Chris

Idle Thumbs 152: Piercing the Fourth Dimension

Recommended Posts

Recurring trolls are banned again. Unfortunately aperson seems to have discovered proxies, so he's hard to keep down. Feel free to report his posts when he pops back up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with a lot of shows that have focused on antiheroes over the last several years, you -are- expected to like them and at least to a degree empathize with them, whether or not they're doing horrible things and are, ultimately, shitty people. I definitely would say that The Sopranos and The Shield, to name a couple, expect that. And I gotta say, I did. I liked Tony Soprano and most of his mafia cohorts. When many of the characters that were killed on that show were killed, I felt bad about it. Same goes for Vic Mackey and his squad (although I certainly recognized that he was not behaving in a way I would accept from a cop in real life, and I thought the finale was perfect in its brutality). I guess I can see how people could accept Walter White on those terms, but I really, really don't think you're meant to like late-season Walt or celebrate his victories. I was fully prepared to, to start with, but his arc was just this relentless downward spiral as a human being even at moments where he was experiencing dramatic professional and financial success. I liked several other characters on the show that were, realistically speaking, bad people (Gus Fring, Mike, Jesse, Saul), but Walt? No.

 

----

 

I've been torn on the South Park game. I'm a huge fan of Obsidian, I loved the Gamecube Paper Mario, and I did really enjoy the South Park movie (and Orgasmo), but the random episodes of the actual South Park TV series I've seen (including a couple that were cited as classics, I believe) did not appeal. So I'm not sure whether I would like it. Certainly not $60 sure. Thoughts?

 

---

 

Re: Naturebox - I've been getting Natureboxes since last August and it was a pleasant surprise to hear they'd sponsored one of my favorite podcasts. Just to clarify a few things:

1) They do in fact offer three sizes: one bag of each of five snacks, two bags, or four bags per snack. They advertise "full size" bags but they're 3-6 oz depending on the type of snack, which to me isn't full size. I'd say even at the 4 bag/snack level for $50 (which is about $4-ish a bag) they're significantly more expensive than many conventional snack brands and moderately more expensive than, say, nut mixes at your local grocery. I got over this, obviously. But it was briefly a concern, so, FYI.

2) Originally it was a selection of snacks they pre-picked for you and that was that - no control at all. Shortly after I signed up, they implemented the ability to select your own snacks (but you can still fill one or more slots with a "surprise" snack) and that feature is getting more robust all the time. There are still supply concerns with popular snacks so you'll want to check your box a couple days before your monthly ship date if you want all your snacks to be hand-selected. There's still no way to opt out of any specific snacks being "surprise" snacks, unfortunately (I don't want sunflower seeds, and they've sent them multiple times due to supply shortfalls on stuff I did want), but you can contact them for a credit on your next box if there's snacks included you didn't like/want, so that's something. They rotate in new (and out old) snacks pretty regularly.

3) Expect a few days between subscription charge + shipping, and probably another week or so before the box actually arrives though that'll depend on where you live.

4) They're healthy in the sense that they use better ingredients and skip the weird additives and such, not in the sense that they're consistently good for you or that you can pig out on them without remorse.

 

All that said, I definitely recommend them, am enjoying them, and feel like my snacking habits are much better than they used to be. The Mandarin Garlic Peas are fantastic, and the Curry Peas are nearly as good. Other standouts for me have been the Honey Crunch Crisps (which are kinda honey-sweetened sesame sticks. I devour those things.), Salted Caramel Pretzel Pops (and the honey macadamia ones I got this month are great too), and Sriracha Cashews (amazing, not available right now, I believe). I've been partial to the Toasted Cheddar Stix, and both kinds of pretzel they offer as well but they're not quite so unique to Naturebox's lineup.

 

I also subscribe to Graze (www.graze.com), which is kind of a competitor although they have pretty different approaches. Naturebox ships out a monthly box of decently sized snack bags with a lot of nuts, dried fruit, granola, and chips and pretzels and whatnot - solid, ongoing snack foods. Graze sends out a biweekly (or monthly) slim box of little 2 oz-ish packets of various nibbles - in my experience more creative and tastier, but also really just something you eat for a quick taste sensation rather than any sort of long term snacking. And Graze lets you rate their stuff (and prevent certain items from being sent at all), but you do -not- get to select what's actually sent, just make the high-rated stuff come more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of authorial intention vs. audience interpretation Vlambeer responds to criticism that Luftrausers indulges in Nazi-chic.

Yeah I saw that over the weekend. They have a really great attitude towards interpretation, and it's interesting just hearing their reasons for their design. Seems quite well thought out.

 

One of the comments I saw about the topic suggested that it's worse than Wolfenstein or CoD because it frames Nazis as 'good guys'. But it always felt like the maniacal nature of the player's faction was conveyed. There's definitely a sense of triumph in music when it gets to the common theme a few minutes into a run, but I felt it was more just celebrating your skills than any conflict beyond that. Still it's really great that this exchange happened the way it did cause it's important to think about choices like that.

 

Edit: Rami also wrote a really great article about their feeling of a disconnect between themselves and the game, in terms of how it kinda clashes with their design and was made when they were in a different space emotionally. Maybe that also contributed to you ending up on the 'bad' side of this conflict as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was super interesting that there was a conversation about cultural literacy.  I also appreciated that there wasn't a debate on the issue.  I appreciated hearing a perspective that I don't always think about.

 

Also, Raw specifically helped me realize that Eddie Murphy is the worst.  I know it was of its time, but the homophobia is reprehensible.

 

 

Trying to quantify "cool" on the internet accounts for a pretty significant chunk of our economy. 

 

That thought makes me sad and equally makes me giggle a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember one other thing about this episode. During the discussion about biased journalists and the cabal, Chris raised the point that the people who could actually buy off journalists are the ones who can fly them to the desert to shoot guns and then give away glass tommy guns full of alcohol. Chris said something like "that's what's weird - for some reason, nobody ever complains about that" or something similar.

Really, though, do you think it's weird, Chris? Are you giving people who complain about this shit that much credit? Because I agree that if people thought logically about potential sources of bias, and were really hoping to see journalistic integrity upheld and bitching when it seemed like this wouldn't happen, then yes, they'd complain about EA flying journalists out for a magical retreat and not about a few people on Polygon being friends with a few people on Idle Thumbs who are friends with Steve Gaynor.

But the people who complain about this shit obviously aren't clued in people who are keeping a sharp eye out so that journalists are held accountable. They're immature bigots who self-identify as gamers and see Gone Home and other indie games as a threat to a medium that they want to always be about shooting, forever, and they couldn't give less of a shit if journalists get to drive an Abrams tank because they have no problem with Battlefield 6 getting a 9 out of 10 from IGN whether or not the review is biased. What they want to keep from happening is Gone Home and stuff like it being praised. That's why nobody ever complains about your tequila tommy gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think with a lot of shows that have focused on antiheroes over the last several years, you -are- expected to like them and at least to a degree empathize with them, whether or not they're doing horrible things and are, ultimately, shitty people. I definitely would say that The Sopranos and The Shield, to name a couple, expect that. And I gotta say, I did. I liked Tony Soprano and most of his mafia cohorts. When many of the characters that were killed on that show were killed, I felt bad about it. Same goes for Vic Mackey and his squad (although I certainly recognized that he was not behaving in a way I would accept from a cop in real life, and I thought the finale was perfect in its brutality). I guess I can see how people could accept Walter White on those terms, but I really, really don't think you're meant to like late-season Walt or celebrate his victories. I was fully prepared to, to start with, but his arc was just this relentless downward spiral as a human being even at moments where he was experiencing dramatic professional and financial success. I liked several other characters on the show that were, realistically speaking, bad people (Gus Fring, Mike, Jesse, Saul), but Walt? No.

 

I agree that you're supposed to like Tony Soprano and Walter White and all those other "heroic" sociopaths. I mean, that's what I get from the carefully constructed cocktail of competency and charm that the writers slather all over them. Even though you never stop liking them, you're just not supposed to want to like them, gradually if not immediately, because the show is entirely about how your gut is wrong and these men are monsters. I'm actually not enjoying The Sopranos as much as I once thought, maybe because there are too many plot threads that don't go anywhere, but the triumph of the show is making you love and respect Tony, a brutish asshole who gets himself objectively in the wrong time and again until it kills him. I think the reason that Breaking Bad is maybe less of a success is because the fifth season follows Walt past the tipping point in an attempt to reach the closure for which The Sopranos didn't even try.

 

I also agree that there's something of a trend here. For me, "Isn't it messed up how much you care for this amoral asshole?" is becoming for TV what "Isn't it messed up how many people you're shooting in this first-person shooter?" has been for video games the past couple years. I think there's more to do with charismatic antiheroes than just win audience sympathy for evil acts, but I don't know what it is. It's something I'll be thinking about now, though.

 

That's why nobody ever complains about your tequila tommy gun.

 

Also, because of all the tequila.

 

Seriously though, good post again, Tycho. You're on a roll this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, this sort of behavior drives me a little crazy. Oh, you haven't seen Game of Thrones/Mad Men/Breaking Bad/Girls/True Detective? It is literally the greatest television series ever, you have to watch it...

 

Life is full of all sorts of miserable events, so I'm not going to begrudge anyone for watching something that gives them pleasure. but man I wish more people could move beyond the conversation piece where they are just talking about how good these shows are (seemingly without ever going into detail about what makes them good), and always with the implication that if you're not following this show there is something off about you.

This is sort of a tangent, but I'm immediately skeptical when anyone tells me that something current is an absolute must-watch or the greatest thing ever or whatever. Like, there's a huge difference for me between being told Mad Men is the greatest thing ever and being told The Wire is the greatest thing ever. I'm way more inclined to believe someone saying the former is a person who's either bought into a current cultural phenomenon fairly uncritically, or is someone who is deliberately attempting to appear relevant by gushing about something the people around them are talking about a lot. (Yes, I realize how cynical that sounds.)

I don't even trust my own opinion of things that have recently been released and are being talking about a lot. Partly because I think my initial reaction is coloured by the hype I hear around the launch of that thing, and partly because I think it just takes a long time to fully digest your experience with a creative work. Like, I didn't even like Dark Souls that much the first time I played through it, whereas I now think it's unarguably one of the most important games of the last several years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shit is complicated. Reading through the last couple pages of this thread, I recalled recently stumbling across True Detective without having heard if it and watching the first five minutes mostly because if how much I liked the opening music and credits. True Detective without predisposition reminded me of Carnivale, which I enjoyed for similar reasons: its moodiness, its color palette, its "slouching towards Bethlehem" / Ray Bradbury vibe.

And then, it became "that show" and then I became even if only in my own mind "that guy." It reminds me a little of how since I am a white guy I am reluctant to talk about how I like Macklemore. I love some of the things our culture produces artistically but I really think the way we are processing these works of art is somehow broken when we are all conscious of these weird framing dynamics.

So I guess what I am trying to convey is that White Walls is appealing to me despite the line "smack her booty with my paw / tryin' to fuck 'em all" and its problematic treatment of women as sex objects and not people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, I'm sad I missed this thread on its peak. I took a bachelor in film studies, so essentially "media literacy" as it concerns film, TV and other media.

 

A bunch of these topics come down to the same topic; interpetation. With regards to media literacy, objective game reviews,  reference culture/media elitism and of course, sensitivity versus cencorship are all swirling around the same topic; how do we read a given work of art.

 

This is what basically the entire humanities arm of academia spends their time on, so it's a giant subject that's almost impossible to "solve". But as some people in the thread had questions regarding intent of the author (for example the Far Cry 3 writer), I thought I would write up a quick Communication Theory 101: Rollin' with the Barthes.

 

Traditionally, most people have thought of communication like this:

 

Sender -> message -> receiver.

 

This way the sender control the message completely, and the reciever/audience gets it exactly as intended. 

 

 

Of course, this is far from reality. A more accurate model looks like this, developed in the middle of the 1900s, primarily by Roland Barthes:

 

 

Sender <-> intent --> message  ---medium----> | text/work of art | ---external noise----> receivers perception---> receiver ---> interpretation

 

 

as I've tried to convey, a sender/author is not only divorce from the message, but it gets filtered through the medium or channel (like video games), before it becomes the work. And even then it still goes through external factors (how do you experience it? What do have other people said about it beforehand?) Before it actually is interpreted.

 

 

Ok, so to bring this back to the topic at hand. I haven't seen any of the deleted posts, but a big part of the discussion seems to center around Danielle not wanting to play the South Park game because of her political convictions. Some people have a problem with this, and some even go so far as to claim "censorship" for critiquing the way the show portrays women, redheads, etc.

Censorship would amount to cutting of this communication chain at the 2-4th step. By simply criticizing the middle part (the text) you're not censoring anything at all, and in fact, denying someone the right to dislike it is more akin to censorship.

 

When it comes to media literacy, that takes part in the final steps. The question is a fascinating one, but framing it in what I have outlined above, and South Park specifically:

Parker & Stone/South Park are often regarded as satirists/satirical. Let's say it's their intent to satirize a certain type of person by having Cartman acting as horrible as they do. If the receiver doesn't read this as satire, and instead reads it positively, we have to look at the steps between these two. Is the message clear? Does the medium ("childish" cartoon) dilute the message? Is there external noise disturbing it (other people worshiping Cartman as "straight talker"), and does the receiver have the perspective/knowledge to read it as satirical?

 

More importantly, this also shows you what you can't criticize in this example, which is the stuff beyond the chain on either side: Sender and interpretation. You can't call Parker & Stone bad people for making Cartman the character a bad person, and you can't tell someone their interpretation is wrong or invalid, no matter if they "get" the satire or not. 

 

 

Using this model on references, I guess you could say that they do carry a form of cultural elitism, because they assume at the "message" level that the receiver has prior knowledge only available if the sender and receiver are in the same demographic on some level, be it internet access, TV shows watched, geography or any other factor. But this is a more complex (and therefore more fascinating) debate.

 

 

This is getting long already, so I'll cut myself off before doing any actual discussion. It could be I just wasted a bunch of words underlining what everyone already knew, but I hope this can be helpful, if not to educate someone directly, at least think more clearly about this stuff or to explain it better to someone who doesn't get it?

 

 

(This is basically the first time I get to use my uni degree directly, so excuse my over-excitement.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember one other thing about this episode. During the discussion about biased journalists and the cabal, Chris raised the point that the people who could actually buy off journalists are the ones who can fly them to the desert to shoot guns and then give away glass tommy guns full of alcohol. Chris said something like "that's what's weird - for some reason, nobody ever complains about that" or something similar.

Really, though, do you think it's weird, Chris? Are you giving people who complain about this shit that much credit? Because I agree that if people thought logically about potential sources of bias, and were really hoping to see journalistic integrity upheld and bitching when it seemed like this wouldn't happen, then yes, they'd complain about EA flying journalists out for a magical retreat and not about a few people on Polygon being friends with a few people on Idle Thumbs who are friends with Steve Gaynor.

But the people who complain about this shit obviously aren't clued in people who are keeping a sharp eye out so that journalists are held accountable. They're immature bigots who self-identify as gamers and see Gone Home and other indie games as a threat to a medium that they want to always be about shooting, forever, and they couldn't give less of a shit if journalists get to drive an Abrams tank because they have no problem with Battlefield 6 getting a 9 out of 10 from IGN whether or not the review is biased. What they want to keep from happening is Gone Home and stuff like it being praised. That's why nobody ever complains about your tequila tommy gun.

 

A little bit of Occam's Razor, but I feel like when I was getting and reading print magazine for game coverage the people doing the previews didn't talk about that stuff and focused on the game and the team. Once in a while they mentioned the location. For me at least, that stuff didn't come to light until people in the games industry sat around on couches and talked about how insane it all was after the fact. I never complained about it because I literally did not know it was a part of the industry, rather than not thinking it was worth complaining about. Compared to someone in a more informal setting giving full disclosure about their friends and acquaintances and how they have to handle themselves when covering their friends beforehand, it seems straightforward to me why one thing gets criticism and the other doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow this Thumbs related talking point feels off topic now but the telepresence robot has arrived and vines are being released.  I cannot wait for this week's episode.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Sean was marveling at how The Stick of Truth manages to seem like an actual South Park episode rather than just a reference to one, and how there's an enormous amount of writing and voice-acting content all done by just two people, I couldn't help but think of Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People, which also had an insane amount of original content that seemed like it must've been largely the work of the Chapman Bros.  I was amazed at how well those games nailed the feeling of being inside a Strong Bad SBemail.  The games are okay / good as Telltale Adventure Games (they did some clever things to mix up the gameplay like the strategy game at the end of Episode 2), but I think the comedy content is every bit as strong as the Homestar videos.


Did Jake or Sean work at all on those games?  I'd love to hear about what it was like to work with the Chapman Bros.  I've wondered if those games weren't a significant part of why they stopped updating the Homestar Runner website for so long, maybe because they got burnt out producing so much content for the games, or maybe even they felt like the games were a huge finale for the Strong Bad / Home Star characters and so a natural place to take a break.

 

And in case you missed it, homestarrunner.com posted an update on April 1st for the first time in years.  It's pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(This is basically the first time I get to use my uni degree directly, so excuse my over-excitement.)

 

I did a lit major with a detour into critical theory so I feel you on the Barthes, but he can be a hard sell. The notion of literacy is important, I think: It's not an author's fault if a reader literally does not comprehend the language in which the work is written. That a "language" can be comprised of referential metalanguages complicates things, but, still. [1]

 

Having said that, I feel the best use of references operates on two levels: one in which the reference is completely invisible to someone who doesn't get it, so that they don't even know there was something to get. This may be a weird attitude to have given how much referential humour seems to love doing the cheeky see-what-I-did-there kind of thing. I dunno.

 

edit: [1] yes, the "can" is a prevarication. Post-structuralists will often make the case that all language is compromised of endlessly referential systems. Think of what kind of object you might picture when someone says or writes the word "chair": it is (potentially) informed by every single other instance of a chair that you have seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I feel the best use of references operates on two levels: one in which the reference is completely invisible to someone who doesn't get it, so that they don't even know there was something to get. This may be a weird attitude to have given how much referential humour seems to love doing the cheeky see-what-I-did-there kind of thing. I dunno.

Actually, this was done pretty well in earlier Simpsons episodes. One example that sticks out in my mind is a particular scene in the episode where it's revealed that Homer was a part of the barbershop quartet group "The Be-Sharps". At one point in the episode, they are in a recording studio, looking incredibly tired, bored and haggard. It seems like a simple, good shot that fits the story.

As it turns out, it was a reference to an image of the Beatles recording one of their albums (Let it Be, I believe).

CRWt6.jpg

 

It's a reference that doesn't seem like a reference unless you know what its referencing, and it works well. In my opinion, anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I feel the best use of references operates on two levels: one in which the reference is completely invisible to someone who doesn't get it, so that they don't even know there was something to get. This may be a weird attitude to have given how much referential humour seems to love doing the cheeky see-what-I-did-there kind of thing. I dunno.

 

That's exactly how I felt about Guacamelee!  I knew from the talk on the 'net that it was loaded with references and memes, but I only recognized maybe 2 or 3 in my whole playthrough.  I thoroughly enjoyed the game and didn't feel like anything was missing in not recognizing the references.  In fact it seems like a lot of the people who are aware of the memes found them obnoxious.

 

I'm a continental philosophy dabbler, and I'm constantly confronted with the fact that each work feels like it DEMANDS that I read at least 20 other books to follow along.  I find it next to impossible to gloss over stretches of references/arguments.  My philosophy phd friend just tells me to let it wash over me, but it's hard when you feel like you lose your anchor of understanding every other paragraph/wall of text. (Maybe I should give analytical philosophy a shot, but there's something about the flowery/jumbled language of someone like Deleuze that I can't help but keep rolling that boulder up for).  So yeah, I pine for that kind of philosophy where the references are transparent, but I think it's really hard to avoid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly how I felt about Guacamelee!  I knew from the talk on the 'net that it was loaded with references and memes, but I only recognized maybe 2 or 3 in my whole playthrough.  I thoroughly enjoyed the game and didn't feel like anything was missing in not recognizing the references.  In fact it seems like a lot of the people who are aware of the memes found them obnoxious.

 

Kotaku has compiled staggering list of all the references in Guacamelee. A lot of them are transformative and are used inform the world of luchadores you are in, because of that I feel they do generally represent a good referential joke. The question I have to ask though, would it have been better if the jokes on the posters for the luchadores were not references? If you instead had a poster for a luchador named "The Chicken", an ironic joke, would that be better than referencing Mega Man? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a lit major with a detour into critical theory so I feel you on the Barthes, but he can be a hard sell. The notion of literacy is important, I think: It's not an author's fault if a reader literally does not comprehend the language in which the work is written. That a "language" can be comprised of referential metalanguages complicates things, but, still. [1]

 

Having said that, I feel the best use of references operates on two levels: one in which the reference is completely invisible to someone who doesn't get it, so that they don't even know there was something to get. This may be a weird attitude to have given how much referential humour seems to love doing the cheeky see-what-I-did-there kind of thing. I dunno.

 

edit: [1] yes, the "can" is a prevarication. Post-structuralists will often make the case that all language is compromised of endlessly referential systems. Think of what kind of object you might picture when someone says or writes the word "chair": it is (potentially) informed by every single other instance of a chair that you have seen.

Absolutely agree with you, I didn't mean to imply in my example that Parker & Stone are solely responsible if someone doesn't get their satire, in fact, rather the opposite. Literacy is extremely important. I feel media literacy, from understanding texts to knowing when you're being manipulated by marketing, should have more focus earlier in school.

Very good points are being made in regards to references above. As someone who grew up in a western European country, we consumed a lot of the biggest American media, especially comedy TV shows. Whenever the punchline in a sitcom was something like "you look like Carol Channing!", it would be like "...who?".

In fact, reflecting over it now, it felt kind of alienating. To put it harshly, it kinda feels like media autism?  A line like that would always be followed by canned studio laughter with the actor standing there letting the punchline sink in. That's what they do when they said someone that I actually find funny, and everyone "else" (the studio audience) was also laughing, so you know it's SUPPOSED to be funny, so you mimic the others and try to laugh, as if you know the reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good points are being made in regards to references above. As someone who grew up in a western European country, we consumed a lot of the biggest American media, especially comedy TV shows. Whenever the punchline in a sitcom was something like "you look like Carol Channing!", it would be like "...who?".

In fact, reflecting over it now, it felt kind of alienating. To put it harshly, it kinda feels like media autism?  A line like that would always be followed by canned studio laughter with the actor standing there letting the punchline sink in. That's what they do when they said someone that I actually find funny, and everyone "else" (the studio audience) was also laughing, so you know it's SUPPOSED to be funny, so you mimic the others and try to laugh, as if you know the reference.

 

Honestly, this is what it felt like growing up in the west. The Simpsons, Friends, and dozens of other shows were generally on during my formative years. These were series that made hundreds if not thousands of cultural references throughout their runs. When I was very young I wasn't reading Poe, but I could give you a plot synopsis of The Tell-Tale Heart thanks to Lisa's Rival. I hadn't read Dickens but The Muppets Christmas Carol gave me the gist of that story. In the vast majority of cases my first introduction to cultural ideas wasn't their original sources but through references, or references to references. In some cases it was immediately clear that "oh, this is like that thing I've heard of" but in others it was years before I found out what a joke was in reference too. I'm sure we've all had the experience of watching something from our childhood and saying "Wow, I didn't get that joke at the time". It doesn't matter if you're from Europe or North America as far as I can tell. Also, I have no idea who Carol Channing is. The name sounds familiar but I couldn't tell you what she's known for. That's not just you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kotaku has compiled staggering list of all the references in Guacamelee. A lot of them are transformative and are used inform the world of luchadores you are in, because of that I feel they do generally represent a good referential joke. The question I have to ask though, would it have been better if the jokes on the posters for the luchadores were not references? If you instead had a poster for a luchador named "The Chicken", an ironic joke, would that be better than referencing Mega Man? 

 

I tend to find "referential" humor to be a pretty low, easy-to-hit target, but it tends to become stale much faster than other forms of humor. Personally, I like to reward humor that I find to be intelligent, clever, and surprising. With Guacamelee, there's fresh humor in the writing, which can be pretty funny. These little billboards do a good job of adding visual appeal to the levels, but I wonder how it will age. If someone goes back to the game in ten years, will they still wonder what "business cat" is? Perhaps they will because it's "random," as we live in an age where things that are "random" is often found funny, but will this always be the case? 

 

I personally think that it's hard to say if the humor would be "better" if it did away with the references. Humor is highly subjective. The success of so much of our humor media that is largely predicated on making references (laughter, I've read, is merely the sound of an audience congratulating itself) indicates that Guacamelee's method was probably successful. I bet a lot of people got a kick out of the fact that they referenced the Me Gusta guy: "Neat! I saw that on the internet! These people must read the same internet!" But damn if I'm always disappointed when someone dips into that well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the concept of making sweeping declarations about "reference humor" really odd. References are tools. It entirely depends on how they're used. Someone on a forum can quote the Simpsons and Patton Oswalt can do a really great bit with them.

 

And yeah, all references aren't for all people. Where is there a rule that all comedy should be for all people? Even devoid of references, no comedy is for everyone. You can walk it all the way back to Buster Keaton doing purely visual, non-verbal slapstick, and not everyone will get something out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made it through the entire thread! I had many thoughts as I spent the last two hours enjoying what this community has to offer. I've forgotten many of them and most of them were developed and stated with more craftsmanship than I would have been able to muster.

Things I remember wanting to say that didn't get said:

-In the discussion of referential humor bein a secret handshake for certain groups. It eventually turned into a discussion of how saying something is a must-see is an attempt to get cool-points. I suffer from this tendency and though I want all the cool points I can get, I think of my desire to make a viewing of Daguerrotypes mandatory is motivated more by the fact that I really like that movie and I really appreciate y'alls viewpoints and so I want to mix those ingredients. I imagine that it's the same for many people who chose the media they consume through their particular social media sphere. It's like when you really like two people so you want them to meet; it rarely works out though.

Other thing:

- I don't remember what the other thing was. I'll edit the post if I remember. Wowza this thread was so great. If I ever need to write good characters and their views on media-responsibility, I'm going to come here and do studies. I had been wanting to have discussion about both satire and the Suey Park thing, little did I know that it was happening a few threads over. How embarassing.

Edit:

I remembered the other thing. I was going to say that before I read this thread I was polarized in how I allocated accountability for a mediums message (at varying poles). I like the ideas espoused here that accountability can be shared. I find it easier to do when the externalities are boons rather than traumas. For instance, I don't think that episode 152 is solely responsible for the great book I just read, but it wouldn't have been written without it.

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