DAREALGUMMY
Member
I thought the episode was great. Bosman giving R. Mika approval = RESPECT.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Final Bosman Show
- Thread starter iNvid02
- Start date
Have yet to watch the episode, but lol @ the changes in the starting warning message.
EDIT: Watched it, i thought the part with the various female characters was hilarious, but i felt like Kyle was afraid to take a position on such a subject and fumbled around at the end, with a weak climax and a confused overall point.
Even though, reading through the lines, i get the message of accepting ones flaws and trying to work through them, instead of headbutting against one another, which is a positive attitude i think, as the discussion (through civil critical thinking, of course), rather than the conclusion itself, is the really enriching element.
The bonus bit was also great, and felt straight out of Always Sunny in Philadelphia, something a game developer Charlie would've said (probably also because they have somewhat similar voices).
EDIT: Watched it, i thought the part with the various female characters was hilarious, but i felt like Kyle was afraid to take a position on such a subject and fumbled around at the end, with a weak climax and a confused overall point.
Even though, reading through the lines, i get the message of accepting ones flaws and trying to work through them, instead of headbutting against one another, which is a positive attitude i think, as the discussion (through civil critical thinking, of course), rather than the conclusion itself, is the really enriching element.
The bonus bit was also great, and felt straight out of Always Sunny in Philadelphia, something a game developer Charlie would've said (probably also because they have somewhat similar voices).
I think basically, he was spot on about the fact that, we shouldn't have an "you are either with us, or against us mentality" with regards to these issues. Sexism/racism are terrible things. I think everyone can agree with that (well, there will always be the minority that don't think these are issues, but I'm saying the greater whole can agree these things are terrible).
The problem is, defining when these things are offensive. And what I might find offensive, might not be offensive to you. However, I would want to have a debate with the person that doesn't find it offensive, and explain why I find it offensive. I would like to hear why they don't think it's offensive. That to me is the way we should be approaching this. Rather than - this is sexist, this is offensive, and you are my enemy if you don't agree with me.
I feel like that is the kind of attitude I've seen. And the problem is, people that are anti-sexism (or anti anything that is awful), have a real sense of conviction. As they should, because they are against terrible things. But that doesn't always make it right to say something is 100% this and if you don't agree, you are then a sexist/racist. And even if you 100% believe something is sexist/racist, I think the key thing is to educate people on why you believe it is. The either you are with us or against us attitude, is just going to turn them away from your view points (and make them defensive). Because you need to understand that not everyone will see the same things as you do.
I would loosely call myself a feminist (I am a feminist in principle/ideology, but don't really agree 100% with the actual movement itself). I think the games industry has a real problem. But I haven't been happy with how journalists/activists have constructed their messaging. I often find it aggressive, and combatant. They aren't willing to let people explain why they don't agree, it's all or nothing. And if you don't agree with these issues, you are a sexist. I think that's a major mistake, and has played a part in making a divide between gamers and the people trying to explain why these are issues that are hurtful to women.
I've always personally liked Bayonetta, and thought she was the RIGHT way to have sexuality in a game (with the character being fleshed out, and having agency over their own sexuality). However, while I still think this is true, I've had some pretty interesting debates with people that say: the sexy camera angles that sexualize her, the fact that her sexuality is tied to her moves (that the audience controls), kind of undermines that agency. I'm not sure I 100% agree, but the point I'm making is, I had a reasonable debate. And it's made me re-consider things. No one jumped down my throat and called me a sexist for liking Bayonetta. I can now understand the problems people have with the game. I myself have changed my views slightly (I still think it's a great example of the right way to do it, but I also think it's flawed because of these issues. It's not perfect). So that is what I would like to see more of.
The problem is, defining when these things are offensive. And what I might find offensive, might not be offensive to you. However, I would want to have a debate with the person that doesn't find it offensive, and explain why I find it offensive. I would like to hear why they don't think it's offensive. That to me is the way we should be approaching this. Rather than - this is sexist, this is offensive, and you are my enemy if you don't agree with me.
I feel like that is the kind of attitude I've seen. And the problem is, people that are anti-sexism (or anti anything that is awful), have a real sense of conviction. As they should, because they are against terrible things. But that doesn't always make it right to say something is 100% this and if you don't agree, you are then a sexist/racist. And even if you 100% believe something is sexist/racist, I think the key thing is to educate people on why you believe it is. The either you are with us or against us attitude, is just going to turn them away from your view points (and make them defensive). Because you need to understand that not everyone will see the same things as you do.
I would loosely call myself a feminist (I am a feminist in principle/ideology, but don't really agree 100% with the actual movement itself). I think the games industry has a real problem. But I haven't been happy with how journalists/activists have constructed their messaging. I often find it aggressive, and combatant. They aren't willing to let people explain why they don't agree, it's all or nothing. And if you don't agree with these issues, you are a sexist. I think that's a major mistake, and has played a part in making a divide between gamers and the people trying to explain why these are issues that are hurtful to women.
I've always personally liked Bayonetta, and thought she was the RIGHT way to have sexuality in a game (with the character being fleshed out, and having agency over their own sexuality). However, while I still think this is true, I've had some pretty interesting debates with people that say: the sexy camera angles that sexualize her, the fact that her sexuality is tied to her moves (that the audience controls), kind of undermines that agency. I'm not sure I 100% agree, but the point I'm making is, I had a reasonable debate. And it's made me re-consider things. No one jumped down my throat and called me a sexist for liking Bayonetta. I can now understand the problems people have with the game. I myself have changed my views slightly (I still think it's a great example of the right way to do it, but I also think it's flawed because of these issues. It's not perfect). So that is what I would like to see more of.
Woo doggie, this episode tackled the issue plainly, and as someone constantly pondering the philosophies of this issue, I feel like I was waiting for this episode to happen one day.
So, it's impossible to determine whether or not something is sexist? What about "sexually exploitative?" I think Finalman meant the same thing. The way he went over the characters made me feel like that's what he meant. Are these characters spankbait, or no? And he's saying it's impossible to tell. But damn, I dunno. Whether it's impossible or not, for many many reasons I definitely feel like it needs to be possible. Opinions can't be facts, but I think we need to draw the line somewhere, and Bayonetta has for a while in this debate been dancing on the demarcation point. Is she spankbait? Oh, but Thing 1 doesn't feel like she is. Oh, but Thing 2 does. The community is split. And that gets my goat, for many many reasons.
Like a legal case, swinging this any one way has implications. If Bayonetta isn't spankbait, then by that clause we have to allow a bunch of other stuff. Bayonetta is teabagging, and that's not spankbait?? Well if that's so, then any female character that's not submissive and teabags her opponents is, by the Bayonetta Clause, not spankbait. This is why I wish we could draw the line somewhere. Because of implications. To that point, I didn't even invent the term "Bayonetta Clause." I heard it from someone else with regard to Drakengard.
If Bayonetta isn't spankbait, then what can we say IS spankbait? And if she is spankbait, what ISN'T spankbait while also covering the topic of sexuality? Can we say nothing? Nothing is anything? Everything is anything and nothing at all? I don't buy it man...
So, it's impossible to determine whether or not something is sexist? What about "sexually exploitative?" I think Finalman meant the same thing. The way he went over the characters made me feel like that's what he meant. Are these characters spankbait, or no? And he's saying it's impossible to tell. But damn, I dunno. Whether it's impossible or not, for many many reasons I definitely feel like it needs to be possible. Opinions can't be facts, but I think we need to draw the line somewhere, and Bayonetta has for a while in this debate been dancing on the demarcation point. Is she spankbait? Oh, but Thing 1 doesn't feel like she is. Oh, but Thing 2 does. The community is split. And that gets my goat, for many many reasons.
Like a legal case, swinging this any one way has implications. If Bayonetta isn't spankbait, then by that clause we have to allow a bunch of other stuff. Bayonetta is teabagging, and that's not spankbait?? Well if that's so, then any female character that's not submissive and teabags her opponents is, by the Bayonetta Clause, not spankbait. This is why I wish we could draw the line somewhere. Because of implications. To that point, I didn't even invent the term "Bayonetta Clause." I heard it from someone else with regard to Drakengard.
If Bayonetta isn't spankbait, then what can we say IS spankbait? And if she is spankbait, what ISN'T spankbait while also covering the topic of sexuality? Can we say nothing? Nothing is anything? Everything is anything and nothing at all? I don't buy it man...
djplaeskool
Member
<3 Tharja
Don't know if i want to spark this discussion here, seeing as we have about 4 other threads (Bayo review thread; Bayo sexuality; Sexualization&slutshaming; GAMERGATE megathread) currently tackling a close subject, with a billion pages, but just as a quick reply to this -- you can totally use sex as a theme or a tool without wanting your final product to simply be wank material.
Whether somebody somewhere is going to, is of course irrelevant, since some folks jack it to goddamn ponies; but the way you can somewhat determine this, is to simply have a more in-depth, holistic analysis of the product, and how it uses such a theme.
I think Bayonetta goes beyond simple, cheap titillation, well into the sarcastic depiction of sex as an empowering tool for the character who, as Bosman pointed out, isn't simply made to be hot and pretty, but to mimic an ideal (the character artist had, which is a woman, btw) of powerful femininity.
At the same time, something like Cortana's very sexual design in H4, not only doesn't add anything to the character nor to the story, but it looks somewhat out of place stylistically in that world, and it just comes off as desperately trying to get the attention of horny male teenagers.
So i disagree that is "impossible to tell", but i agree that the discussion about it, is the part important to have, rather than blindly filling up a black lists of titles, based on a couple of shallow red flags - like sometimes people tend to do.
Just my 2 cents on the subject.
I think if there are ways to use sexualization in an acceptable or even good way, Bayonetta could be an example of that, and i think it's not completely up to subjective feelings, but it's something that can at least be explained with a more comprehensive analysis of the package and its contextual use of said element.
Molyneux would like everyone to click on his crotch, to find out!
Seriously, that Phillip Dollarfield bit utterly killed me. Still wiping the tears from my eyes. So absurd...
I liked the episode in general. I agree that Bayonetta as a character does more good than harm, and I think the whole MSDos program bit was meant to show how it's silly to try and make the issue black and white. People will always have differing tastes and sensibilities, and "sexist" imagery will always be present in all types of media. We just have to understand it, accept it, and make sure we have an appropriate response/reaction to it.
I liked the episode in general. I agree that Bayonetta as a character does more good than harm, and I think the whole MSDos program bit was meant to show how it's silly to try and make the issue black and white. People will always have differing tastes and sensibilities, and "sexist" imagery will always be present in all types of media. We just have to understand it, accept it, and make sure we have an appropriate response/reaction to it.
When did Bosman said Bayonetta does "more harm than good"?
Zomba13
Member
Fucking spoilers man! Now I know that I'm not going to be as attached to him when he finally shows his junk. The mystery is gone
I think he meant "more good than harm."
But about black lists and red flags and everyone's tastes varying, maybe that's the wrong way to go about it, but I'd like to believe it can at least be simple enough to be able to look at something or watch something or play something and go "That's not fapservice" or "That IS fapservice." I definitely at least wish it could be that simple. For instance, goddamn ponies. Let's say you're not supposed to jack it to that. How do we know? If we actually are all somehow in general agreement that you're not supposed to, then somehow I want to be as sure with Bayonetta and everything else on either end of the spectrum as we are with ponies.
But like UrbanRats said, that's 4 threads at least, and the megathread broke 10,000 posts, I'm pretty sure. I'll have died from the weight of grim exasperation before I catch up to that thread alone. But my mind is constantly, constantly on this. It's very, very important to me.
In addition, if there is such a thing as sexism or exploitative characterization and so on, isn't it fair to not accept it? Isn't it fair to demand non-sexist themes? Or is it too unsolvable? So nebulous that even if it exists, you can't pinpoint it, therefore it might as well not exist? Personally, I feel that if a problem exists, it can be found and addressed, just like any other issue with a game or whatever. Other game's have issues with quality, and while those are based in opinion, somehow we still come to a consensus.
I think these sort of issues are more about milestones, than an end goal.
Society and culture, evolve through time, improving with deeper understanding, which comes through (among other things) empathy and discussion.
What you think is an end goal now, is nothing but a milestone, once you reach that peak and see that there's a lot more ground to cover, that you couldn't even see, from your previous vantage point.
What people considered progressive 100 years ago, today wouldn't sound as good.
This is why i'm saying that the (civil and contructive) discussion itself is the most important element to growth.
But it's not to push any sort of bullshit absolute relativism or anything like that, of course you're gonna have a goal to strive towards, and you have to have some conviction, to have that.
Society and culture, evolve through time, improving with deeper understanding, which comes through (among other things) empathy and discussion.
What you think is an end goal now, is nothing but a milestone, once you reach that peak and see that there's a lot more ground to cover, that you couldn't even see, from your previous vantage point.
What people considered progressive 100 years ago, today wouldn't sound as good.
This is why i'm saying that the (civil and contructive) discussion itself is the most important element to growth.
But it's not to push any sort of bullshit absolute relativism or anything like that, of course you're gonna have a goal to strive towards, and you have to have some conviction, to have that.
So is there any hope for some kind of practical standard to adhere to? At least in our time? On the one hand, we probably aren't ever gonna find the solution to stand for all time, we're probably not ever gonna know what people 100 years from now will consider fapservice or not, if that's what you're saying. On the other hand, the "absolute relativism" thing doesn't sail either, because we at least have a goal to strive for, if that's what you're saying.
Because they're gonna bill my credit card next month and I gotta know if what I'm paying for is porn or not.
I was making more of a general observation, referring to your last paragraph.
I'm not sure where you're going with the whole "fapservice" thing.
Whether someone is masturbating to something or not, is simply not a good metric to determine what it is.
I also don't think it's important to know what... ehm, people masturbate to.
You can look at a piece of art, analyze it in its wholeness, and discuss how the various elements (including gender representation, race, sex and all the other touchy subjects) are treated, discuss it with other people, confront points of view, be open and empathetic to other's point of view, doubly so if they are closer (with their life experiences) to the subject being talked about, and from there enrich your own point of view, and grow.
Discussing more abstract concepts may not be as easy as doing the same with hard-data-corroborated subjects, but that's why being willing to incorporate other's life experiences and feelings, is so important.
...i guess.
Well, that still works for me. With a practical standard, we can know that a game is sexist or negative in some way, and say "This game is negative, we demand more positivity." Without one, we can't call a game out for being negative, no matter what it does. We can only say "Maybe it is, maybe it isn't."
But we have a goal to strive for, right? But all we can really do in the name of growth or making games better is criticize constructively. But criticizing constructively is essentially just saying "Here's why it might be sexist, and here's why it might not be sexist." Don't we need to eventually come to some kind of consensus on what's sexist/sexually exploitative/pandering/titillating/any other term for whatever it is we're trying to pinpoint? Otherwise when do we get to say "We want more positive portrayals in video games, and here's how you can do it?"
What Finalman seems to be saying is that it's too tough to call. So what can we do? Just accept it? Try and discuss it? Seems like we can do everything except finger a guilty game and say "Here's how you can fix this."
Maybe a little crass on my end. But I'm talking about the plain point I think Finalman was talking about in the episode. "Are you supposed to pop boners to Bayonetta? Is Bayonetta for boner-popping perverts? Or are you not supposed to pop boners to Bayonetta?" I think that was the question, the "impossible to answer" question, that Finalman was framing in the episode. Of all those controversies he listed, I think the question to solve at the core of them all was "Did they make these women for someone's sexual enjoyment? If yes, then that's bad. If no, then that's fine." That's what I was going for. Not "Do people masturbate to this" but "Are people supposed to masturbate to this, or are they taking it the wrong way? Is it titillation, or is it not titillation?" That is the question.
...I think.
When you use "consensus" it seems like you want there to be a book of truth or a law or something.
At the end of the day debate happens, and it's meant to bring change through individual people's view of the World.
That's your consensus.
Also want to point out, and it should go without saying, that regarding every position as equal is, i think, the opposite of applying critical thinking, and it's the bullshit "absolute relativism" i was talking about, often used as a deflection from actually constructive debate, dressed as detached rationalism.
To your second point, they clearly didn't make the game to be wank material, Bayonetta is not a porn game, otherwise, i'm sure they would've saved a lot of time and money by making one of those cheap hentai PC games.
Doesn't mean the game doesn't want to be sexy, it clearly uses sex and sexuality as a narrative element, which doesn't automatically transform it into a porn game, there are many faces to sexuality and many ways to use it in art.
Whether that sexuality is used in poor taste or not, whether it's demeaning, whether it's crass and whole lot of other questions, is the core of the debate, of course.
I haven't played the game, so i don't have a strongly defined opinion one way or the other, yet.
At the end of the day debate happens, and it's meant to bring change through individual people's view of the World.
That's your consensus.
Also want to point out, and it should go without saying, that regarding every position as equal is, i think, the opposite of applying critical thinking, and it's the bullshit "absolute relativism" i was talking about, often used as a deflection from actually constructive debate, dressed as detached rationalism.
To your second point, they clearly didn't make the game to be wank material, Bayonetta is not a porn game, otherwise, i'm sure they would've saved a lot of time and money by making one of those cheap hentai PC games.
Doesn't mean the game doesn't want to be sexy, it clearly uses sex and sexuality as a narrative element, which doesn't automatically transform it into a porn game, there are many faces to sexuality and many ways to use it in art.
Whether that sexuality is used in poor taste or not, whether it's demeaning, whether it's crass and whole lot of other questions, is the core of the debate, of course.
I haven't played the game, so i don't have a strongly defined opinion one way or the other, yet.
Pro from Dover
Member
I need both hands to play Bayonetta so I can't fap to it.
Well when you put it like "Book of Truth"...
I don't mean like a law or anything, but I do mean I'd like it to be as easy how we decide whether or not ponies are wank material. Or to diverge from that example for a change, a pretty woman in a pretty dress. Nothing more, nothing less. We can probably, most of the time, look at that and say "That's not fapservice." She's just a glamorous looking character, she's pretty, but that's G-rated for sure. She's pretty, but she's not meant to be wank material.
Ponies and pretty dresses are extreme examples of softness, but we could then branch out to other examples. Basically I wanna get to the point where we can say "That's nothing" or "That's something", because that's what we can do with other stuff. I wanna be able to do that with Bayonetta.
But is a cheap hentai PC game the only way to make erotic material?
Erotic material spans a wide range of forms, media, and levels of explicitness. Sometimes featuring neither nudity nor acts of intimacy. You got hentai, but also ecchi, and in the forms figurines, artbooks, oppai mousepads, dakimakura pillows, CG collections...
If I make an underground comic about a stripper dominatrix who only wears hair for clothes, how then do I make that wank material where Bayonetta hasn't?
But I think that's what the debate is about. When people get mad at Bayonetta, they say "This is tantamount to softcore porn." People then rebut "I don't think it is." So the question becomes, "Is Bayonetta wank material? What do you have to be to be wank material?"
It's not a question of whether anyone specifically intended to make wank material, it's a question of how far you can go before your work, regardless of intent, becomes the kind of thing you see at a spankbait shop. The debate is about where Bayonetta stands on the sliding scale of ero-swag. I think.
EDIT: Also, I think that was the question Finalman addressed regarding the Bayonetta debate. "Is Bayonetta for Boner-Popping Perverted Combo Finishers?" He said no, not because he could prove Platinum didn't mean for it to be, but because looking at the content, it didn't come off as fanserving to him, the sexuality is presented in a "Take that!" style, which doesn't feel sexual to him. Plus, Bayonetta is tall and dominating, so that's good. That's just what I'm presuming Finalman to mean, I don't wanna put words in his mouth.
"Was it cool, or was it porny?" That is what I think the question was. Maybe I'm wrong.
Can you even fail in creating wank material, if your game has someone that can be seen as being part of the gender you are attracted to.
I kinda doubt, that Bayonetta was created as wank material,
but I don't doubt she is wank material to some.
I would almost assume, that for every female character that stands in the spotlight for a while, there is someone who thinks she is wank material.
Just wanted to say, I think "ero-swag" is an excellent term.
That's the thing. You know how some people don't buy it when tasteful nudes or shocking depictions are considered art? Instead, they think it's porn? This is a similar situation to that. To be told "You're allowed to pop a boner to Bayonetta, it's your money, do whatever you want, but that's not her intention" isn't enough for a few who enjoy her sexually. To be told that it's only in our minds that she's sexualized for our pleasure. If we're really crazy, if we're the ones in the wrong for believing that we're NOT supposed to enjoy a striptease for its sexual merits, then we don't want in. If Bayonetta isn't fanservice, then we'll take our balls and go home, and play with ourselves instead. It comes off as insulting. It's like "THAT'S not supposed to be fanservice? Are you kidding me? Fine. Whatever."
I think that's the reaction of a lot of "Anti-Bayonettas", but I personally can speak with a lot of experience of being in the camp of the people denied their right to call it porn. There's other reasons to be upset at the sexual content of Bayonetta, but I think it all stems from the feeling of "No way, you have to be kidding me, how is this fundamentally different from this blacklist of softcore pornos that I have here?"
I was thinking the end of the newest Mandatory Update needed to be flagged in this thread. Also has a GT Time reference in there.
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/1695kb/mandatory-update-halloween-in-july---far-cry-4
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/1695kb/mandatory-update-halloween-in-july---far-cry-4
GOD IT'S HIDEOUS.... I love the XBox
Bedameister
Member
I'd love an GT OT Thread. I watch every GT Time, Bosman, Mandatory Update and most of let's all go to the trailers. And some other stuff if I got time.
The Anita Sarkeesian thing, or the last seven minutes? I probably need to watch more Mandatory Update, because I didn't understand either. Also, how come Elyse is allowed to say "fuck", but not whatever was censored in the last 7 minutes? I probably am not getting something.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Ehhhhhhh what the fuck.
Bosman is playing Sneak King on twitch lololol
http://www.twitch.tv/gametrailers
Bosman is playing Sneak King on twitch lololol
http://www.twitch.tv/gametrailers
Dsyndrome
Member
How random... like one of the poster's on twitch, I also wonder when we get to see him stream Phillip Dollarfield.
SlowRevolution
Member
way late on figuring this out but mandatory update's pretty fantastic now. it's like everything gametrailers does is slowly turning some surreal nightmare and it's great.
75th Episode Ducktacular.
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/imb33e/the-final-bosman-what-s-wrong-with-duck-dynasty-
Edit/delete if I did this wrong or if it doesn't fall to me to report new episodes. In this episode, for the 75th, Finalman actually tears into a game, he, who barely can say a bad thing about any game.
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/imb33e/the-final-bosman-what-s-wrong-with-duck-dynasty-
Edit/delete if I did this wrong or if it doesn't fall to me to report new episodes. In this episode, for the 75th, Finalman actually tears into a game, he, who barely can say a bad thing about any game.
Not much pith to this episode, perhaps succinctly summarized in the bonus bit, Duck Dynasty is what it is. No larger topic or commentary to be made, Duck Dynasty just doesn't fly in Finalman's court. Ergo, not much to discuss after the episode.
But me, I wanna know what Finalman's central complaint about Duck Dynasty is. The dynamite beaver hunting? The use of show talent for voice talent? The fact that the game's mechanics for duck hunting don't involve actually aiming at the ducks? All are good things to not enjoy in a game, I think, but something in me is bugged by Finalman of all people not liking a game. Even though I remember him mentioning offhand that this other game didn't hold up in his opinion, in an earlier episode.
Pretty sure my goat is still got from last week's episode. He's saying of Duck Dynasty what he says he and no one else can rightly say about games like Bayonetta. Things like "If you look at the cover of this game, you know exactly what kind of game this will be." Things like "This is what needs to stop in video games." And so my questions are "Why don't you like it?" and "Can we test that?" What aspect or aspects of the game aren't okay? And if they're bad, let's test that. Theoretically we should be able to include that same aspect in another game and that game would be bad for the same reason(s) Duck Dynasty was bad.
But in the end I think it was not any one reason, or not a bunch of reasons. It wasn't about presence of reasons to hate the game, it was about absence of reasons to like the game. And that's why Finalman gave it 0 out of 10. And yet... he had complaints not about the absence of reasons to like the game, but presence of reasons to hate the game. And that's the semantics quandary that will keep me pondering until the next episode.
But me, I wanna know what Finalman's central complaint about Duck Dynasty is. The dynamite beaver hunting? The use of show talent for voice talent? The fact that the game's mechanics for duck hunting don't involve actually aiming at the ducks? All are good things to not enjoy in a game, I think, but something in me is bugged by Finalman of all people not liking a game. Even though I remember him mentioning offhand that this other game didn't hold up in his opinion, in an earlier episode.
Pretty sure my goat is still got from last week's episode. He's saying of Duck Dynasty what he says he and no one else can rightly say about games like Bayonetta. Things like "If you look at the cover of this game, you know exactly what kind of game this will be." Things like "This is what needs to stop in video games." And so my questions are "Why don't you like it?" and "Can we test that?" What aspect or aspects of the game aren't okay? And if they're bad, let's test that. Theoretically we should be able to include that same aspect in another game and that game would be bad for the same reason(s) Duck Dynasty was bad.
But in the end I think it was not any one reason, or not a bunch of reasons. It wasn't about presence of reasons to hate the game, it was about absence of reasons to like the game. And that's why Finalman gave it 0 out of 10. And yet... he had complaints not about the absence of reasons to like the game, but presence of reasons to hate the game. And that's the semantics quandary that will keep me pondering until the next episode.
ElectricKaibutsu
Member
Kyle said he was going to play this game on Let's All Go to the Trailers earlier this week. Nice to see he followed through!
Man, the comments on GT are crazy negative. Poor Kyle.
Man, the comments on GT are crazy negative. Poor Kyle.
Yeah some people get crazy defensive when even a hint of the concept of "offended" gets introduced (or Naughty Dog gets criticized ;P).
And Kyle didn't seem even offended by the game, he just pointed out how the game celebrates some idiotic things, with cheerful glee.
And did it with his usual style with a lot of levity, no need to get up in arms if he criticized your favorite reality show.
His idea of having a sad music, when that old dude randomly shoots in the woods, would've been genius.
PaulBizkit
Member
I'm in
Neuromancer
Member
I would kickstart getting a new city background and perhaps a fern. The space background was terrible and the curtain isn't much better.
Bloodworth
Member
Kyle could have brought the city background and the rest. He chose the space shuttle instead.
I loved the space background.
Y'all had make noise, and now we have a red curtain, like we're in Twin Peaks or something.
I fail to see how that's a problem, like anything to do with being in Twin Peaks.
Neuromancer
Member
I am going to barrage him with a series of irate tweets. Thank you.
Exactly what I thought from the first time I saw it.
Kyle is clearly trapped in the
black lodge
BOB
