The Sunday Papers

Sundays are for submerging oneself in science, art, history, and custard. They are for slouching, sleeping, bristling, and cogitating. They are for smoking a pipe and sitting by the hearth. They are running, fighting, and doing a forward roll. Any Sunday might contain victory, cake, or nudity. They are for many things. Most of all, however, they are for listening to loud computer music while eating warm flapjack and compiling a list of games writing that may or may not engage the multitudinous minds of an internet blog readership. Thus:

  • That Simon Parkin chap talked to that Jon Blow chap, and there was a written record of the event. There’s talk of Blow’s new game, The Witness, which is a 3D adventure of some cleverness. Mr Blow explains: “So I just said, “You know what? It’s risky, it’s gonna take a long time to make this game, it’s gonna be very difficult to make it as compelling as a traditional game is because it’s so weird, but it’s what I really want to do.” So I did that.” He knows what to do, that Jon Blow.
  • I feel like I’ve read this before, but sadly the computerised library part of my brain hasn’t been installed/invented yet, so I can’t be sure. Anyway, it’s excellent reading: Understanding Pac-Man Ghost Behavior. I like this bit: “The red ghost starts outside of the ghost house, and is usually the first one to be seen as a threat, since he makes a beeline for Pac-Man almost immediately. He is referred to as “Blinky”, and the game describes his personality as shadow. In Japanese, his personality is referred to as 追いかけ, oikake, which translates as “pursuer” or “chaser”.” Yeah. Me and the red ghost could be brothers.
  • Chris Thursten takes some time to consider the Super Meat Boy / PETA stuff. Here’s something he says: “What is a death to a Meat Boy? Something owned and discarded in a moment. The player can’t fully ignore all that death (never less so than at the conclusion of World 4) but ultimately remains The Meat Boy That Made It, in the best of all possible worlds. Super Meat Boy can even be about rising above suffering, if you want it to be: we are, all of us, The Meat Boy That Made It.”
  • Julian Widdows is a clever chap. He’s suggested a rule for game developers.
  • Here’s a comment by Edward Hong on the perceived Xenophobia of America-invading Homefront. He’s worried about the anti-Korean imagery it uses. “People may brush this aside and say that I’m being too negative and pessimistic over a game. Relax, they say, it’s just a video game. But in this day and age, you cannot underestimate the influence of video games and, more importantly, the power of human stupidity. Media depictions of minorities, especially violent ones, often paved way to hate crimes as people are unable to differentiate between fiction and reality. If the media says so, then it must be true.” Hmm. Well, the premise of Homefront (Korea invading the US) is so clearly absurd that it really can’t be taken too seriously. But then again… he’s right: people are really stupid.
  • Related: The Abstraction discusses the possible dangers of our thinking about the world via the abstractions present in games and film.
  • Ellen Ripley Saved My Life.” There’s a bit more to it than that, of course.
  • Media errors and corrections of the year.
  • Here is some political commentary. A key bit: “Cutting spending to pay the debts of WW1 caused the great depression. Building the welfare state allowed us to build our way out of the debts left by WW2.” Still believe we need to cut everything to save us from apocalypse? Or could there be something else going on?
  • Also political: our mod correspondent Lewis Denby won at the funny on Twitter.
  • Bah. Quintin, Lewie P, and Kieron are off at ATP. They’ll be able to see the music I linked to last week. I am going to link to something they won’t be able to see, because I saw it last weekend. Three, glorious times. Fuck. Yeah.


  1. KBKarma says:

    Oh cool. I’ve been meaning to give Godspeed You! Black Emperor a listen. They sound pretty much right up my narrow, dark little alley. Thanks!

    • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

      Godspeed are amazing. I’m really glad they got back together for this ATP tour, as it meant I got the opportunity to see them play last week in Glasgow.

    • KBKarma says:

      Awesome. I’ve been on something of a post-rock binge recently. I love Mono and Rest, and was recently persuaded by my brother to listen to some Mogwai and Explosions in the Sky. My English teacher six years ago had a Godspeed poster up in his classroom, alongside a Grateful Dead poster and some posters for various productions of Shakespeare plays.

    • Heliosicle says:

      EitS and Mogwai are both good, will give Mono and Rest a listen.

    • StenL says:

      I saw them in Dublin on Friday. They are truly excellent live, although they played too much off Yanqui and not a single song from F♯A♯∞.

    • KBKarma says:

      @Heliosicle Rest are an Irish post-rock group. They’ve still not released their second album, but their first, Burning in Water, Drowning in Flame, is still available somewhere.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      You should also check out If These Trees Could Talk, Red Sparrowes, Maybeshewill, God is an Astronaut and Russian Circles.

      Also, I now hate Jim forever for getting to see GYBE!.

    • Squirrelfanatic says:

      Moya is so good. :D

    • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

      I’ll sidetrack briefly to plug one of my favourite postrock bands, who seem to be very little known: Laura. Their second album, Radio Swan is Down is particularly excellent.

    • gerafin says:

      I second Russian Circles. Their album ‘Geneva” is dark, heavy, and near-perfect.

    • Neut says:

      Long as we’re listing bands, Jakob are very good.

  2. Moni says:

    RE: Julian Widdows’s Rule #1.

    I’ve always tried to abide to this rule as a commenter. I love games, even the terrible ones; they’re like a child with an over-bite or a few extra fingers. I think simply calling games shit can only turn people away from games, and I just want to turn people on to games.

    • Lambchops says:

      Likewise, although sometimes i just can’t manage it (I’m looking at you Will Rock!).

    • Gary W says:

      But 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand was shit. The controls were just terrible, I hated it so much I put it down after an hour. I’m never playing one of Julian Widdows’ games again.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Yeah I agree. I played it after it was recommended by a friend, who thought it was hilarious. But I didn’t enjoy it at all. Everything about it was pretty horrible. Though I don’t think anyone who enjoyed it really enjoyed it. It’s one of those, so bad it’s good, games.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      Quite a few interviews & articles credit him as “Director” of 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand & he has the chutzpah to post something like that.

      Fair play for having the cojones but it really casts the whole thing in a different light once you know what he’s created previously.

  3. Sigma Draconis says:

    RE: Understanding Pac-Man Ghost Behavior

    Interesting look into the mechanics for arcade game that’s long been considered simple by most. Now I have to see how much of these mechanics and ghost behavior was retained for Pac-Man Championship Edition DX.

  4. Mil says:

    Media depictions of minorities, especially violent ones, often paved way to hate crimes as people are unable to differentiate between fiction and reality.
    [citation needed]

    I understand finding a work of fiction distasteful and not wanting to get involved with it. No need to frame it as if you’re helping to save society.

    • Delusibeta says:

      “as people are unable to differentiate between fiction and reality.”

      Sounds suspiciously similar to California’s arguments for their law, albeit applied to all people. I recall hearing of some research that said children as young as three are able to differentiate fiction and reality.

      Not that I’m ignoring his general point, just that specific quote seems a bit disingenuous to me.

    • bob_d says:

      The problem is that we live in media mediated societies (e.g. perceptions of whether crime rates are going up or down is based on the amount of media coverage, which is often inversely related to the actual trends; i.e. crime can be reduced and people think it’s going up because of increased media attention). I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had on subjects where it became clear that the person I was talking to was informed on the subject in question entirely through fiction.

      Various studies have shown that even though people are able to consciously distinguish fiction from reality, they’re still influenced by the fiction as if it were real in many ways. These studies run the spectrum, from showing the beliefs about the world that people commonly hold that come entirely from fiction, to how people can not only be convinced that something they were only exposed to in (acknowledged) fiction actually happened, but that they remember it happening. Fiction, by its very nature, must be convincing on some level to be compelling as fiction; we wouldn’t care about it otherwise. This is not an argument for censorship, however, as even if fiction was simple “brainwashing” then to censor one type of fiction is only to eliminate brainwashing into one particular worldview. Instead it’s actually an argument for more careful examination of how we construct our worldviews, and for more nuanced discussions about fiction and reality.

    • Mil says:

      I would be curious to see those studies you refer to. Both out of interest and because, no offence, but I’ve also found plenty of people basing their opinions on flawed or misinterpreted studies.

      And that doesn’t detract from the fact that Hong’s claims are pure hyperbole: he said that “people are unable to differentiate between fiction and reality” and that “Media depictions of minorities, especially violent ones, often paved the way to hate crimes”. Those are simply not true.

    • bob_d says:

      @Mil: Unfortunately I haven’t compiled a bibliography. (Oh, how often I wish all my readings were automatically entered into databases so I could pull out all relevant articles at the drop of a hat!) I studied film as an undergraduate and studied other mediums as a grad student some years ago, and I’m now a game developer. Which is to say: this sort of research has always been of particular interest to me; there’s a whole body of study about how people process fictions that’s quite surprising and complex. To say either that “people know the difference between fiction and reality” or “people don’t know the difference between fiction and reality” is untrue and, in the first case, naive.
      As for “media depictions of minorities, especially violent ones, often paved the way to hate crimes,” it’s hyperbolic, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t fundamentally true. I’m sure there have been some studies on that, too*, though I’m not familiar with them, but anecdotally I can think of people who pestered me with their strange, hateful notions of particular ethnic groups/religions that they knew only through works of fiction.
      *And, doing a quick google search, apparently there have been media studies looking at exactly those issues going back a century that indicate exactly that: link to

  5. Lewis Denby says:

    I’ll be crippled with guilt if I don’t admit someone told me that joke.

    • Jack says:


      You should give back the funny. All of it.

    • DJ Phantoon says:

      Mmm, no, I’d rather have been able to take part in the funny than have been denied it because it wasn’t an original joke.

      It’s not like Louie here (is there another name to shorten Lewis but still have it be the same number of letters?) is going to go all Dane Cook on us.

      At least, maybe. Probably not. Damnit man, do not do that.

    • Paul B says:

      Frankly, I’d have never heard that great joke, if it hadn’t been retweeted and then reposted on RPS, so I for one don’t care that it’s not a Denby original.

    • Deoden says:

      I can’t access Twitter where I live, so could someone be kind enough to copy and paste this amazing joke into a reply here?

  6. l1ddl3monkey says:

    The UK Uncut article is refferring in fairly simplistic terms to Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” wherein governments use (or cause) upheaval and destabilisation as way of pushing through radical chages, almost always radical economic changes in favour of private industry.

    • l1ddl3monkey says:

      And then I read it again to be sure and noted that it actually mentions exactly this in a paragraph I somehow missed the first time around. It’s Christmas party season and I have a bad hangover…

  7. Bob Arctor says:

    I don’t appreciate a left wing politics blog being posted on RPS. A dispassionate look at the figures behind the economy would be interesting and useful, but that was more of a socialist tirade and not really appropriate for a PC gaming blog.

    • Auspex says:

      I don’t think /you’re/ really appropriate for a PC gaming blog!

      (Also Sunday Papers has always operated under different rules: it’s the Wild West of RPS (I may have just typed that because, rhythmically, it is a fun thing to say))

    • Auspex says:

      (Being less of a dick)

      I do agree in that I would enjoy some extrapolation on “If the mega-rich who caused this crisis paid the same level of tax as you and me, we wouldn’t have a deficit.”

      Can anybody link to something that explains this and actually backs it up with stats/facts? Would be much appreciated.

    • Paul B says:

      @Bob – Yes, I now hope that RPS post an article from a right-wing politics journal next week on Sunday Papers, in the interests of balance ;)

    • Kandon Arc says:

      I don’t have the facts on that, but I would suspect that the rich could help out a lot more with the deficit than they are; but getting money out of the the most internationally mobile group in society is far easier said than done. A bankers tax or tax on the rich is far more likely to make them move than pay more money. HSBC, StanChart and Barclays are all seriously considering relocation anyway, trying to get more money out of them would probably be enough to convince them.

    • Mattressi says:

      I don’t get that quote about the “mega-rich” not paying the same level of tax either. I’m from Australia, so maybe I’ve missed something about UK taxation, but surely the “mega-rich” aren’t paying a lower tax percentage than everyone else? If the argument is that they should pay a higher percentage, I’d have to ask why they should be contributing more of what they’ve earned (essentially they give a greater amount of their time and effort) than everyone else?

      Then again, reading lines like “ordinary people fighting…to win a fair share of our country’s wealth and power” makes it seem pretty friggin’ obvious that this wanker thinks someone else’s money should be his simply because they live in the same country. How is taking any amount of money from someone that has rightfully earned it counted as a “fair share”?? Fair is when you earn it your-bloody-self!

      Frankly, I really don’t like mixing politics with my gaming. When it’s politics regarding gaming, that’s fine, but when it’s a bunch of socialists making straw man arguments and a bunch of fascists retorting with some more straw man arguments, it really makes me just want to leave. It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s likely this post will go that way.

    • Auspex says:

      I think it’s fair to share what you have. I’m happy to contribute my earnings to the young who cannot afford to continue their education or the old who cannot afford to heat their homes. That attitude that the fact that these people cannot afford these things is their own fault or (even worse) just tough luck is that of the borderline sociopath or the utterly selfish. We should be delighted to share what we have not see it as some great affront.

    • Mattressi says:

      I too am happy to give to those in need. I actually regularly donate to charity. However, I am not happy when taxpayer money is taken to encourage single mothers to continue giving birth to children who will grow up learning that the best way to live is to take tax payer money by having more kids. It is an endless cycle of encouraging laziness and entitlement.

      I do not trust the government to decide who ‘deserves’ money and who does not; otherwise they can very easily decide that the majority of voters ‘deserve’ the money, while the minority pays their way.

    • Paul says:

      Auspex – there is a difference between voluntarily, peacefully sharing, and coerced sharing through using violence of the government.I am all for the former and 100% against the latter, personally.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      The awesome thing about owning a website is that you can post whatever you want on it.

    • Lambchops says:

      We’re veering perilously close to a “deserving vs undeserving poor” type argument here. Surely no one wants to trawl over that tired old ground do they?

    • Michael says:

      The bad thing about owning a website is that the Internet is full of libertarians.

    • Auspex says:

      Sorry I have no idea what “coerced sharing through using violence of the government” means. Could you explain it please and then I can decide if I disagree (I think I might disagree).

    • Dr. Derek Doctors, DFA says:

      @Auspex — It’s anti-taxation invective. Or, as Ayn Rand put it, “Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as … wait, what happened to my roads, electric grid, military, schools and water/wastewater infrastructure?”

    • alantwelve says:

      Yes, I think it’s important to note, whenever possible, that Ayn Rand was completely fucking mad.

    • dadioflex says:

      I watched that trillion pound horror story on C4 about a month ago and it was pretty scary.

      We got into this problem due to spending like crazy, both as individuals and the government. I’m not sure a measured response to the economic collapse that had happened due to runaway spending would be.. more spending. Let’s spend our way out of this debt nightmare…. just doesn’t have the right ring to it.

      The public sector is too big so either they reduce it or they need to expand the private sector by encouraging R&D and manufacturing. At this stage it’s probably a lot easier to cut the public sector – and even all those cuts are only going to reduce the deficit, ie slow down the rate at which public debt is growing, it isn’t going to magically mean the government will be able to stop borrowing. The only way to do that is to make things that people want, or provide services that people want. The financial sector in the UK became a massive part of GDP and all these attacks on it, rightly or wrongly, is actually taking one of the few things that was making a nett income for the country and trying to shut it down or legislate it to hell.

      Split the banks so the risky investment stuff is completely separate from the ordinary savings accounts and let the investment banks do their thing but don’t offer them a safety net. But that’ll need European consensus, which is an oxymoron.

      I really want to see them do more to encourage industry so people can have jobs to go to and we’ll actually have something to positively affect our balance of trade and a tax pool to actually pay for the expansive social services we’ve grown accustomed to.

      I’m not especially optimistic though.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      @Paul B

      I now hope that RPS post an article from a right-wing politics journal next week on Sunday Papers, in the interests of balance

      But they post articles from the Daily Mail all the time!

    • Matt W says:

      Reasons why the Economy editorial struck me as disingenous:

      “I’ve tried explaining that the Treasury’s debt really isn’t that big: it was bigger for most of the 20th century, and, compared to the size of our economy, is one of the lowest on earth.”

      – This seems like it’s inviting people to conflate debt with deficit.

      “I’ve tried to explain that most of the debt is owed to people in the UK: our pension funds buy government bonds. If, as the Tories predict, borrowing did get more expensive, that would just mean that Britain’s pension funds would get fatter – money the Treasury could tax back.”

      – If the money spent on borrowing was all clawed back in taxes, there’d be no incentive to lend, and pension schemes would not work. This not being the case, it seems fair to assume that more expensive borrowing will indeed be more expensive.

      “I’ve tried pointing out that the borrowing isn’t getting more expensive, but cheaper.”

      – Is this state of affairs likely to obtain for the next five years? Criticising a five-year borrowing plan based solely on today’s borrowing costs seems unwise.

      “And I’ve tried explaining the multiplier effect. The way out of a recession is to invest in jobs.”

      – I was under the impression that the UK exited its recession at the beginning of the year? Unless it lapsed back again since then, this is meaningless in the current circumstances.

      “And I’ve tried explaining that public services aren’t a cost to the economy but an investment in the civilisation which makes our economy possible. If we don’t invest in them now, we make our future economy less prosperous, and this will cost far more than our record cheap, very low debt.”

      – This seems to assume that all public spending is an efficient investment, which I would regard as a shaky assumption.

      The argument the author is trying to point at may well be completely sound, but he’s not making an argument in this text, he’s just deploying rhetoric.

    • Paul says:

      Dr. Derek Doctors, DFA – if there is a demand for all those things you listed, then people will realize it and offer those services voluntarily. I doubt that without state nobody would think of building schools etc.
      I mean, you like food, right? You consider it pretty essential to human life. And yet food is (mostly) offered through free markets, not through state. My country actually lived through 40 years of 90% socialism – it was really not nice to wait two months to buy bananas when few hundred kilometers to west, in western germany, you could go into a shop and pick up hundreds of different kinds of fruit and just about everything.
      If people can voluntarily on free markets offer food, clothing, computers, TVs, iPods and millions of other things, there is no reason why they could no also offer schools, roads and all the other things currently monopolized by the state through threat of violence.

    • qrter says:

      Bob Arctor has the final word on what is appropriate for a PC games blog, apparently. I bet RPS wishes they had known about this arbiter before. For shame, RPS.

    • bildo says:

      lol unemployment is never the cause of an economic crisis. Unemployment is the result of changing variables in the economy. Spending more of the tax payers money to create jobs which are paid by the government is silly. It didn’t work for the Americans in during the Great Depression () Bottom line, deficit spending is rarely a good thing when done excessively.

    • Babs says:

      ‘I’ve pointed out that we tried this all before. Cutting spending to pay the debts of WW1 caused the great depression. Building the welfare state allowed us to build our way out of the debts left by WW2.’

      That is the most moronic thing I’ve read in some time. This statement clearly illustrates that the writer either has an extremely tenous crasp on history or that he is incapable of evaluating it without twisting it to support his politics. It makes it difficult to take anything else he says seriously, especially since it reads like a left-wing Daily Mail – all rhetoric, hand-weaving and assertions of correctness with zero data or nuance.

      All I’ve heard from the Left about the cuts is that there shouldn’t be any, without any answer to where the hell the money should come from to pay for it all. For the last 10 years New Labour engaged in an enormous money give-away that the country simply cannot afford. You can argue against the scale of the cutrs, or the timing, or where they are aimed. To argue that no cuts are necessary and that spending should actually be increased marks you as a bit of an idiot. Nobody but the Unions want a return to the 70s.

  8. Paul says:

    That political article is 100% factually wrong hatespeech.

    • Robin says:

      Oh no, someone’s victimising poor little George Osbourne?

      Away with you.

    • Paul says:

      I don’t give a shit about Osbourne. I meant the economics as talked about in the article being wrong. Sorry for the confusion.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I’m not sure it’s 100% anything, but it’s an interesting response to the standard explanation of why such heavy cuts are “required”.

    • Xercies says:

      I don’t think it is, common sense says that if you spend money on jobs your going to get more money in the future. And if you cut people out that are spending the most(because you know the public sector is the ones spending the most at the moment in this country) your going to get an even more situation then you do now.

    • Paul says:

      There is a difference between jobs that create wealth and jobs that consume wealth. Sure, we can all get a jobs by digging holes and filling them, but it won’t make us richer. Jobs that are productive are those that are done voluntarily on the market. Jobs provided by government consume more resources than they produce, hence the huge national debt of almost every western state. Didn’t anyone see Yes, Prime Minister ? : )
      Besides, the crisis was mostly caused by english FED in collusion with banks. Most of the other rich people (those getting their wealth peacefully) have nothing to do with it.

    • ripping says:

      Don’t really want to get into an exchange with a zealot but

      Jobs provided by government consume more resources than they produce

      isn’t a general rule, and misses the point of deficit spending which is to generate economic activity where private capital, whether through caution or small scale, ain’t up to it.

      Bizarrely. the 19th century is a utopia for some.

    • Xercies says:

      @ Paul

      I think you don’t truly know what public sector people actually boost the private sector workers. just talking to my dad yesterday made me realise that public sector workers are probably one of the most important down to the ground level. Just for an example, a simple catering company for all the meetings they have gets most of their money from the public sectors meetings, once the public sector decided not to use them they basically ran through the ground. Same with Temp agencies, same with the restaurant down the end of the road to the council.

      Not just that Public sector people earn a lot more money then the usual workers(almost 10-20 grand on average) which means there buying the expensive stuff at the shops, there going on the tourist holidays to the cities.

      Britains only trade at the moment is Public Sector and when that goes basically we are in shit street,

    • Tetragrammaton says:

      Britains only trade at the moment is Public Sector and when that goes basically we are in shit street,

      What an extraordinary statement.

    • Frakka says:

      What Xercies said.

      People employed by the government (even if they’re employed to dig holes) are paid money which they can use to buy things. Public sector employees thus help create a demand for goods and services that keeps other companies afloat.

      It probably doen’t create wealth, but it makes things better then it otherwise would have been.

      The Conservatives seem to take on faith that if they cut the public sector, the private sector will eventually expand to fill the gap. My knowledge of economics isn’t good enough to say that it won’t, but the idea seems at the least ideological and badly thought out.

      While some level of cuts might be neccessary, the extent to which the Conservatives are making them seems more about carrying out their long held plans under the cover of ‘We’re all in this together’. Considering some actual economists are criticising what the Conservatives are doing, they hardly come across as trust-worthy either.

      Incidently, I think that UK Uncut is about making sure that people like Philip Green pay the tax that they avoid paying through loopholes rather then simply gouging more money out of the rich.

      Apologies for the rant. I don’t usually post and this makes me angry.

  9. Clockwork Peanut says:

    Not too impressed by the first political commentary, while he makes some apt comments (such as why it is wrong that the Tories compare the national economy to a household) the whole first half is based on ridiculing the economics behind the coalitions policies.
    However, if the author is as educated as he sounds he should know that there isn’t such thing as right economic policy – many opposing solutions have been proved to work and those same solutions have have also failed on innumerable occasions.

    Overall he is selective in both his use of economics (“The idea that you solve a deficit caused by unemployment by cutting jobs is economically illiterate” strikes itself as being particularly simplified) and of history.
    Apparently “the history of Britain is a history of ordinary people fighting the Tories to win a fair share of our country’s wealth and power”, if that is so how would they ever get elected? Clearly ordinary people make up the majority of the population, so whether he wants to admit it or not, there must be more to the Conservative party than simply protecting elites.

    • Auspex says:

      Ah but is there such a thing as a /wrong/ economic policy? Which is what I understand the article to be saying.

      (Genuine question)

    • Jack says:

      Presumably there are economic policies that make you fork-lifts full of money, and economic policies that reduce your pockets to smoking abysses of nothingness, so- Yes?

    • Clockwork Peanut says:

      hard question.

      depends how we define wrong i guess. i suppose there may be such thing as a wrong economic policy in terms of it simply going against any ilk of economic theory, but examples of this are few and far between… Zimbabwe comes to mind.

      I guess otherwise it is one’s objectives that determine what is economically /wrong/ – redistribution and full employment seems to be the objective of this author. The problem is that he alludes to some sort of universal economic wrong – this simply doesn’t exist.

      At the end of the day, economic policy always benefits and detriments different sections of society in a variety of ways. Tory cuts are certainly to the detriment of public sector workers, but it is unclear how this affect the remaining population and what position this will leave us in future. I’m not gonna pretend I know, I just that the people more knowledgeable than myself are not in consensus.

    • Jim Rossignol says:


      “the history of Britain is a history of ordinary people fighting the Tories to win a fair share of our country’s wealth and power”

      Should read

      “the history of Britain is a history of ordinary voting against their own interests and not understanding what it would mean to win a fair share of our country’s wealth and power”

      Also, I read that article to be saying that the cuts are as much about what the Tories believe to be *politically* correct, as economically correct. And that seems an important point to make when the government has such a tenuous grasp on power, and is making such radical changes.

    • Clockwork Peanut says:

      @ Jack

      not that simple though, is growth our objective, or an even distribution of income?
      is boom and bust ok so long as we do better off in the long run?
      it all depends on what we prioritise, and what other factors we are concerned with.
      for example recently it has become standard to balance costs to the environment against pure wealth creation.

    • Paul B says:

      @Clockwork Peanut – “if that is so how would they ever get elected?”

      Maybe one of the reasons is that lefties have two parties to choose from (and to have their vote split over) while those right of centre only have the Conservatives.

      Interesting to note that ~15.4 million people voted for left of center parties in the 2010 elections, while the Tories picked up ~10.7 million votes (link). That’s how they’re able to get into power.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Well, votes for Lib Dems basically being converted into votes for the Conservatives helped, too.

    • Xercies says:

      Also our system doesn’t work in the way that more votes mean more power since Labour only lost a few and Lib Dems only gained a few despite the voting being wildly different.

    • Arathain says:

      “…there isn’t such thing as right economic policy – many opposing solutions have been proved to work and those same solutions have have also failed on innumerable occasions.”

      I’m fairly impressed, Clockwork Peanut. This seems to me to be a fundamental truth of… a lot. Economics, politics, game design, literary interpretation. There are certainly wrong answers and solutions, but there are also multiple possible ‘right’ ones, and it’s not obvious which is best in a complex system. Indeed, different folks will have different ideas of ‘best’, having different objectives.

      Keynes can be right (recessions require hefty stimulating deficit spending to restart the economy and thus the multiplier effect, and cost control can wait until unemployment is down again). The austerity folks can also be right (deficit control can being about a healthier, sturdier state that acts more efficiently and rationally, thus doing more with less, and reassuring the markets thus keeping borrowing cheap and encouraging necessary investment). You can’t do both (no really, US Government, you really should pick one), but maybe doing one of them well enough can make a difference.

      Whatever you do, it’s far more important that you do it well. There’s a rule for game design.

      That said, I’m inclined to think that recent-ish history supports Keynes a little better, and that plan has the advantage of not laying off a lot of people in a recession and cutting the benefits they rely on. I like governments not doing more than they can do usefully and efficiently and all that, but I think more important that a society takes care of its weakest or unluckiest members, you know?

    • Auspex says:

      “15.4 million people voted for left of center parties in the 2010 elections”

      Did they? Political Compass suggests that they did not (though perhaps unknowingly).

      link to

    • Clockwork Peanut says:

      @ jim
      well personally I’m not as pessimistic about people not understanding what is in their interest.
      maybe people don’t agree with what a fair share of wealth and power is, or maybe relative equality is not a primary concern to them. it would certainly explain Labour’s shift to the right in 1997. or maybe they do share this notion fairness, but are balancing it against other factors?

      either way I’d give voters more credit, there are plenty of ways in which the conservatives promote the peoples interests, plenty of ways in which labour does the same and large amounts of overlap (directed towards the middle classes) to top it off.

      to me politics and economics are quite undividable, no I don’t find it surprising that cuts are the tories solution to the nations issues where investment was labours solution, both of these are grounded in economic theory as well as ideology. as for their tenuous grasp of power, well such is British politics I’m afraid until we decide to alter it (fingers crossed).

    • Tom Camfield says:

      @ Jim

      “the history of Britain is a history of ordinary voting against their own interests and not understanding what it would mean to win a fair share of our country’s wealth and power”

      As my buddy Ed said to me: “It seems to me that an appeal to self-interest can be used to justify pretty much anything you want – depending on how you define it”.

      Also: the top two happiest countries are Norway (socialist) and Switzerland (capitalist), the best educated are Korea (capitalist) and Finland (socialist), the healthiest are Iceland (capitalist) and Sweden (socialist) … and so on. So I expect self-interest can be served through either system…

    • dadioflex says:

      “the history of Britain is a history of ordinary voting against their own interests and not understanding what it would mean to win a fair share of our country’s wealth and power”

      The people don’t win anything. The politicians win, either way. Our political system tends to involve sweeping the last ragged bunch of wasters from office, to be replaced with our fresh new overlords upon whom our hearts’ desires are placed. We then give them four or eight or twelve years to gradually be ground down by public opinion until we’re so disgusted with them that we sweep them from office and get the original lot of wasters back in.

      The coalition will probably just ensure that the sweeping happens a lot quicker this time and likely before a full term.

      Also, note, most of the increase in wealth disparity occurred under New Labour’s stewardship. I’m a capitalist but I think it’s pretty disgusting the amount of money CEOs award themselves when viewed as a multiple of what the lowest paid in their companies are earning. The bulk of that increase happened while Blair was in charge.

      “What has actually happened is that investors have decided that they don’t want to risk buying shares in companies which might collapse, and so they have rushed to buy government bonds. As a result, borrowing is cheaper than it’s almost ever been. The reason they gave for cutting has evaporated. They were just plain and simple wrong.”

      I actually went and read the article. Holy cow, it really is amateur hour. While it’s true the bond market has been delightful for the last couple of years, over the last couple of months I’ve noticed a definite shift back towards stocks. The bond market never really drops radically but interest rates are inevitably going to have to increase for them to remain attractive.

      “The way out of a recession is to invest in jobs. Once you’ve created a job, that person buys stuff and pays taxes.”

      But not public sector jobs. The government takes money from the private sector in taxes, it also obviously takes money from public sector employees but that’s just clawing back some of the money taken from the private sector. Remember the government has no money of its own, only what it borrows and raises in taxes. So taxes on public sector employees are effectively just re-circulating private sector tax money. Creating public sector jobs just digs you deeper into the hole. And then there are the private sector jobs like hair-dressers and dog-walkers, tax accountants and games journalists that create no actual product. They are paying taxes, but their services are increasingly being paid for by public sector workers, as the public sector expands, so in effect a significant proportion of jobs are actually funded with more of that re-circulating private sector money. And of course the real problem is that borrowing was being used to fill in the ever increasing gap between what was raised in private sector tax and being paid out into the public sector.

  10. Napalm Sushi says:

    When I first read the premise of Homefront, I guffawed.

    My grin quickly faded as I recalled this video:

    link to

    Fast forward to 1:30 and prepare to lose all trace of hope for civilisation.

  11. PlayOm says:

    I don’t like the ‘people are stupid’ sting to Hong’s Homefront piece but he’s perfectly correct in that that ad was abhorrent. Fair play to him for actually taking a stand on it even if it put him out of pocket. The media is not influential because ‘people are stupid’ or “unable to differentiate between fiction and reality”; its influential because it simply so prevalent and plays such a major role in shaping the narratives through which we view society

    Also appreciated the piece on Gideon Osborne’s planned cuts. Painful is one thing – unnecessary is quite another

  12. zoombapup says:

    Doesnt the homefront game say more about american psychology than it does about korean? I mean, ok, so americans might get more xenophobic because of it (though thats probably not a huge shift), but at least it will reinforce the view of the rest of the world that america is indeed completely xenophobic and should be treated as a country with a form of mental illness.

    I see homefront less as a commentary on the particular scenario and more as a commentary on the psychology of the creators and publishers of it. Why america? why korea? because americans only care enough about americans? Because they are looking for someone to hate and korea fits the bill?

    Its just the AAA mentality writ large.

    • Binho says:

      Wow zoombapup, that is probably one of the most ignorant and insulting comments I’ve ever read.

      A country with a mental illness? Seriously? As much as all us middle-class european’s like to think we are so much better than Americans, I can assure we are just as ignorant, self-centered and xenophobic.

      America get a lot of flak because it is such a powerful and influential state, and for some reason we beleive they should somehow be a big shining beacon of morality and perfection – Not that any world power ever has been. Sometimes I think we like insulting them to cover up our own shortcomings.

      The UK, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, etc. all those nations have similar problems, sometimes even worse.

      People aren’t perfect, and nations are just big conglomerations of people organized and ruled by other people.

      So let’s please stop with all this “only the USA is crap and ignorant”, it’s just ignorant, racist, self-serving bullcrap.

    • Xercies says:

      If you want a country with real problems with Xenophobia at the moment you should look at Belgium and other western Europe nations. There have been a big rise of BNP style parties at the moment.

    • dadioflex says:

      The irony is that Korea, like a lot of Asian countries, is pretty xenophobic in its own right.

      Homefront looks cool as fuck though. And when I am gunning down those North Korean soldiers I will not be looking at the colour of their skin, I will be staring down the whites of their eyes as we meet on the field of valour, enemies divided in our goals, but united in our devotion to our respective causes.

  13. Jakkar says:

    Cannae wait, Jim, til I’ve reached some degree of respect with the world – when I make a sweeping, generalised statement like ‘people are really stupid’ I get lynched.

    The writer has a perfectly valid point. I’d really rather see some more creative, near-future fiction depict an interesting, unexpected antagonist, rather than simply grabbing the current scariest little nation with the weakest grip on reality.

    I loved Deus Ex’s use of the NSF – an initial primary antagonist on US soil who are all.. American rebellious militia o.O

  14. Kandon Arc says:

    That political commentator would be better served paying attention to current affairs in Europe rather than trying to infer things from looking at the completely different situation of the late 1940s. He could also do with looking at the rather healthy figures from the OBR report of Nov 29th that stated the unemployment had fallen to levels not expected to be reached until mid-2012 and that slow steady growth (around 2.1%) was expected. I also wish people would stop talking about world-renowned economists in their arguments though; any conceivable economic policy these days will have the backing of several, merely because there are so many now.

  15. Robin says:

    Re slagging other people’s games off: critical honesty is important. I wouldn’t go out of my way to rubbish a game, but I don’t think anyone is well served by giving games that don’t deliver an easy critical ride (which does frequently happen, for various reasons). People are emotive creatures, so it’s unrealistic to expect that that’s not going to colour their casual opinions.

    90% of everything is shit. Historically, there are many cases where significant progress has been made in games by one person or team realising that for a given problem, all previous attempts have been poorly thought out and flawed in some obvious way. Recognising this is the first step towards fixing it.

  16. Inglourious Badger says:

    Re: We are all the Meat Boy that Made It:

    My girlfriend’s sole comment on the game when I proudly showed her a replay of a completed level with 30 odd Meat Boys leaping, falling and mostly exploding on their way through to bandage girl was “Eurgh, they look like sperm trying to reach the egg” which I thought was actually quite a brilliant translation of events, and would tie in nicely with Chris Thursten’s comments.

    • Gareth says:

      @Inglourious Badger: That’s what I thought when I first saw the SMB replays! Glad I’m not the only one.

  17. Miles of the Machination says:

    But can any of you really say that you’ve listened to Providence by Godspeed, and Beethoven’s moonlight sonata, SIMULTANEOUSLY? I even made a music video out of it. I hate myself.

  18. Stu says:

    Hey Jim, I don’t suppose you saw Wolves in the Throne Room at ATP last week did you? I saw them in Bristol earlier in the year and they were fucking amazing.

  19. OctaneHugo says:

    I’ve been listening to Mulatu Astatke at least once daily for the past 7 days and have even downloaded his album Mulatu of Ethiopia.

    But GY! BE? Already love ’em. And as much as I enjoyed Kieron, I gotta say I’m liking the music that’s being posted now much more.

  20. Leggo says:

    Why defend the mega rich? You will never become one of them. They sneer at you and do their level best to push you further into poverty. They didn’t give a shit about you when they de-industrialised the west and offshored their capital, and they sure don’t care any more now. The square mile only cares about one thing: itself. It wouldn’t bother them in the slightest if they turned western society into a collection of 3rd world nations, as long as their crooked masters keep jamming fistfuls of blood money into their groaning pockets.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Ah, but you see, you might become one of them; or rather, they continue to dangle the ever-so-distant candle of potential wealth in front of people’s noses, and people, being the naïve, foolish, ignorant optimists that they are, continue to believe that the game can’t possibly be rigged against them.

  21. Fumarole says:

    All my Sundays contain nudity and cake, which is of course a victory.

    Also, thank you for linking to the Ellen Ripley Saved My Life article, that was a superb read.

    • Paul B says:

      Agree about the Ellen Ripley piece – it was excellent. If you haven’t read it, go and read it now. I’ll wait here while you do :)

    • Xercies says:

      I personally felt a little uncomfortable reading the piece and how open she was about her past and all that, personally i didn’t really need to know all that to find it that insightful.

  22. Radiant says:

    You have to slag other peoples games off.

    The truth sucks for a little bit and damnit you already know why your game sucks, getting confirmation is of it is a good thing.

    • Skippy says:

      “This sucks, don’t play it” is neither useful nor constructive, and doesn’t help anyone make better games, though. I think that’s more what the article was getting at. You need to at least say why it’s objectively bad.

    • Noc says:

      Yeah, what Skippy said.

      “This game is shit!” is not a helpful (or even informative) thing to say. For anybody!

      – Players who don’t like the game already agree with you.

      – Players who do like the game just hear “No! You’re being TRICKED into having FAKE fun! It’s not real fun because the game isn’t ‘actually’ any good!” or “No! You’re enjoying the BAD things! You’re having fun the WRONG WAY! Stop it!” Both of these positions tend to fall on deaf ears because they are extremely silly.

      – Creators will just hear yet another Internet Individual knee-jerk slagging off something they had a bad reaction too. Since it’s physically impossible to put work out on the internet without encountering these by the handful, they will either proceed to ignore you…or will voice disagreement and quickly develop a reputation as That Guy Who Gets Into All Those Internet Arguments. Either way you aren’t providing useful feedback.

      . . .

      Information on how your work is affecting an audience is really useful! This is why playtesting happens, why Valve collects so much player data, and ostensibly why games go through beta periods. But “slagging off” is just negative feedback that’s being communicated really poorly, and accomplishes nothing besides providing a feeling of superiority and facilitating groupthink. Which is negatively useful, really, since backlash and hatedom are just as obnoxious and discussion-killing as hype and fandom.

  23. Vitruality says:

    Euch. That ‘political commentary’ made me sad. A PC games site is probably not really the place for this, but hey ho:

    Here’s a radical idea for you: Money doesn’t mean much. What actually increases our quality of life is the amount of ‘stuff’; food, minerals etc. that we can extract from nature and then convert into something useful. The amount of actual money that’s sloshing around means precisely zip, because the more there is, the more the things we actually need to buy will cost. Our current economic woes in the UK are mainly because we just don’t produce anything anymore – most of the country is now involved in ‘service’ jobs that don’t actually make stuff, they just move things from one place to another. We maintain our standard of living by importing cheap goods from elsewhere, China for example, where standard of living expectations are much lower and so things can be made more cheaply. But, we don’t have anything to trade in return so we’re expending our historical wealth and building up debt and producing only more and more money which is, itself, worthless. This is not a sustainable system.

    Government spending will not save us from recession, at least not permanently; it can only ever delay it. High employment rate doesn’t matter if they people employed are not involved in actually creating things people want. Government may account for over half our GDP (monetarily) but it doesn’t actually produce anything.

    Good news for the lefties: This is mainly the fault of the Thatcher government opening up global trade and thus dooming our own heavy industry.

    Bad news for the lefties: What you’ve done since has made things much, much worse.

    In summary: MONEY != WEALTH, you dumb, dumb arseholes.

    • Mil says:

      Why arbitrarily exclude services from wealth?

    • alantwelve says:

      You think the UK’s had a left wing government at any time since the 70s and you’re calling other people dumb? OK.

    • Dolphan says:

      Yes, exactly – government spending on services and infrastructure is hardly just ‘moving things form one place to another’ (although logistics is a perfectly reasonable thing to spend money on; the private sector does plenty of that).

    • Dolphan says:

      That ‘exactly’ was aimed at Mill, not the original comment.

    • ReV_VAdAUL says:

      The best way to make sure your ideas and values are taken seriously by others is to end your assertions with childish insults.

    • Vitruality says:

      @Mil: There’s nothing arbitrary about it. I’m not saying a service has no value, but it only posseses that value while it is being performed; it can’t really be said to be ‘wealth’ in the sense that it’s not a quantifiable, storable item. You can’t save it up.

      @alantwelve: Well, ‘left’ and ‘right’ are really pretty meaningless dualistic terms in any case, but obviously they apply relatively. What you call left wing and I call left wing might differ, shall we just say that?

      @Dolphan: Again, services and infrastructure have some value, certainly, in that they enable production and are therefore necessary to some level (whether they actually need to be carried out by the government is another matter), but they themselves do not produce anything, and they’re not exportable – so in terms of the trade deficit, which is what I am talking about here, they’re not particularly relevant.

      @ReV_VAdAUL: All right, point taken, ‘childish insult’ cheerfully withdrawn. Though also the easiest way to avoid having to actually think about what somebody is saying is to dismiss them as ‘childish’ and I stand by my general point, which is that if you are taking money and wealth to be directly equivalent you’re missing something; yet every discussion of the recession I seem to read these days seems to take this erroneous assumption as read. I admit to finding this frustrating.

    • Mil says:

      The division you appear to make between services and goods is far too simplistic. Do banking, software development or R&D deliver goods or services? Are they only valuable while they’re being performed or do they result in lasting wealth? Can their output be exported?

      Also, it isn’t a meaningful distinction to say that infrastructure “enables” production but doesn’t “itself” produce anything.

    • Dolphan says:

      So you like material goods because they’re not ephemeral? Many of the most important goods we can produce are ephemeral in their value: food, energy, and healthcare spring to mind. And there aren’t even that many material goods that hold their value for very long periods (mainly works of art and craft; aesthetic value is perennial, where practical value tends to suffer from both wear and the risk of becoming outdated). And then there are non-material goods that are relatively permanent, in various kinds of information; scientific knowledge, software, literature. The idea that REAL wealth creation lies solely in building up a pile of material goods still seems pretty bizarre …

    • Xercies says:


      Actually the funny thing with the banks is that they have been trading with pretend money all this time and we bailed them out for it. And they still trade in pretend money that actually doesn’t exist. Probably the biggest scam going.

    • Kandon Arc says:

      Actually services are very relevant to the deficit. The balance of trade in a country is determined by imports and exports – which are not necessarily physical goods but services as well. For example during the boom years, Britain’s biggest export was financial services because it brought foreign money into the economy. If we’d still been focusing on heavy industry we’d be much worse off, namely because there are many other countries that can do it far cheaper than us, due to lower operating costs. It makes much more sense to focus on sectors where developing nations can’t compete – law, finance, technology etc.

  24. Stephen Roberts says:

    This isn’t the BBC. Roll on more tangenital and unrelated articles. I’m not even going to pretend to understand what’s being discussed or have an opinion related to the subject matter. But I do like subjects that matter.

    Glad to share this news with you . Cheers! May all goes well for you

  25. icheyne says:

    I put up with politics on your twitter streams, but *please* keep politics off RPS.

    • Alex Bakke says:

      Politics in general, or the politics you believe in?

    • Alex Bakke says:

      Believe in = Disagree with *

    • myros says:

      *please* dont tell other people what to do with their websites? I think the old addage “if you don’t like it don’t read it” applies.

    • Arathain says:

      I might be inclined to suggest to our Hivemind overlords that while they are free to post whatever they damn well please it does rather affect the content of the ensuing discussion thread when they pop up something political. It may swamp talk of more interesting subjects, of which there were plenty this week.

      On the other hand, a little non-games controversy once in a while won’t kill us. It also helps to be reminded that there are only 5 people who get the final say over what goes on the site, and they are welcome to ignore us.

    • D-Mon says:

      I think it’s better to say that we come to this site because of our shared love of pc games, this unites us across the political spectrum and we should cherish it, after all politics can be very divisive and there is no point courting that on this site.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Better idea: they can post whatever the fuck they want, and if you’re the kind of person who finds pointing out how shit-filled Tories are distasteful to the point of not wanting to read the rest of RPS despite its record of excellence then we’ll all be better off without you.

    • Mil says:

      Seriously, the OP made a reasonably polite and perfectly sensible request. Whether you agree with that request or not, there’s no justification for this level of hostility. It saddens me to see the degree of political intolerance that RPS can exhibit sometimes.

    • D-Mon says:

      Of course they can post what they want, but it’s posts like yours which shows why I think they shouldn’t, because it is so pointlessly antagonistic, it just causes resentment between people who would otherwise be friendly.

    • ShedMonkey says:

      I was going to post something but Mil and D-Mon have summed up my feelings better than I could have myself, which makes this, my first post on RPS, rather redundant. Hmmm, I better try waiting another couple of years before I post again.

    • D-Mon says:

      It just goes to show how emotive this subject is that both ShedMonkey and I have de-Lurked to comment on it.

    • Xercies says:

      To be honest i think gamers talk about games to much and its good to get a bit of non games issues at the moment. You should know whats happening out there and what other people are saying about the issues today. You may not agree with them but through that disagreement you will use your mind in a wonderful thing called forming an intelligent argument to rebuke something you don’t agree with.

  26. bleeters says:

    What’s this? We can’t have links to political discussion from socialists! People might start thinking for themselves, or something..

    • D-Mon says:

      People might start thinking for themselves
      Oh come now, that’s hardly likely to happen.

    • KaiserBob says:

      Doesn’t seem very likely because that’s the beauty of socialism, the government gets to think for you!

    • Ozzie says:

      contrary to…what?

    • bleeters says:

      Burying our heads in the apathetic sand and regurgitating Daily Mail headlines as fact, mostly.

  27. Jimbo says:

    Post whatever you like, I only look at the pictures anyway.

  28. Urthman says:

    I think I’m looking forward to Jon Blow’s “The Witness” almost as much as I am Portal 2. Certainly they’re the only two games that I’m going out of my way to make sure I don’t read spoilers about.

  29. Ted says:

    That Edward Hong article is ridiculous. He should be blackballed — for being a moron.

  30. Urthman says:

    That Jonathan Blow interview also makes reference to the fact that some psychological research indicates that things like achievements can make a game seem less fun, without changing the game or gameplay or features or anything else.

    Some research seems to indicate that when people are given an extrinsic reward for doing something (find all the hidden doors and I’ll give you 50 achievement points), they enjoy it less than if they’re just doing the same thing for it’s own sake (find all the hidden doors).

    The implication being that any time a game gives you Achievement points for doing something, it psychologically makes you perceive that thing as less fun to do.

    One more way achievements are ruining games.

  31. Tei says:

    Theres not anti-german message in all WW2 games. Theres some anti-german message on early movies made to make people fight the german during the war, but not on the games we play.
    The same thing can be said about the homefront game.

  32. MadTinkerer says:

    “Still believe we need to cut everything to save us from apocalypse? Or could there be something else going on?”

    Translation of said article from troll-speak to something more resembling English:

    “Oh noes! The right-wingers want to put precious government workers out of jobs! Nevermind that hard-working citizens will be taxed less! Nevermind that fewer taxes = more people getting to spend their own money = better economy! Cruel, cruel, conservatives who want the poor government to borrow and take less!

    We should keep borrowing, because we can borrow forever! It will fix all money problems if we just borrow enough! Don’t worry, folks! If we radicals all keep fighting, eventually the government will take 100% of everyone’s money and spend it as they like, because More Bigger Government Is Good For Everyone. And if we don’t get what we want we can shout and scream and skive off and take over buildings and build new political parties and smash windows until we get what we want, because that’s what Dad did back in the day.”

    Yeah, I think writers with opinions like that can fuck right off. How could you tell?

    • alantwelve says:

      Fuck yeah! Who needs the NHS, the police, the armed forces, roads, schools, bin collections, et fucking cetera. All we need is a copy of Atlas Shrugged apiece and everything will be ok.

    • Nick says:

      would be cool if we made certain companies pay their taxes so we did’t have to cut stuff too.

    • Xercies says:

      Actually the hard working people are being taxed more not less. Also its mostly the frontline people that are getting the aex in the government and not convinetly the guys getting 80-200 grand a year

    • bleeters says:

      I’d settle for a government that didn’t respond to a sinking economy by inevitably swinging their Budget-Cuts! axe as low as possible, hacking away at the powerless until their shredded limbs form a raft.

    • Lilliput King says:

      But you said you’d be translating from troll speech. Do you even know what translating is?

    • bob_d says:

      @Lilliput King: Ah, right, I was confused there for a minute. He meant he’s translating to troll speech. Makes much more sense now.

    • Mattressi says:

      @alantwelve: You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians believe in reduced government, not a complete lack of government. But yeah, why don’t we all have a typical political debate where we all use straw mans against each other. Let’s not address each other’s points and just address something else that the other person might possibly believe.

      I think I’m going to have to go back to PC Gamer.

    • alantwelve says:


      MadTinkerer’s post was a bunch of ill-informed, reactionary, Randian, juvenile shite. Speaking as someone who is currently working in a minimum wage, zero hours contract job because the economic collapse caused him to lose his well-paid, highly skilled job, I reserve the right to tell any twat who thinks that putting more people out of work for ideological reasons is a good idea, to fuck right off.

  33. Skg says:

    Speaking of Media errors and corrections from the past year – what about that Gamasutra article from a week or two back that RPS featured in the Sunday papers about Wolfgang Hammersmith? Gamasutra initially stated that they were waiting for confirmation of his credentials, but have since pulled the article.

    I contacted Leigh Schilling, the editor and credited writer of the piece, no response, rather suss. Any chance anyone at RPS has the traction/interest in running that down and getting an explanation as to the story, considering RPS ran it, and, well, the whole story spread across the internet like wildfire.

    • TeeJay says:

      I thought it was Leigh Alexander who interviewed Wolfgang Hammersmith?

  34. drewski says:

    “Cutting spending to pay the debts of WW1 caused the great depression.”

    No, it didn’t.

    • alantwelve says:

      Right wingers: get hold of a dictionary, look up ‘refute.’

  35. Jimbo says:

    Will you take $40 for the Sandal and Sunglass?

  36. bonjovi says:

    “One word” on the political commentary.

    I won’t argue about the cause of great depression and welfare state getting us out of WW2 debt, cause it’s just way to long of a topic. I just limit myself to saying: strongly disagree.

    to the point:
    He says : ” The way out of a recession is to invest in jobs.” however I would like an chance to ask him: ‘What is the best way of creating jobs? Free market or central planning?’

    Cutting spending can lead to cut in taxes and giving money (read: ‘power’) to the people. Increasing spending leads to higher taxes (either direct or indirect) and more government planning, and we know form eastern Europe where central planning always leads.

    One thing worth thinking about: What servers the country better: to give people their money back so they can decide what to invest in (buying a bread is also an investment) or to let few people (government) decide what everyone needs?

    • alantwelve says:

      Right wingers: you might also want to investigate ‘false dichotomy.’ I mean, no-one, absolutely no-one is suggesting that the correct response to the current economic problems faced by the UK is some sort of Stalinist planned economy. Fuck sake. What is wrong with you people?

      Yes, it would be absolutely fucking tremendous if the private sector would magically come up with lovely jobs for all the hundreds of thousands of public sector workers who’re facing redundancy at the moment, but I really can’t see that happening. So perhaps you could explain how moving people from having jobs to being equally financially dependent on the government, only on benefits (and therefore not really contributing to the economy), is a good thing?

    • Dolphan says:

      The free market doesn’t tend to be particularly good at creating jobs in slumps because it’s highly dependent on confidence (consumer and investor). As to your last question – generally, it’s not exactly an either/or. The idea that there are some things that the state does well and some things that the market does well is hardly implausible. But, putting that aside, your assumption that people have more power over outcomes through the market than they do through the (at least vaguely democratic, remember?) government needs something supporting it. It might actually be interesting if you were talking about government having a purely redistributive role (and removing substantial economic inequality from the equation), but I suspect you’re not, in which case a ‘few people’ having disproportionate power is hardly something the market’s immune from.

  37. Anonononomous says:

    You should post more politics. It’s funny seeing people argue against obvious facts.

  38. 3Suns says:

    The Sunday Paper is my favorite RPS feature. Cheers!