GDC! Idle Thumbs Conf Grenade: A Fish Called Xtreme

[Jake]

GDC is here, and we are there! Many guests from Thumbs' past on the show today. Bonus: watch as I get spanked for saying Ebert is full of it.

GDC! Idle Thumbs Conf Grenade:

"A Fish Called Xtreme"

GDC is warming up, and so are we. Idle Thumbs alums Marek Bronstring, Duncan Fyfe, and Lawrence Bishop join in for an look at GDC's first days of Indie-focused content, our anticipated panels, fabricated sex scandals and more.

Things Discussed: Jason Rohrer, WiiWare, OnLive, Neil Young, Peter Molyneux, Carmack's Revenge

[shawsie64]

I checked for it 20 mins ago and it wasnt up so i clicked this:

http://www.idleballad.com/

and watched while thinking "man i cant wait for antoher episode" and lo and behold when it refreshed a new episode.. sweeet.

[ak79]

On OnLive, I get that they've been working on this for '7 years', but unless they're putting their huge intellects together to defeat the speed of light (psionic wormholes anyone?) there are some hurdles they just can't overcome. I missed part of the presentation yesterday, but during the QA there was a brief mention of perception I believe, and on MTV Multiplayer Perlman mentions 'fundamental work in psychophysical science'. That, plus their reluctance to actually discuss what's being done suggests that their solution to frames of latency is to 'fake it' (aggressive prediction?). Which will probably be acceptable to a whole bunch of people -- but are these the people who are going to pay a monthly fee for a game service? Are these even the people interested in (from the titles listed) Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Prince of Persia? Or are they more likely to enjoy Lego Batman?

[SignorSuperdouche]

Marek has the sexiest voice in podcasting.

[OssK]

What Game would you pick to prove that you can convey story or emotion without story ?

I guess a lot of people would pick Braid, Passage or Gravitation or Marriage but these picks effectively reduce the spectrum to such a degree of what an actual gamart can be that it leads most people to, as you mentioned Jake, call them "art-games" and dismiss them with the argument "yeah but those are art games, pieces of interaction that narrow the field of gaming to a 2D platformer with a bunch of interaction".

That's pretty much what you said Marek and this is what I saw too: we gaming afficionados do not have to think a single second about the way we control these games, we just know what to do, so we concentrate on understanding what is happening, what the gameplay is about, and that leads us to ask ourselves what the game is about. And when YOU find out what it is about, you made the story happen as you understood it. Which is pretty much what happens in films or books: as you live through the story, things happen and you are part of the process. In most games, they just go "hey, you're that dude who has to save the princess, that's the story now just do it".

It's two distinct things: try to watch a movie that is really strong emotionally with a friend and pause every five minutes to explain what is happening to him and he'll probably won't the things you felt discovering, exploring the story.

And that is in my opinion why you can make games that are art, you just have to keep the player inside the character, Half Life did that really well with me, and that or portal would more likely be a game I would pick as "a game is art without relying only on scripted events" because scripted events although this is REALLY ironic to say that of such a scripted game... I guess my immersion and feelings came ALONG with the scripts rather than from the scripts.

[brkl]

So fucking tired of people who don't know anything about video games make authoritative claims.

If the only movie I had seen was Steven Seagal's Under Siege (which I watched a couple of days ago), and made some claims about cinema based on that, Roger Ebert wouldn't spend time arguing against me. Why do we keep trying to disprove the arguments of people who are basing their claims on nothing at all?

[BigJKO]

This was possibly my favorite episode, so far. It's so much fun having guests on the podcast.

[elmuerte]

Content and discussion wise this is probably the most interesting episode so far I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy the previous episode. I think this episode may have a replay value higher than 1.

[David]

SLAM DUNCAN!

[drummand]

Nice ep., as usual.

As an aside, but the talk about self-advancing slides on a 5 minute presentation reminded me of the Ignite. Stumbled across that a couple weeks back, thought it kind of interesting; the system itself makes some of the presentations interesting, even if the topic isn't necessarily (though clearly some are better than others).

[Historical_Society]

Great episode. I did miss the ambient sirens, but I noticed that it was replaced by a very subtle song underneath. Was it a ringtone? All three guest were great. Looking forward to the year 2016.

[OssK]

So fucking tired of people who don't know anything about video games make authoritative claims.

If the only movie I had seen was Steven Seagal's Under Siege (which I watched a couple of days ago), and made some claims about cinema based on that, Roger Ebert wouldn't spend time arguing against me. Why do we keep trying to disprove the arguments of people who are basing their claims on nothing at all?

Not sure about that, he may not know a thing and randomly say what he said, why should we consider his background if what he said was actually valid... Ebert raised a point, and even if it was a sentence randomly generated by a Roboger Cybert, a cyborg version of Ebert, it would still be quite a valid point in the actual conjuncture...

[Spaff]

Steven Seagal's Under Siege is the Fable 6 of movies

[tsef]

About the guy that was chased by a tv crew. I heard the name as Arte. If it is the case it is a german-french public channel.

[OssK]

Steven Seagal's Under Siege is the Fable 6 of movies

Which is itself the Dungeon and Dragons of video games

with dogs

[soupface]

That's some nice album art, that is. Thumbs up, Jake (I would assume you're responsible for it).

Also, Cool Tools!

pEwjV5wt7ns

Edited March 26, 2009 by soupface

[blackboxme]

I often think of the Ebert test, not as a measure of actual merit, but in terms of how easy it would be to use a game to get Ebert to revisit his ideas.

But, here's an argument anyway:

So Ebert says that games can't be serious art because a lot of authorial control is yielded to the player, but with a piece of music, a musician can perform it and interpret it the way they like. Is Bach's Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring not serious because the musician has the freedom to interpret it?

Fantastic episode, really top notch discussion.

[Sergey]

The podcast titles are getting more and more obscure.

[elmuerte]

how is "a fish called xtreme" obscure?

[pwnage1232]

Great episode. I did miss the ambient sirens, but I noticed that it was replaced by a very subtle song underneath. Was it a ringtone? All three guest were great. Looking forward to the year 2016.

God, someone else caught on that. I just thought my car might've been breaking down in a whimsical and rhythmic fashion.

[brkl]

Not sure about that, he may not know a thing and randomly say what he said, why should we consider his background if what he said was actually valid... Ebert raised a point, and even if it was a sentence randomly generated by a Roboger Cybert, a cyborg version of Ebert, it would still be quite a valid point in the actual conjuncture...

It's not valid. He thinks games operate by magic.

There's nothing in a game that the author hasn't put in it. Players are not free to do anything in the game -- they can only do what the author has dictated beforehand. Sculptures are still art even though I can choose the angle I view them from.

[toblix]

There's nothing in a game that the author hasn't put in it.

Sure, but the player can take out more than the author put in. I avoided hitting pedestrians in GTA IV because I felt guilty when running them over. THEY DIDN'T PROGRAM MY GUILT!!!

[OssK]

There's nothing in a game that the author hasn't put in it. Players are not free to do anything in the game -- they can only do what the author has dictated beforehand. Sculptures are still art even though I can choose the angle I view them from.

That's what I said to a friend last time, because from an authorial point of view, as a game designer I can't help but think that way. He however, states that interactivity is what makes games unique in the sense that even if the authors know the milestones, they cannot predict with a 100% chance that a player is not going to go backwards or kill innocents; and even though you have encoded a restricted number of behaviors, the number of times I as a player interact with them, cross them, mess with them and what I take from them is not under your control, you can only predict so much... And beyond that limit is where the game lives. Kind of like a baby

There is part of what you want it to be, and part of what he will grow up to be. (shitty metaphor spotted)

[brkl]

The player can kill innocents only because you let it happen. Same for anything else. Doing those things is not playing the game "wrong" or stealing authorship, it's still simply doing only what the designer lets you.

The director cannot predict if someone watching a movie will pause it, ruining pacing. That doesn't make the movie any less art.

[DanJW]

No artform is about delivering an exact message from author to audience. Those that try are perceived as 'preachy' and hamfisted. There is always interpretation going on, and a diologue between art and observer. In painting there are terms like "observer's portion" to describe this (where, say, a suggestion of a shape is extrapolated by the brain to be a full representation of the shape). The best art allows the beholder to find themself in it, things which the artist did not put there, but allowed for.

It even operates in motion picture, which makes me think that however good a critic Ebert is, he still does not fully understand even his chosen field, let alone other artistic mediums.

Those that can, do. Those that can't, become critics.