Jake

Idle Thumbs 185: Beppo's Hole

Recommended Posts

Happy to hear talk about Game of the Year 420 Blaze It and r/MontageParodies. Since there sounded like there was some confusion as to the context of those things, I think I can explain it a little.

 

To start, you can understand the type of content that is being parodied. Here is a completely not ironic montage of Call of Duty:

 

The over use of colour grading, screen effects and dub step lead to people making parodies like:

 

The above is of course funny for applying the hyped up style to a dull game. From that place though, the Montage Parody evolved in probably distinct ways. The first, and probably easier to understand is that people understood that applying the game montage style to any video could be funny. You see many artifacts of the style brought over to this type of video, the colour grading, screen effects and dubstep. Some other ones that developed over time are poorly compressed audio, pop in text saying "rekt" or "Sample text", or the trademark CoD hit X with tick sound. I think you can see some of what I'm talking about here:

 

The other trajectory of evolution of the montage parody is to cram as many memes, viral videos, and other weird internet touchstones into the video as possible. Shrek, Dewritos, Snoop Dogg accompanied by the "Smoke weed everyday" sample, weed in general, dude saying "fuck her right in the pussy", to name a few. There is essentially a canon of appropriate material to edit into your montage parody, and because of this, some montage parodies are pretty darn self referential:

 

I don't know if this is at all interesting or informative, but hopefully it gives a little context for anyone confused. Idle Thumbs and Montage Parodies, two of my favourite things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with the idea that Taylor Swift doesn't sell sex. Her earlier music (which, I'll admit, I am only passingly familiar with) sells this ridiculous image of a saintly, pure young woman. Even with this more blatantly pop album, Swift is still positioned as the anti-Katy Perry, or the anti-Brittany, or the anti-Miley, because she maintains that virginal, girl next door quality. It's still sex, the Madonna side of the whore/Madonna duality, and it still sends unreasonable messages to young women about how they should relate to their sexuality. The new album is frustrating because she is clearly talking about sex, but it's cloaked in gauzy metaphor that feels calculated to allow her to hold onto the Madonna image, while providing a very measured, clinical titillation. 

 

Also I take issue with the claim that she is authentic. Whether or not the lyrics in her music contain genuine sentiments, it's still fashioned in a highly contrived way so that songs about New York, or teenage love, or whatever are the products of the pop music machine's idea about these topics. Like I don't even know how you can even discuss authenticity, it's like a totally immaterial concept to the world she operates in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer: skip all the old games and go straight to Pokémon Omega Ruby when it comes out on Friday (it's one of the few games Nintendo allows you to download at midnight, even). My personal favourite in the series is Black 2, but the servers for all the DS-era games have been shut down and I'm fairly confident that the new games are going to be a more complete experience than X/Y, the most recent games. Turn the text speed up to maximum, turn the 3D off because it's terrible, and get ready to deal with a somewhat dated and clunky UI. Consult Bulbapedia when you think you need help (like if you're not sure what a certain ability does or why one of your Pokémon isn't evolving), battle and trade with Danielle at your convenience. If you're having trouble with a particular area or boss, swap some of your Pokémon out or give them new attacks and items instead of just grinding. Keep this type matchup chart handy until you internalize it:

 

2z62PdE.png

 

 

 

Long answer:

 

So Pokémon is a weird game, because it's really more like two games: there is the friendly, approachable veneer of "you're a kid in a fun world full of cool monsters" that the games sell themselves on; and then there is the crazy hardcore underbelly of competitive Pokémon that the games gently hint about and nudge you toward without ever actually spelling it out for you. Competitive Pokémon requires a lot more dedication, but is a more satisfying experience with the potential for much more dramatic styles of play. I'd say that the best way to approach it from a newcomer's perspective would be watching replays of matches on Pokémon Showdown, a popular battle simulator that's easy to set up and gives a bit more visual information about what's going on than the games do, and reading articles on Smogon (like these slightly dated but still fairly comprehensive articles from the previous generation of games). I also recommend viewing

-in which Korean player Se Jun Park used a team built around a weak, obscure Pokémon to take the title- to see how a clever strategy and being able to get into your opponent's head will take you further than just picking the strongest attacks.

 

I do a lot of Pokémon breeding and have a complete Pokédex and a fairly comprehensive knowledge of the game's mechanics, so PM me if you're interested in learning more about high-level play, or if you just want me to breed you a Pokémon to add to your Pokédex or team.

 

Tegan, you made my DAY with this chart. I've had a visually clunky version of it open in a browser window for the last ten days. 

 

Also, I think I didn't properly mention on the podcast, but! I have been unable to stop playing this game, to the point where it's 4am every night and I'm still feverishly hunting Pokemon. Is this normal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think I didn't properly mention on the podcast, but! I have been unable to stop playing this game, to the point where it's 4am every night and I'm still feverishly hunting Pokemon. Is this normal?

 

Unfortunately, yeah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took Sean's comment from the angle of creating an asian antagonist who might read as a white person at a glance. Creating him so that misreading happens comes across as a planned idea to make your game cover seem like it has a white person on the cover so that it fits marketing data (ie looks like most other games on a shelf). That's way different than casting a well-known person for a movie and using makeup and costume to convey the same image. It would read as more of a deliberate choice and less of just a focus group conclusion. So when Danielle was talking about being called out for thinking Pagan Min was white, it just seemed like Sean was saying that that mistake happens by design (or redesign).

 

The App Store discussion was interesting for someone who doesn't really engage with it at all, let alone looks at reviews. Seems like the same kind of outrage you see with other game stuff. I have been glad to receive free updates for Hitman GO, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people are outraged by the $2 for 8 new levels of Monument Valley, I wonder what they think of the $3 macchiato I drank this morning (I think both were exquisite).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think I didn't properly mention on the podcast, but! I have been unable to stop playing this game, to the point where it's 4am every night and I'm still feverishly hunting Pokemon. Is this normal?

 

Pji0kKG.png

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

(now ask me about Pokémon breeding!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely want to continue the discussion about Pagan Min, want to mull some thoughts.

 

JUST listened to the App Store discussion. One of my thoughts on free vs one time payment is maybe people feel like buying apps is an extension of phone companies doing sleazy things with their phone plans? IE, roaming fees, text plans, monthly overages. Rather than seeing it as using a store interface on your phone to purchase a product from a purveyor, it's all just grouped into throwing more money down the hole (buca) at the phone company. I can easily imagine a Mom Rant about already paying enough on the phone bill, don't you already have enough levels in your valley?

 

My other thought is because some things are "free", no one wants to pay money for any things anymore. I definitely don't use the app store very much, in part because I'm worried the pocket change per purchase will add up over time. Which makes me the person i described above I suppose, viewing it all as "app store purchases" rather than one each from Sirvo, Vlambeer, Frogwares and Ustwo.

 

 

 

 

This episode is an awesome episode. So much great discussion and also I've laughed a goddamn lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely want to continue the discussion about Pagan Min, want to mull some thoughts.

 

JUST listened to the App Store discussion. One of my thoughts on free vs one time payment is maybe people feel like buying apps is an extension of phone companies doing sleazy things with their phone plans? IE, roaming fees, text plans, monthly overages. Rather than seeing it as using a store interface on your phone to purchase a product from a purveyor, it's all just grouped into throwing more money down the hole (buca) at the phone company. I can easily imagine a Mom Rant about already paying enough on the phone bill, don't you already have enough levels in your valley?

 

My other thought is because some things are "free", no one wants to pay money for any things anymore. I definitely don't use the app store very much, in part because I'm worried the pocket change per purchase will add up over time. Which makes me the person i described above I suppose, viewing it all as "app store purchases" rather than one each from Sirvo, Vlambeer, Frogwares and Ustwo.

 

 

 

 

This episode is an awesome episode. So much great discussion and also I've laughed a goddamn lot.

I think you're CLOSE with the "the phone company" assumption, but slightly off. I get the impression that a lot of people think that Apple makes all the apps on their phone. So that could lead to "Well I already paid $400 for this thing, why should I be giving them MORE money?!" But I also think the people who say "LAZY DEVS" to ustwo clearly know that ustwo made the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on Taylor Swift pulling her music from ad supported streaming services like Spotify? I think there are some similarities with the dichotomy between F2P (ad supported streaming) and outright purchases. The f2p/streaming model makes a comparatively huge amount of money, which mostly seems to go to the publisher, record label, streaming provider/app store rather than the artist. Another argument is that the ad supported model devalues the music and encourages consumers to not actually purchase music.

Anyway that's what I assumed would be discussed when Swift was brought up this episode. I don't listen to her music, and am pessimistic about the chances of her protest causing much disruption to the streaming models. Nonetheless I think it's great that she is taking a stand, and that she's in a privileged position to do so without the crippling loss of income that would befall an indie artist if they were to do the same. I'm definitely interested to see how this plays out.

Context: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/taylor-swift-pulled-all-of-her-albums-from-spotify-2014-11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're CLOSE with the "the phone company" assumption, but slightly off. I get the impression that a lot of people think that Apple makes all the apps on their phone. So that could lead to "Well I already paid $400 for this thing, why should I be giving them MORE money?!" But I also think the people who say "LAZY DEVS" to ustwo clearly know that ustwo made the game.

 

Ok yep, I'm right there with you on the device maker vs phone company distinction. Makes sense. And yes, I don't want to let people who verbally attack developers off as merely ignorant rather than their actual malicious intent. Those are two different groups of people, and I don't want to suggest that anyone claiming people offering their goods for a fee are in the wrong shouldn't be held accountable.

 

I do wonder if the money split on the app store is more along the lines of NEVER pays any money vs will buy things, rather than will buy things for a one time fee vs secretly a free to play whale but is outraged at "traditional" pricing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on Taylor Swift pulling her music from ad supported streaming services like Spotify? I think there are some similarities with the dichotomy between F2P (ad supported streaming) and outright purchases. The f2p/streaming model makes a comparatively huge amount of money, which mostly seems to go to the publisher, record label, streaming provider/app store rather than the artist. Another argument is that the ad supported model devalues the music and encourages consumers to not actually purchase music.

Anyway that's what I assumed would be discussed when Swift was brought up this episode. I don't listen to her music, and am pessimistic about the chances of her protest causing much disruption to the streaming models. Nonetheless I think it's great that she is taking a stand, and that she's in a privileged position to do so without the crippling loss of income that would befall an indie artist if they were to do the same. I'm definitely interested to see how this plays out.

 

As a musician that finds our current digital era to be a depressing, dystopian future this topic is near and dear to my heart. I think its interesting that digital distribution in the video game space seemed to have created a more even playing field where there are a lot of indie developers who can be fairly successful thanks to Steam where in the past what they are doing would have been impossible. In the music space with the advent of Spotify, Pandora, and other services the opposite seems to have happened and really exacerbated the economic inequality that exists for musicians.

 

In the 90s the goal described by the Thumbs of the folks that made Monument Valley was something achievable for a lot of people in indie bands or people making experimental music, or other stuff that wouldn't really have any mass appeal but could at least find a sizable niche audience. Those musicians could go on tour, and put out records, and continue on in a fashion where no one was getting rich from any of it, but it was a sustainable practice where you weren't going to go lose a bunch of money doing this. Now its all much harder to sell any music without having your name attached to something else. If I tried to book the kind of tours I used to book I would just lose money, and in fact that has been the case even for the more modest tours I have done in the last 5 years have not been able to break even. Gas has gotten more expensive, the payout from shows is about the same, but people are spending less on merchandise. Spotify doesn't ameliorate any of that, not even close. If you want to reward musicians for their music, listening to them on Spotify is the worst way to do it short of straight up pirating their music.

 

You're right that someone like Taylor Swift pulling her music from Spotify doesn't change anything about how the music industry operates, it just indicates that she is in the privileged position where she doesn't need Spotify. Because ultimately what Spotify is about is exposure, and superstars don't need it. Radiohead, U2, Jay Z and any other megastar can do whatever they want with their music and they will continue to be successful. Everyone else is told they need to devalue their work so they can build up a larger audience so that then some money can be made through licensing deals. The music industry as it exists is great for lawyers and other people that handle contracts. For people making music it is kind of a raw deal.

 

I think Bandcamp is great. I wish someone could crack the code to make it really take off so it became the Steam of music because then we might see a fairer deal emerge for musicians, but I dunno, it is a real tough problem to solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tegan... how do I breed Pokemon?

 

 

OKAY SO

 

All Pokémon belong to either one or two groups, called Egg Groups, which determine potential breeding partners for viable offspring. A Pokémon left at the Daycare with another Pokémon of the opposite sex and the same Egg Group can produce offspring, while a Pokémon left at the Daycare with a Pokémon of the same sex or a different Egg Group cannot. The sole exceptions are Pokémon that belong to the "Undiscovered" Egg Group (mostly Legendaries, which are supposed to be one-per-game type deals) and Ditto, which can breed with anything except for Pokémon in the "Undiscovered" Egg Group or other Ditto, hence the confusion about where Ditto come from. When two Pokémon from the same Egg Group but of different species breed, the species of the resulting offspring will be determined by the mother. The primary purpose of breeding within Egg Groups (as opposed to just breeding everything with Ditto) is to pass down certain select attacks that the father can learn, but the mother ordinarily cannot. This allows for offspring to have normally unlearnable moves, and even to chain moves across multiple species.

Pokémon can also pass down their Ability Slot. All Pokémon have a single passive skill called an Ability pulled from a pool of one to three potential abilities, determined by the species: two normal abilities and one "Hidden" Ability not normally available in the wild. The mother in a breeding pair has an 80% chance to pass down its Ability (or, if the offspring changes Ability by evolving, it has an 80% chance to be born with the Ability that will eventually change into its mother's Ability when it evolves). A Pokémon with a Hidden Ability has a 60% chance to pass it down when bred with Ditto.

Additionally, all Pokémon have a sort of genetic code determined by six hidden variables called "Individual Values" or IVs. Each one corresponds to one of the six stats (HP, Attack, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense, and Speed) and has a value from 0 to 31. A Pokémon with a Speed IV of 31 has the potential to be the fastest possible Pokémon in that species, while a Pokémon with a Speed IV of 0 has the potential to be the slowest. 3 IVs chosen at random from a breeding pair will be passed down to any offspring. For instance, a baby may inherit the value of its mother's Speed IV and the father's HP and Defense IVs, with the other three being chosen at random. Inheritance can be affected by making one parent hold an item called the Destiny Knot, which forces the parents to pass down five IVs instead of just three. IVs are never clearly spelled out to the player, but they can be determined through certain means: the short descriptive characteristic on a Pokémon's summary page ("Likes to run," "quick tempered," "somewhat vain," etc) is determined by its best IV and the value of that IV. Additionally, there is an NPC in the game who will judge your Pokémon's "potential," giving you a rough mean average of its IVs, letting you know which IV is highest and a rough idea of how high it is, and telling you if any of its IVs are 0. There are legitimate reasons to want a 0 in a certain IV, but I won't get into them here.

The last thing that can be inherited is a Pokémon's Nature, the one-word description of its personality on its summary page ("Modest," "Lonely," "Sassy," etc). This is actually an indication of a combination of two stats that are being given a 10% buff to growth and a 10% debuff. eg: a Modest Pokémon will have 10% higher Special Attack than normal, but 10% lower Attack. You can see which stats are being affected on a Pokémon's stats page: a stat written in blue text is getting debuffed, a stat in red text is being buffed, and a stat in black text is growing normally. If all stats are in black text, your Pokémon has a nature that is actually buffing and debuffing the same stat for a neutral result (Hardy, Docile, Serious, Bashful or Quirky). A Pokémon holding the Everstone item is guaranteed to pass down its Nature to its offspring.

 

So through dedication it's possible to breed a Pokémon with ideal Egg Moves, Ability, IVs, and EVs to create Pokémon much more naturally powerful than those in the wild. From there it's a matter of raising them: the final factor of a Pokémon's stat growth is another set of variables called "Effort Values," or EVs, which are gained whenever a Pokémon participates in a battle, participates in the "Super Training" minigames, or is given certain items; with the stat into which the EVs are applied determined by the type of Pokémon being battled, minigame being played, or item being consumed. Pokémon can gain up to 510 EVs total, with a cap of 252 EVs in any given stat. So basically, for absolute minmaxing, you could breed a Pokémon to have a Speed IV of 31, a Nature that gives a 10% buff to Speed, and then put 252 EVs into its Speed stat through proper training. This would make it the absolute fastest possible member of its respective species.

 

 

 

 

 

Personally, I like to breed for perfect Pokémon, then use those as parents to breed perfect Shiny Pokémon -incredibly rare pallet-swapped Pokémon with a 1/4096 appearance rate (formerly 1/8192)- because I'm some kind of goddamned lunatic.

 

rzP577e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only listened to the two singles from Taylor Swift's latest album, but they struck me as being less about sex and more about the Taylor Swift media narrative, which will inevitably sound like it's about sex because the media narrative is all about how she's a maneater who dates men as grist for the songwriting mill.

 

But then I'm playing the game here where I presume a celebrity is much smarter than they act until proven otherwise, and Taylor Swift's a good subject of that game because her recent videos seem super self-aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pokemon breeding info dump

hoooooooly shit, Teg.

 

I feel so out-of-it when it comes to Pokemon now.

Also the Villainous teams in pokemon got progressively crazy as they went on.

Team Rocket: HEY, we're black market Pokemon thieves! And Lets steal Pikachu.

 

Team Aqua: To drown the world and awaken Kyogre, who will further expand the seas.

Team Manga: Awaken Groudon and cover the world with fire through volcanoes and have a cataclysmic battle with Team Aqua and Kyogre

 

Team Galactic: HOLY SHIT! This team goes to Spear Pillar, where ancient Pokémon Dialga, Palkia, and Giratina were created by Arceus (the god of the Pokemon universe), use that power to recreate the current Pokemon universe to a place where there's no emotion and spirit; and in which, the leader of Galactic, Cyrus, destroyed himself by opening up another a portal to another world where he can just stop existing in a world of emotion and spirit since he couldn't have his way

 

From thievery to an existential death

 

To quote Cryus: "This world of ours is a crude one. In a word, it is incomplete. It has been, and always will be, a struggle to survive in this world. We humans and Pokémon are likewise incomplete. Because we are all so lacking, we fight, we maim... It is ugly. I hate the incompleteness. That we are all incomplete, I hate it with my entire body and being. The world should be complete. The world must change. Then, who will change it? Me, Cyrus. And Team Galactic. Yes, all of you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only listened to the two singles from Taylor Swift's latest album, but they struck me as being less about sex and more about the Taylor Swift media narrative, which will inevitably sound like it's about sex because the media narrative is all about how she's a maneater who dates men as grist for the songwriting mill.

 

But then I'm playing the game here where I presume a celebrity is much smarter than they act until proven otherwise, and Taylor Swift's a good subject of that game because her recent videos seem super self-aware.

 

Taylor obviously knows what the media is saying about her and maintains very strong authorship over her work, so there's something to either interpretation. I think there's a strong argument to be made that Shake It Off is her naming the stakes (or lack thereof) in her switch to pure pop, but much more than that would just be cynical, I think. Taylor is very conscious of the fact that a lot of her fans are tween and young teen girls and part of what she wants to do with her music is empower them to be themselves without alienating them, so she's just telling her story in a way that people from 12 on can relate to. So much of her interview message these days has been, "People are always going to find something terrible to say about you, so just be who you are and love yourself," that I have a hard time accepting cynical reads of this album since, well, I see that exact message repeated throughout the album.

 

And as far as the madonna/whore thing goes, I do think there's a bit of that going on, but I think it's something that's done not for men but to make her music accessible. She's trying to speak honestly about her sexual experiences and anyone past a certain age will undoubtedly pull that out ("Cause you know I love the players and you love the game" is incredibly unambiguous, but before you reach a certain age it's just a bunch of words that you'll put your own meaning into because you don't have the requisite knowledge to contextualize what she's saying), but it's done subtly so that it doesn't distance the general "just do you and you'll be fine" message she's trying to convey to women of all ages. I don't know if that intentionality makes it functionally any different, but I think it's important that it's being done for female fans and not to attract men to the innocent girl who's totally dtf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost my shit laughing part way through this episode and woke my poor ol' grandmother up. Whoops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right that someone like Taylor Swift pulling her music from Spotify doesn't change anything about how the music industry operates, it just indicates that she is in the privileged position where she doesn't need Spotify. Because ultimately what Spotify is about is exposure, and superstars don't need it. 

 

Ill post!

 

Swift also occupies that rarefied space of a person still capable of selling enterprise level units, so the difference in Spotify's paltry royalties and people downloading it are negligible to her. She's also maybe one of the few who could negotiate a more favorable rate, and this is a good tactic for that.

 

As for the other stuff, I'm not sure I agree, but it's such a morass I'm not sure. I can't tell we're seeing the ceiling come down a lot or if the floor coming up a little. I feel like there are more Parquet Courts in the world today, medium sized bands that would never be huge making a viable go at it. I'm not sure if they would have had it better in the 90s. So many bands got signed, and it didn't get them anywhere. Like Guided by Voices, or my personal favorite unlikely signing Jim Sheppard's V3. I think they would all be better off today. GBV has their own fancy beer with record right now! Then there are all those scenes that seem to be thriving that I don't understand at all, like Imagine Dragons or all that crabcore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fyi, I did not buy the JetBlue thing, but I really wish I had. And I would totally have used it to go to Disneyland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to the podcast again, I really love the analogy of #GamerGate as a civil war fought after a successful war against an invader. Historically, it happens more often than not that the war only glossed over divisions between the victorious allies, and what better way to resolve said divisions than with the arms just laid aside? Especially in the case of the Persian invasion of Greece and the Hunnic invasion of the Roman Empire, the invader tends to get invited back by the losing side in the ensuing civil war. The question is whether Jack Thompson is the Darius II to #GamerGate's Sparta or the Huns to their Roman Empire?

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