ok the racecar analogy is a bad example, their arms, shoulders, etc do have to be pretty conditioned to be able to control a highly tuned vehicle for such a long length of time.

@zolroyce: I would disagree with your example, these people may write the music, but they are taking samples from other people playing instruments. An over exaggeration would be that they are pressing the play/pause buttons of each instrument, they arent taking the time to learn and hone their skills for different instruments. IDK maybe im old fashioned but if there is ever a day when skrillex (pick whoever else) is in the same sentence as the Beatles, Elvis, or Beethoven as all time great musicians then there needs to be asterisks next to some names. Just because I print out the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel from a high tech high quality printing machine does not make it as valuable or genuine as the Michelangelo, who actually learned, practiced, and perfected his skills.

@lead_dispencer: Do you have to be fit to be a race car driver?

Just a little link so you can see why racing CERTAIN cars(Indy, F1, Le Mans) does indeed require the driver to be in peak athletic shape.

They may make it look easy but there is a lot more then just brains driving those cars, I'm not going to try and explain why because I'd just be repeating that article and rather poorly at that but I can say with certainty that certain series of racing require you to be in athletic shape. That doesn't exactly mean they are the most fit athletes of any sport, but they absolutely keep themselves in shape to the degree that they deserve the term athlete.

If it makes you feel better I had the same ignorance towards the kind of shape those top level guys had to keep themselves in, because it doesn't look that demanding

Anyway hopefully you read that in the friendly tone I am going for and not in a condescending tone

Cheers!

@lead_dispencer: wrong again, as you're clearly not aware of how music is produced. Producers of non-vocal tracks typically illustrate the waves they'd like to produce, all of the characteristics of those waves, the pattern in which those waves are read, how the notes of those waves are played in terms of volume after the note is told to be played, and then how those waves may be completely re-adjusted throughout, or part, of that notes air time.

Essentially, they create sound exactly and precisely to their liking from literally nothing. They are masters of all sounds and can recreate the sounds of dozens of instruments by illustrating the wave and adjusting every possible characteristic of it. Literally, its nothing, they decide the type of wave they want (sin, square, noise (white, pink, brown), triangle, sawtooth) and go on to input all its characteristics.

They embody the word musician to its core.

Edit: i'd also like to add that some producers actually do perform their music live, as in they produce on the fly with the sounds that they have saved and mapped to their midi controllers. When the producer presses a button and the midi controller plays the producers pre-made sound wave, it is the equivelent of a guitarist plucking a string playing the tuned sound wave the guitar makes...

@lead_dispencer: I think maybe the crux of your argument is that a musician should be able to perform music live without relying on something they've pre-arranged or pre-recorded? Writing music and making music doesn't make for a musician? It seems like an arbitrary definition to me.

Not all electronic music involves sampling, but even if it did, the Sistine Chapel analogy is absurd. These guys learn, practice, and perfect their skills as well.

"That's not where dongs flap around, that's for bedrooms"

-Dan

'Danswers 08'

Dan, someone that admits to ignoring all political discussion, someone that was just bewildered about how crazy expensive health care is, is in the middle of an argument about capitalism with Casey Malone.(Dan is on the capitalism is awesome and makes dreams come true side)

LOL

https://mobile.twitter.com/DanRyckert/status/595760562723823616

@slang_n_bang: stuff like this is troubling, not funny...kind of like 99% of Dan's persona

People view it as naive but I agree with Dan. Fuck the haters - capitalism rules. It has its glaring problems, sure, but there's never been a better social system in place throughout history.

@washingmachine: Don't really wanna make this into a political thread, but that's some insane historical blindness. It's not like there's always been this pool of social systems and humanity chose to use the "bad" ones before they got around to picking capitalism. The idea that if we didn't have capitalism we'd have to use "one of the other ones" (as Dan pretty much puts it) is just madness. It has always been, and will always be, an evolving process to improve our society by learning from our mistakes and trying something new.

Not really a thing that Dan said, but I was rewatching the Fortune Street TNT and the question was asked if the game was more about luck or skill, and Ryan said it was all skill. Maybe something Dan would be interested in.

@m1k3: Feels like Fortune Street has a much bigger strategy component to it though, which districts to invest in and how much etc. There's not really that aspect in Mario Party (until maybe the later ones?).

Ok, this thread is going from "What a lovable goofball Dan is, he's so silly" to "DAN IS ALL THAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD". Can we reel at back a bit?

I feel that Dan invites this criticism, but point taken. Dude is the ignorant American par excellence (and this borders on dangerous/actually offensive ie his tweets on anything to do with living in America). Like, the dude comes out and says "I can't understand why people would want to live in a place that doesn't let you follow your dreams"...the man is historically blind and perhaps the most ignorant person I have ever come across. I was never down for his unabashed ignorance, but it has become so grating and I cannot understand how anyone can enjoy it.

https://twitter.com/CaseyMalone/status/595748807754829826?lang=en

enjoy the shit show

Dan with some true revelations here.

@chocolaterhinovampire: That Casey guy just seems like another smug white liberal in his 20's who thinks he has the whole world figured out. Being a liberal myself, it's a real struggle having to deal with people like him.

Not that I'm defending Dan in any way. Just thought I'd point out what a douchenozzle that guy seems like.

@chocolaterhinovampire : What Dan is saying isn't smart in any shape way or form but to go ahead and and discredit Dan's value as a human being every time he posts something dumb of misguided on Twitter isn't great.

@jsnyder82: And now I'm going to be a hypocrite and completely agree with you on that point. What Dan is saying isn't smart but that Casey person isn't being much better. But what do I know? I'm not American so I'm missing a frame of reference here.

The thing to understand is that is it actually fun to hyperbolize that Dan is all that "is wrong with this world" and to a mayor degree Dan capitalizes on that reaction. It's a bit part of what makes him fun and goofy. He seems to be in on the joke.

Not to mention that sometimes the things he says are said in the context of trying to directly upset particular groups or tastes. He does act like a troll and seems to enjoy the attention.

Can we reel it back a bit? sure. Can he? That is also a possibility. He has more control on our reactions about him than we do...in the general sense of "we" . By that I mean that you can convince individuals, but the overall reaction will be analog to his behavior.

To your point, I would say that is perhaps important that he is not taken that seriously since that seems to be the whole point of what he intends to be. I myself found taking him seriously at points, leading to pointless, wasted energy.

Well yeah would you want to live somewhere where Konami couldn't follow their dreams?

Dan is often very willing to ask questions and hear people out, but I did have to stop following him on Twitter because it seemed to be almost entirely absurd/mean-spirited statements written to get a rise out of people. It's just not a good medium to show off Dan's good side.

@spunkyhepanda: It might be productive if he were to clarify in which parts of his public life he is being sincere, and in which parts he is being a professional troll/heel.

There have been multiple instances on Danswers where Dan has said "I made some remark on Twitter/ the Bombcast and everyone yelled at me on Twitter, but c'mon, I was obviously joking." I DUNNO, MAN, MAYBE IT'S NOT AS OBVIOUS AS YOU THINK.

I dunno. There's something endearing about living life in kayfabe. When a wrestler says some shit, you're like, oh well he's a wrestler. I'd just jump to the same conclusion for Dan.

Very good chance I'm wrong, but that's how I've always felt about him.

Dan: "I watched that man spray paint dozens of squirrels!"

Jeff: "That explains a lot."

UPF 5/8/15

Some people really don't give a shit about what other people think about them. Dan is one of those people. Asking him to clarify when he's joking takes a lot of the fun out of the sincere reactions people give to shit he just blurts out on the spot because he thinks it's funny.

Would you ask a comedian to clarify when they're joking?

Exactly.

How about just don't freak out about things Dan says? Really? Just try that. He's a silly guy.

"Caution to the wind! I'm putting my mouth on this thing."

Regarding a giant inflatable Pepsi can received during this week's mailbag segment.

About this recent discussion on when Dan is being serious:

@456nto: The thing is, if he honestly didn't give a shit about others' perception of him, then why would he even bother going out of his way to say he was kidding? He frequently defends himself like this.

No I wouldn't ask comedians to clairfy when they're joking because I know they're comedians. The whole point of their routine and the very specific environment they're in at that point in time (I'm assuming you're talking about stand-up comedians doing stand up) is to make jokes. But I can't hold Dan to this same standard because he will often troll his audience and then rebuke the very reaction he was trying to incite. He will intentionally try to piss people off and then have a problem with them when they actually do get pissed off. If Dan's a comedian then he needs to commit to the act and the reactions he's going to get at all times and not be upset when people don't "get it", or else you can bet your ass I'm going to need him to clarify if he's joking or not.

@bennyboy: He is committing to the act. Stopping to say that you're joking and then making fun of the people that got angry at you in the first place is part of the act. It's a vicious cycle and I think it's hilarious. You on the other hand seem to have fallen for it.

And yes, he honestly doesn't seem to give a shit.

@456nto: So what exactly is it about Dan that makes you and apparently so many other people so confident that he's actually thinking that far ahead of everyone else? I mean I can just as easily sit here and tell you that, hey, jokes on you, my having a problem with Dan and then getting others like you to have a problem with me having a problem with Dan is all a part of my act and you seem to have fallen for it.

And hey, that tumblr answer that @amppelixposted before you? Are you going to tell me that that's also an elaborate ruse to get people to think that Dan's trying to convince us that he gets serious once in a while, but hey, that's actually all just a farce too and I'd be a fool to take it seriously? No? Well why not? Where do you draw the line with him and how? Enlighten me please as I really am curious where the basis is for the idea that Dan is building layers upon layers of meta humor that only a select few have "figured out".

Or don't enlighten me, because hey I'm really just fucking with you. Or am I?

@bennyboy: Take it down a notch, please. We've been pretty lax about moderating this thread, but remember our golden rule of don't be a jerk. That goes for anyone and everyone in this thread.

Dan should really just get over it, throw some nacho cheese on a fig, and eat it.

@sparky_buzzsaw: I don't really see how I'm being a jerk. Maybe it was the cursing? But okay.

"Sometimes I like to recreationally hate something. It's just fun." - Danswers episode 9

Edit: as for this ongoing discussion, if the "act" you're commiting to is constant, then it's just you. That's the same as an elementary child always berating others and falling back on "it was just a joke." I'm not sitting here calling Dan a bully; he's just said (plenty of times) that he enjoys making others mad (thus ruining their moods).

*Edited for better wording.

Whoa when has Dan actually, factually said he likes ruining peoples' moods? (I haven't listened to Danswers- does he say something there?) His trolling does on occasion edge toward the shit-testing side of the equation - see GI's Ninja Gaiden replay for a prominent example - but it seems he enjoys getting a reaction more than actively pissing people off for lulz. It's a fine line, granted, but you're describing something more malicious than what's in evidence.

@stryker1121: when you make other people mad that would be ruining their mood, and I know he's said he likes making others mad because its funny.

@HypnoToadBrwowrowrow: I have a feeling he got that straight from a Louis CK bit where Louis says he enjoys hating people for recreation. Especially since (I believe) he's mentioned being a fan.

Look, for the most part I like Dan, but the thing that gets to me about him is that anything he says that could be construed as rude can be easily explained away as "oh he's just trying to get a reaction from people, it's hilarious!" I mean, yeah, one could be completely aware of this and yet it's the very fact that he's doing this that is annoying, not whatever incendiary opinion he was spouting off in the first place. He's been dangerously enabled (mostly by the community, but perhaps also by himself) to say anything he wants without needing to own it because someone is invariably going to come along and dismiss it with "oh you know, that silly Dan, he's just trolling again and you guys just don't get it!" as if that alone makes anything he says okay.

@stryker1121: Maybe I'm being reductive but I don't see where the line is. If one "enjoys getting a reaction" by expressing a hyperbolic negative opinion, what kind of reaction would that be other than to upset someone? I guess the line would be he wants to piss people off...but only kind of?

Dan's a man in perpetual adolescence. Like Michael Jackson but old enough not to invite kids over. Because Dan's too cool for that.

@bennyboy: he spoke of Louise CK as a similarity before that quote, but when he spoke the quote he was speaking of his self.

This thread is interesting. It starts out happy and then goes all weird.

That's not true. He's made a career out of articulating video game opinions. He has definitely blind spots, (i.e. the way he tore into Metro Redux) but to say that a guy who's being paid to review games for a living can't articulate his opinions on the subject is grossly incorrect.

Yeah, say what you will about Dan's tastes, but that guy is probably the best writer on staff.

Nothing so much he said about the topic but his love of David Letterman is baffling to me.

@almostswedish: Alex is, by far, the best writer on the staff. Dan (and Jeff, for that matter) is very entrenched in the old style of games writing. Very clinical, technical and structured.

are you listening to the same podcast? He makes the most general statements imaginable and using wrong-headed analogies constantly. His criticism begins and ends with "this sucks"