Idle Thumbs 153: Blondie, Freckles, and Glasses

[Reyturner]

I think KR0 pulls off its aesthetic 99% of the time, but dips into self indulgence here and there. The hat on the dog, for example, or the lounge chair the attendant is sitting on at Equis Oil (yet the giant horse's head doesn't bother me for some reason), or the objects used as markers in the mine. Little things that are just a little to clever and stagy to the point of being distracting.

1% of the time anyways.

But those tiny holes undermine the whole, and when you're already making something surreal and dreamlike it doesn't take much to lose audience trust.

Of course, the game is only 2/5 the way through, so maybe everything will be totally justified.

[namman siggins]

Speaking of KR0, that mine shaft sequence (those who have played it, y'all know what I'm talking about) is amazing. I remember coming across it for the first time and it sent shivers down my spine. 

[TychoCelchuuu]

I think KR0 pulls off its aesthetic 99% of the time, but dips into self indulgence here and there. The hat on the dog, for example, or the lounge chair the attendant is sitting on at Equis Oil (yet the giant horse's head doesn't bother me for some reason), or the objects used as markers in the mine. Little things that are just a little to clever and stagy to the point of being distracting.

1% of the time anyways.

But those tiny holes undermine the whole, and when you're already making something surreal and dreamlike it doesn't take much to lose audience trust.

Of course, the game is only 2/5 the way through, so maybe everything will be totally justified.

See, to me, it's all just part and parcel of magical realism, and if something pulls it off 99% of the time, I see no reason to think it isn't pulling it off the other 1% of the time. I'm not sure I was ever tempted to read something as overly clever, but even if I was, the game definitely put those doubts to rest. This blog post sums it up very well, but it has spoilers for act II, so read it only after you finish that. In fact, that blog post (excellent as it is) sums it up even better than it knows, because, well:

The author never visited the third floor, but if he had, he'd realize it's exactly what you would've hoped for. "Maybe I missed out on a wacky conversation with some bears," he says, but of course he didn't. KR0 wouldn't dip that far. And that the game was built such that he could trust his abstinence is valuable, and that those who don't abstain are themselves not spoiled by anything wacky, is a testament to how amazing the game is.

[prettyunsmart]

Sorry to get a bit too lit-crit-ish in this KR0 discussion, but I'll add that the game's magical realism works especially well for me because the genre is particularly associated with narratives of economic crisis and instability. This is probably too specific but this article (which I can't find the full text of right now) provides a short history of magical realism and how it usually deployed in cultural contexts that are in economic flux. So to me, it seems like the more surreal elements of the game fit with the deeper roots of the uncanny elements of the setting.

[Chris]

I don't have the energy to reply about the withholding story stuff other than to, like Jake, fully disagree with the characterization of our argument as "just fucking come out and say it." My position is that you should EITHER come out and say it, OR reduce it down to tone. (I mean obviously you can do whatever you want, including something in between, you just have to be more confident and intentional about it than I think a lot of games that try to skirt the boundaries usually are.) I think games are generally BETTER at the latter than the former, and I have no problem with it at all. I just don't like when games get, to my perception, overly cute and precious about it, precociously teasing at something that I don't believe is actually there. Beyond that, Jake's replies mirror my own feelings on this.

[prettyunsmart]

I get the "ambiguity for ambiguity's sake is kind of a shitty approach to storytelling" argument, especially when that is part of a seemingly put on indie game aesthetic. All I meant to say is that Kentucky Route Zero doesn't fall into that category for me. Other games, like Sworcery definitely fall into a different category for me.

[Gormongous]

I get the "ambiguity for ambiguity's sake is kind of a shitty approach to storytelling" argument, especially when that is part of a seemingly put on indie game aesthetic. All I meant to say is that Kentucky Route Zero doesn't fall into that category for me. Other games, like Sworcery definitely fall into a different category for me.

 

Yeah, I feel the same way about Swords and Sworcery. I think most people are disagreeing with the Thumbs that Kentucky Route Zero is teasing something that's not actually there. I think there's substantial depth to the game, with its motifs of post-modernism, post-industrial decay, and the Weird South, not to mention that it captures the feeling of driving on a dark highway in Kentucky perfectly.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I don't have the energy to reply about the withholding story stuff other than to, like Jake, fully disagree with the characterization of our argument as "just fucking come out and say it." My position is that you should EITHER come out and say it, OR reduce it down to tone. (I mean obviously you can do whatever you want, including something in between, you just have to be more confident and intentional about it than I think a lot of games that try to skirt the boundaries usually are.) I think games are generally BETTER at the latter than the former, and I have no problem with it at all. I just don't like when games get, to my perception, overly cute and precious about it, precociously teasing at something that I don't believe is actually there. Beyond that, Jake's replies mirror my own feelings on this.

I guess I just don't see what Kentucky Route Zero is teasing at that William Faulkner isn't. Like, what is it that people think that game could be holding back?

I think the reason I simplified the thought to "just fucking say it" rather than "just fucking say it or reduce it down to tone entirely" is that I have no clue how you'd reduce Kentucky Route Zero down to tone. What the fuck would that even look like? You can reduce Journey down to tone because you can sum up Journey in the single word in its title. Kentucky Route Zero is too nuanced and evocative to be reduced down to just tone and I don't see how it would benefit from being made more explicit because there's nothing you can make more explicit. I think you can't make Kentucky Route Zero more or less complicated without altering it. And it doesn't need altering.

[prettyunsmart]

I guess I just don't see what Kentucky Route Zero is teasing at that William Faulkner isn't. Like, what is it that people think that game could be holding back?

I think the reason I simplified the thought to "just fucking say it" rather than "just fucking say it or reduce it down to tone entirely" is that I have no clue how you'd reduce Kentucky Route Zero down to tone. What the fuck would that even look like? You can reduce Journey down to tone because you can sum up Journey in the single word in its title. Kentucky Route Zero is too nuanced and evocative to be reduced down to just tone and I don't see how it would benefit from being made more explicit because there's nothing you can make more explicit. I think you can't make Kentucky Route Zero more or less complicated without altering it. And it doesn't need altering.

 

While I agree with you about the game, some pieces of media work for some people and just don't connect with others. We all spend a considerable amount of time listening to Jake, Chris, Sean, and sometimes Nick give their thoughts about games, and because of that I can safely say that they tend to approach things thoughtfully and come away with opinions about them I like to hear. I don't think disagreeing with them about one game is anything to get up in arms about, though I think talking about why it works/doesn't work for different people is certainly interesting.

[Stuart]

Concerning the Avengers, I hate it for the same reason I hate or just don't care about much of Whedon's works: it's boring main plot, and the boring visual style and cinematography. Specially the latter. The guy seems too comfortable sticking with broadcast TV cinematography and that's something I've always hated about some superhero movies. They end up looking sterile, fake, and lacking of any visual uniqueness and care. I start to actually feel that what I'm watching is just a calculated product, and with The Avengers, that feeling couldn't have been more apparent.

 

Also, the main plot is just dull and not engaging. I'm not asking for a complex plot with twists and turns, but I Whedon has the tendency of just making rote, bland stories with very interesting character development and interactions. Pacific Rim and films like it showed that you can have an uber simple story that's super predictable but salvages itself by having moment by moment surprising things and events that make it interesting and engaging. Add the fact that Rim was beautifully directed and conceived visually. and the characters, though admittedly mostly one-dimensional, were relatable enough to elevate its status of just being another stupid action adventure movie, and you have a film that is as conceptually banal, if not more, than The Avengers and works much better as an adventure/action film. 

 

But the characters. That's perhaps the only thing I'll praise in The Avengers and other Whedon stuff: The guy knows how to write characters and their interplay, but that wasn't enough to save most of his film for me. I kinda wish James Gunn had been given the helm to direct and write The Avengers. That'd would've been sooooo perfect. I'm happy he's doing Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

Also, sad ya'll didn't care much for Kentucky Route Zero. Ya guys should try it again!

[TychoCelchuuu]

While I agree with you about the game, some pieces of media work for some people and just don't connect with others. We all spend a considerable amount of time listening to Jake, Chris, Sean, and sometimes Nick give their thoughts about games, and because of that I can safely say that they tend to approach things thoughtfully and come away with opinions about them I like to hear. I don't think disagreeing with them about one game is anything to get up in arms about, though I think talking about why it works/doesn't work for different people is certainly interesting.

Well, usually they do a better job explaining their reasons for why they think a thing. If you go back and read my original post, and the ones following it, you'll notice I'm basically missing what the criticism is supposed to be. The idea seems to be that they think there's something Kentucky Route Zero is holding back and not saying, but I can't for the life of me imagine what that would be. And on the other hand they suggest that if you don't want to just out and out say it, then your game should just dial way back and go super abstract. But I can't imagine what KR0 would look like if it did that. I mean I literally don't know how the game would play. So I don't understand the criticism.

[Cleinhun]

...fully disagree with the characterization of our argument as "just fucking come out and say it."...

 

I can only speack for myself, but this is how I felt about the discussion. I have not played Monument Valley. I have played, and was super impressed by, Kentucky Route Zero. Because KR0 was mentioned in the context of the discussion, it was the lens through which I interpreted it, and was then annoyed when the things you were saying didn't match up with my experience of the game. Which is a stupid way to feel because you were talking about monument valley, not KR0, but that's how my brain read it. 

[TychoCelchuuu]

I feel like if you're making a robot you just shouldn't put a fucking red LED in it. Don't give it the ability to turn evil. This is one of my many qualms with the Will Smith vehicle, I, Robot. When all those robots turned evil their chest light started glowing red. Why would you give them a red chest light? That's like keeping vials of cyanide in one of your cupboards. You'll never need cyanide for an innocent reason!

(That was related to something in this episode, I swear.)

I had no interest in Burial at Sea besides being excited about seeing how gorgeous Rapture looks, but now I'm slightly more interested because of Jake's disappointment with how the corners have been rounded off Rapture or whatever. I feel like too few people pay attention to and talk about aesthetic choices like that in games and I want to see it for myself.

Also, nobody has posted the Craig Mullins painting that was mentioned by Jake in that discussion, right? That needs posting:

[malkav11]

I'd add that not only does The Avengers stand alone just fine even though having seen the other films it's connecting to helps flesh out background and that sort of interconnection to me produces a richer narrative space to work in than movies are often afforded, but actually for the most part, so do a lot of (not all) superhero comics. They may share the same universe as one another and sometimes share some of the characters, but it's been my experience that a given title is most commonly focused on the particular story or stories being told in that title and you mostly see other continuity referenced in passing if at all unless there's a major crossover event happening. -Those- tend to get a little up their own backsides with continuity across a jillion titles all of which only have a couple of issues worth of the main story. Although it looks like maybe Marvel's gotten a little better about this lately and has a miniseries for the crossover and then deals with how a given set of characters is impacted by the crossover in the individual titles, which would be nice.

[Patrick R]

I think The Avengers mostly works because it's funny and is packed with charming attractive actors being really charming and attractive. And that it doesn't try to do much more than that. 

[Stuart]

May I ask the context around the first 4 seconds of the podcast? When I heard Sean (Jake?) do that cat (???) voice, it killed me and want to know more about it. Also, I have no idea what Sean or Jake said in after those two meow's (????).

[Problem Machine]

I think The Avengers mostly works because it's funny and is packed with charming attractive actors being really charming and attractive. And that it doesn't try to do much more than that. 

Wait, The Avengers is basically Ocean's 11 with superpowers?

... crap now I want to see it.

[Gormongous]

May I ask the context around the first 4 seconds of the podcast? When I heard Sean (Jake?) do that cat (???) voice, it killed me and want to know more about it. Also, I have no idea what Sean or Jake said in after those two meow's (????).

 

Two things:

 

1) I love that it is Jake's fate always to be confused with the voice of another Thumb and Chris' fate never to be confused with anyone else.

 

2) I love Sean's evolution from fresh-faced ingenue who did prep for talking about Snoopy's Flying Ace to easygoing regular who is often to the point of disruptive. Like someone said in another episode thread, Sean is mid-first-run Idle Thumbs Jake, except Jake emerged fully formed from the head of Zeus, but we've gotten to see Sean grow into his shoes.

[Ninja Dodo]

On Avengers: As someone who was not previously familiar with or interested in the characters, I watched The Avengers on the strength of Whedon's earlier work and enjoying *some* superhero films, but really did not get it. I mean I could follow it, but it just seemed like a string of somewhat contrived fan-service, like they didn't take the time to earn the story arc. The only part I thought was actively good was the introduction of Scarlet Johansson with its nice build up and shades of Buffy-esque badassery. Could be it's just that I really didn't care about the characters going in, but I don't know that I agree it works as a standalone thing, sans character history. 

 

Specifically one moment that felt like it wasn't earned was when Banner says something like "You want to know my secret? I'm always angry" then transforms on cue. So I guess you can control your temper perfectly now all of a sudden. OK whatever. Disbelief unsuspended.

[SecretAsianMan]

I don't think the Avengers can exist in a vacuum, because you do need some knowledge of the characters.  But I do think you don't have to have acquired that knowledge from the other movies (although it certainly helps).  It seemed to me that just the casual knowledge that there's a guy who turns into a green monster when angry was enough for the Hulk.  Plot wise the movie does rely somewhat heavily on Captain America and Thor, but the main macguffin is never really explained in any of them anyway.

 

Then again as someone who has much more than casual knowledge of the characters I could be completely wrong.  Either way, I thought the Avengers was a lot of fun and is my favorite (thus far) Marvel film.

[Snow]

The music in Luftrausers becomes noticeably more triumphant as you approach death. I just thought I'd mention that, even if it's admittedly a very minor, and possibly unintentional, touch. And yeah... listening to Rami on the Indie Haven podcast (horrible audio quality, by the way), gave me the impression that they didn't have much of a vision. That's obviously not what he said, but that's how I read it.

[Niyeaux]

The idea is that, by presenting only the aspects of Nazism commonly perceived as cool (that is, the uniforms, the machismo, the efficiency, and everything else that made it successful in the first place) without its ultimate outcome or any other kind of moral censure, the game could spread the ideology (or at least sympathy towards it) among those already impressed by those aspects. It happened before, it could happen again, they say. I myself have no right to decide one way or the other, but I still say it's good material for a Stephen King novella, not so much for a point of criticism. If we really believe, even a little bit, that playing a Nazi who doesn't do anything evil and doesn't get his comeuppance could make anyone want to be Nazis, how can we tolerate video games full of mass-murderers who are celebrated as heroes in and outside of their fictional context?

 

I understand and support with all my head and heart any degree of personal or cultural discomfort from someone whose family, friends, and people suffered under the Nazis, for there were and are many, but as a general critique of the game, I still find it slightly off-base. Even among indie games, there are many more presenting a more deceptively seductive and morally reprehensible worldview than the whitewashed quasi-Nazis of Luftrausers. Often that is intentional, to cause alienation and discomfort, but I don't know if I'm equipped to argue whether or not that makes it okay.

(emphasis mine)

The part I've bolded is really the crux of the issue for me, and I think it's awfully fucking uncharitable to your fellow human beings to think that all it would take for them to want to slaughter millions of people is to be enticed by a sharp-looking outfit. If you can't appreciate some of the aesthetics of the Nazi regime without by extension sympathizing with their ideology, that's something that's probably more of a personal problem, rather than something a Video game developer can be held responsible for.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I'm not sure it's very uncharitable. We can get people to literally torture innocent people just by labeling one group guards and the other group prisoners. If you think human beings are magical rational creatures that don't let silly things like labels and aesthetics influence their actions then you're living in a fantasy land. There are a lot of neo-Nazis out there and I'm pretty sure none of them had actual, legitimate, good reasons for becoming neo-Nazis. The seductive aesthetic of the movement isn't some kind of accident. Neo-Nazis don't dress up in flannel jackets and sweat pants.

[Bjorn]

And this is one of the reasons that people are still super sensitive about Nazi related imagery.  Three murders in what is normally one of the more boring cities in the nation. 

[Badfinger]

I'm not sure it's very uncharitable. We can get people to literally torture innocent people just by labeling one group guards and the other group prisoners. If you think human beings are magical rational creatures that don't let silly things like labels and aesthetics influence their actions then you're living in a fantasy land. There are a lot of neo-Nazis out there and I'm pretty sure none of them had actual, legitimate, good reasons for becoming neo-Nazis. The seductive aesthetic of the movement isn't some kind of accident. Neo-Nazis don't dress up in flannel jackets and sweat pants.

 

Just so you know (and of course the only time I'm ever going to bring them up I can't find the specific ones), as with all published papers and studies there are also published criticisms of it. One of the more interesting counterarguments I read is they were 20 year olds being paid to act out. They were done in more detail than I'm putting forward here of course.

 

Does that invalidate the research? Certainly not, although it's something to take into consideration. Does it actually play into your point? Possibly, depending on the point of view.