#1 Edited by PsychoPenguin (176 posts) -
#2 Posted by rentacop (107 posts) -

Good stuff. I normally check out their pod from time to time but definitely will grab this one.

#3 Edited by Humanity (9384 posts) -

Perfect, I have a ton of tedious stuff to do at work and this is just what I need to get me through it!

Edit: OK maybe I can't keep listening to this. Is this really a podcast about people complaining how games play like video games? Also one of the guys seems to not really know, or play many video games.

Online
#4 Posted by Kinapuff (244 posts) -

Thanks for the heads up, going to give it a listen.

#5 Posted by metalsnakezero (2299 posts) -

Need to check this out when I get the chance.

#6 Posted by psylah (2177 posts) -

That Brad guy is a real asshole.

#7 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2326 posts) -

Can't get enough Brad!

#8 Posted by Morningstar (2174 posts) -

@kinapuff said:

Thanks for the heads up, going to give it a listen.

I second that. Thanks a bunch.

#9 Edited by Hunter5024 (5708 posts) -

@psylah said:

That Brad guy is a real asshole.

Yeah I'm glad we don't have any pricks like that on our site.

#10 Edited by Bocam (3764 posts) -

@psylah said:

That Brad guy is a real asshole.

Yeah I'm glad we don't have any pricks like that on our site.

Yeah, it's a good thing we only have "Brad"

#11 Edited by I_smell (3924 posts) -

Posting in this thread because Idle Thumbs is the best cast.

@humanity said:

Edit: OK maybe I can't keep listening to this. Is this really a podcast about people complaining how games play like video games? Also one of the guys seems to not really know, or play many video games.

lmao yes and yes. Correct on both points.

"Let's bring in all these GiantBomb fans by talking about Zuma!"

#12 Posted by DaMisterChief (628 posts) -

What it "Brad Shoemaker" or Brad Shoemaker on it??

#13 Edited by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Brad is on Penn's Sunday School this week too.

1 hour of silence inserted

Edit: these guys are almost as annoying as 8-4. But the difference is that 8-4 is actually possible to listen to.

#14 Posted by oldenglishC (962 posts) -

Wow, didn't even come close to making it all the way through. Not event the sultry, southern tones of Brad Shoemaker could put out that tire fire of a podcast.

Online
#15 Posted by Humanity (9384 posts) -

It's not even the talking about Zuma which did seen to go on forever. It was this weirdly jaded and tired outlook on video games. How they're so violent, too serious etc etc. I remember when at some point we all knew these were just games - when Quaje was out people were like HECK YAH GIBS! Now everyone is so uptight and just can't seem to enjoy themselves. Oh man Lara falls on a spike and its "grotesque" and "exploitative" - a couple of years ago no one would say things like this, because we all knew its just a game. Also I just didn't like neither of the guys, although the TellTale guy seemed more relaxed than the cynical, grumpy Zuma guy.

Online
#16 Edited by Yummylee (21786 posts) -

Jeez, Brad's complaint about the gory ways Isaac can die in Dead Space was kind of surprising. And not to mention how he then attempts to defend the gore in Dead Space because Isaac is ''faceless'', when he himself has so often paraded about how you see Isaac's face a lot during DS2 and 3. Of course I'm not trying to say Isaac is an especially deep character or anything, and I quite frankly disliked what they did to him from DS2 onward, but even still, ''faceless'' isn't exactly how I would have sum him up. Regardless of who the character is, though, if there's any franchise that should feature your character potentially getting absolutely mutilated when they die, it's Dead Space.

#17 Posted by TooWalrus (13219 posts) -
#18 Posted by I_smell (3924 posts) -

Alright this podcast is definately not for you guys.

#19 Posted by hakunin (393 posts) -

@i_smell: Man, Thumbs is my favorite games related podcast after the Bombcast.

#20 Edited by Dunchad (494 posts) -

Wasn't their best work, but a good listen nevertheless.

@humanity said:

It's not even the talking about Zuma which did seen to go on forever. It was this weirdly jaded and tired outlook on video games. How they're so violent, too serious etc etc. I remember when at some point we all knew these were just games - when Quaje was out people were like HECK YAH GIBS! Now everyone is so uptight and just can't seem to enjoy themselves. Oh man Lara falls on a spike and its "grotesque" and "exploitative" - a couple of years ago no one would say things like this, because we all knew its just a game. Also I just didn't like neither of the guys, although the TellTale guy seemed more relaxed than the cynical, grumpy Zuma guy.

Having seen that death scene in the Conan video - that shit was cringe-worthy and completely unnecessary. The more realistic games get in their graphics, in their ability to depict emotion in faces, the less I want to see that kind of stuff. Lara having a spike go through her head and have her weakly clawing at it and then die, is miles away from a Quake model made with 3 polygons blowing into chunks.

I mean, shit - I loved shooting enemies to bits in Soldier of Fortune, back when I was a teenager. But these days, we can make those imaginary characters look really damn good, we can give them enough facial animations, voice acting and good story to make us like them and really care about them. Then having them die in gruesome ways, is not something I would call entertaining. I never understood why people keep watching the Saw or Final Destination movie franchises either, since they're nothing but fictive snuff films from where I'm standing.

But honestly, I don't really care whether you enjoy those things or not. But I would hope you can at least see how our perspective is not just because we're "uptight" and can't enjoy ourselves. I play games to have fun. If I want to see fucked up shit and mutilated corpses, I'll watch the evening news. The world is depressing enough place without every mainstream media adding to it by creating games and movies that center around such things.

Just my 2 cents.

#21 Edited by PsychoPenguin (176 posts) -

@humanity: The difference is that in quake arena the violence is visited upon models that don't look very human and you don't really focus on people exploding. In Tomb Raider they really leave the camera right on Lara as she gropes at this stake that's gone through her head and the character modeling is advanced enough that it is quite sickening to see over and over again in a way that a 100-polygon Quake model flying apart into a few random chunks is not.

Here's the video with Conan they were talking about. The part where her head is repeatedly impaled on a stick is at about 6 minutes.

#22 Posted by Humanity (9384 posts) -

@dunchad: I still believe there is a huge disconnect between games and real life. Although I used the term "gibs" kind of jokingly there it does bring on another important point that bothers me about these situations. I think it's a bit ironic, and even slightly hypocritical of people to say "well now that graphics have gone forward this isn't cool anymore." Soldier of Fortune was modeled to be as realistic as those graphics got at that time. Why is it that when you blew a soldiers arm off when he had 200 polygons it was hilarious as opposed to when you do the same thing when he has 2000 polygons. It still depicts a human being, except one is rendered less than the other one. Of course I can see the point of having more realistic graphics being more bothersome. At the same time back when Quake 4 came out, there was a sequence in the game where the player is literally strapped down to a conveyor belt, and his arms and legs get sawed off while in first person view and replaced with cyborg parts - this was regarded by many, among press also, as the most memorable part of the game because of how "real" it was. Violence was a lot more over the top 10 years ago and no one seemed all too bothered by it. Carmageddon was a ton of fun. Because the civilians were basically pixel sprites it was "OK" to mow them down with your car, as opposed to if you made that game today and they were fully animated and ragdolled polygon models?

A lot of people seem to have adapted this double standard for violence where all of a sudden we've gone over the line. Lets go a little earlier back in time. Games like Gears of War or Assassins Creed were touted as having "really satisfying kill animations." A lot of people will right away eliminate Gears because you're killing aliens, and that doesn't count. Some have even told me that since the violence is SO over the top, that chainsawing this very human looking enemy in half with blood and guts spraying everywhere is funny more than grotesque. In multiplayer you can kill other humans and apparently ripping another humans arm off and beating them to death with it is cool and fun, rather than revolting. But we can let that go, because it's in the future, and thats ok because it's so far removed from reality that the violence stops being real. Assassins Creed 2 and onwards introduced plenty of extremely visceral kill animations. Slitting peoples throats, stabbing them, puncturing and smashing them with various weapons. These are real humans were murdering now throughout the entire game, and no one batted an eye at any of that. The game is literally chock full of very imaginative execution animations yet everyone, including the Bomb Crew, thought that stuff was great. Was that violence ok because it's too far back in the past? @Yummylee had properly noted how Brad himself actually agreed with the notion that all the gruesome deaths in Dead Space are fine because Isaac wears a big bulky suit and we don't see his face that often. Apparently not showing your face means you lose all humanity, and it's no longer a person in front of you but a lump of flesh that can be pulverized in any which way. Why doesn't Dead Space count? Because it's in the future? Because Isaac wears a big, bulky space suit so were used to seeing "space marines" die gruesome deaths? In FarCry 3 everyone thought it's awesome to hunt animals and skin them. Everyone in the Quick Look laughed at how theres an entire animation of your driving a knife into the carcass with blood splattering the screen. Thats actually way more gratuitous than that Tomb Raider death scene to me, because it repeats so many times as opposed to only seeing it when you die. Why is there this double standard where some games are completely fine, yet others are crossing the line? How is some violence acceptable, like in Assassins Creed, yet in others it's not? I don't really buy the line that in the case of Tom Raider it's because it's SO close to reality. It's not. It's still just a game. She's the same bunch of polygons that Marcus Fenix or Isaac Clarke are, yet now people care all of a sudden.

I saw that video of her getting impaled on the stick. Yeah it's gruesome, but it's a failstate and thats the point. It's a game over screen that says "wow you messed up make sure not to do that again!" I don't consider it gratuitous or exploitative and unnecessary. Those animations are there to serve a point - that you're on this island and your life is on the line. That death is a very real and graphic possibility and you should probably avoid it - it's meant to heighten the tension when you're jumping over a chasm over navigating those rapids. On top of that it's super video-gamey. It's pushing the envelope the same way games have been pushing the envelope for ages, because most people can make the distinction that it's a game. If you're comparing video game violence, a bunch of polygons on your screen, to something you might see on the news then I can't help butlaugh a little.. I've seen terrible things happen in games and none of them even begin to scratch the surface of real life violence. I've seen a friend of mine fall and dislocate his elbow causing his entire arm to bend back the wrong way. There was no blood, no open wounds, yet I literally had to look away because it was so sickening to see something like that up close.

Of course at the end of the day your mileage will vary. I respect the fact that you may think this is "too far" even if I don't share your viewpoint. I actually wanted to write a blog about this but I already wrote so much here that I probably won't bother now. To me it's just silly that some guys have "acceptable" gore while others cross the line with "unnecessary" levels of violence.

Online
#24 Edited by jozzy (2042 posts) -

I listen to Idle Thumbs every week, and yes their "deep" talk can sometimes get really tiresome. As developers they do have unique outlooks on things sometimes so I feel it's still worth a listen. What bothered me this time was the constant interrupting whenever Brad tried to say more than two or three sentences.

#25 Posted by SpudBug (633 posts) -

Chris Remo? Pretentious?

I have to leave this thread or i'm going to get upset

#26 Edited by Oldirtybearon (4825 posts) -

@humanity: Isaac doesn't count because he has a cock. It's what Brad was getting at but refused to be a man and admit as much.

#27 Edited by Animasta (14699 posts) -

@oldirtybearon said:

@humanity: Isaac doesn't count because he has a cock. It's what Brad was getting at but refused to be a man and admit as much.

dead space also can't be anywhere near as realistic as TR, but what does THAT really matter?

(they didn't appreciate the fact that people cheered at the last of us demo, don't forget)

#28 Posted by audioBusting (1564 posts) -

Not the best episode, but it's pleasantly surprising to find my two favorite gaming podcasts cross over =D

#29 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4825 posts) -

@animasta said:

@oldirtybearon said:

@humanity: Isaac doesn't count because he has a cock. It's what Brad was getting at but refused to be a man and admit as much.

dead space also can't be anywhere near as realistic as TR, but what does THAT really matter?

(they didn't appreciate the fact that people cheered at the last of us demo, don't forget)

Neither Dead Space nor Tomb Raider are realistic. Both are third person shooters. One features a male protagonist in a sci-fi setting and the other features a female protagonist in a survivalist setting. Both of those games hinge on fail-states showing brutal imagery of their protagonists getting torn apart by monsters/nature as a consequence of the player's inadequacy. You fail, you see the brutality and go "Holy SHIT" and you don't want that to happen again, so you try harder. The threat of seeing such brutality provides a tension to playing that offers the illusion of real consequences for failure. The higher the tension, the more memorable the moment where you're sweating bullets hoping you don't die. Brad understands that this is fine in a game.

So long as the protagonist doesn't have tits, apparently.

#30 Edited by Dunchad (494 posts) -

@humanity: Hmm. Yeah, it's hard to pin down what makes it different, for me. I mean, I do think the disconnect between real violence and game violence was much greater even just few years ago. Because of the graphics, it was quite easy to distinguish the two in my mind. But with the advances of technology, it is getting harder to do that. While they're not completely realistic, they are getting much more life-like and it is easier to draw connections between those two. And the end result is that when you see a gruesome death or violence in a game, it makes you think about it happening in real life to someone and how horrible that would be - in my case, anyway.

The most recent game that I enjoyed, in which I committed some horrible murders, was Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I stabbed several people through their chest with my arm-blades. But, maybe because of the art style, my head wasn't connecting the game events with the thought of a large blade penetrating through human chest cavity or what that would mean, in real life. It was clearly a game and all that I was doing, was enjoying some game mechanics.

And I think it is the same for Assassin's Creed. Or rather, there, I think it is a combination of the not-so-convincing character models as well as the obviously fictional world in which the game is set in. The lines are more clear.

In the end though, it might just be me specifically that has changed. Maybe I've lost the taste for gratuitous violence in my "old" age. I'll take a black screen with 'Game Over' written in blood over a stick-through-the-head death scene any day.

#31 Edited by ja2ke (4 posts) -

@jozzy: I almost called the episode "Interrupting Brad" but changed it at the last minute. We tend to get 80% through a topic and then step on each other a lot, and while its weird, it usually ends up keeping the conversation moving, but it was clear brad had more to say about Tomb Raider than he got out in the first go so we tried to circle back at the end.

I also don't know how to properly reply in the mobile site apparently.