20 Comments
Posted by ahgunsillyo

Considering Patrick's tweets about the game while he was playing it, I'm interested in hearing this discussion about Ground Zeroes.

Posted by alternate

New context for "V Bomb". Poor Vinny will never play that character again.

Posted by Jekra

I wonder if the perspective on the podcast that Kojima failed to "pull off" the creative choices around sexual violence is not just tied to the fact that they don't believe the metal gear series is anything greater then just over the top crazyness or audacity. Its just not a series for them that actually is worthwhile in terms of its darker themes, but it is for a large group of people. They don't know if there opinion actually represents the majority, they have no proof of there loud minority claim. so what I'm saying is equally as valid.

I think that it was pulled off just fine, but thats probably because I enjoy kojima's work. I would like to hear from Patrick as to why its not pulled off, is it simply the odd juxtaposition of a character named skull face that's the issue or something else.

The reason why i bring this up is because there seems to be a total lack of respect of the other view point. the way the speak about it its as if there is no way, anyone in their right might could feel like the depiction in ground zeroes of the darker themes is well done.

If I were to suggest something to Patrick it would be that this is probably the reason for some of the flaming or difficult comments he receives when he says things concerning feminism, gender ethics or distaste for certain elements of games its because it seems so dogmatic, perhaps if he would open up a little in his opinions and make a point of acknowledging that other people could be right about these issues it would actually go away but to be honest I think he likes it....

Posted by Jekra

Why I would like to hear by the way is because I wonder if its anything beyond a strawman, that because its kojima and the previous creative choices or current creative choices he has made there is a lack of trust in his ability, could Patrick envision a more direct look to the same themes in a metal gear game done differently that would have pleased him or is it the silly, its used as a plot point argument or is it simply because its kojima and metal gear they are not allowed to depict such things so directly...

Posted by Octaslash

@jekra:

I wonder if the perspective on the podcast that Kojima failed to "pull off" the creative choices around sexual violence is not just tied to the fact that they don't believe the metal gear series is anything greater then just over the top crazyness or audacity.

I don't think so. They acknowledge that the series has addressed serious stuff like this before.

If I were to suggest something to Patrick it would be that this is probably the reason for some of the flaming or difficult comments he receives when he says things concerning feminism, gender ethics or distaste for certain elements of games its because it seems so dogmatic, perhaps if he would open up a little in his opinions and make a point of acknowledging that other people could be right about these issues it would actually go away but to be honest I think he likes it....

Are you fucking kidding me?

Posted by Jekra

@octaslash: Im not kidding, and I do think so, if you notice there acknowledgement its pretty clear they think kojima failed in his treatment of serious subject matter in the past parts of the series. you will notice neither alex nor patrick seem to actually care about those parts and the praise just turns to how crazy the series can be. they say it delves into series subject matter and thats it, its pretty clear they think he failed in doing so.

also, No im not kidding. your reading my point as a critique when it doesn't have to be, Im actually trying to give helpful advice. Patrick does repeatedly often stand up for principles fairly dogmatically, even in the face of fact or criticism. Never has he admitted to being persuaded by discussions or changed his thinking. this is really the reason for people being so up in arms at what he is saying.... I don't even disagree with him on alot of the stuff he says but there is no reasoning or him seeing internet comments or opposing view points in good faith.... ask Sean Elliott about the time he the criticized gender hiring statistics argument

Edited by Fear_the_Booboo

@jekra: Except they totally cited Watchmen as something that deals with those subject tastefully while still being cartoonish.

While you might enjoy Kojima's fiction and that's fair, the way it is handled in that game just seem needlessly provocative and does not fit the tone at all. For what it's worth, I would like videogames to be able to touch those subjects. In Ground Zero, it's pretty juvenile.

Edited by Jekra

@fear_the_booboo: your right, but I dont think it is juvenille in ground zeroes and it can compared to watchmen favorable. Have you read the watchmen, two characters can only have good sex in costume in that book and you say its not juvenile.

also, your point really does not say anything to mine, its as if your not hearing me, as I never said they didn't believe that cartoonish things can't make serious points its that they clearly believe metal gear never has and that causes them to have no trust in ground zeroes.... from the moments the credits roled I knew Patrick would dislike it his comments here and his comments in the past have shown he has little respect for kojima as someone who actually says something worthwhile...

Edited by Fear_the_Booboo

@jekra: I totally read your comment. In Watchmen there's a meaning behind the characters motivation and the way the book touches on rape is actually one of the best thing about it (I'm not a fan of Moore myself).

What I meant is that just hearing a girl getting bombs shoved into her vagina with little to no empathy to her, just to show that the evil guy is "evil", is pretty juvenile and grotesque in a bad way for me. It's provocative and shocking, but does not add anything to the story that could not have done in a smarter, more tasteful way.

You knew beforehand that Patrick would disagree with it and I knew too. I feel that is ok. We know Patrick's opinion enough that we can guess how he feels about some stuff. It does not show that Patrick lacks empathy for the other side, I felt he was pretty outspoken with being ok having Kojima tackling this kind of subject, what he did not like was how it was done in that particular game. I agree with him.

Edited by Jekra

@fear_the_booboo: Actually I don't think he is good with kojima tackling such an issue. I think he has been fairly outspoken in the opposite direction actually an example where he talks one the podcast about how he doesn't know if he is in for taking metal gear seriously and his comments about kojima's explanation of the quiet character being probably suspect are other examples.

the way in which the Comedian character in the watchmen rapes can be seen as pretty provocative and shocking as well as fairly grotesque most of the watchmen can be seen that way. Perhaps the glee in which skullface goes about it is causes the difference in opinion from watchmen to ground zeroes. Ground zeroes is actually less grotesque as it is less visual. its only an audiolog. so an arguement can be made that watchman might actually be more grotesque.

it is a matter of opinion to say the least, and thats my point, and patrick does not do a good enough job giving the other side its due. He is very dogmatic in his approach to exposing his opinions for someone who is proud his comments are so subjective, he seems to speak so objectively and insultingly to people who disagree with him.

Posted by Fear_the_Booboo

@jekra: My point is that it adds a lot to the story in watchmen and does not in Ground Zero. I think we're disagreeing there.

Patrick is being critical to the game, which I think is fair. It is his job as a journalist/critic/editorialist. He thinks Kojima is not a good writer to tackle those subjects and I agree with him (I think Kojima's writing is mostly pretty bad). You disagree with us and that's fair.

We will never agree on that point.

Where I think you're wrong is when you say that Patrick would not be ready to give other's opinion their due. He does share often share articles that disagrees with him on twitter or on Worth Reading. On this podcast, you're here to hear HIS opinion. Nobody could in their right mind express every opinion on a subject while being completly neutral (that would be boring anyway).

Patrick stating his opinion does not mean he cannot see the other side (or something in between, it's not black and white).

That's what I think, anyway.

Posted by csl316

I can see why Patrick thinks Skull Face is a silly name.

But after Hot Coldman I honestly didn't even flinch when Mr. Face's name appeared.

Posted by AMyggen

There's some wild speculation on the internets that Chico will turn out to be Quiet. I doubt even Kojima will be that crazy (a teen boy turned transgender due to rape? Come on now), but it would almost be worth it to see the reaction.

I haven't played GZ because I don't want to support the business model, but have listened to the tapes on YT and read up on the discussion. On a general note I'd argue that we shouldn't applaud someone just for taking on "serious issues" like rape in video game form, like a lot of people who argue Kojima's case have been doing. We should applaud it if it's done in a good way, which in my opinion a cartoon character named Skull Face inserting a bomb into someone's vagina while you hear a "squish" noise is not. Kojima has always been extremely hit and miss when tackling more serious issues, and this seems to be in the miss column.

Edited by AMyggen

@jekra: I think Patrick is plenty open to the opinion of others, he often links articles that disagree with his points. That said, he has opinions and stands by those and there's nothing wrong with that. The "anti SJW brigade" aren't up in arms about what he's saying because he's never admitted to being persuaded by the other side (is that a fact, by the way?), but because of his opinions about the subject more generally. Make no mistake, the same people are going after others percieved to be "SJW" on Twitter and other places.

The whole "Men's Rights" Reddit bullshit movement is one of the more baffling things on the internet, and I'm saying that as a male who rarely participate in this discussion. Just yesterday someone created a Twitter account just to call Patrick names, rant against "homos" and the like. I would've quit the internet if people treated me that way.

Posted by dr_mantas

@amyggen: That was a whole mishmash of terms and concepts, not all of them relevant. But this sort of pointless back and forth on the show and in the comments is why I stopped listening to Bombin' in the A.M.

One note: no idea why someone in the Men's Human Rights movement would rant about gay people, since they are proponents of all Men's rights, and some men are gay. And calling it bullshit just because you never understood the reasons for it existing is not very well informed.

Of course there are idiots and bigots in all groups, including the Social Justice activists on the internet. And some of the biggest Twitter harassment campaigns were definitely instigated by SJW, not against them (think Penny Arcade, Donglegate, the hate on Richard Dawkins, maybe some others I'm forgetting).

Posted by AMyggen

@amyggen: That was a whole mishmash of terms and concepts, not all of them relevant. But this sort of pointless back and forth on the show and in the comments is why I stopped listening to Bombin' in the A.M.

One note: no idea why someone in the Men's Human Rights movement would rant about gay people, since they are proponents of all Men's rights, and some men are gay. And calling it bullshit just because you never understood the reasons for it existing is not very well informed.

Of course there are idiots and bigots in all groups, including the Social Justice activists on the internet. And some of the biggest Twitter harassment campaigns were definitely instigated by SJW, not against them (think Penny Arcade, Donglegate, the hate on Richard Dawkins, maybe some others I'm forgetting).

Maybe that guy was a bad example, he seemed to hate everything.

But I was referring to the MRAs on Reddit, which I'll stand by is by and large reactionary bullshit by people who do not understand what feminism is. I fully understand the reason for these kinds of movements to exist, and I'm sure there's more sensible men's rights movements out there, but from what I've seen of r/MensRights is just a caricature of that.

Posted by JasonR86

I'll never understand the motivation that drives people to get upset at criticisms. What do they think will happen if someone like Patrick were to cave and agree with them? What do they think they win?

Edited by Brendan

@jasonr86: They probably won't literally think they'll win, but a lot of the emotional response to this is about as rational as the furor around Devil May Cry was a year and change ago.

Posted by heckfart

what you learn about hideo kojima by playing his games is that he'd make a lot more sense as a person if he were a cult leader in a burning compound.

people are upset with the ending of burial at sea because it ends with everyone who made it being fired.