Jimquisition: Lugoscababib Discobiscuits

[Fiairflair]

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]

Luuudooo... Luuuudo frieeend~

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

 

[hexFrank202]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[DoubleChops]

Jim, you so sassy. Love it.

 

[C2Ultima]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Endocrom]

Somebody has to do it:

Ludo! Call the Rocks!

 

[TheSKSpecial]

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.

Er...he wasn't complaining about the violence itself, he was complaining about the narrative and the characters being unlikeable dicks. Yeah, the series has always been about violence, but at the very least the characters back then had some positives about them that kinda sorta gave them some appeal. Now you're playing as violent, unlikeable dicks that are violent and unlikeable dicks for the sake of being violent unlikeable dicks.

Now, you may say, that's the hallmark of the crime genre Grand Theft Auto spawned, at least in videogames. But some of the events and missions of Grand Theft Auto V feel more malicious and, well, evil, than the comparatively light-hearted violence of most games, the recent Saints Row 4 being a perfect example. What's missing in GTA V's story is a sense that the characters have been painted into a corner by various machinations beyond their control, like Niko Bellic of GTA IV, or must commit their crimes to mete out justice, as Tommy Vercetti does in Vice City. The three main characters of GTAV do terrible things merely to get paid, and deserve no sympathy. There's no drive in them even to be the best at what they do, the last American value we afford criminals, but rather they commit these crimes with no lifeline thrown to the audience to pull us along in supporting them.

 

[Soak]

Whaaaaa? An episode not about gender- or developing-stuff, is that a thing now? Beware, you might offend your long term-fans by presenting new topics .
Sarcasm aside, good episode.

However, while i agree with your point in general, that sometimes words can be used falsly (ew, shit happens to me all the time, but often i'm able to clarify rather soon), i disagree with some specific points, mainly regarding the dicsussion about Infinite.
In particular, the dissonance of Booker "scavanging" garbage from the streets of Columbia was often mentioned by many in those discussions, but most of the time seen as a minor gameplay issue compared to what i saw as actually critisized about the combat in Infinite.
As i see it, at least the critisism of most gamers was neither the quality of violance presented - at least not for me, on the contrary, i was positively impressed how the game managed to present the cruelty throughout the course of the game, starting with the decent placement of the dead person in the lighthouse, over the first actual "action sequence" at the raffle, in a way getting more intense throughout the game - and i'd say, nor with the "quantity" as such, but more how shallow and "stupid" it is implemented in the game, mostly resulting in predictable and repetitive encounters, which, pared with the quantity, become increasingly tedious.
And that comes along with some other issues, already mentioned all over the Escapist-Forums.
And in the discissions i had about the topic, i neither used, nor read the term of legowhiskers dribbleboosters - at least not until now, but sad truth, i'm not able to keep track of every game-related discussion to begin with.

Buuuuuut, as i would never dare to question or even speak against you, once more i bow and call "amen" to your presentation and thank god for you, Jim .

 

[leviadragon99]

Huh, I wasn't even aware that misuse was happening... guess it never goes out of style for people to misuse fancy terminology.

 

[daxterx2005]

That is quite a spiffy coat you have there, Jim.