Sign in to follow this  
Jake

Idle Thumbs 110: The Thing That You Needed To Say

Recommended Posts

I agree with a lot of what was said with regards to historical games, but I think these issues get kind of complicated by how ignorant people are of actual history. For example, I've read a lot of complaints about how in the new Company of Heroes 2 the Soviet tank units have a female voice when you select them, and that the idea of female combatants in WWII is ridiculous and PC. However the Red Army actually had many female soldiers, and they were often tank drivers. Similarly, we have records of female and African-American fighter pilots in WWI, even if they were extremely rare.

 

Ace Patrol isn't a particularly deep simulation to begin with. The campaigns for the four sides are basically identical, and the only detailed realism in the game has to do with the specs of the various planes. All things considered, I don't find the inclusion of African-American and women pilots in Ace Patrol the least bit off putting, quite the contrary, I found the inclusion to be a very nice touch. Often, history is more complicated than any game can really hope to capture, and far more nuanced than most gamers might realize.

Sure, I mean, exaggerating the true extent of the status quo—to the point that it becomes all-encompassing, with any outliers sanded away—is also not admirable.

In something like Ace Patrol, I wasn't actually bothered in an active sense while playing. It was more something that I found a little bit unsettling upon reflection. Not because I think it's going to be harmful simply thanks to that one game, but just the notion of taking an actual real historical event and using it as nothing more than essentially comfort food. It's definitely a weird gray area, but you'd never do that kind of thing with a more recent historical event of such global magnitude. And with some events, you'd maybe never do it. You'd never do that in World War II with the Nazis as one faction, right? (Or at least, probably not, in a game like this. There are goofy games with Nazis, but not where every side is portrayed as identically friendly and egalitarian.) But there were something like 37 million casualties in World War I still, and if anything it was one of history's biggest dividing lines between the old world system of rigid class hierarchies, and the slow lurch toward modernity. It was a fulcrum point; not an event following that fulcrum. So to just slap a coat of modern perspective paint over it seemed a little weird to me.

And just to further clarify: look, I know it doesn't really matter all that much. It's not like I think Firaxis needs to be castigated over this or anything. But I do think it's worth considering, and I wonder what kind of discussions Firaxis had about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That "Dead Jake" email together with it being a Jake, Chris and Nick cast made this episode really sound like one from the original run.

 

Also on the topic of cool effects in video games. Check out Memories of a Broken Dimension: http://datatragedy.com/MOABD_PrinceOfArcade.zip (PC) That thing is CRAZY. It's pretty much all of the effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I mean, exaggerating the true extent of the status quo—to the point that it becomes all-encompassing, with any outliers sanded away—is also not admirable.

In something like Ace Patrol, I wasn't actually bothered in an active sense while playing. It was more something that I found a little bit unsettling upon reflection. Not because I think it's going to be harmful simply thanks to that one game, but just the notion of taking an actual real historical event and using it as nothing more than essentially comfort food. It's definitely a weird gray area, but you'd never do that kind of thing with a more recent historical event of such global magnitude. And with some events, you'd maybe never do it. You'd never do that in World War II with the Nazis as one faction, right? (Or at least, probably not, in a game like this. There are goofy games with Nazis, but not where every side is portrayed as identically friendly and egalitarian.) But there were something like 37 million casualties in World War I still, and if anything it was one of history's biggest dividing lines between the old world system of rigid class hierarchies, and the slow lurch toward modernity. It was a fulcrum point; not an event following that fulcrum. So to just slap a coat of modern perspective paint over it seemed a little weird to me.

And just to further clarify: look, I know it doesn't really matter all that much. It's not like I think Firaxis needs to be castigated over this or anything. But I do think it's worth considering, and I wonder what kind of discussions Firaxis had about it.

 

Yeah, I agree that it is a weird gray area. From my perspective, I think it's okay to have things set in history that aren't extremely accurate, but of course I want some works. to display some real fidelity to history. I want both types of works to exist, but I don't know why it's okay for any individual work to exist in one camp or the other, but in other cases it might come off as odd or problematic.

 

I also would be interested in the discussion Firaxis had since the easy thing for them to do would have been to just have a bunch of white male pilots all across the board. So it seems like it must have been a deliberate choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cube-mapping question was about the effect that makes it look like there's a three dimensional space beyond building windows. When you move the camera around, it looks like you're looking into a room, even though there's no geometry there.

It's like parallax mapping, I guess.

I found this blog about it, which has illustrative animated gifs which are too large to repost: http://simonschreibt.blogspot.com/2013/01/assassins-creed-3-windows.html

(I did not submit that question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Brink a multiplayer only major console release? Made by the Enemy Territory devs, even. I think the single player mode was just actually bot matches. Disclaimer: I've never played it.

 

On an unrelated note, are you guys looking forward to Pikmin 3? I'm pretty sure it has multiplayer, though maybe local only? I loved the previous two, and when I watch the trailers I get the same feeling Jake described. They hook me, but I know it won't stick. I wonder what it would take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brink's single-player(/co-op) was the multiplayer maps in a specific order with cutscenes against bots. It was awful. The multiplayer was fun, but the maps weren't very well designed, and it had a really shitty launch, so it died. It makes me sad. Eurgh. ):

 

Pikmin 3 will have no online, unless Nintendo changed their "it has too many units to do online properly" stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed by Sony's decision to switch to paid multiplayer, but to me it's less of an issue than it is with Microsoft's consoles. Firstly, they've stated that functions like Netflix will still not require PS+. These are what Microsoft tries to bring to the table as "value adds", but they're services that either already require a separate subscription fee, or are completely free on the web. That, to me, is just holding functionality hostage (just like with multiplayer), not a value add, and I certainly wouldn't pay for Xbox Live just on the basis of being able to use streaming media apps. Secondly, PS+ has been a crazy value even on PS3 and Vita, where multiplayer is free. You're paying $50 a year (I guess that might be going up to $60?), i.e. not even the price of a retail console game, for an up front collection of between six and two or three times that games (depending on platforms owned) and at least one game a month but more like 4+ if you own both platforms. Sure, you don't get to select those games and you lose access if you stop subscribing, but there have been very few duds since I joined and even a couple of quality titles would basically cover the cost, value-wise. (And there's some other stuff too, but that's the main thing.) Assuming they continue to provide the same type and quality of content as part of the PS+ subscription, it's really a no-brainer for anyone going Playstation and if everyone's subscribing anyway, the barrier to multiplayer becomes substantially lower.

 

That said, I don't think charging for multiplayer precludes making multiplayer only games for the console. People who are serious about console multiplayer just consider the cost of a Live subscription part of their hobby, the same will likely be true for PS+. What it does is discourage casual dips into multiplayer. I'm not much of a multiplayer gamer in general and don't spend much time on console, but I've occasionally picked up games for 360 that had online cooperative multiplayer support, and I might even have tried it if I hadn't had to drop $50+ on a subscription I'd barely use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea brink was fun, there were parts of maps that were good, but overall the design not so fun, especially the indoor maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris suddenly talking about Stickets made me think not of a Town Hall meeting but of the guy showing up at the EA shareholders meeting:

 

"Um, hello there?  Will there be any treats?  Does anyone know where I can find that sweet picture of Michael Jordan on a 386 computer?  And I downloaded this game, Stickets? for my iPhone?  And I can't mute the sound.  No, it's not an EA game.  But if you're making a mobile game, you need -- you need to -- include controls to disable sound and music within the game itself and not just expect me to mute my entire phone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys talking about Brink sounds almost exactly like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which I loved. Made by Splash Damage too, so that sucks for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys talking about Brink sounds almost exactly like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which I loved. Made by Splash Damage too, so that sucks for them.

Yep, they're very similar types of games, as far as I know. Splash Damage. ):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed by Sony's decision to switch to paid multiplayer, but to me it's less of an issue than it is with Microsoft's consoles. Firstly, they've stated that functions like Netflix will still not require PS+. These are what Microsoft tries to bring to the table as "value adds", but they're services that either already require a separate subscription fee, or are completely free on the web. That, to me, is just holding functionality hostage (just like with multiplayer), not a value add, and I certainly wouldn't pay for Xbox Live just on the basis of being able to use streaming media apps. Secondly, PS+ has been a crazy value even on PS3 and Vita, where multiplayer is free. You're paying $50 a year (I guess that might be going up to $60?), i.e. not even the price of a retail console game, for an up front collection of between six and two or three times that games (depending on platforms owned) and at least one game a month but more like 4+ if you own both platforms. Sure, you don't get to select those games and you lose access if you stop subscribing, but there have been very few duds since I joined and even a couple of quality titles would basically cover the cost, value-wise. (And there's some other stuff too, but that's the main thing.) Assuming they continue to provide the same type and quality of content as part of the PS+ subscription, it's really a no-brainer for anyone going Playstation and if everyone's subscribing anyway, the barrier to multiplayer becomes substantially lower.

 

That said, I don't think charging for multiplayer precludes making multiplayer only games for the console. People who are serious about console multiplayer just consider the cost of a Live subscription part of their hobby, the same will likely be true for PS+. What it does is discourage casual dips into multiplayer. I'm not much of a multiplayer gamer in general and don't spend much time on console, but I've occasionally picked up games for 360 that had online cooperative multiplayer support, and I might even have tried it if I hadn't had to drop $50+ on a subscription I'd barely use.

 

Honestly I don't begrudge Sony or Microsoft too much for charging for multiplayer. Running servers for them costs money so I get it. Unless a game is continually bringing in revenue (F2P, whatever MMOs are left with monthly fees), that's gonna eat into your bottom line eventually. It's not like on PC where anyone can host a server (is that how it still is? God I'm out of the loop on multiplayer gaming). I think you could still sell a full priced multiplayer only console game today, but you damn well better put a free trial of Live or PS+ in the box with it.

 

You are right about the casual play though. I know there've been a handful of games I've ignored multiplayer components on because I let my Live subscription lapse. I wonder if a game like Journey were made for the PS4, would it require PS+?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the devs/pubs pay for the servers for multiplayer games (when a server is actually needed). Quite some console games use a P2P network rather than the more Client/Server model which traditionally was used by PC games (most FPS, RTS games also used P2P).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, there were a lot of interesting topics covered in this episode. I just remembered the discussion about mulling over puzzles in games, taking a break for a few hours (or days or whatever) and coming back and having a eureka moment. That is totally how I play point and click adventure games. My fiancee is not like that at all however, she will just obsess over getting it and powering through the game, and I'm like, "no, we can figure this out later!" It's too bad since adventure games are one of the few areas where our tastes in games overlap, and yet we have such different play styles.

 

I also am not the sort of person that will spend a weekend sitting through an entire season of a TV show on Netflix. After 2 episodes I need to do something else. So I wonder if it is more of a general personality thing as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, there were a lot of interesting topics covered in this episode. I just remembered the discussion about mulling over puzzles in games, taking a break for a few hours (or days or whatever) and coming back and having a eureka moment. That is totally how I play point and click adventure games. My fiancee is not like that at all however, she will just obsess over getting it and powering through the game, and I'm like, "no, we can figure this out later!" It's too bad since adventure games are one of the few areas where our tastes in games overlap, and yet we have such different play styles.

 

I also am not the sort of person that will spend a weekend sitting through an entire season of a TV show on Netflix. After 2 episodes I need to do something else. So I wonder if it is more of a general personality thing as well...

i watch entire series (all seasons) of TV shows in big chunks and i do like to power through games on my first go, but i do have that thing of getting to a point in a game and being completely stuck but then i play it the next day and it isn't even hard anymore, so maybe there is a connection between marathoning TV shows and powering through games, but that doesn't stop that "eureka" moment from occurring frequently by powering though games, i think that is a separate thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the post-episode confession regarding the ongoing (imagined?) war between Giant Bomb and Idle Thumbs.

BEST

(in seriousness, not for the GB guys who had stuff stolen, but still funny)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i watch entire series (all seasons) of TV shows in big chunks and i do like to power through games on my first go, but i do have that thing of getting to a point in a game and being completely stuck but then i play it the next day and it isn't even hard anymore, so maybe there is a connection between marathoning TV shows and powering through games, but that doesn't stop that "eureka" moment from occurring frequently by powering though games, i think that is a separate thing

 

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to conflate the two ideas. I was simply referring to play styles when I mentioned the TV thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I'm late to this conversation, but on the topic of authorial responsibility in fantasy, I think it's telling, at least in terms of intended audience, that most fantasy works enshrine an inequality between the sexes, in which almost all medieval people believed, but not the positive existence of God or heaven, in which almost all medieval people believed. In the past several years, the presence of a coherent and non-strawman belief system has become my touchstone for whether a fantasy work is going to piss me off or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While listening I kind of expected Telltale's The Walking Dead to be referenced when Chris was talking about transmedia stuff, but I've since realised that maybe it doesn't count as transmedia, as while it's set in the Walking Dead universe it may not fit into Wikipedia's description of "telling a single story or story experience across multiple platforms and formats using current digital technologies." It's set in the same universe, but isn't telling the same story as the comic or T.V. show. What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While listening I kind of expected Telltale's The Walking Dead to be referenced when Chris was talking about transmedia stuff, but I've since realised that maybe it doesn't count as transmedia, as while it's set in the Walking Dead universe it may not fit into Wikipedia's description of "telling a single story or story experience across multiple platforms and formats using current digital technologies." It's set in the same universe, but isn't telling the same story as the comic or T.V. show. What do you guys think?

It's not transmedia, it's adaptation. For transmedia, see a couple episodes back where they talked about Shadows of the Empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walking Dead was deliberately avoided by me because I didn't want to go into the obligatory deep dive of untangling "is it or isn't it"/"what is transmedia," which seemed beside the point of the conversation.

The Dash Rendar synergy is definitely transmedia! The Matrix sequels and how "you're only getting part of the story if you see the films!!" so you have to play the game and watch the Animatrix DVD to see it all was a pretty intense transmedia shitstorm. Seems like Skylanders is an example of 80s TV/toy tie-in turned into a transmedia thing. Anyway barf. Maek gaem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not transmedia, it's adaptation. For transmedia, see a couple episodes back where they talked about Shadows of the Empire.

 

Yes, it's adaptation. There's no need to use the word "transmedia" for cases where we have a perfectly good and less jargony word. The Walking Dead didn't even occur to me at that point on the podcast. Hopefully not too many people thought I was deploying some kind of burn-by-omission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think I was just applying an incorrect interpretation of what "transmedia" means that was based on combining the elements of the compound word rather than the actual definition.

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
Sign in to follow this