Jake

Idle Thumbs 118: A Simple Litter

Recommended Posts

I kinda agree. Maybe it was just the slightly abortive conversations about Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us, but it feels like there aren't as many games being played out of the Thumbs' comfort zone. Granted, it used to be because they had jobs as game journalists, and now there's no good reason they shouldn't use their free time to always be playing something in their wheelhouse, but I think a lot of what's made the Crusader Kings II streams and discussion so interesting and popular is how novel it is to Chris and Nick, how it forces them to really react, I don't know.

 

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I really enjoy hearing them talk about off-the-radar games that I would normally never hear about because it encourages me to go out of my comfort zone to try something new. On the other hand I do sometimes lose interest in the conversation when I am only hearing about games I have never previously heard of and when all of the opinions about those games are so unified.

 

My favorite episodes have always been the ones where there is at least some conversation about a big game that I am aware of (e.g. Dishonored, Bioshock Infinite, Last of Us) followed by some conversation about less popular games. It gets me much more excited to play a "Thumbs game" when I hear them talk about what they dislike about a certain AAA game and then follow that discussion up with talk of a lesser known game that they believe gets those things right.

 

That being said, the last several episodes have been fantastic and hearing the Crusader Kings II stuff has been absolutely fascinating. Danielle was an awesome guest and it was nice to get a different perspective on some of those games.

 

Edit: And Nick Breckon has finally been getting some words in lately! Something about Nick's enthusiasm is very infectious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I love Saints Row 3 and talking about why it's good (because it's really shockingly good), but I'm also curious about the Pikmin 2 fake college course thing that they said they were gonna link in the show notes and then (unless I missed it) didn't.

 

Anybody know where to read that? It sounds awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: And Nick Breckon has finally been getting some words in lately! Something about Nick's enthusiasm is very infectious.

 

Do you mean Jake? Nick wasn't on the cast this week. Is this the continuing chronicles of Nick-Jake robot-baby?

 

Also, here's a link to the Pikmin 2 article Jake was talking about: http://critical-gaming.com/blog/2009/5/18/critical-gaming-pikmin-course-week-1.html

 

I haven't read beyond the first article yet so I'll form thoughts on it as we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean Jake? Nick wasn't on the cast this week. Is this the continuing chronicles of Nick-Jake robot-baby?

 

No, I mean Nick. I just listened to the last four casts back-to-back-to-back-to-back and the three prior to this one had the most Breckon I've heard in a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok. Though it would have been hilarious if even long-time listeners are confusing them, whether intentionally or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if nobody's told Jake yet, there's still multiple win conditions for Pikmin 3 multiplayer. There's a treasure called a Victory Macaroon that counts as an instant win if you bring it to your base (like taking the other guy's marble), and since each player's bingo card is different you may have to choose between grabbing a treasure that will help you complete a line faster or a treasure that will prevent your oppontent from completing a line at all. In addition, every Pikmin type is present instead of just red and blue, so you can explore a lot more playstyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a site selling anti-screen cheating things: http://www.screencheatingshield.com/

 

They are selling them for $10 which doesn't sound too bad but then you scroll down and it turns out they aren't even selling you the cardboard. Instead they are selling you some clips or something to use with your own cardboard to make one....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean Jake? Nick wasn't on the cast this week. Is this the continuing chronicles of Nick-Jake robot-baby?

 

Also, here's a link to the Pikmin 2 article Jake was talking about: http://critical-gaming.com/blog/2009/5/18/critical-gaming-pikmin-course-week-1.html

 

I haven't read beyond the first article yet so I'll form thoughts on it as we go.

 

Thanks for the link! I was wondering about that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice cast, count me in on enjoying Danielle as a guest!You've established a great roster of people to have show up on occasion.

 

I've owned Saints Row 3 for quite a while, and I too haven't had a lot of enthusiasm for getting into it. It's not that I don't enjoy wacky humour, it's just in that position of being recommended so hard on that front it feels like it won't live up to the hype. Giant Bomb has done this specifically to me with Far Cry 3 well, where they talked about a specific level as being amazing, and then when I experienced it, it was just kinda meh. I also have a fair amount of open world reluctance, because they are generally long games, and I don't enjoy the driving/shooting mechanics for as long as the game lasts ever. 

 

 

GTAIV from a writing standpoint is a game I enjoyed very much. I loved the characters. Just having a game about various immigrants and their life in a new country felt unique. Little Jacob is the only character I can remember with an actual strong patois accent in a video game played straight. Even so, I didn't finish it. However, that was mostly the gameplay, rather than me not enjoying them attempting to tell some sort of interesting story. I feel like a lot of the SR to GTA comparisons seem like they denigrate the attempts at serious storytelling that were the only draw for me, assuming that I just want a goofy world to mess around in. I would be way more on board if the arguments were being made from a gameplay standpoint, like with Just Cause 2, a game I did enjoy goofing around in because it was designed for that. Because of that, the super powered avatar makes 4 seem really interesting.

 

 

Great e-mail about fighting mechanics. I never really thought about execution as a choice before I started watching Crosscounter's Excellent Adventures series, where they played Street fighter online. Both the hosts of that show play charge character mains, because, as said in the e-mail, their execution requirement is a bit lower. Sure your timing has to be just a strong for links and combos, but at least the basic delivery of a sonic boom is considered easier than a fireball. It's also something I noticed a lot playing Fei Long as my main online character. He has great specials, but not a lot of easy ways to chain into his Ultra combo because of its long start up. A lot of other characters, can do specials into Ultras, making it easier to get to that chunk of damage. On stage, you see heroes like Seth, Crimson Viper and Akuma excel at times, even though they might not be as sturdy and require high execution on their moves, but they have so many options that they can sometimes dominate. It's similar to Dota heroes like Visage or Invoker that require more micro but can have a higher impact. It's fun having a wide range of choices that can reward certain playstyles or skillsets. But, honestly having a variety of games with different approaches is great. Distilling fighting games with stuff like Super Smash and Divekick is awesome, and also makes learning some of the ideas of fighting games easier in some ways (importance of spacing, knowing your opponents tools, the importance of getting in the head of your opponent and such).

 

 

High level Seth dominating at Evo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to what some of the readers have been saying about the thumbs choices of games, I really feel that the Thumbs should just keep playing what they feel like playing. Trying to pick games because they are high profile or not their usual taste would kill what makes the show great.

Those great moments where someone just starts exhorting the virtues of the game and the whole crew goes off on a stream of consciousness chat just trying to unpack why it works so well for that person wouldn't happen if they didn't love what they were playing.

People saying Crusader Kings was outside their normal game type forget the thumbs have always had a strong interest in strategy games, and that as much as i loved Saints Row 3 i'd never want to see Chris playing it out of some weird sense of obligation.

 

As for today's guest, I actually started playing the Saints Row series because of listening to Danielle's and co-host Brandon's enthusiastic anecdotes about Saints Row 2 on the Jumping the Shark podcast a few years back, so it was a nice surprise to hear her talking about the latest version with the thumbs.

Also I think the thumbs habit of inviting people because they are their friends rather than any other big criteria has always been a strength, when someones at ease they are far more likely to just speak their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked hearing Danielle on the cast.

 

As long as we're discussing it; I have no idea why I love Idle Thumbs so much when I almost never play any of the games actually discussed on the show, so I can't tell if I'd like to see more mainstream coverage or not. I will readily admit that IT will totally lapse into "eastern european hipster bullshit" though, like when there's a bunch of discussion of a board game that only has 100 copies or a video game that only exists in a form that can be played at indie game conventions or whatever. I can never decide if I'm glad they're discussing a great game that nobody else would talk about, or mad that they're talking about a game that I could never ever play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a site selling anti-screen cheating things: http://www.screencheatingshield.com/

 

They are selling them for $10 which doesn't sound too bad but then you scroll down and it turns out they aren't even selling you the cardboard. Instead they are selling you some clips or something to use with your own cardboard to make one....

 

This website looks like it was made in 2002, but the 2011 memes give it away.

 

Great e-mail about fighting mechanics.

 

One correction/clarification about this email. While Smash Bros doesn't rely on complicated strings of inputs to differentiate skill, on a base gameplay mechanics level, the metagame and advanced techniques do incorporate frame-perfect button inputs. Yes, Fox is a good character because he has high mobility in a game where button complexity is equalized. However, Fox in particular ALSO has some of the most button intensive techniques in the game, including

 and
, which can give him a huge (theoretical) advantage over other characters if you have the dexterity and tech skill to pull it off consistently. Fox is widely considered to be the best character in the game, but the character hadn't won a major tournament in many years because other characters played optimally with lower skill ceilings could beat a sub-optimal Fox player... until EVO 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to what some of the readers have been saying about the thumbs choices of games, I really feel that the Thumbs should just keep playing what they feel like playing. Trying to pick games because they are high profile or not their usual taste would kill what makes the show great.

Well I think that there's a good point in that they've been maybe getting a bit insular, but also a good point that if they're not into it then it's just going to be a crappy reading assignment. I think getting guests in really does help to stir things up, but when all 4 thumbs are there there really isn't a lot of room for guests to talk. I don't think there's any 'solution', per se, to this issue so much as just, maybe, something that the thumbs could keep in mind, and see if they can be aware of opportunities to get guests once in a while, or play a game outside of their normal preference once in a while, just to stir things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to what some of the readers have been saying about the thumbs choices of games, I really feel that the Thumbs should just keep playing what they feel like playing. Trying to pick games because they are high profile or not their usual taste would kill what makes the show great.

Those great moments where someone just starts exhorting the virtues of the game and the whole crew goes off on a stream of consciousness chat just trying to unpack why it works so well for that person wouldn't happen if they didn't love what they were playing.

People saying Crusader Kings was outside their normal game type forget the thumbs have always had a strong interest in strategy games, and that as much as i loved Saints Row 3 i'd never want to see Chris playing it out of some weird sense of obligation.

 

I'm not saying that they should force themselves to play different games. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. But the situation does come up fairly often lately where a circle of good friends who've shared each others' company and tastes for so long tends to develop a consensus really quickly. I miss some of the out-and-out differences of opinion that were pretty common in the first run of Idle Thumbs. Jake is still the best for questioning Chris' and Sean's opinions, but I feel like it doesn't happen as often as it used to, which is why outside voices are welcome within that circle of friends. All that might just be my own impression, though.

 

And I really disagree with you about Crusader Kings II. Sure, we all knew they'd love it, but they don't have a history playing that sort of game at all. The last grand strategy game that one of them played was Hearts of Iron III back in episode 58, which they mostly teased (a tape-recorded) Nick over how boring it sounded. Before that, was it Empire: Total War in episode 22? That also didn't get much gameplay discussion, what with Nick's crazy saga of trying to get it installed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the concept of getting people to make bad choices, I actually did that a LOT in Telltale's The Walking Dead. I felt like Lee's history clearly indicated a tendency to, in intense situations, react emotionally and irrationally so I would occasionally have him lose his temper or blow-up at someone even when I knew intellectually that it wasn't the best thing for him to do.

 

In giving me a certain level of authorial control, TWD motivated me to act not necessarily in anyone's best interest, but in the best interest of Lee's story. It's why I

 

had Lee cut his hand off in episode 5

 

It felt like the right choice for that moment of the story.

 

 

And I kind of like Chris' instant distrust of most things mainstream and wacky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Chris. His doubts about Saint's Row are entirely deserved, and are the reasons why I hate the series. I have to admit it's much better since they embraced the zany side of the open world action crime genre, compared to when they were trying and failing miserably at doing a more serious tone in the first game. SR3 felt like Volition messed around with Sjaak327's Simple Native Trainer for GTA4/EFLC and decided to make a game inspired by that, except way less fun in execution. Listening to someone describe what you do in SR3 and imagining what it would be like is infinitely more fun than actually doing that stuff when playing the game. I have no reason to expect SR4 to be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked hearing Danielle on the cast.

 

As long as we're discussing it; I have no idea why I love Idle Thumbs so much when I almost never play any of the games actually discussed on the show, so I can't tell if I'd like to see more mainstream coverage or not. I will readily admit that IT will totally lapse into "eastern european hipster bullshit" though, like when there's a bunch of discussion of a board game that only has 100 copies or a video game that only exists in a form that can be played at indie game conventions or whatever. I can never decide if I'm glad they're discussing a great game that nobody else would talk about, or mad that they're talking about a game that I could never ever play.

To me it's like being informed of things I may like. And if it's AAA stuff or games I've played already I love hearing their perspective on things because something different is very likely to come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weirdly enough all of my thoughts about this podcast mesh into one sort of ur-thought which is an amalgamation of stuff to talk about. There's Danielle, Saint's Row, and Thumbs and mainstream games/talking about new stuff/bringing new people on the podcast to shake things up and inject life into the conversations because the Thumbs are set in their ways and never have conflicting opinions about things which are all themes that have surfaced in this thread thus far.

Danielle was a great guest, but the exception in terms of "what did I like about the podcast" was when she was talking about Saint's Row 4. Why? Well, the main reason is that it seems like she was embargo-ed out of 50% of what she wanted to talk about (like in terms of what made the game interesting to her) and the rest of the stuff that made the game interesting to her was stuff that she couldn't really describe beyond saying stuff like "somehow it just works," because the rest of the Thumbs hadn't played the game (because it's not out yet...). I think this is one of a number of reasons that I don't really want Idle Thumbs to be forced in a new direction or new areas or whatever - it's not a traditional video game podcast where they talk about all the big upcoming AAA games or the new releases or the latest reviews or whatever. Idle Thumbs just talks about whatever it wants to talk about, even if the game is like 10 years old or it's a small indie game nobody cares about or if it's a European board game or if it's not even a video game, it's the Big Dog again. I feel like if I wanted to hear someone summarize the parts of their video game review that they aren't contractually obligated to keep secret until a set date in the future, I could listen to one of any number of other video game podcasts that exist out there, or just read news sites, or whatever.

This also links up with Chris not having ever tried Saint's Row because the dildos turned him off, and in general with the Thumbs having what people seem to be describing in this thread as a fairly settled set of tastes that don't get mixed up very much. In essence, those things are the main reason I listen to the podcast (well, that and the fact that it's consistently hilarious). The Idle Thumbs people have interesting things to say about what they talk about because they're specific people with specific tastes who seek out and play specific games that appeal to them for pretty specific reasons. I don't really care about what Chris thinks about Saint's Row 3 beyond the fact that he never bothered trying it, because I don't really give a shit about what anyone thinks about anything other than what they give a shit about. I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy Idle Thumbs if Chris, Jake, Sean, and Nick were forced to come up with interesting stuff to say about whatever random AAA game the latest guest is there to talk about, or whatever random game the faceless mob has forced them into playing, because sometimes there's not much that the Thumbs have to say about this stuff. Maybe there's nothing much interesting about Saint's Row 3 to Chris, and if he doesn't want to talk about it then that's great. The podcast has no predefined "segments," it has no set topics, it makes no effort to stay relevant or topical or even to talk about video games for the majority of the cast, and that freedom to breathe is what makes it tremendous, if you ask me. (You can go back in the archives and listen to some of the first few episodes when things were a little more traditional, and stuff like "here's what I can say about the latest Gears of War game without breaking my embargo" isn't the best Idle Thumbs material, IMHO.)

To be honest, whenever fellow podcasters come on, especially seasoned ones like a Giant Bomb fellow, I tend to enjoy the Thumbs cast a bit less, not because I dislike the people but because it seems like they bring their "good podcast" habits - they steer conversations back on topic, they ask leading/open ended questions that prompt people for relevant opinions on the topic at hand, they have a few set observations about the game they're ready to explain that cover the "bases" that you would expect to get covered, and so on. Honestly I just find it all boring and rote because the Thumbs shine when something inspires them, not when they give their input on the topic of the week. For instance, I enjoyed this cast much better once it got past the "let me summarize parts of my Saint's Row 4 review" and Danielle turned into a normal Thumb (as in, she started dropping hilarious non-sequiturs about cardboard screen blockers and so on). And although the Thumbs talk about AAA games sometimes and guests talk about obscure games sometimes, often when a guest comes on, they bring ready with them an AAA game to talk about which is one the Thumbs often wouldn't have bothered talking about, and it's those parts of the cast that I often find the least entertaining in terms of "is anyone saying anything interesting." If Idle Thumbs just always became a podcast where there was the default "here's the AAA game we're going to talk about because everyone demanded we play it or because our guest just reviewed it and is ready to talk about it because they're used to talking about video games in the normal context where you can't talk about a game more than 3 months old if you want anyone to pay attention" I'd be less than thrilled. I want games to be talked about on the cast because someone has something interesting to say about them, not because the cast needs a topic and then we're going to go around the table and hear what everyone has to say about Game X for no reason other than it just came out.

I really liked hearing Danielle on the cast.

 

As long as we're discussing it; I have no idea why I love Idle Thumbs so much when I almost never play any of the games actually discussed on the show, so I can't tell if I'd like to see more mainstream coverage or not. I will readily admit that IT will totally lapse into "eastern european hipster bullshit" though, like when there's a bunch of discussion of a board game that only has 100 copies or a video game that only exists in a form that can be played at indie game conventions or whatever. I can never decide if I'm glad they're discussing a great game that nobody else would talk about, or mad that they're talking about a game that I could never ever play.

The way I see it, I'd rather they discuss the Eastern European hipster bullshit because they have something interesting they want to say about it, than an AAA game we've all heard about just because it's popular, even though the Thumbs don't have much to add. The cast talks about what it wants to talk about - I don't want to hear them talk about something other people want them to talk about. If that makes sense.

I'm not saying that they should force themselves to play different games. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. But the situation does come up fairly often lately where a circle of good friends who've shared each others' company and tastes for so long tends to develop a consensus really quickly. I miss some of the out-and-out differences of opinion that were pretty common in the first run of Idle Thumbs. Jake is still the best for questioning Chris' and Sean's opinions, but I feel like it doesn't happen as often as it used to, which is why outside voices are welcome within that circle of friends. All that might just be my own impression, though.

I'm not sure I share your impression - it seems like the Thumbs argue with each other as much as they agree on stuff. They are certainly closer to each other than a randomly selected group of 4 video game enthusiasts, sure, but it's not like they're all of one mind when it comes to any given discussion, and even if they end up coming to a consensus it's often only after a lot of back and forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped playing SR3 because I thought mechanically it was mediocre at best. That is to say, getting to and through the ~WACKY MISSIONS~ was a controller-limited chore. I have been assured multiple times that SR2 was just flat bad in this department. I actually think the humor is up my alley, I just can't play it.

 

I also have lost most of my will to play open world games, at least the crime drama style ones. Haven't played GTA since San Andreas. I was given Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned as a gift from a friend, and it's an awesome gift that I've appreciated by playing about 45 minutes of it. On the other hand, SKYRIM.

 

I don't know that I would describe Saints Row the Third as a crime drama in any meaningful way. (SR2, though, yeah.) In other respects...SR2 has, I think, a more satisfying reward scheme for the side activities and less painful health and ammo issues early on. It does have significant technical issues on PC (it's a shitty, shitty port) that are partially addressed by the superb Gentlemen of the Row mod, though, and SR3 feels overall more polished mechanically. I also played both with mouse and keyboard and felt that worked better.

 

I dunno if you would enjoy SR2 or not but I think it's still pay-what-you-want in the current Humble Bundle so it wouldn't exactly take much to try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this thread all of a sudden.

 

SR3 is a great game and very fun to play.

 

Idle Thumbs is a great podcast and very fun to listen to.

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