Chris

Idle Thumbs 168: I Like the Hair

Recommended Posts

Thanks for the praise, everyone.  It was a lot of fun to draw.

 

I was also now tempted to draw Plato's Turd Factory (as Plato is a recurring character of mine - see avatar), but I realized nothing good could come of that.

 

MJD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also now tempted to draw Plato's Turd Factory (as Plato is a recurring character of mine - see avatar), but I realized nothing good could come of that.

 

Took me a couple minutes, but I got you covered there!

post-25026-0-48745800-1406436845_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you see sports teams come out with a gameplan that minimizes the chance of a game being over by halftime, especially if it's something like an NBA playoff series. There's a recognition that your fans don't want to watch a half of foregone conclusions, and that any team good enough to compete should be good enough to make it interesting for at least a half hour.

 

So, I'd call it bad coaching when you lose game 4 at the 14 minute mark. Elimination games are usually about keeping it close and giving yourself some opportunities at the end.

 

I think basketball isn't really a very good analogue to Dota even in the loosest sense. Over the course of the past regular season, there was no team that averaged less than a basket per minute. There are literally no basketball strategies that gamble on winning the game in the first quarter at the expense of the rest of the game. I think soccer, baseball, and hockey (to the NA audience) are better fits either in terms of game structure, flow, or strategy. Football fits if only for those instances where because the game pauses between every discrete action, you can design a play specifically to exploit something in the other team's gameplan or personnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are literally no basketball strategies that gamble on winning the game in the first quarter at the expense of the rest of the game. 

 

There really are a whole host of explicit strategies where teams gamble on blowing their opponents out (or avoiding being blown out). Everyone I know who plays Dota immediately goes to 'it's like basketball' when they describe the strategy because there's such an emphasis on 'getting someone going' and how different the body types and roles are. Even the whole '1st position through 5th position' thing in Dota correlates strongly to how NBA teams think of their scorers and the amount of opportunities that you give to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good basketball comparison might be something like Grinnell's strategy, which focuses on a ridiculously fast 3-point based offense and no shooting defense.  It's not like it maps out over to a Dota strategy, but it is their attitude that delivering an entertaining product with a good chance of winning is more important than winning alone. 

 

The interesting thing about Grinnell is how hated they are by a lot of basketball traditionalists who think what they do is a gross perversion of the game, in part because they are focusing on the entertainment and fun aspects of the game over a measured strategy. 

 

I don't know a lot about Dota or the pro teams, but it sounds like a team like Navi (I think?) is the equivalent of Grinnell, in that they don't always play by the established norms, and so people somehow feel that's wrong, even if it is completely within the rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good basketball comparison might be something like Grinnell's strategy, which focuses on a ridiculously fast 3-point based offense and no shooting defense.  It's not like it maps out over to a Dota strategy, but it is their attitude that delivering an entertaining product with a good chance of winning is more important than winning alone. 

 

The interesting thing about Grinnell is how hated they are by a lot of basketball traditionalists who think what they do is a gross perversion of the game, in part because they are focusing on the entertainment and fun aspects of the game over a measured strategy. 

 

I don't know a lot about Dota or the pro teams, but it sounds like a team like Navi (I think?) is the equivalent of Grinnell, in that they don't always play by the established norms, and so people somehow feel that's wrong, even if it is completely within the rules. 

I think most of the comparison is valid, but in Dota, not playing by the established norms is a valid strategy for winning so the end falls apart a bit.

One of the previous posters mentioned an analogy from the new player cast where the announcer compared Dota to a game of basketball where you gain an inch every time you score a point.  Grinnell's strategy becomes a lot more effective if your opponent doesn't know how to play against a team of three-point shooters and you are able to build an early lead while they struggle to adjust.  Even if it's something that can be shut down in a powerful way (like Newbee did to VG), if you can't figure it out fast enough you're already too far behind to do anything about it.

NaVi doesn't receive a lot of criticism for their playstyle because it is just as valid as any other playstyle.  Many people just find it more entertaining than other styles because it is more aggressive.  If anything, the way they play is considered to be more pure than other teams, as a large contingent of players views the more drawn out strategies as the perversion of the game.

Alliance in particular is hated by a lot of the community for playing 'Rat Dota'.  Rat Dota, also called 'split pushing', being the strategy of avoiding confrontation while achieving objectives and building a gold and exp lead.

Eastern Dota also has a reputation for being boring because they historically haven't taken a lot of risks and tend to play more cautiously.  This year was a big departure where a lot of the Eastern teams focused on early game aggression.  It's still pretty common for Twitch chat to be flooded with "Chinese Dota =(" whenever a game goes long and teams play safe.

If NaVi receives criticism, it's less about their strategies and more about their lack of motivation.  They have had problems in the past internally because they are notorious for never practicing.  After last year's TI there was some talk that they would be changing their roster because certain players were frustrated by their lack of preparation and felt that they could have won had they put in more effort.  It seems pretty likely at this point that NaVi will not be the same 5 players this point next year.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is impossibly classy, considering the subject matter.  Well done!

 

MJD

 

p.s. Now my mind has gone to the place where it appears that stone Plato head has a turd beard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy who did that talk isn't there anymore. Obviously he's not the only factor (although he did basically do ALL of that tuning on the first several Halo games) but my suspicion is that, as with every studio that gets big enough, a combination of growth and decades of turnover will eventually dilute really specific things about your design philosophy/culture/etc.

 

I'd imagine risk management has to play a large part as well, and I'd postulate that what looks like dilution on the outside is likely to be the embodiment of conscious decision-making at the upper level to avoid being too experimental. It's "traditional" Fortune 500 (read: AAA) business tactics: use your money to make more money, with the least chance to lose money.

 

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the discussions surrounding the UI being such a departure from the norm in such a large production. I'm curious whether it slipped through the cracks at one point or another, wasn't seen as something that could make/break a AAA game, or was something presented to decision-makers who loved it. Regardless, I'd imagine it had a very interesting life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So uh, does this mean Lee really didn't need to redeem himself from murder to become a decent human being again? Given the circumstances, I sort of agree since it was a crime of passion and all, but it's sort of shocking to hear it stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he got there for himself and others around him well before he died saving her, even if thats not realized by him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things about the Mighty Ducks that have been bugging me.

 

The first Mighty Ducks movie did have one girl who was a figure skater and was the older sister of another player.  Both of those characters were only in the first film.  However the second movie had a former Olympic figure skater by the name of Ken Wu join the team, which is also the movie that introduced Julie "The Cat" Gaffney as the new goalie who does basically nothing until the very final minutes.  The first Mighty Ducks movie was released in October 1992, only months after The Cutting Edge (March 1992) which was indeed about a hockey player who becomes a figure skater.  The second film was released in 1994.

 

Why do I know these things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reminiscing about setting things on fire as a kid in the random thoughts thread reminded me about Sean's opening lamentation about having no good anecdotes.   I feel personally defined, in part, by a whole litany of crazy ass stories I've experienced over the years.  It bums me out that Sean doesn't feel like he has that (assuming he was being serious). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since nobody else has done it, I'm going to be the guy that says Sean is wrong in saying that Divinity OS is a diablo style game/ action RPG:

 

Sean is incorrect in saying that Divinity OS is a diablo style game/Action RPG. Which isn't a big deal, since it isn't that dissimilar, but since this is something I'm passionate about (this genre) I felt like pointing it out. It is a CRPG, in the vein of Fallout (1 & 2), Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, etc. Not necessarily a huge distinction, but the way a CRPG plays vs how an ARPG plays is pretty different imho. with a CRPG, especially divinity, there is the management of multiple party members and tactics, and it is usually turn based (or meant to be paused, like Baldur's Gate, though that actually has turns as well). It shares the whole loot and equipment and character progression stuff with an ARPG. Well, really any RPG has that I supposed. I think most CRPGs are also a lot more story/dialogue heavy, the Diablo games have very little meaningful dialogue and no dialogue trees or anything (at least, not that I can recall). You don't spend a lot of time going around a town talking to people and making choices. 

 

Anyway, though I have never played a Divinity game before, from what I hear the old ones were more action rpgs, but this one definitely hearkens back to my favorite genre of games, and I am thoroughly enjoying it. It is a long game though, I'm 40 hours in so far and can't tell if I am close to finishing it or not. Also, typing "ARPG" and "CRPG" a bunch makes me feel like a pedantic nerdlord, which I suppose I may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said on the podcast, I literally sat down to the game, no idea what it is, made a character (two) and went "oh fuck this is a Diablo!" 

 

And obviously, as I play it I continue to realize that my assumptions are wrong. But Thumbs isn't a review or recap podcast -- it's what impressions do the four/five of us have when we experience a thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said on the podcast, I literally sat down to the game, no idea what it is, made a character (two) and went "oh fuck this is a Diablo!" 

 

And obviously, as I play it I continue to realize that my assumptions are wrong. But Thumbs isn't a review or recap podcast -- it's what impressions do the four/five of us have when we experience a thing.  

 

Oh yeah that totally makes sense. I thought it was like diablo when I first saw it too. I didn't intend to be accusatory, just wanted to point it out. I didn't mean to have it come across as "You are wrong" (although, that is exactly what I said, which was probably not the best thing to do), I mostly just wanted to put that information out there in case anyone didn't know or got the wrong impression. I didn't realize what kind of game it was at first and, had I thought it was a diablo style game, I probably wouldn't have played it, and would have missed out. But yes, to your point, I know idle thumbs isn't a review cast or anything, and I wouldn't want it to be either. This (crpgs at least) just happen to be something that I care a lot about, so I was perhaps a little overzealous there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I always take stuff out if there's any risk of legal or interpersonal damage.But in general one of the things I (we?) like about Idle Thumbs is how unvarnished it is, so I definitely err on the side of leaving stuff in. There have been lots of times I've had to resist the temptation of editing out failed jokes or dumb/erroneous shit from me, because I don't want to start getting in that habit.

So basically, everyone is trusting Remo not to sabotage their future political ambitions.

Good luck with that, guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once donkey cock country went out the door it was all over for any of us. Steve and Vanaman are safe I guess. Those old episodes. ;(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once donkey cock country went out the door it was all over for any of us. Steve and Vanaman are safe I guess. Those old episodes. ;(

 

I distinctly remember you struggling in an early episode to keep Chris and Nick from saying the words "donkey cock country" together all at once. It was clearly a losing battle, so I was always curious why you fought it anyway. I guess I know now, because you knew it was the end of you as a respectable person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he got there for himself and others around him well before he died saving her, even if thats not realized by him.

Ah so more like Lee didn't need redemption midway or sooner through the game since he had already achieved it rather than him not needing to be redeemed from the beginning of Episode 1?

 

Hey, talk more about Walking Dead on the podcast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I interpret it is a sadder way, in that he definitely redeemed himself over the course of his experience with Clementine and the others (he was an overall positive influence in their lives, Clementine most of all), but he himself died with doubts as to whether he did or not. I don't think you can ever truly get closure on something like being redeemed for murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I interpret it is a sadder way, in that he definitely redeemed himself over the course of his experience with Clementine and the others (he was an overall positive influence in their lives, Clementine most of all), but he himself died with doubts as to whether he did or not. I don't think you can ever truly get closure on something like being redeemed for murder.

 

That's interesting.  For me, the story was more about a man who believed he needed redemption but actually never did. I think the whole concept of "redemption" is nonsense and someone in pursuit of it, because they're so upset with themselves, so ashamed, is the thing that is really sad to me.

 

motherfucking video games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's interesting.  For me, the story was more about a man who believed he needed redemption but actually never did. I think the whole concept of "redemption" is nonsense and someone in pursuit of it, because they're so upset with themselves, so ashamed, is the thing that is really sad to me.

 

motherfucking video games

 

I love stories about redemption, especially ones deconstructing it. Almost all of my favorites have a protagonist seeking redemption that they can never have because they have to forgive themselves for their act first and that involves acknowledging the reasons they had originally for doing it. Instead, they make the version of themselves who committed the act into someone else and become a new person in expiation, and it's just so poignant the way people try to change like that.

 

A lot of Iain M. Banks' Culture novels are about this sort of thing, come to think of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redemption arcs too often distill actions and reactions to this 1:1 relationship that I don't find particularly engaging. The fact that it's usually a man seeking redemption for some action they committed against a woman (usually a wife or a daughter), makes this story trope less and less interesting to me. Looking for redemption is such a selfish pursuit and I wish more narratives were willing to cop to that complicated motivation, instead of indiscriminately rewarding the protagonist (example: the ending of Breaking Bad).

 

Lee's story never read as him needing to seek redemption, which ultimately made his relationship with Clementine feel more poignant and heartbreaking.

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