The Giant Beastcast: Episode 126

@chummy8: I play hockey and it is the scariest game to play without a cup. The last thing you want is an errant stick or a deflected puck to hit you there.

Give me SSX 3 HD!

Bad take on Cuphead. Locking things behind difficulty bars people with physical disabilities and really just limits what games are. Dan was right at the top: these modes do nothing but good and don't hurt those of you who need that challenge to feel good about your time gaming.

I think they were saying that in general but there is also probably room for creators to just say that it's okay that this is not for everyone, full stop.

I think it's a very rare subset of games that actually require this difficulty as part of their identity but for those games I do think it is important for maintaining what that thing is.

Re Dark souls: Its my favorite game series and I love the challenge, but that isn't the only thing the games are about. Bandai Namco's marketing for those games plays up the difficulty more than it probably should. I don't think an easy mode would hurt those games, but it would attract new players which is ALWAYS good. There is also the co-op feature, which allows players to group up and negate most of the PVE challenge. It's a great way to ease into the series and I believe a lot of people would give it more of a chance if there was some kind of lobby system for co-op.

Bottom line: people like Jeff Bakalar should be able to bump Bloodborne down to easy and get comfortable with the combat system before tackling a harder difficulty, without fear of ridicule or being told to get gud. That's the part of the souls community I just can't truck with.

@viniciusale:

The PBJ stuff, the big thing they seemed to forget was that it was a shared kitchen. Peanut allergies are the issue that need addressing - and that is why Dan is a bad person for mixing the Peanut Butter in the jam.

"Jockstraps"? "Thumbnail of what's clearly a wrestler"?

Is this episode about the Yapapai strap match or whatever Hogan was talking about?

Sweet, that pic from Raw was one of the two times it emanated from my hometown in its near twenty eight year history. It also coincided with the Total Divas episode where Paige "wanted" to get a massive (and ugly) upper chest tattoo from one of the local shops here in town.

@wandrecanada: I don't mean salt and sugar can't be mixed. If I tasted salt when eating chocolate I would not like it. If I tasted sweetness when eating a potato chip I would not like it.

PB&J is a very salty taste combined with a very sweet one and it's awful.

@efesell: I get that, but that ignores the point being made by @plethomacademia that these types of games are literally inaccessible to people who are differently abled or who live with physical disabilities. With that being said, I don't think that is inherently Cuphead's problem - it's an industry-wide problem. And it's an industry-wide problem because it's a societal problem.

It isn't ignoring anything, I meant that as part of it.

The vast majority of games I agree are better served with all sorts of options and modifiers to accommodate people.

But I think it's okay for the rare designer to just "This is my game, this is exactly how I want it to be."

@Beastcast Crew, regarding jockstraps:

One of the more common demographics for them now (aside from the obvious one) tends to be gay/queer men. They're often used as a kind of lingerie with soft fabric where the protective cup would traditionally be. They're also surprisingly comfortable (usually)!

Actually it's not salty; it's a savory flavor (nuts fall into savory) sometimes called umami, that you are tasting. Depending on the jelly or jam you use this can change the combination but classic PB&J is mostly the sweet and savory flavors.

I would guess if you ever tried a salt free peanut butter you would find it bitter and unappealing based off your dislike of the PB&J. This might cross into mushroom or nut distaste as well.

@efesell: you're totally right, my bad.

Let me get this straight, because unless I'm very stupid, I think I'm of a sound mind when I say Alex and the rest of the Beastcast crew are being dangerously shortsighted with the ND accusations.

So a random Twitter guy accuses a popular company of sexual harassment. Company looks into it and says there is zero evidence of his accusations. Yet somehow, the onus is on the company -- and not the guy -- to prove if what happened really, well, happened?

I'm honestly struggling to figure out how that makes sense. How is it the companies responsibility to prove the accuser's claims? Like ... how is it NOT the accuser's responsibility to provide (further) evidence of what he/she has claimed?

Please think about it for a second. If I accuse YOU of doing something, and YOU say you didn't do it, how is it YOUR responsibility -- and not MINE -- to prove that YOU did what I claim(ed) you've done?

How does that make any sense?

Sexual harassment, sexual accusations, and overall workplace improprieties are never taken lightly by/at any company with a tremendous amount of money on the table. When there are hundreds of millions of dollars on the table, HR does not play games (pun unintended). It's nice to want to believe a random ex-employee of a company, but what's even nicer is to subscribe to wanting actual evidence of what he/she claims. Evidence. Not opinions, not Tweets, not heresay, not horribly out of place correlations, not gut feelings, not groupthink(s), etc. Evidence. Actual, verifiable, documented, evidence.

I think it's extraordinarily irresponsible of the Beastcast to take the side of an evidence-less ex-employee, especially if the reasoning is "Well, a really powerful guy in Hollywood was recently exposed as a molester of employees and potential employees and because of power dynamics and the Tweets of people saying they were abused/harassed by him, well, the ex-employee in another creative field was probably abused and harassed as well". I think it's even more irresponsible of the Beastcast to do so when the company being accused of tolerating sexual harassment has absolutely no history or even a hint of having a toxic workplace culture that houses and or supports sexual deviants. We're not talking about Rockstar or Crytek, two development companies that have had consistent rumors of NOT being ethical and or moral to/with their staff. We're talking about a company that has had, up until a random Twitter user started Tweeting a week ago, zero history and zero rumors of tolerating sexual abuse and sexual harassment in/at their workplace.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that the accuser left the company before, left another company (Ubi), returned to the first company, had his job terminated, and has been unable to secure employment in/at any company for almost two years now. While those facts are pretty telling of the guy's ability to secure and maintain a job, they aren't going to help anyone figure out if what he claims is true or not.

It's on the accuser to provide evidence of his accusations. Thus far, he has completely failed to do so. I hope the following doesn't sound mean-spirited, but at this point, you would have to be very imperceptive to believe him. You would have to be very obtuse to believe his Tweets. That is the nicest way I can put it. If I claim your dog bit me, and you say there is no evidence of your dog having bit me, and then I proceed to fail to show where your dog bit me ... an observing audience would have to be very bovine to believe that my dog bit you.

I apologize for any spelling and or grammatical errors, and I hope none of the above comes across as mean-spirited. I just think we should employ a little more thinking and a little less emotion when dealing with very serious claims of sexual misconduct. In my opinion, we should take the same stance that the legal system takes -- innocent until PROVEN guilty -- because that is the only way we'll be able to successfully avoid turning into a society where anyone can say anything untrue (and very very damaging) about anyone and get away with it.

Sincerely,

Droner

Let me get this straight, because unless I'm very stupid, I think I'm of a sound mind when I say Alex and the rest of the Beastcast crew are being dangerously shortsighted with the ND accusations.

So a random Twitter guy accuses a popular company of sexual harassment. Company looks into it and says there is zero evidence of his accusations. Yet somehow, the onus is on the company -- and not the guy -- to prove if what happened really, well, happened?

I'm honestly struggling to figure out how that makes sense. How is it the companies responsibility to prove the accuser's claims? Like ... how is it NOT the accuser's responsibility to provide (further) evidence of what he/she has claimed?

Please think about it for a second. If I accuse YOU of doing something, and YOU say you didn't do it, how is it YOUR responsibility -- and not MINE -- to prove that YOU did what I claim(ed) you've done?

How does that make any sense?

Sexual harassment, sexual accusations, and overall workplace improprieties are never taken lightly by/at any company with a tremendous amount of money on the table. When there are hundreds of millions of dollars on the table, HR does not play games (pun unintended). It's nice to want to believe a random ex-employee of a company, but what's even nicer is to subscribe to wanting actual evidence of what he/she claims. Evidence. Not opinions, not Tweets, not heresay, not horribly out of place correlations, not gut feelings, not groupthink(s), etc. Evidence. Actual, verifiable, documented, evidence.

I think it's extraordinarily irresponsible of the Beastcast to take the side of an evidence-less ex-employee, especially if the reasoning is "Well, a really powerful guy in Hollywood was recently exposed as a molester of employees and potential employees and because of power dynamics and the Tweets of people saying they were abused/harassed by him, well, the ex-employee in another creative field was probably abused and harassed as well". I think it's even more irresponsible of the Beastcast to do so when the company being accused of tolerating sexual harassment has absolutely no history or even a hint of having a toxic workplace culture that houses and or supports sexual deviants. We're not talking about Rockstar or Crytek, two development companies that have had consistent rumors of NOT being ethical and or moral to/with their staff. We're talking about a company that has had, up until a random Twitter user started Tweeting a week ago, zero history and zero rumors of tolerating sexual abuse and sexual harassment in/at their workplace.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that the accuser left the company before, left another company (Ubi), returned to the first company, had his job terminated, and has been unable to secure employment in/at any company for almost two years now. While those facts are pretty telling of the guy's ability to secure and maintain a job, they aren't going to help anyone figure out if what he claims is true or not.

It's on the accuser to provide evidence of his accusations. Thus far, he has completely failed to do so. I hope the following doesn't sound mean-spirited, but at this point, you would have to be very imperceptive to believe him. You would have to be very obtuse to believe his Tweets. That is the nicest way I can put it. If I claim your dog bit me, and you say there is no evidence of your dog having bit me, and then I proceed to fail to show where your dog bit me ... an observing audience would have to be very bovine to believe that your dog bit me.

I apologize for any spelling and or grammatical errors, and I hope none of the above comes across as mean-spirited. I just think we should employ a little more thinking and a little less emotion when dealing with very serious claims of sexual misconduct. In my opinion, we should take the same stance that the legal system takes -- innocent until PROVEN guilty -- because that is the only way we'll be able to successfully avoid turning into a society where anyone can say anything untrue (and very very damaging) about anyone and get away with it.

Sincerely,

Droner

Apologies for the double post, I edited the part about the dog.

Sincerely,

Droner

What Classic System would I want as a Mini-System and what games?

WOPR is so cute as a mini-system!!!!

My five games:

1. "Falken's Maze"
2. "Falken's Chess"
3. "Theaterwide Biotoxic and Chemical Warfare"
4. "Global Thermonuclear War"
5. "Tic-Tac-Toe"

@wandrecanada: Whether it's savory or salty, it doesn't go well with something very sweet like jelly at all if you ask me. Potato chips with a lot of sugar generally taste worse to me as well.

Chocolate can taste OK with certain nuts but then I only really like dark chocolate with high cacao content (70-90%) so it's a nice combination of sweet and bitter.

@droner: Seemed like a pretty standard Alex response. I was caught a little off guard that it even came up since just about every outlet has dropped it for the reasons you stated.

Hope for 2018, no more video game journalists using the word "rote"

Hell I thought they were oddly subdued about the whole thing.

Jesus, Dan.

It's way too recent, but I think a PS3 classic would be a nice way to get some of those exclusive games into the hands of more people. Too many people have not played Metal Gear Solid 4 or Demon's Souls.

Having said that, you might get a used ps3 for less than the price of an SNES Mini, at least in my country.

Dan I'm from Missouri/Kansas and I say racked.

Also I like when I can tell exactly in the beginning 8 minutes where vinny would have cut off that terrible conversation.

It's where Dan started talking about getting wanged in the tip of the dick.

I grew up in Iowa, and when you'd slide off your bike seat and crash down on the crossbar, or stuff like that, we'd say you got racked, or you racked your nuts.

as a gay man, i can say with some authority that - within certain circles - jockstraps? still very popular!

also if i remember correctly this is the first beastcast that vinny hasn't been on

Bakalar is a better host than Vinny. Don't at me

@bsmittel: @droner:

I would imagine the story is "dropped" because there is nothing else going on about it; suffice to say it has reached the end of what's visible to the public.

I would urge you to not think of sexual harassment as a dog bite.

Outside of video or audio recordings, I find it hard to think of what evidence (especially one that is under the control of the victim) could be provided by the victim to serve as satisfactory proof. Please think about what sexual harassment is (a touch, words, maybe some where private/secluded) and imagine the difficulty in there being evidence that doesn't rely on the words of people. Please think that such incidents can involve only the two people, victim and perpetrator (i.e. there's a possibility that this isn't a serial harasser).

Previous Beastcast's have expressed views that corporations are usually on the dominant side of any relationship. My read on their discussion on the Naughty Dog incident is that includes any given corporation's Human Resources department. During the news cycle of this story, I came across the refrain of "for employees, HR is not your friend." Even if you think Naughty Dog is in the clear in this incident, I want you to consider what would typically be the most effective path for an HR department to resolve such incidences with the least amount of any kind of damage to the company. I know ideally we would like to think that there would be justice or reparations for victims; I am of the cynical mind that what typically happens are silent burials.

This is a frustrating news story, primarily because I think we have seen the end of it: with two contradicting statements that, to varying degrees, deflect our gaze from seeing the truth or as close to the truth. (The ex-employee did not name his harasser [probably for the best], and Naughty Dog's PR statement saying it has no evidence of allegations [I'd imagine it would be trivial to not have a paper trail for this, especially if most of it took place over spoken word].) While nasty gossip has never been aired around Naughty Dog, maybe consider there's a first time for anything.

I would like us to consider that Mr. Ballard's words are the only evidence he has (come on, would you put your hush money offer on a termination paper?). Likewise, maybe Naughty Dog is being truthful in that is has no evidence (nothing that has been recorded or given as testimony at least). Now we're stuck with an incident we will never see the whole truth of, which we will comment and reflect our selves on until it is whisked away by time.

I don't think the Beastcast was being unfair to any party in their discussion of the incident. Yes, it reflected their personal values, but that's the point of it all, isn't it? I didn't get a read of, "Now Naughty Dog is bad!" or anything like that. Just the exasperated sigh of people who are familiar with how office politics and procedures will treat such incidences, making a demand that reflects the twinkle of an ideal of a more just office space. (Or at least that's how I read it when Alex said it is on Naughty Dog to prove itself.)

@efesell: Act IV is pretty much a grind by definition, you have to do the same thing over and over and need to slowly build up levels otherwise you stop making progress. But the story is basically over after Act III for people who care about that, and they can watch the, like, two minute "true ending" on YouTube. Act IV is for people who like the combat and management gameplay and want to keep doing it

I feel that the easy answer to the peanut butter/jelly question is to not contaminate other foods with peanut butter since nut allergies are fairly common.

I am going to do my best to phrase this comment diplomatically so that hopefully it will not be dismissed as insulting, whiny, or any other non-constructive type of feedback. Please let Jeff "host" the Beastcast from here on out. This is a small step to help remedy what I fear is a growing aspect of Giant Bomb which may alienate me from a website and crew to which I have become very attached.

By "host", I simply mean that he should be the one guiding the changing of topics and the overall of flow of the conversation. This, in my opinion, should be done for two reasons:

1) For my humor tastes, Vinny is the funniest Giant Bomb employee to date, with the possible exception of Jeff G. This comedic ability of his has been somewhat hamstrung though by having to be the "straight man" that has to make sure things move along at a reasonable clip on the podcast. With Jeff B hosting, Vinny could perhaps return to his old bombcast days where he and Jeff G would tear it up, especially when neither of them were hosting. I also believe that Jeff B has the personality and experience hosting podcasts that would not severely hamper his ability to interject with his own jokes/observations (love Jeff B very much as well).

2) This is gonna get me a lot of flack- I really don't enjoy or appreciate the politically charged or politically adjacent discussions that have become more and more common on Giant Bomb. This has nothing to do with my opinions agreeing or disagreeing with theirs but rather that I believe it is not the place for such discussions. I understand that now is a very contentious and heated time in the political world and I don't expect them to totally isolate that part of their lives, but it has become just common enough that I have started to skip through segments such as Vinny's monologue (for lack of a better term) following the Pewdiepie issue (again, I don't disagree with him, but it is not remotely why I to Giant Bomb for their content).

This is another long post from me and I appreciate anyone who read through to the end. I have listened to Giant Bomb for almost 4 years now (I have listened to all the Bombcasts going back to 2011 and have listened to some favorite episodes (GOTY, especially) 4 or 5 times all the way through while I work. It is the podcast I use to distract or cheer me up at work or to unwind after with fun jokes, witty observations, stories of the game industry, and of course, reviews and criticisms of games. It is not where I go to hear about social issues or to hear about their long form view on the state of the world, either politically or socially. This is not why they became well known and not why I love them so much. I follow professional people on both sides of the political spectrum (whose opinion on games means nothing to me) to help educate myself and keep abreast of these issues.

This is not a post I wrote rashly- the second point of this long comment has been bothering me for well over a year now when it comes to Giant Bomb's content becoming more politically charged. You can disagree and claim it's not a big deal, that they should do it, or that I should just leave if I don't like it. I can only hope that either the world or their views on this subject change or I fear the last option may be my only recourse. Thank you again for reading.

@mcmoo: I think it safe to assume that no matter who hosts you are not gonna get your #2 here and that's probably just gonna need to be accepted in whatever way you choose.

@mcmoo:I would typically agree with you, but to be fair, the pewdiepie thing and this naughty dog story occurred in sections of the game industry. And regarding pewdiepie, people were emailing and commenting that they didn't make enough of a statement/stance on the story - hence the vinny talk in the following podcast. Considering the 2hr 12minute runtime, these stories and discussions take up barely 5-10minutes.

@jagubrah: You are absolutely right about the pewdiepie/naughty dog stories being game industry related and I should have said in my original post that they should cover them when they are industry related. I could be totally wrong, but I remember Vinny's discussion regarding the pewdiepie thing being much longer than their discussion of the naughty dog issue (perhaps it just felt that way due to it being primarily one person talking).

I really don't mind the way they covered the naughty dog issue- they reported on it, discussed it briefly, and moved on. Perhaps Vinny's piece on pewdiepie was just as short but it certainly felt longer and much more emotionally charged, following several such emotionally charged segments from him. At the end of the day, the way they choose to cover things is their prerogative and, as another person replying to my post pointed out, I will have to deal with it as I am able.

You also pointed out the feedback they got regarding their lack of stance/statement on Pewdiepie, on which I am certainly not as "dialed in". This was short-sighted of me to forget about this and so perhaps my complaint about the constant politicization of things largely non-political (certain cases excepted, of course, I'm trying not to make universal statements) should be levied at the people demanding that they take a stance on every issue.

I'm sure I've missed some issues in my response here and I appreciate your incredibly considerate and thoughtful reply! At the end of the day, I'm not saying politics and games should never mix but rather that they should be covered practically, coolly, and efficiently, so that we can all get back to the games we love. Thank you again- people like you are a helpful reminder that the GB community is a pretty great place and the internet isn't totally a den of monsters yet! :D

Yeah, I played baseball and football and never really had to worry about it. Not that I played baseball at a high level or in the infield, I guess.

Also, who wears underwear with their jockstrap? And if you do, who puts the jock on the outside of your underwear???

@hassun: You shut your mouth you gosh darn heathen

@darson:

Man I love that thumbnail. I forgot WWE got that poor GrumpyCat to host RAW. Also awesome that Alex and Dan pulled the Shout-Out for Simpsons Hit and Run. Its not the best game in the world but it is the best video game adaptation of The Simpsons ever made.

I think that one of the better developments in disussions about popular culture, including games, in recent years, has been how this sort of thinking has been called into question. I'm not saying you're wrong to long for "getting back to the games we all love," but I'm not sure that that's possible anymore.

Once you learn to think politically, you realize that it isn't some separate thing that's only part of some subject matter and not another, or that it's to be handled by people dedicated to "politics." In fact, politics permeates pretty much everything, and we all have to take some responsibility for how we approach it. It's not that politics has suddenly invaded video games. It's always been there, people just haven't been talking about it, whether because of a lack of tools to do so or because of a conscious--political--decision to avoid talking about it.

I totally understand that it can get a bit overwhelming to have politics be part of everything you do and experience. Sometimes I feel like politics consumes me, and I'd certainly love to have something apolitical to escape to. Demanding that, however, is really just a way to attempt to silence the conversation, which produces a politics of repression itself, and rests on an assumption that the way things were perceived to be is "normal." In fact, this kind of thinking always favors some groups of people, identities, or ideas or ideologies that happen to be dominant, over others. Having an open debate about these issues as they are recognized is pretty much the only honest way to approach them, whatever your political allegiances. This is a pretty useful video that kind of explains what I'm getting at (although it only scratches the surface).

Furthermore, I'd argue that being open about your particular perspective on political issues is essential to honest debate. Too much of media (professional media in particular) attempts to hide behind a mask of cool objectivity and false balance. All media, even podcasts about video games, always frame the discussion in some way, include some voices and exclude others, emphasize certain perspectives over others, and so on. If the approach is openly acknowledged, it's a lot fairer to the audience, and to people who want to participate in the conversation.

I'm not happy Visceral got shut down but I'm glad they're go back to the drawing board on Star Wars. They haven't shown anything from that game but it sounded like that was gonna just be an Uncharted clone with a star wars skin and that sounds awful. The gaming industry doesn't need more super linear, heavily scripted mediocre shooters with forced slow walking and a sarcastic dude as the protagonist. They'll probably still screw it up because EA is a mess right now but I'm a bit more interested to see what they do now.

@entireties: Oh absolutely. Myself included!

From Wyoming and like the duders from the other square state pointed out, we used racked growing up as well. I'm sure all of us remember the Iraq and Iran joke.

I haven't finished this episode yet but I'm glad they cut off (sorry) Dan's story as he's told it before and I'd rather not hear it again, ever.

So happy that Abby brought up Getting Over It, that game is so cool and I was worried it would get overlooked.

Knights of Templar

I thought they are just Assassin's Creed bad guy ~ Dan

Thank you Dan for making my night

Totally agree with #2. Giant Bomb/Beast are pretty much the only current gaming podcasts I can listen to without being beaten over the head with the hosts' political views. If things continue in the direction they're moving, I'm dropping my subscription. I simply *do* *not* *care* what ANYONE's political views are re: videogames, and resent having politics relentlessly dragged into this particular hobby of mine. Just because you have an opinion and/or a platform does not mean you need to share that opinion.

Also, Tennesseean checking in. "Racked" is a well-known term here.

@laner: Telling others to keep political opinions to themselves is childish. Live with it or move on. We all deal with people who have opinions across all spectrums.

In a sea of procedurally generated, run based indie titles that lack character because of their "infinitely replayable" nature, I am all for a beautifully hand crafted, linear, 8-12 hour triple A game once or twice a year. Especially if it's in the Star Wars universe which I really enjoy.