Jar Time w/ Jeff: 06/27/2017

@monkeyking1969: vr will fill that light gun niche

audio only version plz

I cant hear anything,

tv = soooo bright

This meme is getting a little tired in 2017. Do you actually think there are no appreciable differences between an android phone and an iphone that would sway someones decision one way or the other?

And I dont think your comparison is applicable here. Playing a game on a SNES classic vs and emulator with a bluetooth 8bitdo is hardly distinguishable to most people. Your ignoring the ecosystem which, for better or worse, makes a huge decision in peoples purchase when in comes to a mobile phone.

WTF. I'm only seeing this now.

Having spent a couple of years in Vietnam recently it's interesting how in the US, "Vietnam" is synonymous with the war as if thats all there is to the country, where as in Vietnam, young people barely even know about the war. Also there of course it is the American war, not the Vietnam war.

To whoever asked the question about Vietnam - dude, you gotta play the Vietcong series.

I didn't compare an Android to an iPhone anywhere in my comment.

I made an observation on how consumers buy into brand indenity, and no where is that more apparent than Apple products.

Thanks Jeff, really appreciate these jar times!

People got agitated about BF1? Weird.

@yummytreesap: Yeah you're right; the majority of people don't want to have the real atrocity of war on their screen when the sit down to game.

It's a shame though, while I enjoy a fun game, I like things that make me think. I know it's cliched to say it, but Spec Ops: The Line gave me a thirst for a game that pulls no punches and isn't afraid to say something.

I always figured there weren't many Vietnam War games because the US lost that war. Most games want the player to win in the end, so having them play as the US would be very strange. You could probably make a game about the Vietnamese people resisting the powerful evil empire as an underdog, but I guess no one needs me to explain the moral outrage that would cause because you would be killing US soldiers. Because as we all know, killing nazi's or any type of non-Western soldiers is just a game, killing a US soldier is a hanging crime.

Describing it as a loss is a little weird. A failure for sure, but I feel like losing a war entails a lot more catastrophic consequences. Like being conquered or something, not losing a little force projection halfway around the world.

Just because America didn't fall under communist control doesn't mean it isn't a loss. I wouldn't say it was a "little force projection" either, considering how many troops the US deployed and how long it lasted for.

To get across how badly the allies/US lost, North Vietnam/enemies had 1/4 of the troops that the allies did, with the US alone contributing more troops than what the commies had. The US also had a much better airforce that underperformed and was beaten out.

Well, it was a war, and one side retreated. That side is usually called the loser. Just like the UK was the loser in the US Revolutionary War, without being occupied by the US. Or how Iraq lost the first Gulf War without being conquered. If a country starts a war by attacking another nation, and the latter repels the attack, the attacking country lost the war.

There are shades of grey of course: wars that end in stalemates (Korea), or wars in which the losing country was not conquered but had a regime change forced upon them: Iraq after the second Gulf War or the Axis countries after WWII.

Ghost by the window at 16:53

Audio in a premium RSS feed for the future episodes please.