Idle Thumbs 153: Blondie, Freckles, and Glasses

[CaptainFish]

Also is it just me or are all of the colour themes except for the default one unplayable? Particularly the ones that make the background have a higher contrast than the enemy planes.

I actually like a fair amount of them. I wouldn't play on 4, 6, 7, 12 or 15 and I think 13 and 14 are on the edge of acceptable.

 

I pretty much only play on 9: LANIGIRO. It uses a dark blue palette for the sky and makes the planes bright cyan so they pop really well. Makes the whole thing feel like a night mission.11: YNITSID, the alternate greyscale scheme to 2: DISTINY, is also similar with a dark grey background and light planes. I think those both have a good feel and work well.

 

5: BEDNAR and 8: CAINE are really awesome as well. Rather than using shades of one colour, these use all sorts of colours together and have great bullet and plane contrast over the sky and background and foreground clouds. The issue with these two is they don't have a feel like how the default scheme has sepia, LANIGIRO has a night feel and YNITSID has black and white. The remaing ones I think are all playable. 1: VIDEODREAMING is cool cause it evokes the CGA graphics of

, a game LUFTRAUSERS reminds me a lot of. On the other hand, the unplayable 7: DENNISWEDIN is a disappointment for me because it uses a scheme reminiscent of a CGA mode I used to use a lot (Mode 4, palette #2, high intensity on this wiki page), but the enemy plane colour is so unsaturated it can blend in a lot especially when crossing sky/cloud boundaries. A lot of my draw to LUFTRAUSERS was how it reminded me of games that used to only use a handful of colours on the pc, so I guess I had a lot to say about it.

[AlexB]

The "or" was distinguishing between the list of groups that are not marginalized and marginalized. The inclusion of "old" is probably problematic, I admit. I was thinking in terms of "old-fashioned morality", to which works that are sex-positive or contain vulgar language might be offensive.

 

And I don't think I was advocating power-oppression as THE singular critical lens to apply to all work, just a broadly useful way to determine what offended parties should be given the most credence.

 

 

And punch Donald Trump in the face is already a game.

 

My point in that case would be that it's hard to find somebody who can't say they are oppressed in some way. I must admit though I have not seen the "this game offends me" position for Luftrausers articulated beyond "it (maybe) makes Nazis less revolting/monstrous". I don't think humanising Nazis would actually be a dangerous move. My position (which is obviously the best and most important one) on them is that they were (I don't think modern "Nazis" are the same as WW2 Nazis) ordinary humans who chose to do terrible things. That road is open to any of us and only by recognising that fact can we be vigilant about it.

 

I actually like a fair amount of them. I wouldn't play on 4, 6, 7, 12 or 15 and I think 13 and 14 are on the edge of acceptable.

 

I pretty much only play on 9: LANIGIRO. It uses a dark blue palette for the sky and makes the planes bright cyan so they pop really well. Makes the whole thing feel like a night mission.11: YNITSID, the alternate greyscale scheme to 2: DISTINY, is also similar with a dark grey background and light planes. I think those both have a good feel and work well.

 

5: BEDNAR and 8: CAINE are really awesome as well. Rather than using shades of one colour, these use all sorts of colours together and have great bullet and plane contrast over the sky and background and foreground clouds. The issue with these two is they don't have a feel like how the default scheme has sepia, LANIGIRO has a night feel and YNITSID has black and white. The remainng ones I think are all playable. 1: VIDEODREAMING is cool cause it evokes the CGA graphics of

, a game LUFTRAUSERS reminds me a lot of. On the other hand, 7: DENNISWEDIN is a disappointment for me because it uses a scheme reminiscent of a CGA mode I used to use a lot (Mode 4, palette #2, high intensity on this wiki page). A lot of my draw to LUFTRAUSERS was how it reminded me of games that used to only use a handful of colours on the pc, so I guess I had a lot to say about it.

 

Its possible that I don't have any of those nicer schemes unlocked yet (I think I've got to the point where I have all of the parts for the plane, and now my interest has tailed off a bit)... or it may be that I am just much more used to the default.

[mike]

I also feel bad for ignoring the Nazism discussion but I just wanted to mention that all the rules required for a person to be eligible for president are also required for vice president. VP basically has to be able to become president, which is why Bill Clinton can't be VP, for example. People next in the chain obviously don't have to follow the rules, they will just be skipped over if they are in line to become president for whatever reason.

 

The clause that states the president has to be a "natural born citizen" is also not specific about "you must be born on US soil" or just "you must be a US citizen by birth". It's also there as a paranoia thing due to the time it was written. In grade school it's often taught that "you have to be born in the US" but it's less cut and dry than that. If your parents are married and one or both are US citizens then you pretty much become a US citizen by default (there are only some minor prior residency requirements) regardless of where you are born. A friend of mine in middle/high school was born in Sweden but both of his parents were American so he was a US citizen at birth even though he didn't actually live in the US until he was 5 years old.

[electricblue]

I also feel bad for ignoring the Nazism discussion but I just wanted to mention that all the rules required for a person to be eligible for president are also required for vice president. VP basically has to be able to become president, which is why Bill Clinton can't be VP, for example. People next in the chain obviously don't have to follow the rules, they will just be skipped over if they are in line to become president for whatever reason.

 

The clause that states the president has to be a "natural born citizen" is also not specific about "you must be born on US soil" or just "you must be a US citizen by birth". It's also there as a paranoia thing due to the time it was written. In grade school it's often taught that "you have to be born in the US" but it's less cut and dry than that. If your parents are married and one or both are US citizens then you pretty much become a US citizen by default (there are only some minor prior residency requirements) regardless of where you are born. A friend of mine in middle/high school was born in Sweden but both of his parents were American so he was a US citizen at birth even though he didn't actually live in the US until he was 5 years old.

 

I think the consensus is the "natural born citizen" thing would not hold up well in court because it's so vague. I think it's merely there to discourage immigrants from seeking the presidency, it would do little to stop someone like John McCain or Ted Cruz (God help us) from becoming president. 

[namman siggins]

The Luftrausers debate is the big issue of the week. I wish I had something smart to contribute to the discussion, but I really just don't know how I feel about it.

 

I did want to chime in on the comments about obtuse indie game storytelling that in some ways acts as a cover for what really matters to the creators of the works. Either Chris or Sean brought up Kentucky Route Zero as a case of that. I think that is totally true in the case of the actual episodes, but I think that thematic elements of the game come forward in the interludes, particularly in "The Entertainment."

 

I'm not going to spoiler tag this since I'm just speaking in big thematic terms rather than any actual specifics about the plot. Anyway, throughout the first two acts of Kentucky Route Zero, there is a general sense of decay and post-industrial/post-agrarian abandonment. This lends the setting some of its wild and even magical elements. Since it is a forgotten landscape, it is a site for the unexpected. The problem is that the game never makes explicit why this place is forgotten and left behind.

 

"The Entertainment" does a better job of this. Without giving too much away, the interlude takes the form of a one act play that addresses issues of rural life in the early 21st century, debt, and banking corruption. It still does so in a weird metatextual form where the player controls a non-speaking character on stage and can look out at the audience and read their reactions to the play, but the thematic elements are way more explicit. I hope that some of this comes over into the main parts of the game later on, because that really does seem to be the more grounded story that the developers are interested in telling. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had played the interludes and if they felt like they did a better job of avoiding the too-vague style of the first two acts.

I'm on my phone so I'm not going to breakdown this quote.

In your second paragraph about why it's not told why this place is forgotten or the way it is okay in my eyes. Having lived and talked to people who live in such areas, there is a feeling of abandonment, decay mixed with an underlying Midwest industrial folklore/mythology. And you can tell the inhabitens why their town or city was abandoned but it can get to abstract or big and not personal.

When I lived in Cincinnati, there was an post-industrial economic and societal depression conscious. There was a feeling of why did this happening and where do we go from here. So I can relate to the obtuseness of Kentucky and I love it; it's a game that hit close to home.

And personally, as I get older, I like obtuse or open to interpretation narratives. I read a lot if weird/magical realism/low-key fantastico stories that work this way.

Which leads me Bioshock DLC, which I thought was an overwrought DLC that wanted to have its cake and eat. Trying to tie everything together and be like, "SEE! It all fits!" It destroys the mythology and fill-the-blanks or use your imagination that Bioshock 1 used rather well.

For me, I really don't care what it looked like before, I like to imagine bit never really have a full grasp of the picture; that's what I like about Bioshock 1. Coming in and filling in gaps, re-conning and showing everything's just didn't work for the DLCS.

Also, in the first episode, how they dealt with revolutionary leader from Inifinite was even more troubling! Instead of fixing they added to their problems of how racism and revolutions are dealt in their games.

This heads leads me too Luft: I agree with Patrick R.

Having been a victim of such racist bullshit and even been in the nazi fetish scene, I can wholly understand why people would have problems with the imagery.

Those wanting to know why if a victim was part of that scene: I was a brown kid trying to be white because I hated my color. What better why than to be a nazi fetishist and try to deny who I am; there was also my teenage mind trying to rebel and be transgressive.

[sclpls]

Wow, there's a lot to talk about with this episode. I'll try and cover all my points as briefly as possible.

 

The discussion of Luftrauser's made me recall the discussion about Sid Meier's Ace Patrol games, which also came under criticism for its portrayal of a similar era. The criticisms were of a different nature because the representation was different, but in some ways it also amounts to the same thing. I just don't think there's any good way to evoke that era. To Gormongous' point asking why the representation of the Soviet Union gets a pass, I think it comes down to context. Because anyone that has been to a war gaming convention knows there is always that guy dressed up in a S.S. officer's uniform, and it's really uncomfortable and weird. Because anyone that has played Company of Heroes multiplayer against random opponents knows there is always that dude yelling in a German accent. So I'm a little more sympathetic to the Vlambeer dudes response, even if I agree that it was kind of vague and didn't really address the criticism. Because we mostly agree that we don't think evoking WWII aesthetics should be off-limits, but as far as I can tell no one actually knows the right way to handle it.

 

I strongly agree with Sean's comment about Sword & Sworcery, it really hit what drove me nuts about the game, like I get irrationally angry just thinking about that game. I would characterize all the indie games that were under discussion slightly differently though.... basically what I dislike is when games evoke this sort of generic mysticism. It seems kind of lazy and uninteresting, and I think bringing up Ico & Shadow of the Colossus was on point because a lot of times it feels like developers taking away the wrong idea about what was meaningful and cool about those games. What I find objectionable with a lot of these games (Brothers is a strong example of this even though there are a lot of good things about that game) is like the way they try to evoke emotions that feel unearned.

 

That being said I disagree with lumping Kentucky Route Zero in with those games, and I specifically disagree with Sean's assertion that they aren't saying what they want to say. I think of that game as falling into the tradition of creative works that are a brain dump of the unconscious like a Fellini or David Lynch movie, and so I think KR0 is expressing exactly what it needs to express.

 

I liked Chris' description of the stealth systems in Bioshock Infinite. Contrary to a lot of people on the internet's feelings about stealth games, I think they're best when they're not too difficult. Stealth-based gameplay is also ideal for appreciating all the amazing art work and sound design that goes into a game like Bioshock. Unfortunately I also agree that I dislike how the narrative of the DLC feels like fanfic, but I like that I get to at least appreciate all this amazing design, and a lot of it in Episode 2 is some of my favorite out of all the Bioshock games. It's making me feel really sad about the closing of Irrational all over again.

 

Finally, the discussion about Brendon Chung's games just made me think about how I wish the Mass Effect games used the Blendo games model where it all refers to the same universe, but you have a bunch of games with unconnected narratives, and in different gameplay styles, just all residing in the same science fiction universe. So you have one game where you're a detective on Citadel, another game that's a business sim in one of the Mass Effect libertarian planets, a tactical spaceship battle game, etc.

 

This was still a way longer post than I wanted it to be. Sorry.

[namman siggins]

Also, to add to Luft: when I first saw the game and saw the pilot what entered my mind was, "Oh. You get to at as a Nazi Fighter Pilot. That's interesting."

I bought the game and played and I'd be lyin' if I said I didn't enjoy it; I enjoyed the shit out of it. But! While playing the game there was always the nazi aesthetic at play. Since, of you read my last post, I was part of a Nazi aesthetic fetishist scene, I can put myself into two positions: one is enjoying the aesthetics of Luft and know that the game makers aren't trying to send a pro-nazi sentiment, but also as a POC, I could wholly understand and feel the problems within the aesthetic.

[sclpls]

Yeah that's a really good point. There's so much interesting art out there, but some of it is always going to have elements that we take issue with, and how people balance that is going to vary, but it's worth acknowledging that tension exists.

[namman siggins]

Yeah that's a really good point. There's so much interesting art out there, but some of it is always going to have elements that we take issue with, and how people balance that is going to vary, but it's worth acknowledging that tension exists.

i wholly agree!

It's horrible when people try to undermine it by saying, "That was the attitude of the time" Or "Everyone was racist back then", as if that absolves it of its problems; it simply doesn't.

Some people can separate it and judge a work if the good outdoes the bad, some see the bad as better too much and can't leave it alone and others can accept the contradictions within the work.

I personally think all this's are valid and come down to the person.

EDIT: I apologize for all my grammar and spelling errors, I'm on my phone.

[AlexB]

Having been a victim of such racist bullshit and even been in the nazi fetish scene, I can wholly understand why people would have problems with the imagery.

Those wanting to know why if a victim was part of that scene: I was a brown kid trying to be white because I hated my color. What better why than to be a nazi fetishist and try to deny who I am; there was also my teenage mind trying to rebel and be transgressive.

 

This is quite interesting. My original perspective on this as a Europe vs. US thing was that maybe it was different in the US because there was more distance there (and so historical Nazis more easily took a cartoonishly monstrous form). I guess it is possible though that the experience of what Nazism inspired - particularly in terms of openly-displayed gang aesthetics etc. - is much more present in the US than in (Western) Europe.

 

I maintain my previous distinction though. The relationship between the historical Nazis who took over Germany during World War 2 and a modern neo-nazi in the US is going to be similar to the relationship between a medieval knight and a renaissance fair attendee.

[Patrick R]

I maintain my previous distinction though. The relationship between the historical Nazis who took over Germany during World War 2 and a modern neo-nazi in the US is going to be similar to the relationship between a medieval knight and a renaissance fair attendee.

 

In that the latter draws inspiration from the culture and aesthetic choices of the former?

 

This is a silly argument. A renaissance fair attendee is not a knight. It's play. A neo-nazi is a white supremacist. It is not play.

[AlexB]

In that the latter draws inspiration from the culture and aesthetic choices of the former?

 

This is a silly argument. A renaissance fair attendee is not a knight. It's play. A neo-nazi is a white supremacist. It is not play.

 

It is a silly analogy. I could defend it with my use of the word "similar", but my main point is that the historical Nazis and the modern neo-nazis are two distinct groups with different motivations etc. Their main point of continuity is the aesthetic appropriation and idolisation that has taken place. There were racist bastards before there were Nazis, and there are post-Nazi racist bastards who are nevertheless not neo-nazi.

 

Vosslerlarry was, I think, talking about modern nazi fetishists (so aesthetic neo-nazis?) who I'm assuming were not white supremacist. Or maybe they were?

[namman siggins]

It was a mixture of both but mostly not.

[Zeusthecat]

I just want to say that "Amelia Earhart's Femur" would have made for an awesome episode title.

[Patrick R]

I just want to say that "Amelia Earhart's Femur" would have made for an awesome episode title.

Hahaha, YES.

 

It is a silly analogy. I could defend it with my use of the word "similar", but my main point is that the historical Nazis and the modern neo-nazis are two distinct groups with different motivations etc. Their main point of continuity is the aesthetic appropriation and idolisation that has taken place. There were racist bastards before there were Nazis, and there are post-Nazi racist bastards who are nevertheless not neo-nazi.

 

Vosslerlarry was, I think, talking about modern nazi fetishists (so aesthetic neo-nazis?) who I'm assuming were not white supremacist. Or maybe they were?

 

Neo-nazis aren't just racist bastards who happen to like how swastikas look. It's a global movement, it's gangs, it's hate crimes, international networks of disinformation, propaganda and recruitment. I'm sure most nazi fetishists aren't neo-nazis but they're certainly tied together, in that the former creates a more permissible environment for the latter. So the aesthetics of nazism remain politicized. It matters how the aesthetics are used.

[Reyturner]

I just want to say that "Amelia Earhart's Femur" would have made for an awesome episode title.

or "Accordion of Shit"

[Zeusthecat]

I'm going to predict that all of this joking about robots taking over and enslaving/murdering all of us will probably be considered highly offensive sometime in the next 2-30 years. Just remember that anytime one of these jokes are made, it's done at the expense of millions of future robot apocalypse victims.

[AlexB]

Neo-nazis aren't just racist bastards who happen to like how swastikas look. It's a global movement, it's gangs, it's hate crimes, international networks of disinformation, propaganda and recruitment. I'm sure most nazi fetishists aren't neo-nazis but they're certainly tied together, in that the former creates a more permissible environment for the latter. So the aesthetics of nazism remain politicized. It matters how the aesthetics are used.

 

So they're a global movement of racist bastards who happen to like how swastikas look? I have no personal experience of neo-nazis, but some experience with people who were involved in racist political movements. I really don't know what motivates somebody to become a neo-nazi. It would seem particularly baffling considering the high social cost involved in tattooing "Heil Hitler" on your face... but then that itself is probably the appeal. I don't think that using the Nazi aesthetic in artwork makes society more relaxed about racism. Racists use the Nazi aesthetic because it is taboo, and because they want to provoke and scare people.

[Patrick R]

 I don't think that using the Nazi aesthetic in artwork makes society more relaxed about racism. Racists use the Nazi aesthetic because it is taboo, and because they want to provoke and scare people.

 

I agree with your first sentence. I don't think it makes society more relaxed about racism. But I do think it makes nazism more appealing to those they look to recruit.

 

I don't agree with your second sentence, not fully. I think non-racists use the Nazi aesthetic because they want to provoke and scare people. I think racists use it because they support the movement.

 

At any rate, we're veering off a bit from the discussion of Vlambeer*. To me the more interesting discussion in the podcast was definitely how artists can create problematic works totally on accident. I just wanted to bring up the point that that imagery still has power today because nazism isn't a thing that only existed a long time ago and only affects those who lived back then to witness WW2.

 

 

 

*And at this point I should be clear that I don't think their sins of evoking this imagery are particularly egregious or shocking, just problematic and not fully though out.

[AlexB]

I agree with your first sentence. I don't think it makes society more relaxed about racism. But I do think it makes nazism more appealing to those they look to recruit.

 

I don't agree with your second sentence, not fully. I think non-racists use the Nazi aesthetic because they want to provoke and scare people. I think racists use it because they support the movement.

 

At any rate, we're veering off a bit from the discussion of Vlambeer*. To me the more interesting discussion in the podcast was definitely how artists can create problematic works totally on accident. I just wanted to bring up the point that that imagery still has power today because nazism isn't a thing that only existed a long time ago and only affects those who lived back then to witness WW2.

 

*And at this point I should be clear that I don't think their sins of evoking this imagery are particularly egregious or shocking, just problematic and not fully though out.

 

I agree that our discussion is played-out. Any replies I gave now (about the distinction between historical and modern Nazi movements) would just be repeating myself. I do appreciate the way it went though, so thanks for that.

[Hermie]

So they're a global movement of racist bastards who happen to like how swastikas look? I have no personal experience of neo-nazis, but some experience with people who were involved in racist political movements. I really don't know what motivates somebody to become a neo-nazi. It would seem particularly baffling considering the high social cost involved in tattooing "Heil Hitler" on your face... but then that itself is probably the appeal. I don't think that using the Nazi aesthetic in artwork makes society more relaxed about racism. Racists use the Nazi aesthetic because it is taboo, and because they want to provoke and scare people.

 

Since I made my previous post I've been thinking about the visceral feeling described by the reader mail in the episode. In my original post I tried to discount this and pose a purely hypothetical question about if portraying Hitler and/or Nazi imagery is an immoral act "purely intellectually". After considering this I realize I was wrong to try to divorce this in the first place.

That feeling when someone is evoking imagery you personally hate or trigger disturbing emotions within you is horrible, and even if the inexperienced teens graffiti swastikas in a subway tunnel just because they want to be contrarian, that doesn't mean they shouldn't think about what would happen if a holocaust survivor were to come upon it. 

This feeling of physical uncomfort is what it is to be human, to a certain point, and nobody, be it creators or critics, should deny that deep gut feeling.

 

 

 Those wanting to know why if a victim was part of that scene: I was a brown kid trying to be white because I hated my color. What better why than to be a nazi fetishist and try to deny who I am; there was also my teenage mind trying to rebel and be transgressive.

 

You just gave us a peek into a story that sounds not only incredibly fascinating, but enlightening to people that are not well versed in how powerful words and aesthetics can be these contexts. I would love to read a forum post or blog post from you about this experience (If it doesn't evoke horrible memories of course, see above ).

[namman siggins]

Sure but I won't be home till 5 (pst).

[electricblue]

I'm going to predict that all of this joking about robots taking over and enslaving/murdering all of us will probably be considered highly offensive sometime in the next 2-30 years. Just remember that anytime one of these jokes are made, it's done at the expense of millions of future robot apocalypse victims.

 

Its okay, by the time the robots take over world government and starve off half of humanity in order to keep bees from going extinct or something we'll totally probably have it coming

[CaptainFish]

Since I made my previous post I've been thinking about the visceral feeling described by the reader mail in the episode. In my original post I tried to discount this and pose a purely hypothetical question about if portraying Hitler and/or Nazi imagery is an immoral act "purely intellectually". After considering this I realize I was wrong to try to divorce this in the first place.

That feeling when someone is evoking imagery you personally hate or trigger disturbing emotions within you is horrible, and even if the inexperienced teens graffiti swastikas in a subway tunnel just because they want to be contrarian, that doesn't mean they shouldn't think about what would happen if a holocaust survivor were to come upon it. 

This feeling of physical uncomfort is what it is to be human, to a certain point, and nobody, be it creators or critics, should deny that deep gut feeling.

This is actually why I liked the Vlambeer response. It didn't try to dismiss that a Nazi interpretation was possible and apologized earnestly for conveying that even if it was accidental. I feel like a lot of other responses would have the purpose of discounting the issues raised, rather than just going over how it happened in hopes that it helps frame the interpretation.

[Gormongous]

At any rate, we're veering off a bit from the discussion of Vlambeer*. To me the more interesting discussion in the podcast was definitely how artists can create problematic works totally on accident. I just wanted to bring up the point that that imagery still has power today because nazism isn't a thing that only existed a long time ago and only affects those who lived back then to witness WW2.

 

What I wonder is, does the intimate association of twentieth-century German aesthetics, even absent any defining symbology, with Nazism serve to insulate people from the reality you bring up, that Nazism still has power today in places that aren't even remotely German? I blew past it last night, but sorakasumi was right that automatically tarring everything German as Nazi is a problematic if understandable response, not because Nazi scientific and economic achievements are so valuable, but because there were strong fascist movements in every Western country, because there were many enthusiastic collaborators with the Final Solution in conquered countries, and because neo-Nazis are a global movement today. Walling off Nazism as purely a mid-century German thing that can be evoked by German-sounding words and riveted steel but by not political violence or mass deportations is a phenomenon about which I don't know what to think. I understand that the former two are what's more often associated with Nazism (and I can't discount the emotional reaction to them, it being the strongest and truest kind of reaction) but there's a wider range of historical evil there that Luftrausers doesn't traffic in at all.