Sundays are for doing a lot of work, avoiding that lot of work with games of Champions and compiling a list of the fascinating (primarily) games related reading from across the week while resisting linking to a genuinely stunning performance.
- Games Workshop are doing a new edition of the lovely PC-game inspiring boardgame Space Hulk. Over at Downtowntime, Rab writes about Space Hulk. It’s heart-on-sleeve gaming romanticism and my favourite piece of games writing of the week.
- In the week of its console release, The Reticule interviews famous writer Paul Dini about the aims behind the writing of Arkham Asylum. What I find most interesting about it is that Dini – the veteran of animation – clearly both loves and is highly aware of what they’re doing with the tone: “It threw a lot of the restrictions out of the window… The level of intensity was a little more extreme so we were able to include everything that we wanted to whilst keeping the fantasy element intact. I’d like to think there is something in the game for angry teenager in all of us.”
- Tom Jubert is a splendid freelancer writer who you’ll probably best know for his work no Penumbra. He republishes what was an internal document - a postmortem of the development of a character.
- Adorable RPS Work Experience Lackey Phill Cameron interviews Double Bear about the forthcoming ZRPG over at Game Set Watch.
- This is a little old now – I didn’t include it last week – but the uproar over Shadow Complex and the ethics of a boycott or not is interesting to think about, if only theoretically. Christian Nutt starts the ball rolling with an overview of the situation at Gamasutra, but it only really kicks off properly in the comments thread.
- Old housemate Dan Griddleoctopus does what every PC games journalist must do. That is, write a retrospective on Planescape Torment. Also, amusingly admits he still has Alec’s copy of Planescape stolen off him, the cad. Also, it made me go back and read EG’s original Planescape Review, which is a fascinating example of a basically correct review appearing ludicrous with the benefit of of hindsight.
- It does seem like Adventure Game Studios are coming of age right now. As well as Time Gentlemen, Please, there’s been a lot of hype around Horror Adventure Downfall. Its creators are interviewed over at Hardy Developer Journal.
- An Old Indie Game Advert. Ah-ha-ha.
- GamerPaper starts it comedy games thing. Here’s its new design for a mouse. I’d buy one.
- Insult Swordfighting picks apart Game Informer seemingly to say that everyone should give reviews better scores. To be honest, what they pick up on was just a shit closing paragraph which the writer didn’t really think through, but the wider interest intrigues.
- People who multitask are bad at at it. This got me thinking about a lot of stuff. At once.
- Henry Jenkins starts republishing an eight part white paper he worked on, on the subject of Memes and Viral Marketing. I haven’t read it fully yet, so this note is as much for me and you. It strikes me as good stuff.
- Garth Ennis recalls the joys of 2000AD. Mr Gurr drags out some of the panels.
- Simon Parkin introduced me to the wonder of three frames. Join me.
- Nextwave was a splendid Marvel Comic by Warren Ellis and Stuart Immonen. It was very silly. It ran for twelve issues. In the eleventh, they started taking the piss in a virtuoso fashion, by spending half the issue as six double page spreads of glorious ludicrousness. Comics Should Be Good publishes them all. They are your new desk tops, and Nextwave is available to buy in two fine trade paperbacks. You’re welcome.
- All of RPS are what we call Freelancers. Perhaps you are too. I suspect you too will recognise yourself in my old comrade’s Miss AMP’s old list of Tips For A Successful Freelancer Lifestyle. It’s been one of those weeks, y’know?
- Tom Ewing writes about the history of Pop music in the 00s. As in, proper pop music. I suspect this is the sort of thing which a lot of you haven’t paid attention to, so well worth reading.
- Everett True brought this to my attention. Ukraine Got’s Talent’s Sand Animator winner. Brought the RPS chat-room into agreement in a way which we haven’t been since World of Goo. Startling
Failed.
Related Stories:
There are so many minuscule debates, like the one about boycotting a game, and yet there are so few debates about the big things. When did you last see a debate about the difference between the ‘village’ mentality (knowing neighbours, being part of the community, empathy for others in the community, etc) and the ‘me’ society we have developed over the last 20 years, where we hardly know neighbours, we have less or even no empathy and we blame others for everything happening in our life. Where our societies are moving to in the West is hardly talked about.
Then we have technology: Retail stores close as we buy more on the web, but where is the debate about what this means for towns and cities with boarded up high streets, and huge empty shopping malls with every window broken, etc.
Where’s the debate about the fact that technology is driving down wages, with a secretary of 30 years ago earning more in real terms than the administrator of today sitting in front of their PC. And with jobs able to move around the world because of it, with call centres in India dealing with customer service in England,
Lastly, where is the debate about the specifics of climate change, like the fact that projections say that the American midwest will have ongoing desertification, destroying the ‘food basket of the world’,while at the same time Syberia will warm turning it into fertile growing land that will become the new ;food market of the world’ and what this means for the politicization of food.
Lastly, when did you last see a debate on the web or TV or anywhere about the fact we are running out of water?!
Debates about the boycotting of a game seem very small cheese, given what we have going on with our planet and the people on it today.
invisiblejesus: Well, it depends how serious it is. In Card’s case, yeah, it is a little worrying given how seriously he treats the subject. Tolerance is a difficult line to tread, but it’s important. America is founded on the kind of rationale that says “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
So I think it’s OK to hold views that oppose democracy as long as you don’t act on them or promote others to do so – otherwise, that would be treason and thus illegal.
It’s a games blog, UK_John. Games, more than anything else, are about escapism. Why would you expect deep, meaningful debate about world-shattering civilization level problems here? That kind of discussion is terribly important, you’re entirely right, but there are many places for that and the Sunday Papers thread on Rock Paper Shotgun simply isn’t one of them.
@Gap Gen:
So I think it’s OK to hold views that oppose democracy as long as you don’t act on them or promote others to do so
Do you mean legally OK or morally OK? They’re different things, you know.
@UK_John:
There are children starving to death in Africa this very moment and yet here you are, writing comments in a PC gaming blog. For shame, sir, for shame.
I must agree. In the time that it took you to make that post, UK_John, you could have fashioned a poverty-ending donkey – or at the very least, invoked Bono.
I’m ashamed for him too.
if that’s Mil Millington, btw, I’m going to rub my monitor until the morning.
Boycotting people you disagree with is just stupid. Seriously, you don’t need to organise a campaign to shutdown and shut up anyone who says stuff you disagree with, even if you disagree with it vehemently. Rebutt him, insult him even if it makes you feel better, and then move on with your life.
I already have the Nextwave trades. And you all should, too! Therefore you must go and buy them yesterday.
Have to disagree with Peter David. I don’t have to tolerate certain beliefs/religions and so on, just like Card doesn’t have to. I don’t appreciate him signing me up to be the ‘bigger man.’ I’m not obligated to give everyone a ‘fair shake’ in regards to my personal opinion. I do so at my whim.
@novotny: I wasn’t being a smartass. I just realized after I’d written the comment that the ellipses were there and decided to comment on it first, which should have been obvious to anyone with half a sense of humor. If you’re going to be a jackass, at least be a jack, eh?
I mean you can be secure enough to just say “I think Card is bigotted and wrong and I disagree with him” or “I disagree with the CEO of Whole Food’s ideas about healthcare reform” without turning it into a fucking crusade against him personally and anyone and everything he’s ever worked with or created.
Fair point Weylund – I suspect it was me being the smartarse.
Still hate those bloody things though
Apologies.
On account of merc’s comments, I have no choice but to boycott him, his products and anyone and everything he’s ever worked with or created.
Unless he’s got a really good cereal. Something with sultanas
@invisiblejesus
I know that to ask someone to cite a source on the internet is usually something of a fight-starter, but out of real curiosity, could you tell me where “Orson Scott Card has, without irony, declared an intention to overthrow the governments of several American states”? I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I would just really like to see it. Thanks.
I think the Shadow Complex debate is a symptom of how overly sensitive we have become as a society. Some people will argue vehemently that sensitivity is a good thing, and if they want to live that way I’m not going to stop them or convince them otherwise. I think everyone has the right to act depending on their political views of course, but where do you draw the line? On the one hand you have the views of an artist who you don’t agree with and you can safely boycott their sole property. On the other hand you have properties created by literally thousands of people (movies, television shows, theatre productions, you name it) and I can guarantee you 100% that someone in there will have opinions to make your blood run cold. Do you boycott anything that they are associated with in any way, no matter how slight? If not, how many people does it take to dilute your impotent rage? How sensitive are you, really? But then today’s society is all about making oneself feel better.
Okay, this will probably get lost in the middle of all the wing-nuttery and ellipsing… but why would anybody boycott Neal Asher? Have I committed some terrible faux pas by reading “Line War”?
@ merc: the point is that in boycotting someone financially (i.e. not buying their products) you are avoiding lending support to their cause. It doesn’t have to be a ‘personal crusade’ against someone you disagree with, but simply voting with one’s dollars and making a deliberate effort to avoid indirectly financing a campaign one considers harmful or dangerous.
e.g. from what I’ve gathered, Orson Scott Card has not simply voiced his disapproval of gay marriage, but is actively running a campaign to oppose it and declare the illegitimacy of a state that allows it. So it doesn’t have to be a case of ‘fuck you, you hold a view I disagree with therefore I won’t buy your books’; rather, ‘I don’t want to lend financial support to your cause, even indirectly’.
Also, ‘boycott’ and ‘move on with your life’ are not mutually exclusive. You can participate in a boycott against a person or organisation simply by ignoring their products.
I hereby boycott transportation of the souls, hereto or otherwise considered, prior to or before the commencement of this thread, or indeed during it, and not witholding those products whose eventual production may have been inspired by, but not necessarily considered by, be that be by means created within or forthwith this thread, or without if considered to be within the emotional and or the intellectual scope, of my cat.
MD does have it right, Card chairs an organization actively lobbying against gay marriage, which is slightly different from merely dissapproving of it.
Furthermore, though it may be considered just that the above-mentioned and waftily considered jueu-de-mon requires a consideration beyond mere piffle, or Meer paffle; I ask you, couldn’t a slightly damp lady of perhaps Southington Road give a better view?
What I’m trying to say is: you’re all full of piffle.
@MD Shadow Complex is not a “cause” or a “campaign one considers harmful or dangerous”. I haven’t seen any evidence Shadow Complex itself is anti-gay marriage, and neither are it’s profits directly financing any anti-gay marriage stuff. The closest it gets is that it’s derived from the fiction of Card and Card chairs an organisation that is actively anti gay marriage. If that tenuous third hand link to campaiging against gay marriage is sufficient for you to turn Shadow Complex into a political campaign, well, hypersensitive is the word that comes to mind.
@merc: The first part of your comment seems to be based on deliberate ignorance of what I actually said. I never stated or implied that SC is a ’cause’ or ‘campaign’ — I made it pretty clear that I was referring to an ‘indirect link’. Assuming Card’s finances are in some way affected by the sales of the game, though, the link exists and is hardly rendered ‘tenuous’ by being more complicated than a direct donation to his organisation. If he benefits financially from the success of the game, and he uses some of his money (and/or time that might otherwise be spent earning money, were he to lack other sources of income) to actively campaign against gay marriage, then by purchasing the game you are indirectly supporting his campaign.
If caring about this link seems ‘hypersensitive’ to you, that’s fine. Don’t bother turning up to the next election though, as it’s pretty hypersensitive of you to care about the tiny, drop-in-the-ocean impact of your single vote out of millions. The point being that if with a tiny bit of effort, or in this case NON-effort and actually saving some money rather than spending it (i.e., boycotting this game dies not require any significant use of time, energy or money that could be better directed), people want to make what may seem a token gesture but could have practical significance if done en masse, who are you to criticize them for it? You can disagree with and criticize their ultimate aim, sure, but sniping at them for being ‘hypersensitive’ just seems lazy and unhelpful. (”You guys care about things and are willing to take collective action even though you might not end up making much of a difference, what a bunch of chumps!”)
(If you’re correct in saying that “The closest it gets is that it’s derived from the fiction of Card and Card chairs an organisation that is actively anti gay marriage.”, i.e. he has no financial interest in the success of the game, then yes, that turns the issue into more of an emotional than a logical/practical one. So if you’ve got evidence for that, please provide it. (It’ll take some pretty strong evidence to prove that buying the game doesn’t financially support him in any way, though — even if he’s been paid purely up-front rather than having a stake in the game, its success or failure will probably affect his asking price/chance of success next time he wants to sell the rights to a work.))
For the record, I’m not trying to argue that the boycott is necessarily a good idea. I haven’t looked at the issue in detail, and it’s possible that there are good reasons not to stage a boycott, even for those who oppose Card’s campaign. Those reasons aren’t the ones you’ve put forward so far, though.
The Ukrainian sand artist is incredible. 3 frames is pretty great too.
Just posting to say I thought Ender’s Game was a wonderful novel about growing up and the pain of being a smart child, and Card is full of sympathy for his fellow man and that leaks through all of his work. This coming from a social democrat and latte liberal who found “Empire” and the Bean series horribly unrealistic in their politics. SO, regardless of those views he has on homosexuals due to his upbringing, take note of how he portrays his homosexual characters and how he talks about them in real life before jumping to mad conclusions.
Oh and Dracko can suck a big one because Batman was AWESOME. We should all be thankful somebody finally got the feel of the character right, and I thought the presentation by Dini and company, if not the plot itself, were wonderfully on-mark and set the stage perfectly for a more ambitious sequel.
@MD
Yes, that is a tenous link. Let’s see: the money you pay for the game (not related to anti-SSM) will go to a company (not related to anti-SSM) who will pay some of it to someone for something (not related to anti-SSM) but that person campains against SSM. And you consider that game deserving of a boycott because it’s ‘financing’ something you disagree with.
You know, being against gay marriage is unfortunately quite common in the US, I bet you could find one person who donated money to campaigns against gay marriage in most large companies. Oh no, you might have financed them by buying a product from a company that payed them money! Boycott! Boycott!
That’s the biggest load of tenous, hypersensitive bullshit I’ve heard since, well, the Whole Foods boycott.
@Novotny: I owe you one as well, as my reply was rather more snarky than it needed to be. Using ellipses is a bad habit I’ve been trying to break. They’re so useful for indecisive people like myself, though.
“And you consider that game deserving of a boycott because it’s ‘financing’ something you disagree with. ”
I specifically said that I haven’t yet formed an opinion on whether a boycott is reasonable. Personally I won’t be doing any boycotting, and indeed won’t have a decision to make, as I was never a potential customer in the first place.
I think one key difference in our attitudes is in how big a deal something has to be before we consider a boycott reasonable. Personally I simply weigh up the ‘cost’ of boycotting vs. the estimated benefit.
In this case the estimated benefit (again, in calling it a ‘benefit’ I am assuming one is against Card’s campaign — this is about the question of whether boycotting is a logical course of action for those who want to oppose him, not whether one opposes him) is very small, but even by your logic is greater than 0.
The cost of boycotting is negative in monetary terms (money is saved), and negative in terms of time (time is freed up by not consuming the product, though this may be offset by those who choose to incite others to boycott, rather than only participating). The only significant positive cost is that the boycotter forfeits any value they would have received from the product. For most this will be pretty insignificant, but more importantly the value judgment of [personal enjoyment] vs. [(very small) contribution to (one's conception of) the public good] is one that can only be made by the individual. If they make a greater sacrifice than you would consider reasonable, that’s not necessarily a mistake on their part — it could simply be altruism, in that they place greater value on ‘the common good’ than their own narrowly-defined interests. You have no right to attack them for this. I get that you’re annoyed, you think the whole thing is a bit silly, etc. But that’s just an emotional reaction that is ultimately baseless.
(You could also argue that they are ‘hurting’ those caught in the crossfire by refusing to reward their hard work, but leaving aside the fact that those people have no inherent right to the consumer dollar, this is one way in which ‘boycotting a person’ can be effective — if people don’t want to be tarred with the same brush, they will choose not to work with the target of the boycott.)
And yeah, of course you’re not going to be able to avoid ever indirectly contributing to a cause you disagree with, at least not without letting those sorts of considerations run your life. You’ll never be able to cut your risk of being hit by a car to 0 without moving into the middle of nowhere, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look both ways when you cross the road. You’ll never be able to be completely safe from disesase without living your life in sterile isolation, but that doesn’t mean you go around kissing people with pig flu. You’ll never be able to take consumer democracy to its ideal extreme either (at least without going crazy), but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care where your money ends up. It’s all about picking the low-hanging fruit, and for some people this boycott is an example of just that.
@Novotny: I don’t know who or what Mil Millington is, and I’m not going to try to find out, in case I stop liking my nick.
@Adventurous Putty: Read some of his articles on ornery.org. Full of sympathy for his fellow man indeed.
@MD
“if people don’t want to be tarred with the same brush, they will choose not to employ the target of the boycott.”
Fixed that for you – and if think companies should be worried about vetting their employees based on whether they have political views that might get the company boycotted, then just imagine fundie Christian organisations organising boycotts against companys that employ individuals who hold pro-SSM or pro-choice views. You don’t think that there will be any harm done by that?
@merc: Boycotting products and services has brought around all kinds of changes through “tenuous” links. Look up the effects of boycotting in the U.S. on ending apartheid in South Africa. In this particular case, students at my university (University of Colorado Denver) actually joined a nationwide boycott of Coca-Cola products because of the support Coca-Cola was giving to the South African government in the late 1970s. The eventual effect was that Coca-Cola withdrew their support of the South African government under consumer pressure to do so, and in that way, helped to place pressure on the government by reducing the flow of money.
It’s how politics work in a capitalist economy–all links are tenuous, but that doesn’t make them unimportant.
@merc: I wasn’t trying to argue that boycotting is objectively good or bad, but that it is a reasonable course of action from the perspective of the individual who wants to steer the world a tiny bit closer to their preferred path. I see politically-motivated consumer action as a tool that can be used for good or ill, just like all other forms of political action and participation. I’m actually fundamentally uncomfortable with the way ‘consumer democracy’ privileges the interests of those with the most money to spend (or withhold). But I still think that it’s a rational course of action in certain circumstances.
(Also, there is a significant difference between ‘public figure with a major symbolic and financial link to product X, who actively, publicly campaigns on issue Y and seems to be a relatively significant player in that debate’ and ‘minor employee at the company making X, who happens to hold an opinion on issue Y, and may or may not be politically active’)
Mil: Well, I’m not sure about the ethics of belief. Again, if someone believes something objectionable that has no ill effect on others, presumably that’s OK (and in Card’s case, his whole intent is to affect others, presumably either because he views certain rites as sacred or because he is an intolerant person, but this isn’t strictly what I’m talking about here). I know someone who believes/believed in the divine right of kings, which is openly undemocratic, but I get on with him fine.
Legally, of course you’re allowed to believe what you like – the law doesn’t legislate thought, as long as it doesn’t translate itself into an action that constitutes a crime.
Mil: Mil Millington is a genius.
KG
@neems: Read his blog. Last time I looked, he came across as the kind of guy who’d happily write fuming editorials for the Daily Mail about how wooly socialists were destroying Great Britain by accusing People Who Worked Hard And Thus Deserve to Have Money of causing Global Warming (when actually it’s a socialist conspiracy).
KG
You would say that.
“Problematically, I was due to leave for Germany the next day, which rather inhibited my investing in a bandana and storming into the MoS’s offices with a heavy machine gun spraying lead justice. So, I contacted my chum J Nash. Truly, he is a man to have around in a crisis. In fact, you can usually contact J Nash anyway and he’ll bring his own crisis. We decided to draw the matter to the attention of The Panel.
Many of us on The Panel have worked together at some point, but that’s incidental. It exists as a fluid email group devoted to pessimism, dangerous gossip and, on Tuesdays, the destabilisation of various nation states. Its members include NTK’s Dave Green, Cam Winstanley (a former special effects technician, now of Total Film, who once advised me about dealing with a persistent burglary problem I was having with detailed instructions on how to make and lay homemade landmines), bed-hopping PC Gamer writer (and sometimes sinister The Register informer) Kieron Gillen and The Reverend Stuart Campbell, who kills people. “
What can I say? I befriend geniuses on principle.
KG