Worth Reading: 03/07/2014

Let's just cut to the chase already. People have already admitted that "game" is a misnomer in the way we use it to describe these things, so why not just ditch it? Giant Bomb: It's a website about vids.

Videogame, yes. Video game, no.

Nah, she totally said that just not verbatim. It was along the lines of "to gain public goodwill for Black Ops" before dropping the infamous 775 million bomb

Nah, it is totally her though not verbatim. She does say something along the lines of "to gain public goodwill for Black Ops" before dropping the 775 million bomb

I imagine for a lot of left-progressives, South Park may actually be the first time in their life they encounter their beliefs being mocked in an effective and funny way. Generally speaking comedy isn't a conservative stronghold. Matt and Trey aren't conservatives, really, they're more like libertarian gadflies.

SP sneaks in a ton of digs at conservatives but for them the experience of being mocked by popular media isn't unfamiliar.

How about her terribly thought out articles? Those are pretty recent.

I think you're quoting the wrong person there mate.

Let's get some public goodwill for Black Ops!!!! Some good articles this week and it is a damn shame about that guys debt. Love or hate socialized medicine, at least it keeps people from situations like that. Damn shame it is

Video. Game.

Video game.

@courage_wolf: Bravo! Calling South Park middle school humor/childish/etc is the go to for the majority of people who don't like it, and it is just so dishonest of people to do so, hate the show to the very core of your being if you want, but you if you call out South Park for being juvenile then you are basically admitting to not ever really watching the show beyond one fart gag or not actually being smart enough to pick up on the social commentary the show provides.

Its awesome that he almost reached his total in 5 days, no industry and fan base rally's around its own like videogames

I am rather disappointed with Cameron Kunzelman's article on South Park. Humor is most certainly subjective and people are free to like and dislike whatever they choose, but I feel that Kunzelman's critique of the show's message is unfair and given in bad faith. Kunzelman criticizes the show by dismissing it as offensive humor aimed at middle school children and declaring "I wasn’t in middle school any longer; the “transgressions” were simple and trite, and more often than not I could tune into the show and hear the same ignorant opinions that I could get from any random person in my small, politically conservative Southern hometown."

To me this seems to be a gross oversimplification and outright dismissal of what South Park has attempted to do over the years. It has certainly been an outlet for low brow humor and gross out gags over the years, but it has also consistently been an outlet for the show creators to satirize and mock the insanity of the modern world. The show has often called out and mocked the excesses of the political left and right, the religious and athiests, environmentalists and energy companies, the old and the young, the famous and the obscure, basically anyone and everyone with something to say in the world. Something that has been very consistent over the years is that South Park has something to say and when it does it often hits too close to home for comfort. There have been times when South Park touched on deep seated personal beliefs that I hold in a way that made me feel very uncomfortable about them.

Based on Kunzelman's criticism of the show and his characterization of it, I feel that his dislike is at least partially motivated by the show challenging him on an issue he holds dear. To me his opinion of the show reads like that of a person who does not want to confront a dissenting voice and paints it into a corner of ignorance in order to justify ignoring it. I may be completely off base here as I am not familiar with the man, but South Park most certainly has meaningful things to say about the world we live in and to outright ignore that seems unfair. One does not have to agree with the show or even enjoy it, but it should at least be afforded the courtesy of acknowledging that it is about more than middle school humor. To insulate ones self from it is one thing, but to deny that it has anything meaningful to say on a web column that will be seen by many people who may not be familiar with the show seems intellectually dishonest and reckless.

@endaro: Then what, pray tell, was the point? To show how practicing at something makes you better?

I think you missed most of the point of that article.

That just pisses me off. He pays them every month, and exchange they basically stab him in the back. Free Health Care certainly looks more attractive when insurance companies can get away with this sort of shit.

I have to give Leigh Alexander credit for at least trying to make learning a new card game very tragic.

But at the end of the day, she's turned learning a card game into some deep personal journey that changed her life forever because she's bad at math and wanted to fit in.

During the Best Character podcasts, 2011. IIRC Rucks made it to the final 4, but got cut.

Anyway, I agree, Rucks was well done, and while not an active participant in the story events like Zulf or the Kid, you still get a really important perspective on events and the world itself from Rucks. And he was literally the epitome of one of the two ending choices, in that he represented trying things again using the old ways and maintaining all that history Caelondian history you learned so much about, up against Zia's position of letting it all go and moving forward with what they have now. He's certainly a lot more than just a narrator.

That's not even taking into consideration his culpability for the entire mess. I think it's pretty canny to have one of the people responsible for the end of the world survive long enough to consider it. In a lot of ways, Rucks and his narration is the closest I've seen a video game to nailing the tone and demeanor of Kurt Vonnegut.

Surprised to not see Polygon's article on the development of Singularity considering (I think!) @patrickklepek was a fan. Fascinating read if anyone's interested.

Good stuff as always though. Real good stuff on Irrational.

@brodehouse said:

When was GB dismissive of Rucks? Not challenging your position, so much as I genuinely don't remember the GB saying much about it, since they didn't do a review. Was it in the Quick Look or podcast?

Anyway, I agree, Rucks was well done, and while not an active participant in the story events like Zulf or the Kid, you still get a really important perspective on events and the world itself from Rucks. And he was literally the epitome of one of the two ending choices, in that he represented trying things again using the old ways and maintaining all that history Caelondian history you learned so much about, up against Zia's position of letting it all go and moving forward with what they have now. He's certainly a lot more than just a narrator.

Are those articles on South Park great writing? Is that the standard for great writing?

That Bastion interview takes a while to go. They spend the first half talking entirely about game production and not about the game, which is what I'm interested in. I'm interested in the ideas and influences behind Bastion's artistic elements, not necessarily a look into how the sausage gets made. The second half gets way better though. There's a part I'll quote that captures my frustration with Giant Bomb's reduction of Rucks as 'just the narrator, no character there'. No, there's tons of character there. He is the reason why any of it is happening.

Kasavin: There was the design idea your hub, or whatever, and you build it up. An idea that seemed immediately interesting, the mysterious caretaker of this hub was like an archetype for a character. So very early on its like, “oh, dude, he could be the narrator.” From a writing standpoint, it’s much more interesting for that character to exist in this world and to have a perspective and even an agenda. That is just rich to me in terms of coming up with what he is going to say. We knew he couldn’t just be a play-by-play announcer. That was novel initially if he just says what you do but we realized immediately that he needs to provide context that you wouldn’t already have otherwise it’s just gimmicky and it gets old.

<>

Most of us will remember it as Paul Barnett's Sims gang sign but I will remember it as the E3 with that drunk person. ;_;

@the_crunchiest: I have no idea what any of them are talking about.

Is there any more excellent 4 fucking year old jokes about Leigh that you can trot out in a limp wristed attempt at humor?

"Sexy Nazis"

It's Susan Arendt, not Ardent.

Hail Lord Gamblor.

It's super amazing that in just four days, Brandon's GoFundMe has received over 1,800 contributions, and raised nearly all of the $110k that he is facing.

This kind of outpouring is fantastic to see and be a part of. Warm fuzzies and all that.

It is super amazing that over just four days, Brandon's GoFundMe page has gotten over 1,800 people contributing, and so far has almost completely covered the $110k in costs that he was facing.

This kind of outpouring is fantastic to see and be a part of. Warm fuzzies, and all that.

Insurance companies had been doing it for many years. "Got acne? No foot surgery for you." It's a big part of why the ACA exists, even with the 50th repeal attempt recently.

The comments to that article are great. People bring up about a half-dozen counterexamples to his simplistic economic nightmare scenario, and his only response is "wait and see, soon all developers will make every game F2P and paid games will die off." Never mind that there have always been free games out there, or that people are still ready and willing to pay full price for big game releases.

The fact that there's still a thriving market for quality game experiences on iOS (Threes! is still in the top 10 last I checked) shows that there will always be a market for good, non F2P games at a reasonable price. Not for everyone, but for people who want them.

To be clear, Brandon is in debt because his insurance company, Humana, declared him to have a pre-existing condition on the basis that he'd had some stomach pain previously that wasn't severe enough to warrant going to the doctor. We expect cancer to be an adversary, but it is shameful and criminal that health insurance companies are able to conduct business this way.

"People know my aversion to directly influencing crowdfunding" Maybe that's not so close to true. Good pulls today Scoops. I hate/love seeing stories on Irrational Games, it brakes my heart... I love Bioshock Infinite.

@hammondoftexas said:

$775 million.

I'm disappointed that this Lovell article and its ilk are still getting play. I won't waste time correcting his fallacious arguments, as enough economists and actual game devs already do that in the article's comments, but this kind of baseless speculation is fear mongering at its worst.

The terror instilled in these middle aged marketing gurus by the "F2P generation" is just kind of sad.

Leigh Alexander, brings up let's say... memories.

Thanks Scoops =)

So sad for Brandon :(

So sad for Brandon :(