Comments on: The Sunday Papers

By: MastodonFarm

MastodonFarm — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:37:09 +0000

“In the Bloomsbury branch of Waterstone’s, I am trying to find a quiet seat to read Tacitus’s account of Seneca’s suicide when I come across something more diverting.”

Wow. Has there ever been a more pretentious opening sentence?

By: Guy Jin

Guy Jin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:28:42 +0000

@TeeJay: Aren’t levels a form of linear narrative? Personally I’m waiting for non-linear movie narratives – there’s too little player choice in the current offerings.

By: clive dunn

clive dunn — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:32:52 +0000

Ah so it’s enforced ‘walk’. I thought it was my dodgy shift key.
4.5 hours of duck shooting afaic.
Can someone mod it so all the enemy are actually ducks. I’d get a lot more out of it. Not that i’ve got anything against ducks.

By: Persus-9

Persus-9 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:22:25 +0000

I was thinking more in MMO terms. I’d say having dedicated servers was more like being able to choose what family your born into.

By: skalpadda

skalpadda — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:47:17 +0000

I’d say there’s a bit of a difference between what you choose to do or not in a giant sandbox RPG (the role-playing being a pretty big factor) and skipping a section in a linear shooter, but that’s just a point of view I suppose.

By: vagabond

vagabond — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:56:49 +0000

which is fair comment, but I’m not categorising anyone who simply said “I didn’t like that level, it made me feel ill, I’m never playing it again.” in that group. I can understand that opinion, and I’d much rather people held that than say, fired up MW2 every so often just to replay “No Russian” and mow down some civilians after a hard day at work. However there are some people who basically have said that games are “entertainment”, and that a level like that does not belong in a video game because it is not “fun”, which is not a viewpoint I can get along with because I think it holds back games from exploring and developing in worthwhile directions.

By: Psychopomp

Psychopomp — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:43:41 +0000

You can skip it in Modern Warfare, as well.

By: skalpadda

skalpadda — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:00:01 +0000

I’d say a more important difference is that you can choose not to do it if you find it distasteful.

By: TeeJay

TeeJay — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:27:56 +0000

Newsnight Review isn’t a “news” programme – it’s a bit tacked onto the end of a news progamme on Friday night, where four invited guests (highbrow cultural “lovie” types) prattle on for half an hour trying to out-pseude each other, about a selection of stuff they have been asked to review.

In this case they mainly reviewed a selection of German films relating to 1989 and argued about relationship between pop culture and politics in 1980s Berlin (etc). In three minutes at the end they blathered vaguely about MW2, and it slipped put that only one of the five people had actually played the game.

Watch it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nxbyv/Newsnight_Review_13_11_2009/

By: TeeJay

TeeJay — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:20:06 +0000

“The discussion I have little time for is what effectively boils down to “uncomfortable scene made me uncomfortable, and therefore shouldn’t exist”. There are plenty of films out there that aren’t fun to watch and I don’t hear many people saying they shouldn’t have been made.”

It is possible to say a film (or a game) is offensive / immoral / insulting / without merit etc without demanding it be banned or ‘never made’.

There are various reasons why a film (or a game) can make someone uncomfortable.

Some very lightweight examples: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6571288.ece I am sure everyone can think of more extreme examples for themselves.

By: El Stevo

El Stevo — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:12:30 +0000

“No Russian” actually really bothers me, but mainly because I hate being forced to walk in a game. The paths of the men is also heavily scripted, so that if you ever get in front of them you get shoved out of the way. Really frustrating.

By: TeeJay

TeeJay — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:07:45 +0000

Marriage isn’t necessarily religious though.

I agree however that the more a consistent argument is libertarian – government should get it’s nose out of people’s personal lives, personal religions and beliefs – and that religious people should support this as well: that a church/denomination should define for itself what “marriage” means and government should not get involved.

This isn’ a “ban” on marriage – it is privatisation / deregulation / disestablishment of marriage.