Jimquisition: Lugoscababib Discobiscuits

Recommended Videos

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
Twenty Ninjas said:
It'd be useful if Jim actually gave examples of the people who used the words so vile and repugnant as to make him yell at them over the internet. Because at this point I don't know if there actually are people (who are meant to be taken seriously) that say such things or if Jim is just misinterpreting justified criticism.
Indeed. It seems to me that most people here are on the same page about discussing certain games having problems with exactly how violence is portrayed, while still being grievously outraged against this illusive mob of "those people out there" who are supposedly shouting "ludonarrative dissonance" without any proper context.
 

RikuoAmero

New member
Jan 27, 2010
283
0
0
I just started playing Tomb Raider a couple days ago, and I noticed this discontinuity myself. I'm seeing Lara being afraid and traumatised, yet somehow she's able to pick up a bow and arrow, or a pistol and simply kill mooks with ease. Even the Heavies with riot shields are no match for her. I'm starting to think she's play-acting all the innocence and was actually trained by ninjas or something.
 

Psychobabble

. . . . . . . .
Aug 3, 2013
525
0
0
Well look there's my new phrase for the week.

My question is, are the people you say are using the phrase incorrectly actually annoyed because they feel the violence level of the game doesn't match up with the narrative's depiction of the games protagonists? Or are they just annoyed the narrative is shallow and ineffective, and usually at a lesser literary level than of that of an old 1980s "action film"?
 

klaynexas3

My shoes hurt
Dec 30, 2009
1,525
0
0
I have to still disagree about Infinite, as the combat in it highly does break with the narrative. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be violence, but the way it is done is that this city, which is supposed to be some upright moral haven, is loaded with soldiers and warriors and weapons a plenty, basically prepared to murder anyone within the city that they damn well please with a lead sandwich. While I am willing to accept this part on the grounds that it is Columbia's sole purpose to basically set the world aflame and destroy modern society, so of course they need trained soldiers and killers and weapons a plenty. If that is also so, then how is one man, who participated in all of one battle in his whole life, that was more of a massacre than an actual battle, is capable of mowing down this army that was capable of destroying entire cities, which we were even shown at something being possible. The story itself is about a man, who is all human. He shouldn't be this juggernaut capable of downing armed and trained masses. That makes no sense.

Along with that, the Vigors were just shoehorned into the game because "Bioshock needs super powers" which is horse shit because I never even used them. And also, the rummaging around trash cans in a city that hasn't been completely destroyed is also immersion breaking. Them having random places to buy guns and ammo and upgrades also makes little sense, as how many people in the city actually owned a damn weapon? Besides the police and such, only you and the rebels had guns, and even the rebels were supplied elsewhere, so in no way do those shops make sense in the game.

There is a lot wrong with the Infinite gameplay. There being loads of violence is not what is wrong with it, but gameplay wise and even still combat wise there is still plenty wrong.


As with The Last of Us; Joel's combat mode including loads of violence makes sense, as Joel was shown to be inherently a violent and even a pretty bad person. Sympathetic, sure, but he is not a good guy by any stretch of the word. Ellie, on the other hand (which is where most people point their disdain towards) only ever is forced to kill one person. Throughout the sections that you play with her, it is entirely the player's choice as to if Ellie performs any acts of violence, not Ellie's. The player can easily choose to use stealth, something the game even at plenty of times says you can and should use. Stealth is a massive part of the game, meaning Ellie is never put to the point to where she actually, canonically speaking, kills anyone, except that one point in the game, which was meant to be her turning point. It was a moment that made sense.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Racecarlock said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
Lugoscababib Discobiscuits

This week, Jim loads his gun and shoots holes in the argument that certain games suffer from ludonarrative dissonance, just because they're violent.

Watch Video
Oh man, speaking of people automatically dismissing violence, have you read greg tito's GTA V review? Oh yeah, how dare a GTA game be violent.
I just read that and...really couldn't quite believe it. I have to wonder if Greg has ever played a GTA game before? It's a series based on jumping into cars, mowing down pedestrians on the sidewalk before picking up a hooker, screwing her in a back alley, then beating her with a baseball bat to get your money back once you're finished. In other words: GTA is a series based on over-the-top violence. I get the feeling that Greg's the type of player that always drives on the road and stops for every stoplight when he plays GTA.

Oh, and Jim....that really is a damn fine suit you've got there.
 

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
11
Legion said:
It's also quite frequently a case of people picking up the word but not actually comprehending the specific meaning of it. The mainstream media keeps referring to "internet trolls" in their articles when the people they are describing are not trolls at all. They seem to have mistaken the fact that being nasty to somebody online is not the meaning of trolling, it just happens to often coincide with it, yet most articles referring to trolling simply use it as another term of bullying, harassing or threatening.
How true. It is agonising to listen to teachers and counsellors speak publically, using troll as though it were synonymous with bully.

What of the people who understand and can use terms like ludonarrative dissonance? Is this (arguably contrived) language worth keeping, given that it is so often misused?
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
Luuudooo... Luuuudo frieeend~

Oh noes, TEH VIOLENCES! Almost as bad as TEH SEXIES!
 

hexFrank202

New member
Mar 21, 2010
303
0
0
Next time, do an episode that 1: isn't about gender issues, 2: isn't about publishers, and 3: doesn't rip off a MovieBob episode.

Edit: Okay to be fair, it does come out with a KIND OF different point at the end.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
271
88
Country
USA
C2Ultima said:
I disagree slightly about Bioshock: Infinite. The reason the violence feels off is because a good chunk of the game is devoted to exploring the conflict between the Founders and the Vox Populi, with the conclusion Booker and Elizabeth come to being "Both of these guys are horrible and violent, and they're both in the wrong." Implying Booker and Elizabeth are in the right, even though Booker kills more people than any of them.
Wrong. It's only stated by the sides themselves that they're in the right, (big surprise) but both Booker and both sides actions throughout the game makes it quite clear that BOTH the Founders and the Vox are bad, and that it wouldn't really be much better for either to be in charge instead of the other. Also, neither Booker or Elizabeth are under any illusions that what they have done prior during the game is good, quite the opposite in fact, especially Booker.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
Okay. I love how you don't even try to pronounce that word throughout the video. Every time you did, I chuckled.

I can't say that there are too many games where I find there to be something in the gameplay that just makes me stop and question what's going on. And even when something does make me scratch my head, if the game is fun, I don't usually let it bother me or ruin the game.

It would have to be pretty big to ruin a game for me. And I can't think of anything like that off the top of my head.

Silentpony said:
Also did this week's episode seem shorter than normal? It just feels like it was over really quickly.
I know. I miss Jim, too.
 

n00beffect

New member
May 8, 2009
523
0
0
While I find this episode interesting for many reasons (which I won't list) one of them stood out to me, from a purely technically-critical stand point.

As Jim pointed out himself in the beginning of this clip, this is one of the first episodes he's done in a while that don't touch upon his two or three most prominent topics. This 'phenomenon' presents itself in a very interesting manner.

I can't be the only one who noticed the rushed pace of this episode's narration, right? This points to a very particular trait, that many performers (narrators, actors, voice-actors, etc.) share amongst each other, and that is that often actors (of any creed) when given a text of slightly harder linguistic quality; or a text they don't particularly find interesting or engaging and/or a text that is either fresh or alien/foreign to them, these same actors tend to skim through the text and fail to work with the language in it.

Now, maybe the quick pace was intended or was accidental (perhaps he was in a hurry, I don't know?), however, given the fact that Jim is an excellent narrator, who often uses the language of any text presented to him, to such a great extent, I've often gasped with surprise at it's unique usage, and how he tends to put particular emphasis on words; how he plays around with them and infuses them with various, often quickly-interchanging actions/tactics (emotions and feelings, intentions, etc.), here he downplays that talent of his, and though the reason may not be clear, I do suspect it may be the fact that he's distanced himself from his established comfort zone (vis-a-vis the aforementioned topics, he sarcastically detailed in his opening).

This requires further observation, but if true, serves to highlight how deeply he cares about his most frequently discussed topics (if that weren't already evidenced by his frequent discussion of said topics).

OT: Good show, though, as always your thoughts aren't further away from my own.
 

C2Ultima

Future sovereign of Oz
Nov 6, 2010
506
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
C2Ultima said:
I disagree slightly about Bioshock: Infinite. The reason the violence feels off is because a good chunk of the game is devoted to exploring the conflict between the Founders and the Vox Populi, with the conclusion Booker and Elizabeth come to being "Both of these guys are horrible and violent, and they're both in the wrong." Implying Booker and Elizabeth are in the right, even though Booker kills more people than any of them.
Wrong. It's only stated by the sides themselves that they're in the right, (big surprise) but both Booker and both sides actions throughout the game makes it quite clear that BOTH the Founders and the Vox are bad, and that it wouldn't really be much better for either to be in charge instead of the other. Also, neither Booker or Elizabeth are under any illusions that what they have done prior during the game is good, quite the opposite in fact, especially Booker.
I never said that the Vox or Founders were in the right (though I would argue that the Vox hardly ever seem to be "just as bad" as the Founders). It's just that Booker is also a killer, but the game still presents him as the hero, and in the right for his deeds in Columbia. The deeds he comes to regret are past actions that occur before the game, not during the story in Columbia. The game is very nonchalant about him killing tons of cops during the course of the story, and the gruesome nature of the fights combined with the sheer number of battles there are just became a little distancing for me in the end.
 

Lokithrsourcerer

New member
Nov 24, 2008
305
0
0
I'm glad to hear I wasn't the only one who thought the eating out of bins was weird in infinite.

I actually started referring to the game as "the adventures of super tramp" as you essentially play as a magic tramp who powers his abilities by eating and drinking discarded sandwiches and beer.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
Ludonarrative dissonance, huh? I typically just use the TV Tropes terminology of "story and gameplay segregation". Shame to see people misusing it, like they misuse so many other words... Like Autism for example.
 

Broderick

New member
May 25, 2010
462
0
0
Bad Jim said:
m19 said:
Good episode.

However I never saw that problem with Tomb Raider either, at least not as much as people seem to. It's a story of a girl who's trained both physically and to use weapons by an ex-special forces dude (you'll miss it if you don't pay attention). And the whole premise of the character arc is that she doesn't know herself. Hence after the first "that just happened" freakout, she shocks herself with what she can't do, "It's scary just how easy it was."

Yes the combat is exaggerated like in much of gaming but it is not completely at odds with the narrative or glossed over.
I bought that in the Steam sale and have been playing it over the weekend. I did hear a quip about her having to do a lot of hikes. But I didn't hear anything specific about weapons training.

I figured she was taught the skills relevant to archeology. Long hikes. Living in remote, harsh environments. Maybe learning how to use a gun to keep unwanted wildlife away. But not how to kill dozens of mercs. Not how to use a bow either, that takes years of effort for no forseeable purpose.
I don't know about gun use, but it is stated in the game that Lara was on the archery team in her college or something of that sort. It was stated quite early in the game I believe, so it might be easy to forget.
 

Dfskelleton

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,850
0
0
Cheers to you for referencing a Bosch painting.

I've never heard this argument used before, and I think I'm glad I haven't. It sounds like the type of thing that would get woefully misused.

And I'm glad I wasn't the only one put off a little by Booker eating absolutely everything.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
I get the feeling this video was directed at the Escapist community. We like to use "ludonarrative dissonance" like it's going out of style.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
271
88
Country
USA
C2Ultima said:
I never said that the Vox or Founders were in the right (though I would argue that the Vox hardly ever seem to be "just as bad" as the Founders). It's just that Booker is also a killer, but the game still presents him as the hero, and in the right for his deeds in Columbia. The deeds he comes to regret are past actions that occur before the game, not during the story in Columbia. The game is very nonchalant about him killing tons of cops during the course of the story, and the gruesome nature of the fights combined with the sheer number of battles there are just became a little distancing for me in the end.
What are you talking about? Booker spends half the game brooding about how horrible a person he is and how the killing he's doing isn't good but he doesn't have any other choice. At no point does ANYONE act like Booker is any sort of hero except the Vox, and they just do that to use him as propaganda as a martyr.

The Vox make it plain that they're no better than the Founders by being complete psychopaths killing anyone who isn't them, including civilians, something Booker can also do but that does not impact the story or dialog because it's the choice of the player to do that. No side, not Booker and Elizabeth, not the Founders, not the Vox is ever presented as in the right for their actions in the game, the lesser of the three evils at the most.