drdrslashvohaul

Because it's all bad. I agree, the majority of the bile should be focused on those who are committing active hatred against minority groups (and people like Fry and Tatchell do an excellent job). But you can't use the excuse that "oh, they're worse" to excuse bad behaviour that, as a whole, is damaging to a society. The more insidious forms of discrimination we have in society are still very damaging. And from time to time people need reminding of that. I get why people get annoyed at protesters. But what I don't understand is why people are so quick to get hyper-defensively angry whenever someone points out something about their behaviour or beliefs that is discriminatory. Another scene in another game/movie/tv programme in which a woman is threatned with violence. As a one off, it can easily be defended as an editorial choice, no doubt. But why must so many forms of art fall back on that lazy trope? The one that puts women as victims in the story? I'm not saying this game is sexist. I haven't played it, don't know the context, and am happy to defer to others. What I would say, however, is that this trope/meme/cliché, repeated ad infinitum, is problematic. And maybe we should be trying to find alternative ways of writing stories? Maybe? Or is that censorship? So, while we shouldn't have groups thinking their injustices are the worst, all people should come together to fight all injustice, rather than simply arguing "meh, there's only so much equality of opportunity that we can spare right now... come back once the gays aren't being hanged in Uganda."

Because you are rarely, if ever, excluded from power in society because of your masculinity or your whiteness. Non-white, non-male people are put in those positions far more often. There might be a number of other issues fucking you over, though. The focus on the perfect body; class; the pressure men put on other men to behave like "real" men; and so on.

I want to change my mind on what I find most annoying. It's Fred's modesty. He's far more eloquent than most English speakers that I know. Sorry, I'm slipping into Toleman again. I genuinely need help.

And I agree. But you can only get to that stage when people are genuinely equal. It suits those with a disproportionate amount of power to think their words are neutral, when they're anything but. Language is never neutral. But it's also a clumsy tool. What people mean, what they say and what people hear aren't necessarily the same thing, and that's not always the fault of the speaker. I believe that we should focus on the intent behind words, like George Carlin. But when someone gets offended (whether they are justified or not), all I would like is for people to reflect on how they may have been misinterpreted. That's all. So while I think the fact that some US politicians have had their careers ruined by using the word "niggardly" is patently absurd, I think it's shocking that someone like Dan Snyder refuses to even contemplate why "Redskins" might be offensive to some. (And no, I'm not saying the Redskins SHOULD change their name; just that the management isn't engaging in the discussion properly.) We've got into this situation, in my opinion, because some idiots have screamed "RACIST!!!" for so long they've forgotten the deeper reason for why they're doing it. More importantly, they've failed to explain what they're trying to achieve. That's turned a lot of potential allies away because they don't feel like they can ever make the right compromises. By the same token, some people who fear change have used this as a crutch, and use it to excuse or even legitimise their behaviour. Both types of people need their skulls cracking.

Precisely, Troels. I know. And I agree with you. The point is, if you're accused of such behaviour, make that very argument and move on. Exactly. So, defend your editorial choices and move on. Simple. My point is that some people see it as an issue, some people don't. That debate shouldn't be stifled by either side. I do agree, however, that the political left has cried wolf a fair few times. But just because they've made some stupid arguments doesn't invalidate all of them. And again, just because some editorial choices can be defended doesn't mean there isn't a problem with the overall culture in the games industry. That's why the debate continues, and should continue. Which is a point I also made, and I agree with you. All I'm saying is, be aware that you will also alienate a lot of people by doing so. Bullying is where a group or person with power picks on people smaller than them to silence or intimidate them. A small band of lefties protesting against a games company isn't that. Now, could an individual small company be irreversibly damaged by such a thing? Possibly, and I think this is a problem when unfair accusations are made. But the whole industry? The whole white-male dominated status quo? Come on. This was a point I made in an earlier post, and I completely agree with you. It's the laziness of the cliches that annoys me. *** What worries me most is that the rabid anti-PC brigade is as guilty as the PC brigade in using the term "political correctness" as a slur against campaigners. Thereby trying to silence or invalidate the debate as automatically some sort of conspiracy against men or against free speech. The lack of self awareness from both sides is actually rather amusing. But, as Akril says, the vitriol in it is distracting people from just going out and making good games. All I want is for game makers (and everyone) to take a few seconds in their day to think "is what I'm doing discriminatory?" And if "yes", "is it justifiable?" That's all it ought to be. The automatic over-defensive posture of some gamers - like the pathetic rants against the suggestion that there ought to be female Kerbals in Kerbal Space Program - is as dangerous. Indeed, given the power of the games industry, stifling debate in such a way is probably more dangerous. Don't fear debate. That goes for both sides. It's a good thing.

And here's the hyperbole again. Game developers are more than welcome to disagree with the complaints they get. Just as those who want to see attitudes changed can make their demands. I don't see what the problem is. If the developers don't see themselves as sexist or racist, then they should be able to defend themselves pretty easily against any accusations. And conversely, those who think otherwise can know whether to steer clear of the product. There is also a massive difference between "don't play Mario because the damsel trope is sexist" and "Mario is a good game, but it would be good if this trope could be avoided". But, of course, campaigning for a better world is "intimidation". Because the status quo is natural, normal, and people shouldn't be "forced" to change their behaviour. Except, is that really what women's groups are doing? FORCING you to change your behaviour? Or are they railing against a system which they see as unfair and unrepresentative. Given that the status quo seems to be pretty well entrenched, they're doing a pretty shitty job of enforcing censorship, wouldn't you say? If games companies don't want to be seen as anti-women, then it's a pretty clear choice in a democratic, capitalist society. 1) Don't give a shit. 2) Explain why the editorial choice was made and stand by it. 3) Make sure they make plot decisions which minimise or remove perceived bias. Personally, I'm in camp #2. The real issue here is that some people have a really, really hard time understanding what "critique" is. It is perfectly possible to see problems in something and still enjoy it. It is perfectly possible to acknowledge that someone doesn't intend to be sexist or racist, but that their overall behaviour (individually or as part of a group) has unintended consequences. And it's perfectly possible to ask for changes in the way the games industry operates without "censorship". I genuinely don't understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp, or why so many people (mainly white, heterosexual men... hmmm....) get so angry every time they're asked to reflect upon their behaviour. I love professional wrestling, for example. But I'd be an idiot if I ignored the way they play on national, racial and sexual stereotypes. Do I wish they would improve that sort of thing? Yes. I don't support companies that go too far with it. Do I have to reject everything that's great about it because of some of its darker side? No. The same is true of soccer (which I love). And certain video games (which I also love). One can criticise, and one can demand change without having to shit on everything it stands for. And, more importantly, labelling professional wrestling as "sexist" (it is) doesn't mean that the WWE should shut its doors tomorrow. Nor does it mean the WWE isn't entirely within its rights to tell me to go fuck myself (and no doubt it would... which is one of the reasons I'd keep watching! ;) ). That's what the protests are about. Getting people in power to reflect on their actions and the deeper meaning behind some of the things they take for granted. Do they have to listen? No. Do they have to change their behaviour? No. But if enough people believe that the protesters have a point, that's when change gets "forced" either through peer pressure or the Darwinian nature of the market. Again - that's democracy. If it didn't exist, black people would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the vote. Indeed, the United States of America wouldn't even exist. George Washington - what a terrorist. :p Your final line is great, by the way. I totally agree that developers could do this and win many new fans. They'd also alienate a lot of people. That, as I've already mentioned, my friend, is democracy. On that, at least, we can agree.

And given that LSL was always tongue in cheek (and in other places too), engaging with it might have uncovered some of the great humour in the series. It is worth noting the article was written by a Brit (I'm assuming you guys across the pond/Channel have zero clue who Rory McGrath is), and LSL is very hyper-American. It's a piss take on the US porn culture and a multitude of other things, most of which I'm not sure most of us Commie Limeys really "get". That said, a lot of the jokes the author makes in that article are pretty funny - and probably mean nothing to people younger than 25 living outside of England! :D That said, I think the general criticism that the humour and gameplay mechanics were still stuck in the late-80s is somewhat fair, if clumsily made. Anyway, back to the topic: this is why I hope SpaceVenture is a modernisation, not a rehash.

It's the melon puzzle that really crosses the line.

Right on, brother. Who gives a fuck if prevailing attitudes against women and ethnic minorities keep white men in power. I'm a white man. Why should I give a shit? The only thing more annoying than a PC bore is an anti-PC bore. I have no problem with jokes or themes that aren't "polite", providing there's a point to them and providing they fit properly within the context of the story that is being told. It's the unthinking, cliché drivel that turns me off. A film like Dallas Buyers Club, for example, isn't PC, but tells an important story about how screwed up the world is/was. A film that simply shouts "fag" to get laughs isn't. Not a difficult concept to get your head around, really. All I'd ask of developers is that they don't live in the 1950s. I find the sorts of stories that play on the "thou gaineth a WOMAN" plot tropes to do something new and interesting are worthwhile in themselves because... er... they're new and interesting. The ultimate ideal of political correctness, by the way, is that people won't have to censor themselves because they won't think like idiots in the first place. :) I do love how "er... quite like this game, but does it have to treat women as objects>" is automatically painted as "free speech chilling". A very good tactic by those who want the freedom to act like dicks to censor... well, obvious irony is obvious.

Corridor Quest 2015. Sign me up.

*IF* they're at the stage where the need to contemplate this, I would rather they admitted financial problems and invited fans to help them get over the line than release an episodic adventure. Or that it will take another 12 months while Scott gets a part time job at a local bar. But above all my concerns about how it "ought" to be done, I want a game. No matter how many pieces it comes in.

Even if I sort of agree, they're obviously not going to release their best stuff right now. The style of the Crowemurphyist cult (as led by the Space Pope) has been to release pretty underwhelming spoilers, with the hope that hardcore fans will be turned on (without spoling the actual plot/surprises for said fans). Is that a good strategy? I don't know. But I would see these scenes as "typical" or "average" examples of what's going on. Not the best-of-the-best. But I don't know anything. If I ran a games company, I'd probably base it around boobs. Toleman isn't as much as a caricature as I'd like him to be...

If people with money can't dictate to the poor what clothing is acceptable, where will it end? It all went to hell on a hand cart once we let people without property vote, imo. ;)

I think the HTML 5 environment would be a good place for small "episodes" to be released. Sort of 30 minute adventure games, with a parser being part of the fun of interacting with the story. Serena (although not a parser, obviously) showed brilliantly how a short story could work in a computer game environment, and not sacrifice artistic merit for the sake of brevity. </cannot_be_said_without_sounding_wanky>

I think "outdated" also applies to the right tool for the right job. Parsers were removed primarily because, as Collector alludes to, it's easier to design a passable point n' click interface than a good parser. By the same token, for most gameplay needs better 3D graphics convey more information in a more pleasing format. But if you design a game around certain mechanics, old 3D or a parser might be a better tool to get you where you want to go. Horseshoes are "outdated" because so few people have horses. But for the ones that do... Anyway. I like a good parser. A GOOD parser. And I think they could be used very effectively in modern games, especially if tied into a more "Siri" type environment where you can "talk" to the character in the game. That could be through the keyboard or the microphone. It will only work, though, if the game is built specifically around that mechanic rather than being bolted on.

I've seen FTL, but never yet been tempted to get it. I'm holding off on a number of games like that until I've got a new PC (and a full-time job...), but that and Rimworld really appeal to me as potential purchases. I love those sort of kickstarter/indie games that are much cheaper than the AAA titles and focus primarily on gameplay rather than flashy shit.

Meh, I find it quite funny (though I like to switch my brain off from time to time in front of mush). But I've never got Seinfeld. It seems uniquely "New York" sort of humour, or at the very least North American. It never did well over here in England, and I can see why. Moving the topic on a bit further, to the borders betwixt fact and fiction, have any of "y'alls" played Kerbal Space Program? It's bloody genius, and NASA wants to use it to teach kids basic orbital mechanics. You basically build rockets in a sandbox and explore a fictional solar system based loosely on our own. But it uses "real" Newtonian physics, so it's a bit of a challenge when you start out.

My favourite sci-fi is the Star Trek universe. My favourite comedy sci-fi is Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy (the original radio series). I'd even probably put Red Dwarf ahead of Space Quest, though they're obviously different media. "Drama" is not really the same as "deep", and this is why I also prefer TNG to DS9, though both are brilliant. I enjoyed the character development and interaction in DS9 (just recently completed a complete re-watch of that), but I think the individual sci-fi stories in TNG were much better. In an almost completely unrelated note, it's why I love South Park too - they use a weird version of reality to tell the truth about how screwed up the world is. Sci-fi, like good satire, does that, and makes you think. So... where do we stand on Big Bang Theory? :P

The other reason may have been that people were "re-making" games only 5-10 years after they were originally released. For real nostalgia value, you've got to at least pretend to wait a bit. If SQ1VGA had never happened, a SQ1 remake would be great for modern machines. I think the SQ2VGA fan game is a good example of how it could have been done so much better. But this is what you get for making a decision based on potential sales rather than what has artistic merit... :P On that note, 2016 is the 30th anniversary. Anything being planned (since now is the time to do it!)?

I don't mind the conclusion. Or rather, I don't mind that the author doesn't like the project. (S)he is well within his/her rights to not like SpaceVenture, not like the Two Guys, not like the way the social media is handled, and everything else. What I have a problem with is the complete non-sequitur between the first half of the article and the second. I don't understand how they got from point A to node 2. What I also have a problem with is the complete lack of evidence for the conclusion. What exactly did the Two Guys say on Twitter that was so bad? What spoilers have they released? Where is the indication that this will be an action game? Because I've followed all of these developments really closely and... well... I've not seen any of this stuff actually happen. Provide some links and screen grabs and we can engage with the discussion. Otherwise, it's just a poorly written article that doesn't seem to be based at all in the reality of the SpaceVenture project. :unsure:

Ooooh, you're teetering over both the poor-bashing and race-bashing precipice here. Careful lest you lose your footing. :)

As an aside, one of my favourite games ever is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. And it's because the story telling is so good (even if it loses its way in the final third). It's one of the reasons I don't tend to get on well with other "mainstream" games, but GTA has always had enough clever humour and social commentary behind the blood and gore to make it worth playing. It would just be grotesque murder porn if it didn't do that. (See: Manhunt.)

Revisiting what worked in the past and updating it to fit with modern sensibilities == good. Simply going back to what was done in the past because it was all wonderful == bad. This is effectively the problem with modern politics too, but I digress. I do think Purple Tenticle has misinterpreted what Fred is saying. The 1990s should be remembered, but critically and with the benefit of historical hindsight. What I mean is - don't see the 1990s as a list of great games. Properly look at what was good, what was bad, and why it worked in the specific context of its time and space. A lot of things in the 1990s worked really well. Good story telling; deep, well-formed worlds; artistic graphics; attention to music; and a focus on puzzle-solving - mental gameplay rather than cut-throat action. It's those things that can be revived and repackaged. You don't need a "Sierra 2.0" to do that. You don't need major companies to do that. And, with the way game development is nowadays, you don't even need a large studio to do that. Indeed, I would argue a "Sierra 2.0" would stifle that very freedom and creativity that would be needed to make genuinely good games for the modern market. Without wanting to put words in Fred's mouth, I think both he and I feel that parroting the past is redundant. If I want to play Space Quest IV, I'll play Space Quest IV. I don't need Scott and Mark to try and "re-capture the magic" by repeating what they did in a new game. It won't work. What I want Scott and Mark to do is get all those things that were good about the 1980s and 1990s and re-use those skills in a new and creative way to give me a new product. And to learn from their mistakes and the bad things about the 1980s and 1990s, so that they can bring us something fresh. "Sierra 2.0", if it is to exist, should be a very loose affiliation of like-minded individual game companies looking out for each other. This is already happening, as you can see the way they promoted each other's Kickstarters and new products as they come out. It's that sort of general feeling of an artistic community rather than an actual company that draws me in. Because it fits so well with the social media generation of indie development and sharing knowledge. No doubt we'll see Sierra-alum games being featured on the same community blogs and played by the same people. There's no need for a physical or virtual office and company controlling everything from the centre. We've moved on. It's one of the good things about the 2010s that should be harnessed. That might all sound a bit pretentious, but I think it's a crucial distinction to make. Some things sucked about the 1990s. The corporate pressure, the technological constraints, shite graphics, the price of games, the length of games, the hair, dear God, the hair... Sierra's games weren't good simply because those people were together in Oakhurst in the same building. It may at that time have been PART OF the reason for it, but I doubt the same would be true today. They were good for far more reasons, and it was to do with part of the culture of games at that time. By the same token, we need to be aware that everything bad about games in the 1990s was also part of that culture. So you can't simply replicate it and expect gold. Take the good things of the 1990s. Mix them with the good things about today. And think about what was bad about the 1990s and bad about today - and how those things can be best avoided. Replace "Sierra" with "America", and 1990s with 1790s, and send that to anyone you know in the Tea Party. It's effectively the same argument... :p #satire #OoohGetHer

Gravity had jet packs and ships exploding.