Sean

Idle Thumbs 146: Osama's Dog

Recommended Posts

Man, good show, Sean. I was going to make a similar post about human behavior being political behavior and hence the expectation of apolitical art really being the expectation of inhuman art, but you said it all.

 

It bothers me a bit how words like "sexist" and "misogynist" are bandied about so blithely. To me it reads like trying to define the discussion through word choice, to a priori assume what you should be arguing.

 

For example, Danielle just sort of casually mentioned that Bravely Default has some sexism in it. (I forget her exact wording) She didn't describe what that sexism was, or why it was sexist. It was just stated as fact, everyone accepted it, end of discussion. I get that if you haven't played the game it's hard to debate, but I don't think there needs to be a debate so much as an explanation.

 

BD has 4 playable characters, 2 of which are female. A fifth non-playable character is also female. Two of those female characters advance the story, while the male characters are mostly along for the ride. Even if the game has sexist elements it is still far ahead of most games in some respects. I'm not trying to argue whether or not the game is or is not sexist, just saying that an off-hand claim of sexism doesn't do it justice.

 

I could pretty easily state that Walking Dead has misogynist leanings and make at least a weak case for that. (Google "walking dead sexism" if you dare!) I could state that about Bastion as well. (And I wouldn't be the first) But simply stating those things doesn't do much for anyone, and is unfair to the developers and the topic. I suspect if someone said "Walking Dead is a great game - I mean, it has some sexist elements, but overall it's really fun" you (meaning Sean) would probably want some elucidation.

 

It's fair to look at the statistical level and say "games as a whole have few female characters, few of those are playable, and few of those aren't conventionally sexually attractive." But calling out specific games as sexist seems like it deserves a bit more care. Especially when it appears to me that which games get pegged as sexist is fairly arbitrary, culturally biased and often based almost entirely on superficial details like key/box art.

 

I often think to myself "please keep your gender analysis out of my games", not because I think video games are devoid of political expression or unworthy of such analysis, but because that analysis is usually poorly done.

 

I hear what you're saying, but I think you're misinterpreting and underselling Danielle and most feminist commentators in general. "Bravely Default has some sexism in it" is different from "Bravely Default is sexist" and very different from "The makers of Bravely Default are sexist." There is no danger in calling out sexism. Well, maybe not, thanks to the internet hate machine, but at least there's no risk to the game itself in calling out sexism. At worst, if nothing else comes of it, doing so raises awareness that, even in a good game, sexist elements don't get a pass. They get called out and talked about, no matter what. Maybe I'm just not familiar with specific instances you've found troublesome, but sexism is superficial, so calling out "superficially" sexist elements like cheesecake box art or a bloody bikini-clad torso preorder bonus or Catwoman being called a "bitch" is not somehow letting real sexist stuff get a pass.

 

Again, if you're saying that you wish Danielle had elaborated further on sexism in Bravely Default because you're curious to hear her opinion, my bad for typing all of this. But if you're saying that Danielle needs to justify why she, a woman, finds something sexist, or that she should only be calling out truly hateful misogyny, as if there's any useful way to distinguish the motives and consequences of any given example of sexism, then I think I might need you to elaborate further on just why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


By which definition? I have seen that policy used for a number of different things by forum moderators on other parts of the internet, and it sometimes implies "don't say anything significantly challenging the consensus of the hivemind"

 

Nothing I have seen posted in the thread so far is hateful or offensive, but I don't want to bother defending my point with a lot of words if it just means instant deletion + ban from posting again

 
I already pointed it out, but you once posted that you felt uncomfortable killing Indians in a video game, and similarly for the Vietnam War. What makes those feelings more valid than someone who feels marginalized by different common tropes and tendencies found in video games? Yeah, you could argue that being uncomfortable about killing Indians was the intended feeling, and that being uncomfortable about the amount of sexism in a game is unintended, but think about it. Which is worse?
 
To top it all off, your original post implied that Danielle is less valid as a reviewer because she seeks to make video games a better, more inclusive medium for everyone. Why is someone who wants to see more diversity in video games less valid as a reviewer than someone who doesn't voice those desires?
 
EDIT: I just realized I completely misread your post which makes me a butt. (I missed a single word which made the meaning of the whole sentence COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.) What I said still stands! But is less relevant. So I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bothers me a bit how words like "sexist" and "misogynist" are bandied about so blithely. To me it reads like trying to define the discussion through word choice, to a priori assume what you should be arguing.

 

For example, Danielle just sort of casually mentioned that Bravely Default has some sexism in it. (I forget her exact wording) She didn't describe what that sexism was, or why it was sexist. It was just stated as fact, everyone accepted it, end of discussion. I get that if you haven't played the game it's hard to debate, but I don't think there needs to be a debate so much as an explanation.

She was referring to a review she wrote and that review has a tiny sidebar that explains the particular tangent in the game she refers to as sexist. I think it's fair of her to assume that if anyone was interested in knowing why she thought Bravely Default had some sexism in it, that person would just go check out her review to find out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody's instant deleted/banned for posting an opinion. You might get talked at to death though.

Don't forget running the gauntlet torture where horse bags are paddled on your backside and audio clips of Sean saying "That's the stuff!" are heard over and over again on contact.

 

Hi I'm weird sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do completely agree with you that politics cannot be completely removed from the things men create but I do believe there are varying degrees by which those things can become more political or less politcal.  For example, if Miymoto had created Mario dressed in Samurai armor and Bowser with an American flag draped over his shell and an atomic bomb in his claws I think one could have fairly said of that imaginary game, "Wow, this is perhaps too political for saturday fun time hour.  I guess I'll have to play Custer's Revenge for the Atari 2600 again" 

 

Again though, you're right I had no right to come into your house and insult your guests.  I apologize again.

 

 

 

 

What makes me groan is this.  The feminst angle gets pressed on so heavily I feel that the forest is missed for the trees.  I think that video games are almost completely bereft of good characters, male or female.  In fact I believe the most well drawn character in all of video games to be the female character GlaDos from Portal.  So to me the issue is not why do game designers exclude women, it's more like why do game designers put human shaped things in their games that they have no desire to inject with human qualities.  I think the example that comes to mind is the characters in the Gears of Wars games.  I can't even look at that stuff and this is the most popular stuff out there and for some reason all I hear in the press is "where are all the female characters?"  Where is any character?  Bioshock Infinite itself is touted as some highpoint in video game art but I can't take the Booker Dewitt character for two seconds.  This is my frustration.

 

For you the issue is that there aren't better characters. For others the issues is why aren't there more female characters (or better ones.) One issue doesn't exclude the other. I don't even fully understand why you're so frustrated by something that has no impact on (what I assume from your posts are) your ideals and opinions on video games. A feminist angle in games journalism can be as much an outcry for good, overall characters as it is about equality.

 

She jokingly talked about gender in Donkey Kong, but the real example about Bravely Default is focused on one very bad male character, not the number of female characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was referring to a review she wrote and that review has a tiny sidebar that explains the particular tangent in the game she refers to as sexist. I think it's fair of her to assume that if anyone was interested in knowing why she thought Bravely Default had some sexism in it, that person would just go check out her review to find out?

 

I am in fact familiar with that review, and was writing up a reply that specifically brought it up when I saw the "new reply" indicator and read your post.

 

First, I think it's a bit of a cheat to say that she was referring to her review. I don't believe she actually referred to her review - she was discussing a game she also wrote a review for. It also seems strange to me to say that the podcast didn't need to discuss it because it was covered in the review - well why are they discussing the game at all then? I'm going to be bold and guess that not all the other casters were familiar with the review, so even if they review explains it better it still seems like a discussion worth having in the moment.

 

Second, the review doesn't really do much to clarify. The gist of that sidebar is that the game has a character in it who acts sexist. So yes, "this game contains sexism" is a true statement. But I don't think "this thing has sexism in it" is a useful statement without a little more explanation of what that sexism consists of - there is a huge difference between the game having a sexist premise or endorsing sexism vs containing a sexist character. The sidebar states that the game has a sexist character, but does so in a way that is a clearly a negative judgement - it's an "unwelcome hit of sexism." So it's not just that the game has a sexist character, it's that this is problematic in some sense.

 

The problem called out in the sidebar is that it's out of place with the "sweet and innocent" tone of the game. So is the problem not that it's sexist but that it's a downer? But this a game that includes a lot of messed up stuff, and isn't really sweet and innocent at all outside of graphical presentation. There are multiple points in the game where the sweet presentation is clearly purposely juxtaposed with the content.

 

There's a limit to what can be communicated in a written review, especially in a one-paragraph sidebar of a written review. A review also isn't a conversation. A podcast seems like a great place to elucidate.

 

I would guess (I'm full of guesses!) that if a podcast guest said "The Walking Dead has some sexist elements" that some sort of discussion would follow. Now obviously Jake and Sean are invested in the game in a way they aren't with BD, but it seems like the sort of statement that should be discussed almost as a rule. Not refuted or debated, but at least talked about. And I can't help but suspect that there's some element of cultural bias at play - that the existence of negative sexism in games is just accepted more readily for Asian-made games, to the point where it's not even a point. This may not be true of the Idle Thumbs guys in particular, but it definitely seems true of the western games media.

 

The bottom line is this: I've read her review and listened to the podcast. In both places she brought up sexism seemingly as a negative to the game but in neither place did I get a real understanding for what the problem is. I'm not looking to say "no, here's why you're wrong!", I'm looking for insight. That's largely why I listen to podcasts.

 

And in this particular case (and also with regards to the Catwoman "bitch" stuff), the discussion of sexist characters and what that means about the game as a whole seems like it would be interesting.

 

To the other poster (Gormongous): I'm not saying she needs to "justify" her reading or win a debate about it. If she found it sexist she found it sexist. I'm saying she didn't articulate what the issue was and nobody asked, which is just strange to me. She said the game had sexism and the conversation moved on.

 

Maybe there's an element of "well, she's probably just talking about typical save-the-princess type stuff," but that doesn't describe the content of BD very well. If you think about how games are typically sexist - lack of female characters and especially playable characters, female characters with no agency, female characters as motivators, etc, none of those apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... the real-life story of Laika fascinates me. Basically, Sputnik II was entirely meant as a means to intimidate America during the space race. It was designed and constructed in something like five weeks so that it could be launched in time for a major Russian holiday, and had no life support systems. They told the public that Laika had survived for five weeks before having a controlled death from a cyanide capsule in her food supply, but she actually only lasted about five hours.

 

It's actually a lot worse than that.  

 

If you ask older Americans about it, they'll all tell you that Laika was a Siberian Husky.  She wasn't.

 

laika.jpg

 

It should have been obvious, given the overwhelming influence of payload mass on the engineering requirements of an orbital launch, that Laika was a very small dog.  Today, there are plenty of photos, and it's inarguable that Laika was a Jack Russel mix, weighing at most 12 pounds.

 

And this, unfortunately, casts the whole enterprise of the game Danielle reviewed into a bit of problematic shadow.

 

Laika was not a super-dog; Laika was the most suitable stray dog the program managed to find while roaming the nearby streets.  

 

There were no rescue or emergency life-support systems for Laika.  There was no re-entry system at all; from the very beginning of the project, it was designed to be a one-way trip; the passenger (dog) was expected to simply die, not return.  Laika was chosen solely to be lightweight and disposable.  Nobody involved in the program ever had even the slightest expectation that Laika would survive the experience.

 

When you make a game in which Laika is an exceptionally capable being, engaging in all sorts of wide-range roaming and character interactions, you are, consciously or not, burying the fact that Laika was a very small dog, bound to a tight, tiny harness in flight, and monitored not for how well she would adventure in Space, but for which point in the one-way flight she would die.

 

There were people in the Russian space program who, having lived with Laika for the few weeks before they flung her to her death, came to believe that this small, curious, friendly, and exceptionally human-centric dog shouldn't be cast into the void, there to die without so much as a familiar hand to lick.  Which might have made for a deeply moving game.

 

But the game under discussion isn't about those Russian aerospace engineers, or about the dog they lived with for a few brief weeks; instead it's about a pretend dog, and that pretend dog apparently does quite a lot to perpetuate the myth of Siberian Husky Laika, and very little to teach us anything about the actual, historical Laika.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what 

 

First, I think it's a bit of a cheat to say that she was referring to her review. I don't believe she actually referred to her review - she was discussing a game she also wrote a review for. It also seems strange to me to say that the podcast didn't need to discuss it because it was covered in the review - well why are they discussing the game at all then? I'm going to be bold and guess that not all the other casters were familiar with the review, so even if they review explains it better it still seems like a discussion worth having in the moment.

 

Second, the review doesn't really do much to clarify. The gist of that sidebar is that the game has a character in it who acts sexist. So yes, "this game contains sexism" is a true statement. But I don't think "this thing has sexism in it" is a useful statement without a little more explanation of what that sexism consists of - there is a huge difference between the game having a sexist premise or endorsing sexism vs containing a sexist character. The sidebar states that the game has a sexist character, but does so in a way that is a clearly a negative judgement - it's an "unwelcome hit of sexism." So it's not just that the game has a sexist character, it's that this is problematic in some sense.

 

I just listened to that part again, here's my transcript.

 

 

Greg: "I played that Bravely Default game." Denielle: "Oh, yeah! I actually just reviewed that."

 

...

 

Danielle: "I really enjoyed this game. But I mean, there were some issues with it, like you know there's some sexism in the game that I called out [in her review] and then of course, even though we gave the game a really high score people were like 'Rah! Feminism sidebar!'. But you know.. Whatever, that happens."

 

I think it's perfectly clear that she's referring to her review and her opinions in the context of that review at that point? And her sidebar explains what she thought was sexist and does in no way mean she thinks the game is endorsing sexism or has a sexist premise. I think you're looking for something that just isn't there. She's not condemning the game, but merely felt that it was indeed an "unwelcome hit of sexism". She feels that particular character is problematic and I don't see why that's hard to understand?

 

I would personally love to hear them talk about sexism in games all the time, but it's their podcast and they took Danielle's word for it. You, the listener, can then go read the review to see her opinion about it or go tweet at Danielle if you want to discuss it. Or write here to discuss what you find objectionable about her opinions? Her saying this and there not being a discussion right at that moment doesn't exclude further discussion in another venue..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just listened to that part again, here's my transcript.

 

Ok. Yes, clearly she did refer to the review, I stand corrected.

 

 

I would personally love to hear them talk about sexism in games all the time, but it's their podcast and they took Danielle's word for it. You, the listener, can then go read the review to see her opinion about it or go tweet at Danielle if you want to discuss it. Or write here to discuss what you find objectionable about her opinions? Her saying this and there not being a discussion right at that moment doesn't exclude further discussion in another venue..

 

She said there's "some sexism in the game", I "objected" (I guess - I'm saying a potentially interesting discussion was glossed over) to flatly asserting that, and now I'm cast in the role of finding her opinion objectionable. I don't find her opinion objectionable. In fact I really dislike the idea that this has to be antagonistic and that I have to be against whatever she's for.

 

I'm saying that, almost as a rule, assertion of the existence of sexist content is something that deserves some discussion if brought up rather than to be mentioned in passing. And I think BD would make for interesting discussion because it has a lot of positive elements, a couple things that are clearly fan service (like certain costumes), and things like the sexist character which can be interpreted a variety of ways. Basically the topic was given short shrift. I believe it was given short shrift in her review (which I had previously read), so I was hoping to see it discussed in a longer, more conversational form. So basically a missed opportunity. Which plays in to my overall frustrations with the gender in games debate and how it's largely a "this thing is sexist" "no it isn't idiot" back-and-forth.

 

And again, I think and hope that if a podcast guest said "there's some sexism in Walking Dead" that wouldn't be the end of the conversation. (And yes, a bit apples to oranges as Jake and Sean are obviously more familiar with and invested in WD)

 

On another note...saying "I don't see why that's hard to understand?" and implying that the person you're talking to has trouble grasping things you find simple is not a great way to conduct a conversation. Maybe that's completely unintentional. I often come off as more antagonistic than I intend, it's just my writing style, so if you didn't intend anything sinister I apologize. But please give me the benefit of the doubt - if we disagree it's not because I have trouble grasping simple concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Danielle, a repeat guest & friend of the show, in describing a game that the thumbs haven't played, notes in passing that it contains "some sexism", then why wouldn't they accept that at face value? I mean, presumably they've played a JRPG before, or, you know, a video game. It seems pretty plausible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that, almost as a rule, assertion of the existence of sexist content is something that deserves some discussion if brought up rather than to be mentioned in passing.

I don't understand why, to be honest, given that it's the rule rather than the exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Yes, clearly she did refer to the review, I stand corrected.

 

 

 

She said there's "some sexism in the game", I "objected" (I guess - I'm saying a potentially interesting discussion was glossed over) to flatly asserting that, and now I'm cast in the role of finding her opinion objectionable. I don't find her opinion objectionable. In fact I really dislike the idea that this has to be antagonistic and that I have to be against whatever she's for.

 

I'm saying that, almost as a rule, assertion of the existence of sexist content is something that deserves some discussion if brought up rather than to be mentioned in passing. And I think BD would make for interesting discussion because it has a lot of positive elements, a couple things that are clearly fan service (like certain costumes), and things like the sexist character which can be interpreted a variety of ways. Basically the topic was given short shrift. I believe it was given short shrift in her review (which I had previously read), so I was hoping to see it discussed in a longer, more conversational form. So basically a missed opportunity. Which plays in to my overall frustrations with the gender in games debate and how it's largely a "this thing is sexist" "no it isn't idiot" back-and-forth.

 

And again, I think and hope that if a podcast guest said "there's some sexism in Walking Dead" that wouldn't be the end of the conversation. (And yes, a bit apples to oranges as Jake and Sean are obviously more familiar with and invested in WD)

 

On another note...saying "I don't see why that's hard to understand?" and implying that the person you're talking to has trouble grasping things you find simple is not a great way to conduct a conversation. Maybe that's completely unintentional. I often come off as more antagonistic than I intend, it's just my writing style, so if you didn't intend anything sinister I apologize. But please give me the benefit of the doubt - if we disagree it's not because I have trouble grasping simple concepts.

 

Sorry for implying all of that, sincerely. I did misjudge you, because I was confused as to why you wanted the discussion to happen.

 

Also, I think it would be overkill if she had to explain her feelings about sexism every time she writes a sidebar in a review or mentions it on a podcast. I think you can get a good idea of that already if you read her previous writings?

 

I'm truly sorry for coming off as antagonising!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great conversation, and I really liked its flow. Both Danielle and Greg have lots of interesting things to say, and it was interesting how they both took their moment in the podcast. Good guests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how much discussion there could really be about Bravely Default given that Greg had started playing it and Jake and Sean hadn't. I mean, it's not really a surprise that a JRPG is sexist, and they're clearly casting around for fruitful topics of conversation and Laika the Wonder Dog was more engaging a topic than Bravely Default, so I don't see the absolutism that no-one is allowed to say that something is sexist or has problematic elements without immediately stopping to explain exactly what those are, in the same way that I don't expect anyone on the podcast to go into detail about why exactly they don't like the thing they're spending five minutes explaining they don't like. If they choose to, that's great, but it's much better if they pick topics on which they have something interesting to say than to demand that a specific opinion is always defended.

 

(Bravely Default is hella sexist though, and they don't get a cookie for having a couple of good female characters)

 

Actually hang on I think I have a bit of a problem with the idea that someone suggesting sexism is automatically a questionable opinion that needs to be elaborated on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think it would be overkill if she had to explain her feelings about sexism every time she writes a sidebar in a review or mentions it on a podcast. I think you can get a good idea of that already if you read her previous writings?

 

Actually hang on I think I have a bit of a problem with the idea that someone suggesting sexism is automatically a questionable opinion that needs to be elaborated on.

 

I don't understand why, to be honest, given that it's the rule rather than the exception.

 

 

I was going to add something, but I mostly just wanted to agree along the above lines.

 

 

As an aside, I find that adding an article and an Italian accent to Danielle's twitter handle (Il Danielleri) makes for a much more sinister member of the Idle Thumbs Cabal. Maybe Jake and Sean glossed over it because they were loath to contradict the ringleader while she was there keeping tabs on their public messaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the game under discussion isn't about those Russian aerospace engineers, or about the dog they lived with for a few brief weeks; instead it's about a pretend dog, and that pretend dog apparently does quite a lot to perpetuate the myth of Siberian Husky Laika, and very little to teach us anything about the actual, historical Laika.  

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Sun At Night is pretty explicit about Laika being not a Siberian Husky super-dog, but a fairly cute mutt looking thing. Yes, the game is about a pretend dog,  a pretend dog with a ROBOT BODY and LASERS.

 

You appear to be criticising them for failing to do a thing they had no intention of attempting to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Sun At Night is pretty explicit about Laika being not a Siberian Husky super-dog, but a fairly cute mutt looking thing. Yes, the game is about a pretend dog,  a pretend dog with a ROBOT BODY and LASERS.

 

You appear to be criticising them for failing to do a thing they had no intention of attempting to do.

 

I understand his disappointment, though. It sucks when a video game takes an independently interesting historical moment and then dresses it up in video game trappings. See, for instance, every single Assassin's Creed and Total War game. They're not meant to be historical simulators, but that's still what lets me down most about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to hear Danielle on the show more often. Not only is she really fun to listen to (Home Alone jokes!), and has well-thought-out opinions, but she was able to bring up Nintendo and the WiiU without anyone getting all antsy about talking about Nintendo. That's great!  

 

Of the polygon reviewers, I've found that her reviews hew pretty close to how I end up feeling about a game. I don't know if I've said it on this forum, but I really wish that the current model of video game reviews shifted closer to film criticism, where reviews are tied to people, rather than websites. We tend to follow individual film critics rather than individual publications (look at how rotten tomatoes tracks things), but then ascribe a review score to an entire website, which blurs together multiple people's opinions. It's pretty easy to find the authors of individual reviews, but it should be more prominent, especially given the power of review aggregates like metacritic.

 

Also, some of the opinions in this forum regarding the validity of critiquing video games through the lens of gender studies are completely bonkers! Of course you can make a feminist, or race, or queer critique of any video game! And it's valid! And it should be encouraged! Video games are not childish! They're art! I don't think it's possible for my arms to flail more like a muppet over here! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the polygon reviewers, I've found that her reviews hew pretty close to how I end up feeling about a game. I don't know if I've said it on this forum, but I really wish that the current model of video game reviews shifted closer to film criticism, where reviews are tied to people, rather than websites. We tend to follow individual film critics rather than individual publications (look at how rotten tomatoes tracks things), but then ascribe a review score to an entire website, which blurs together multiple people's opinions. It's pretty easy to find the authors of individual reviews, but it should be more prominent, especially given the power of review aggregates like metacritic.

 

I've often considered starting a website where games are publicly reviewed, but not scored.  The review would end with a recommendation to either play it or not.  Reviewers would be required to provide a list of games they like and don't like, that way you could find reviewers who share your own sense of enjoyment, which I find is much more helpful than a number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often considered starting a website where games are publicly reviewed, but not scored.  The review would end with a recommendation to either play it or not.  Reviewers would be required to provide a list of games they like and don't like, that way you could find reviewers who share your own sense of enjoyment, which I find is much more helpful than a number.

 

This sounds great! I think that review scores are unfortunate, and it seems as if they're seen as "necessary," because of the money involved in buying games. I think that it's also dangerous to only find reviewers who agree with you, since you want to also read games criticism that's well written and does not share your opinion. Fight the confirmation bias! 

 

Now that's a zinger if I've ever seen one.

 

tpy9b7J.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds great! I think that review scores are unfortunate, and it seems as if they're seen as "necessary," because of the money involved in buying games. I think that it's also dangerous to only find reviewers who agree with you, since you want to also read games criticism that's well written and does not share your opinion. Fight the confirmation bias! 

 

That is true, but the point of my fictional site wouldn't be to provide professional editorials or criticism.  There are already plenty of places to get that.  My site would be more like getting recommendations from a friend whose opinion you trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to add something, but I mostly just wanted to agree along the above lines.

 

 

As an aside, I find that adding an article and an Italian accent to Danielle's twitter handle (Il Danielleri) makes for a much more sinister member of the Idle Thumbs Cabal. Maybe Jake and Sean glossed over it because they were loath to contradict the ringleader while she was there keeping tabs on their public messaging.

I've always made her handle rhyme with pâtisserie (French pastry) in my head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even fully understand why you're so frustrated by something that has no impact on (what I assume from your posts are) your ideals and opinions on video games.

 

I'd say my ideals change depending on the type of game and what it seems to be trying to acheive.  Donkey Kong for me is not the stuff of serious political discourse but something like Portal could be. 

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