You know, it's funny: given the lack of flying cars, laser guns, or effective, universal health care, I hear many complaints that, for 2008, this doesn't really feel like "the future." Maybe they've got a point, but they neglect to recognize one thing: we do have the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. According to the radio show: "...though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does make the reassuring claim that where it is in accurate, it is at least definitively inaccurate."
So, you can access a frequently inaccurate world encyclopedia on a small, sleek, friendly-looking black box, where you can then translate any language and educate yourself about the impending Vogon raids. Who says this isn't the future?
Anyway, we're Podtoiding tonight, and we'll be talking almost exclusively about The King of Kong, which comes out on DVD today. If you wanna ask us questions about the documentary, that's alright; if you wanna ask us something totally unrelated, that's great, too. Either way, if your question kicks a sufficient amount of future-ass, you'll win 25 future-bucks.
Contest:
10:35 AM on 01.30.2008
| 
Any questions? Yeah, I got one. What do you think about the guy with weird hair. You know, the one with the black pants and shirt and the greasy ass Kentucky Waterfall. Did you laugh when you first saw him? I sure as hell did.
Clearly the movie uses a good/evil dichotomy between Steve Weibe and Billy Mitchell. Do you think the movie would have benefited greater if it portrayed Mitchell more fairly? While the guy is no saint, he had met with Weibe before and didn't snub him like the movie portrays.
Personally, I like the movie the way it is. Mitchell is the villain for a purpose. He has the high score. Weibe is the protagonist. Of course Mitchell is the bad guy. He has the high score! Besides, Mitchell makes a wonderful villain.
Anyway, King of Kong is one of the best movies of '07.
Anyway, my question is that this is one of the first and possibly only documentary that come to mind when I do think of, well a video game documentary (not including ones like Moral Kombat. But I was wondering what other aspects of the gaming culture you guys would like to see explored in documentary form.
And just to make this a twofer, do you guys prefer something like The King of Kong compared to say, a mockumentary like Pure Pwnage?
On a more serious note: How often do the Podtoid crew pay attention to the credits at the end of a game, and what kind of impact do you think the developers getting payed royalties and getting named in the credits has had on games
That aside, I would love to see an FPS set in the Krikkit Wars.
Hardest working man on Dtoit?
Rev Ant? Or Jim Sterling?
Over the weekend, I watched This Film Is Not Yet Rated, a scathing attack on the MPAA and how it is run. Pretty much the entire time, I was wondering if one could make a similar documentary film on, say, the ESRB or the BBFC. Many of the rating decisions for games can be arbitrary — it’s amazing what you can get away with and still have your game rated ‘T’ these days (Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune, I’m looking at you).
Look, I think the ESRB is great: it provides a shred of credibility and legitimacy to the gaming industry that “concerned” parents and politicians everywhere would like to remove. But it seems to operate in a clandestine manner that is not unlike that of the MPAA:
The identities of the ESRB raters are kept confidential and selected randomly from a pool of full-time ESRB employees who live in the New York City area. According to an ESRB introductory brochure from 1994: “The raters represent a wide range of backgrounds, races, and ages and have no ties to the interactive entertainment industry. Raters include retired school principals, parents, professionals, and other individuals from all walks of life.” (source)
The ratings of motion pictures are determined by the rating board of the Classification and Rating Administration (“CARA”), which includes a Chairperson, a Vice-Chair, several Senior Raters and additional raters who all participate in the rating of individual motion pictures. The ratings are based on the level of certain content in the motion picture in order to provide parents with information to help them determine each film’s suitability for viewing by their children. CARA attempts to select a diverse group of raters who represent the diversity of American parents such as parents from different parts of the country, including small towns and big cities. Each member of the rating board is a parent and has no affiliation with the entertainment industry outside their employment with CARA. (source)
Is a retired school principal the “average parent”? Do these self-policing boards need some kind of government involvement/regulation, and/or should there be legislation in lieu of quote-unquote non-mandatory ratings boards? (Let me guess: Jim says “no”.) Discuss.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game_nolan.shtml
I know that's probably more retroforce territory but you guys brought it up!
a. The game is really old. WHY: There are only used copies left so the developers and publishers get nothing. This game may be on Virtual Console or XBLA... or PSN.
b. The game is really old. WHY: There are only used copies left so the developers and publishers get nothing. This game is not on VC, XBLA, or PSN.
c. You own the original console, but the game is on VC, etc. WHY: You could want the original game (not VC, etc), but all of the cartridges are used so the Dev and Publisher get nothing from you purchase.
d. You want to try before you buy. WHY: Most people can't rent these games anymore so you can try the game before you pay for them legally.
e. Screw everybody, like hell I am gonna pay for a potentially classic game! WHY: 'Cause your a douchebag, ya douchebag.
So anyways, I walked into the resturant at the edge of the universe...
I should re-read the first book... and then read the rest of the series, but where am I going to squeeze it into my game time?
Also, how would Mr.Destructoid bring about the apocolypse? I demand it be outlined as well.
How do games avoid being pretentious when introducing elements such as politics, emotion and morals?
What technical innovations are you looking forward to? This question was inspired by Headtracking.
How do you stop common control schemes from becoming tired and repetitive and still make it fun and intuitive? Is there a science to it or do you just go the valve route and playtest their faces off?
Thanks for Counter Strike by the way, I've got my own copy now so I don't have to use my friends :)