possible characteristics we can imagine. This happens frequently with celebrities, who are revered for generally shallow attributes (looks, fame) but are turned into these paragons of goodness by the people who idolize them. It's therefore disappointing when it turns out a celebrity is just a normal person with normal flaws, or in some cases, worse than normal flaws caused by the pressures of fame. We want our idols to be ideal in every way and are upset when they are not, but it's important to remember that the people we idolize generally never asked to be seen as a perfect exemplar of humanity and therefore, should not take all the blame when they inevitably disappoint us (and I don't think it's cynical to say that idols will disappoint you, because by definition, an idol consists of numerous falsehoods that we cannot reasonably expect to be true for one human).

 

The line between respect and idol-worship is of course difficult to see and I can't blame anyone for dipping into idolization (I do it too). But, it's fair to question our assumptions about people we see as "good" and make sure that we're not taking a specific "good" quality - looks, athletic skill, acting, etc - and assuming that it applies to every other part of that person's being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

After months listening to Idle Thumbs podcasts, I finally signed up on this forum because there was too much of interest to me in this episode for me to keep quiet any longer :)

 

First of all, thanks for this great new show. I listen regularly to 3MA but not so much to Idle Thumbs (because, I confess, my favourite podcasters are across the pond); that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed every episode of Idle Weekend, so congrats!

And this is especially true with, this episode in which you discussed a game I happen to have re-installed as recently as yesterday: The Banner Saga. This is probably the flawed game I enjoy the most; combat can get repetitive (though I would argue that its drabness makes the journey feel even harsher, and thus plays into the game's theme), but that world, oh that world... And that soundtrack! Austin Wintory really is a brilliant composer.

 

BUT TO MY POINT (there is actually one, I promise): do you guys know of other games featuring this mixture of travel and strategy so well? The only other one that comes to my mind would be the original Myth by Bungie, but I would enjoy playing others, and would be glad if you could tell me about similar titles.

 

And on to another topic, regarding Mrs. Rousey's transphobic outburst: I enjoy UFC and mixed martial arts in general and, perhaps because I happen to live with a female practitioner of this art, I also admire Ronda's career and what she's done for the sport. However, her recent behaviour has been nothing less than scandalous: her attitude at the weigh-in with Holly Holm was shameful, when Holm was calm and respectful. I assume part of this is down to the culture of trash talking that is fostered at the UFC, but it feels like this spilled into Rousey's more general public persona. Should it be expected of competitors in general? I'm not sure. Being an MMA fighter does not prevent you from being civil, doesn't it? This transphobic comment is the last straw, in my opinion.

Ok I need to stop writing, this is already too long. Thanks again for the great podcast, and looking forward to hearing you two next week. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now