IGF Factor 2012: GIRP

Next up on the conveyor-belt of interviews that is our IGF Factor 2012 series, it’s the creator of GIRP. What does he have to say about the IGF, about the monsters from Doom, and about who the single most important game designer in the world is? Let’s find out.

RPS: Firstly, a brief introduction for those who may not know you. Who are you? What’s your background? Why get into games? Why get into indie games?

Foddy: I’m Bennett Foddy. By day, I’m a philosopher at Oxford University, researching the ethics of new medical technologies and addictive drug use as well as, increasingly, videogames. By night, I make games for iOS and the web, most famously QWOP and GIRP. I got into writing games because I have an abiding love for games, and because it’s pretty easy to make them these days. I’m not exactly sure what an ‘indie game’ is, but the reason I don’t work at a big commercial studio like Ubisoft or EA is that it is a total nightmare death camp hell trip for everybody except the senior producers and directors. Everyone knows that!

RPS: Tell us about your game. What was its origins? What are you trying to do with it? What are you most pleased about it? What would you change if you could?

Foddy: My game, GIRP, is a game where you haul yourself up a cliff face by holding keys on your keyboard corresponding to handholds on the cliff. I guess it has an origin in Crazy Climber, but really it was an idea that popped into my head in a cafe one day while my wife was talking and I was totally paying attention and listening to every word. The point of it as a design idea, and the successful thing about it, is that it makes an analogue of the virtual playing space (the cliff) out of the physical plane of your keyboard. And it makes a direct metaphor for holding the cliff out of holding your keyboard keys. I think most computer games have controls that are a lot more abstract than that.

RPS: What are your feelings on the IGF this year? Pleased to be nominated? Impressed by the other finalists? Anything you worry has been overlooked?

Foddy: I know there is a bit of controversy about the IGF nominees every year, but from my point of view there are a lot of amazing, genius games on the list this year, and it is a huge honour to be listed amongst them. Doug Wilson’s ‘Johann Sebastian Joust’ was the best game I played in 2011, easily blowing away every AAA game I played from every major studio. Wonderputt was made by a guy who’s been making amazing videogame visuals since the Amiga was still around. And English Country Tune is the first IGF-eligible game by Stephen Lavelle, who is probably the single most important videogame designer in the world right now.

RPS: Which game (other than your own) would you like to see take the Grand Prize this year?

Foddy: I haven’t played Fez or Dear Esther, but I can say that each of the other three games in that category would be a worthy Grand Prize winner. Like I said, though, for me it was clearly Joust. It’s infinitely deep, it’s optimally accessible, it’s original, it’s prosocial, and it will advance the form. Oh, and it’s probably the best fun I had all year.

RPS: How do you feel about the indie scene of late? What would you like to see from it in the near-future?

Foddy: I’ve often said we are enjoying a second golden age of videogame development right now. You can make games more quickly and easily than ever before by yourself or with a friend, and you can make a living doing it. Your games can be evolutions of established tropes or they can be wild reinventions of the whole concept of a videogame, and you can find an audience of hundreds of millions with something you thought up in an afternoon. It may never be this good again. And of course that means that there are people who make videogames as though they were making rubber doorstops, copying other artists’ designs wholesale or hiring third-world sweatshops to execute their ideas for a minuscule sum. I’d like to see that stuff sell a bit worse, in comparison to the best creative work. I’d like to see consumers orient to videogames as the product of auteur designers a bit more. It’s happening, I think, but gradually.

RPS: And how does the future look for you, both in terms of this game and other projects?

Foddy: I make short-form games because game design isn’t my day job, so GIRP is done and dusted for me. But I’ll continue to churn out new games as and when I have the inspiration. Try my two-player pole-vaulting game, Pole Riders!

RPS: If you could talk to the monsters in Doom, what would you ask them?

Foddy: Yikes, is Doom really still relevant? Remind me of who the characters were… I feel like there was a guy who ran at you and made your health go down, and then there was that other guy. I guess my question would be “Hey, why are you running at me and making my health go down?”. I never did work that out.


  1. MondSemmel says:

    In before “Calling Doom not relevant is worse than insinuating that videogames may be addictive.”
    (Actually, I’m not a native English speaker, so I’m not actually sure he is insinuating that. I would have loved a follow-up question on that topic, but I guess that wasn’t possible due to the static format of these IGF interviews. Otherwise it was a good interview, though.)

    • thestage says:

      I like how this is an unacceptable “insinuation” for you, even though DOCTOR Bennett here is a professional with a PhD in the field, and you are a rube on the internet.

    • lasdyfdsa says:

      Nah, we don’t need that at all. It sounds like a horrible future for games, everything relying on the thoughts of old people. Yuck. link to ulinks.fr

  2. Terragot says:

    Really can’t agree with him about Johann Sebastian Joust. From my personal preference, video games are a kind of escapism from everything else in the world which seems to require social interactivity. Not saying I’m a complete introvert, just that I like to have video games as my return to the womb. Joust just doesn’t seem to fit into the category of video games.

    I know lately we in the gaming world have all been officious activists regarding ‘anything can be a game!’. The likes of Dear Esther, and Katawa Shoujo have been demanding the spotlight on this debate, and I’m no one to say whether they are games or not (I can only say they are not games for me), but Joust is something I’d be willing to stake my best shoes on that it cannot be conceived as being a video game? Surely? I mean if it is, is does that mean our old friend bop it! is also considered a video game? Amazon assures me it’s not, but stranger revolutions have occurred.

    • RobF says:

      But no-one said it was a videogame. It’s a game that uses technology to enable its existence, it’s a game that uses videogame controllers but then it diverts off and forges its own path.

      Nowt wrong with that.

  3. Bob_Bobson says:

    I’ve had bouts of playing far too much of Foddy’s “Little Master” cricket. It’s very simple and yet strangely compulsive, but most notably has a genius scoring system. Your points are runs*run rate (or to put it another way (run^2)/balls which is perfect for Twenty20 style cricket. Indeed when I’m watching T20 I find myself rating batsmen on their “Foddy” score rather than average.

    • NathanH says:

      You shouldn’t be watching Twenty20 cricket. Unless you are plotting its downfall.

  4. Saxocat says:

    Pole Riders is the most fun you can have on one keyboard. At night. Alone.


    • apocraphyn says:

      Freakin’ Pole Riders! Best goddamn co-op game ever! I play it every so often with my colleague at work, which is incredibly amusing. Usually gets us both shouting and laughing, (which isn’t the most conducive thing to be doing in a work environment). If you’re reading this at any point, then cheers, Foddy!

  5. fenriz says:

    I agree with him on DOOM.
    It only harmed videogames struggling to become as good as literature. It killed adventures. It brought(or helped doing it for the picky old-knitters out there) little young pishers with their accessibility needs into our world.

    Doom is terribly relevant, in all that is evil.

    • Terragot says:

      It was a necessary evil. Soon we’ll get all those lovely first person immersive adventures where you’ll pick up a rock and ask “what is existence?” and the bloody literary crowd will have to let us in.

      Then we can get invited to all those party’s that the writers and painters go to whilst calling Tracey Emin trashy and smoking through a Bakelite cigarette holder.

    • fenriz says:

      The only way for videogamies to go forward would be that every single one of them featured the character interacting with items and everything, picki up and use them somewhere to achieve something, get a description of everything. I mean kinda like Deus Ex’s way to interact with objects but more and more.

      I don’t think we’re close to reaching that point. Back then(’90-’95) every game featured some kind of logical puzzle with items, exploration, and so on. Even action games had that, i remember Amiga’s Gods, Shadow of the beast, Cadaver, they all had puzzles and quiet exploration of the environment. Then something went awry, they did away with puzzles and items, while we all assumed that was the way to go. Something failed and adventures, instead of joining the 3d scenario, were exiled to independent game making and even there it’s rare, except Germany.

      How can we go back to that? There’s too many kids playing videogames today.

    • RobF says:

      We could probably solve this by ensuring that no-one under the age of 50 makes or plays games.

    • Sinkytown says:

      Oh my lawd. Are we all really too tight-arsed and joyless around here to enjoy Doom? Fucking Doom? Doom is just about exemplary in terms of design and it utterly nails the goals it sets for itself, unlike the Bioshocks and the Skyrims that are held in such esteem. It’s a shame that we’re not allowed to take the low-brow with the high and a greater shame the satisfying lesson in crunch that is Doom is apparently relegated to the past.

    • Gary W says:

      The Spider Mastermind just called. He informs you to “Suck It Down”.

    • NathanH says:

      Video games need not be comparable with literature, and any suggestion that they have to be is POISON.

    • ffordesoon says:


      There are elements of your argument I agree with.

      That said, your combination of elitism, ageism, and utter ignorance of gaming’s real history is… singular.

      There have always been and always will be the games you describe. There have also always been and always will be far more of the games where you kill things and only kill things, for about a hundred different reasons. “Kids” do not have some sort of monopoly on wanting a simple adrenaline rush. As a matter of fact, if these IGF interviews are any indication, there are far more young developers interested in making the types of games you describe than there are old developers interested in the same thing. These people have by and large been lured into the medium by the “accessibility” you decry. If gaming had proceeded the way you wanted, you’d now be begging these “kids” to save the medium from utter irrelevance, I guarantee it.

      Oh, and if you need games to be literature, may I humbly suggest you just, you know, read literature? Start with The Illiad, a book about a bunch of dudes killing a bunch of other dudes for a nebulous, irrational goal. I’m sure you’ll feel right at home. ;)

    • Raiyan 1.0 says:

      But DOOM was all about interaction. It was basically a point-and-click adventure that you played with a keyboard. Pick up items, point them at monsters, and use on them. Various combinations of items and monsters produced different effects, but ultimately came down to the same result, thus speaking of the fatalistic nature of our actions.

    • fenriz says:


      oh yah pity i disagree. :)
      Sure there were “just” platformers even then for PC and Amiga, but they weren’t the majority by all means and i expect you to acknowledge it without a huff . There was far more balance, now all(hello, “all” means 95%, let’s not be literal old wives) AAA titles are infact “just” action games, they have monopoly, there’s no equilibrium.

      I was kinda hoping games like Deus Ex HR would become the “real” game of the mass(meaning most gamers were adults who like shooting but also deep interactivity, so a midway), but maybe it’s not true yet. People don’t want deeper interaction, im afraid. They’re not the kind of people who like challenge in their game, that’s what Ken Levine pointed out by saying 1999 mode. The kids now control market. Kids who can be 35, they’re still kids, asking adrenaline out of gaming without not even a crumb of “thought”. That’s not good, it is a grave unbalance, that harms the medium, its reputation in the world. Videogames are just source of gratuitous pleasure, that’s no good.

      i don’t know how could you be able to claw out an impossible-to-know piece of informations such as ” most young indie devs are all ready to make new puzzle adventures and were lured into videogames by accessible games”. Where in the flock do they give such insights? It’s like knowing that all the persons who voted B.Obama ate strawberries in march 1991.

      Thing is you can say as long as you want that i have to accept the bad with the good and deep and shallow as they come, but you(and whoever says it) are living in a utopia made of happy rosy sylphs and bluey gnomes. One of the two sides WILL weaken the other according to which is the majority. Majority rules. In the real world there’s no such balance as 50/50 except for a brief time in the 90’s, and that’s why it’s called Golden Age, every golden age is a balance of forces, it’s a period of harmony.

      How can i accept the bad, it destroyed the good. When “the new gamers” came adventures died. Was it their fault, was it market researchers’ fault? i dunnom but games had to become dumber.

      videogames didn’t expand their audience like movies did, picking from all the globe, no. They didn’t do it gradually and cautiously, so as to please most, and be known by them, oh no. They scooped up only the morons.

      as for “literature is good, videogames not, they’re just toys”, it’s just sad, you know? There were people saying movies couldn’t be serious, just as you did right now. It’s sad, it will be said in history you were one of those who would deny videogames’ possibiity to explore humanity in ways unimaginable because “they’re just games!”. You saying it is a proof of videogames’ horrible reputation.

      But the level of cultural significance of a medium is dictated only by its makers, there’s no limit except prejudice.

    • NathanH says:

      Well, I must say “video games need to be like literature, and the only way to do this is through the unarguable majesty of adventure games” is a novel argument. Points for being zany, but none for making sense.

    • fenriz says:

      that’s just the topic of a blog im writing.

      Adventures are not an isolated genre. The actions of adventure games are just more varied human actions, examine, use, pick up, it’s everything humans do when they’re not killing. Combining items you see in the environment is normality, not peculiarity.

      Just consider the term. Adventure. It’s terribly generic!!! It’s not a “genre” you can “GHETTIFY” as you just did cruelly. It’s a better, MORE COMPLETE level of virtuality. Can’t you see that it’s much more unnatural to mentally turn a generic word such as “adventure” into something SO specific and isolated? Can’t you see what they did?

      you shouldn’t be surprised when you read that all games should have adventure actions. You should be surprised that all games are just about shooting and murdering, without anything else to do, excluding all the normal actions of the world, excluding infact adventuring. They cut out most of reality and we find it normal.

      That’s why videogames can’t be taken seriously today, because they describe a crazy amputated reality.

    • NathanH says:

      I wrote a long reply but accidentally refreshed the page, so I’ll be brief.

      – “Adventure game” has a specific meaning in video game discussions, so if you’re going to use the term then you have to realize that I am going to assume you are using the specific meaning.

      – The idea that killing things is the only interaction in most video games is odd and doesn’t seem to have much support.

      – Different games have different levels of interaction (many are too abstract for interaction to have any “realistic” meaning), because different people at different times want different things. This is normal and good.

      – Video games do not have to be compared with things such as literature, movies, and theatre. There are plenty of other sensible things to compare video games with, such as board games, card games, roleplaying games, historical reenactments, make-believe, and sport. For none of these things would you consider comparing them with literature or film, yet they all have close links with various video game genres. Why not compare video games with these things instead?

    • fenriz says:

      ooh that’s as pleasant as a bee in your boot.

      -the specific meaning you refer to exists now because the genre has been crystallized and ghettofied. I am aware of it but you must be aware of its literal, vocabulary meaning, why it was called so by Infocom and Sierra On-Line and the fact that these games rake up about every normal human action, they have no limits, they were meant as just complete interactive stories. Today’s genres are incomplete experiences.

      -yep, it’s weird how people can live in the mud and feel it’s normal, it’s just a matter of perception. In other words, we normalize the crap we breathe and fresh air can become “a different air”.

      -oh yes, different. What a misleading word. I can eat crap and then eat caviar. It’s a different type of food.

      -because videogames most of the time have a single character, a single story and a single ending. Way more similar to novels and movies than board games. Yet for you and others, books and movies DO NOT HAVE A boundary of seriousness, videogames do… why?

    • ffordesoon says:


      I’m… not sure you read what I wrote. And even if you did, I know you didn’t understand it, because you are not only putting words in my mouth, but you’re ascribing exactly the opposite opinions from my own to me, even in cases where I thought I was pretty damn lucid and eloquent. Perhaps I’m wrong, and I was being needlessly obtuse. It wouldn’t be the only time that’s happened to me, certainly.

      Anyway, I can think of a few rebuttals, but I’m not sure you’ll see what I mean. Let it suffice to say that I think games are every bit the equal of film and literature, and that I think film – as much as I love it – is in fact an inferior narrative medium to most others, games included. I disdain those snooty pricks who wank about with terms like “ludonarrative” just as much as you do, and perhaps more. I’ve written at least one impassioned defense of games as a delivery mechanism for linear narrative, to which I will link you upon request. I assure you, I am right behind you in wanting more games than the ones where you kill.

      I’m just saying that your argument is basically “all games are not the games I like, ergo games are dying”. Which is a rather substantial leap in logic, wouldn’t you say?

    • Unaco says:

      DOOM was awesome.

    • fenriz says:

      Well it’s good to know you agree, then.

      “all games are not the games I like, ergo games are dying”

      Yes, that’s quite correct.

      With the small added line “all games i like incidentally are the ones best for the sake of the medium”.

      yeah seriusly i just like what is best for videogaming’s reputation, at the moment we have to push the intellectual and reflective aspects of videogaming. When there’s more balance we can say “yeah but i also love pure action”. At the moment the situation is not 50/50, so we can’t be all solomonic “i like this and that and i like all i get”, we can’t, okie?

    • NathanH says:

      Ah, I see. You are, in fact, a loon.

      Glad that’s sorted out then.

    • jaheira says:

      “yeah seriusly i just like what is best for videogaming’s reputation”

      Why fenriz? Who cares what people think of gaming? I know I don’t.

    • NathanH says:

      Well, it’d probably make life nicer for gamers if fewer people thought you were a loser for liking them.

      But I am a mathematician who plays chess, so I don’t have to worry about whether people think I’m a loser, haha.

    • jaheira says:

      Well, yes but worrying about the opinions of that sort of person hardly seems like a reason to make one type of game over another one.
      Chess is the best game I’ve ever played btw.

    • Terragot says:

      Worrying about that kind of person is just pointless, as I’m sure you wouldn’t even get along with that kind of person.

    • ffordesoon says:

      For anyone who is interested, that blog post on games and linear narrative I mentioned is here.



    • NathanH says:

      I disagree, Terragot. I don’t think it’s possible to reduce whether someone is worth caring about to whether they think one of your hobbies is for losers. People are much too complicated and varied for that to be true. I have at least two close friends to whom my video gaming reflects badly on me. It doesn’t really cause a problem, because they’re not aggressive about it, but I’d rather they thought differently.

    • Terragot says:

      Yes and I’d like Gok Wan to dress me like a lumberjack, but It’s just one of those things were people’s opinions are exactly where they should be; opinions.

      This sounds condescending and I’m a little disgusted with how I’ve worded it. I’m just trying to say we wont convert everyone so… “in one ear, out the other” as Momma would say.

    • fenriz says:

      “Why fenriz? Who cares what people think of gaming? I know I don’t.”

      Well that’s a terrible thing to ask. Because i don’t mind about my personal enjoyment, it would be selfish of me.

      For example there’s people who like Star Wars the old Republic. They just say they enjoy it so who cares. They don’t care that such a game is extremely harmful to videogaming because it’s too conservative. If it succeeds nobody will ever try to innovate, thinking that maybe risking innovation is less risky than not risking at all. So they are selfish. But their saying “i just have fun”, shows that it will go with a whim, soon they will stop having fun, quit the game and ruin Bioware. Their egoist nature ruins everyone around them like a virus in a jungle. Centring your life in a social world on your animal instincts makes you a primitive being, a parasite.

      All this to say that we have to care about what’s best for humanity as a whole, not ourselves.

      To once and for all solve the problem “what YOU like/what YOU think is best”… The Old Republic is infact something i hate personally. But incidentally it IS as a matter of fact a conservative game, a game that harms the genre. It’s not my opinion, it’s not my personal tastes, it’s true, it’s fact.

      The fact that, as philosphers said, in life, in this world, even evil entities will be turned into good doesn’t deny the fact that TOR IS A NEGATIVE ENTITY.

    • ffordesoon says:

      …Are you Andrew Ryan in your spare time?

    • Unaco says:

      Who made fenriz the Grand Poobah of Video Gaming?

    • RobF says:

      It seemed like a good idea at the time but in fairness, we were all very very drunk.

    • jaheira says:

      fenriz., nothing you just said relates to “reputation” which was what I was asking you about, but whatever.
      To address your issue with TOR. Let’s imagine you doomsday scenario comes true and all of videogaming dies. To this I would say, So What? If gaming died out in that fashion it meant nobody really wanted it anyway.

    • Apples says:

      I don’t know if fenriz is right about anything, but I’m just glad he’s here so my comments are not the only annoying and pretentious ones on RPS. Phew!

    • NathanH says:

      Don’t call yourself annoying and pretentious, Apples. You’re not annoying at all! :-P

  6. Robin says:

    Joust is a wonderful game, but I find this overzealous championing of five minute popcorn twitch games as the only ‘noble’ goal for the entire medium a little bit smug and counterproductive.

    • Apples says:

      Agreed. QWOP made me and my friends cry with laughter and that was fun, but ‘having fun’, no matter what smug internet commenters repeat ad nauseum, is not the highest pinnacle of achievement and the ultimate goal of any medium. If Lavelle is the most important game designer then I think I actually hate games. Yeah I guess you can say “if you want a story or meaning, watch a film or read a book,” but if games are CAPABLE of being a narrative/meaningful medium then why are people so eager to insist that the only ‘true’ or ‘proper’ way is to eschew that and make five-minute timewasters? I can’t think of a way Joust advances the medium at all, since it’s basically musical chairs with more shoving (or possibly the same amount) and seems about equivalent in actual video-gamey-ness to a Bop-It.

      Reminds me of this quote: “…It’s only possible to communicate with the audience if one ignores that eighty percent of people, who for, some reason, have got it into their heads that we are supposed to entertain them.”. Nearly 100% of game developers have internalised and embraced the idea that they are supposed to entertain the audience above all else.

      in b4 ~omg it’s just a game calm down~

    • RobF says:

      Apples, I’m having a real hard time reconciling your rant with Stephen’s work which covers the entire spectrum from pure narrative to mechanical exploration and some things it’s probably best not to think about also.

      I’m not *entirely* sure what your point actually is, y’know?

    • NathanH says:

      It is hard to escape from the conclusion, Apples, that you do indeed hate games.

      Speaking as a smug internet commentator, I have to say though that you are somewhat misrepresenting my smug position, and that of many fellow smuggles. It’s not that fun is the pinnacle of achievement and ultimate goal of a medium, it’s that the idea of a pinnacle of achievement and an ultimate goal of a medium is flawed.

      I like games. The idea that video games should be less about games and more about high-minded whatever is unappealing. You do not like games. The idea that video games should be less about high-minded whatever and more about being games is unappealing. Fortunately we don’t have to do one or the other, we can go both ways simultaneously. What’s also pretty cool about video games is that a single one can satisfy you and can satisfy someone like me who likes games and hasn’t finished reading a fiction book for five years. That’s not a normal state of affairs, and we should celebrate it rather than be suspicious of it.

    • lurkalisk says:

      Apples, I think you may not know what “entertain” means.

      I don’t think anything Foddy’s ever accomplished (game-wise) is either fun or in any other way worthwhile. There’s a wide array of possibly entertaining things, and it’s not as though entertainment can only be… This kind of stuff. It can be anything from Shakespeare to The Garbage Pail Kids Movie to GIRP.

    • Apples says:

      Sorry, you guys are right and I am directing my rage at the wrong thing here – just feeling dissatisfied in general with games at the moment. I have never liked short games and never liked any of Lavelle’s things and it wound me up to hear someone saying they were somehow the most important games out there when I feel that they are generally not very worthwhile or interesting and would hate for the majority of games to be that way or take inspiration from that. But that’s my opinion actually and I should shut up ha ha. (this paragraph sounds kind of sarcastic but I’m not being so – just in case)

      Also it’s not “entertainment” I object to (as in something can very much be entertaining while also being other things), it’s taking stuff like JSJ that is purely entertainment and then saying that – something made for fifteen minutes of fun while hanging out with some friends – was the best game of 2011 and will ‘advance the form’ (even though it barely relies on being a video game). arghhh

    • NathanH says:

      You’re probably right, “advance” seems like one of those words like “progress” that’s easy to say, and sounds automatically good, and in some sense does some good things (creates new ideas or develops existing ones into better ones) but often masks that, along the way, some other things are getting a sneaky downgrade. So it makes sense to be suspicious.

    • RobF says:

      Ok, so what will “advance the form” if we can’t have the things you say are objectionable advancing the form?

      (Which probably sounds a lot more snarky than intended but it’s actually a genuine question)

    • fenriz says:

      Well given that every cultural medium needs balance between being entertaining and instructive(given that a life at its full is infact always partly joy and suffering), i think to “advance” the medium we have, well, make sure the balance is reached and preserved.

      Since many kids WILL say “games are just meant to be fun”, that is, they mean the best game is the one that gives most sensuous pleasure at the least intellectual cost(the less i think the better), i’d say the balance is in danger, so we uuh gotta find the way to get uh forces back in the balance. :)

      I propose to force Tekken makers to hire Sierra game devs(Jane Jensen, Al Low, Scott and Crowe), they will work in every games company and put awesome puzzles in their action games.

    • RobF says:

      Nah, no cultural medium “needs” that, you might desire it but it’s far, far from a necessity. I mean, *why* do videogames *need* to be something when they can *be anything*?

      When you ask for balance, you’re not reallllly asking for balance. You’re asking for everyone to cater to what you desire and trying to cotton wool it a bit with the idea that what you want is only fair and what’s happening now isn’t fair. And well, good luck with that one, yeah?

      What you’re talking about is more funneling than furthering. You want everything funneled in one direction, you want your preference to be the accepted norm at the cost of everything that’s not what you want and I’m sorry but I’m super happy that people are ignoring things like that and going on to create new experiences for everyone to enjoy rather than relying on the same old same crap from archaic genres and being limited to the dreams of some people who shot their final loads at the turn of the century.

      Nah, we don’t need that at all. It sounds like a horrible future for games, everything relying on the thoughts of old people. Yuck.

    • fenriz says:

      oh yes there goes the typical refusal reaction, hm-huh.

      Well i dunno what to tell you since everything i say, even tho with the intention at staying as impersonal and impartial as possible, will end in you screaming in my face “what YOU say what YOU do what YOU think about YOUR standards is YOUR own personal subjective partial biasedness yadda kablaba”.

      uuuh… be… good and happy? :)

  7. pertusaria says:

    As Mr. Foddy, if he’s reading this, is probably wondering why he ever made a throwaway comment on Doom, I thought I’d say that I really liked GIRP. It’s simple, but quite difficult. It quickly got me trying to map out a route, just as real climbing has to the small extent I’ve tried it.