GWJ Conference Call Episode 268

Conference Call

Show credits

Music credits: 

Intro/Outtro Music - Ian Dorsch, Willowtree Audioworks

Menu Theme - The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - http://zelda.com/skywardsword/ - 35:30

The Old Republic Theme - Star Wars: The Old Republic - http://www.swtor.com/ - 31:38

Comments

wordsmythe wrote:
kincher skolfax wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

I do, on the other hand, still have to fight to be treated like an adult at work.

It's your baby face. Have you considered growing a mustache?

That or a beard.

So are we now in the month of Beardbember?

AndrewA wrote:

I disagree with the notion that older games (like Morrowwind) are being backwards or artificial or whatever when they locked players out of certain content based on in-game choices that are made.

Rather, I think that more modern games (like Skyrim) are being lazy when they allow everyone to do everything regardless of what they do in game. If it is a question of accessing content, whyy can't developers make excellent storylines based on joining the thieves guild and thus pissing off the warrior guild (for example?) A story arc that is initiated because you joined an opposing alliance has a tonne of potential and is far more logically consistent than letting the player be everything to everyone.

I agree. Having real consequences for your choices makes the world seem more alive. It's also a lot more work, which is why so few people do it. In fact, the lack of consequences for your ingame choices is what's artificial. Like El-taco says, the frikkin arch-mage shouldn't be approached to frame some pissant market vendor like he's your average guttersnipe.

Sure, there's an upside in that you *can* go almost everywhere and do almost anything, but I don't think this should be celebrated as some great modern innovation if it means you've sacrificed world consistency to do it.

I know Rabbit hates being locked out of content, but this doesn't strike me as the same as games that make you earn unlocks. Rather, these are games in which you are offered a choice of paths--except that Bethesda seems intent to keep that from being a meaningful choice.

I'm against the characterization of Skyrim's choices as "lazy" and locking away content as "lots of work." Adding more content than what's already on the disk will add more work. Locking away content is just a matter of a few lines of code and different dialogue algos.

Skyrim presenting its content every time the player asks is a question of design, not industry. Indeed, it seems highly unlikely to me that a game made on that schedule with that team would have any one person lazing around doing nothing. These guys are not lazy, and I don't know how a game could even be either "hardworking" or "lazy," especially when talking about presentation of content.

On Nerd Shame:

I struggle with this issue. My life experience has generally been in line with Giftzwerg, and Wordy. Though I have the more spineless tact. I'm still a closet nerd.

I would never dream of presenting many of my interests to my clients. People who are concerned enough about the image which they're putting forth, to be interested in demonstrating their wealth by having a $1M house designed (and paying someone to do it for them) don't tend to be the type of people with whom I would now, or in high school, play D&D with. They seem to me to be, usually, "the foyer crowd"; the popular people. Of course I generalize, but among colleagues and clients, who your architect is, is as important as the make of suit you wear. Sadly, my industry is a fashion, and people who are focused on that do not have the same outlook on supposedly childish pursuits as those of who pursue the same.

In highschool I was fortunate enough to have run in the middle ground. I played on the sports teams; captained a couple, but secretly we played Dungeons and Dragons on weekend days. At 16:00 the books and dice were hidden and we stared planning the winter beach party at which we tried to get the fireplace hot enough that girls would agree to wear bathing suits in January. Again I generalize (this time the other way). The problem is that society seems to have a polar view of what a nerd is, and the effort to shatter that stigma is coming only from the nerd faction. A La Chris Gore types, if you watch G4.

As a father I struggle with whether or not to try something like Rabbit is doing. I'd love to play D&D with my son once he's of age. As it is, I worry that I'm damaging my professional reputation because I know my son will speak freely to his peers, their parrents and teachers about him sitting with me to play minecraft, or similar gaming activities. The bully beaten geek in me can't help but believe that my son would have a more successful life if he becomes the person I wasn't. I'd rather he's the hockey jock with girls clamouring for his attention than the life I knew, and perhaps know.

I can't help but hope for a world where this comic is meaningless, but I don't honestly believe it will be so for my generation.

This whole issue for me, of course runs much deeper. As I've expereinced online, my geek or nerd status is likely a result of my behavior. I've come to realize that my parents were not able to give me the social skills I needed to avoid the "nerd" pitfalls, like correcting others on minutia, or expounding on details to the wrong audience. I hope that where they've succeeded is to give me an opportunity to look inward and hopefully create a stepping off point for my children. As part of that, would I lead my child into similar interests as I have? Perhaps. Its difficult not to.

Nerd Shame has been mentioned in at least the two last podcasts and I'm interesed in it as a topic in this community. I hope that I can gain a healthy perspective on it for my son's sake, and perhaps my own.

*wall of text, and naval gazing apology*

Regarding nerd shame:

Being a grownup isn't about your hobbies, or your house, or your job. Being a grownup means owning your own life. That means accepting that everything you do, all of your choices, and pretty much everything that happens to you is a result of you.

Pissing and moaning about how X, Y or Z is unfair is not grownup. Accepting that life will sometimes deal you a crap hand and playing it as well as you can is.

Is it unfair that some people think being a 30 year old who likes video games lumps you into some man-child, failure-to-launch loser category? Yes. But the people who think that are either ignorant or idiots, and you should care about the opinions of neither. If ignorant idiots hold sway over your career, you just don't talk about your hobbies with them. Pretend to like whatever superficial "grown up" crap they like, like watching overpaid men play children's games in front of crowds, or spending too much money on life-size hot-wheels cars.

Its your life. You own it. Everyone else can go piss up a rope.

I border on the pissing and moaning side far too often.

My point was simply, its great, in an ideal world to say "This is what I like, and to hell with the rest of you" but the fact is that we have to get along with others, even those who don't feel compelled to get along with people unlike themselves. And, especially if you want money from those people then, like DoubtingThomas said you have to put parts of your true self away in a little box until it's time to bring it out again.

So I guess whether you feel shame about that or not is the bone of contention here?

I have to confess that I find this habit and desire to seek self-affirmation from random strangers to be exceedingly strange. Random Patient X doesn't get a chance to judge my gaming tastes, not because I'm hiding my gaming, but because he or she simply hasn't earned the privilege of being party to that part of my life. Bosses and coworkers are classed the same way. If they show themselves amenable and I feel comfortable with them, they get to see more of me. Otherwise, it's strictly business.

I don't bother to think about whether other people are idiots or are ignorant for not getting my hobbies. Their opinions don't matter enough for me to think that long about it.

My point was simply, its great, in an ideal world to say "This is what I like, and to hell with the rest of you" but the fact is that we have to get along with others, even those who don't feel compelled to get along with people unlike themselves.

My sense of this is that I would no more talk about my interest in gaming with a client than I would my choice of dogfood for the new puppy: it's not relevant to the context in which we interact. That isn't shame, or fear, it's just the desire to segregate parts of my life based on their function roles.

kincher skolfax wrote:

So are we now in the month of Beardbember?

Don't be ridiculous.

It's Decembeard.

Ghostship wrote:

I border on the pissing and moaning side far too often.

My point was simply, its great, in an ideal world to say "This is what I like, and to hell with the rest of you" but the fact is that we have to get along with others, even those who don't feel compelled to get along with people unlike themselves. And, especially if you want money from those people then, like DoubtingThomas said you have to put parts of your true self away in a little box until it's time to bring it out again.

So I guess whether you feel shame about that or not is the bone of contention here?

Everyone has to put parts of themselves in a little box if they want to function in society. I don't know where this notion that every part of every person had to be accepted and loved by everyone.

Was it twitter? Facebook? Who put this notion in our heads that every aspect of our personality had to be publicized, and if it wasn't immediately embraced then we have to feel repressed?

You don't get to be loved by everyone. If you're very lucky, you get to be loved by a few. Focus on them, and wear the mask for the rest of the world. That's not ideal, that's just the world.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:
Ghostship wrote:

I border on the pissing and moaning side far too often.

My point was simply, its great, in an ideal world to say "This is what I like, and to hell with the rest of you" but the fact is that we have to get along with others, even those who don't feel compelled to get along with people unlike themselves. And, especially if you want money from those people then, like DoubtingThomas said you have to put parts of your true self away in a little box until it's time to bring it out again.

So I guess whether you feel shame about that or not is the bone of contention here?

Everyone has to put parts of themselves in a little box if they want to function in society. I don't know where this notion that every part of every person had to be accepted and loved by everyone.

Was it twitter? Facebook? Who put this notion in our heads that every aspect of our personality had to be publicized, and if it wasn't immediately embraced then we have to feel repressed?

You don't get to be loved by everyone. If you're very lucky, you get to be loved by a few. Focus on them, and wear the mask for the rest of the world. That's not ideal, that's just the world.

To flip things around: Who put the idea in your head that you should hide yourself from others? Isn't that a form of deception?

wordsmythe wrote:
doubtingthomas396 wrote:
Ghostship wrote:

I border on the pissing and moaning side far too often.

My point was simply, its great, in an ideal world to say "This is what I like, and to hell with the rest of you" but the fact is that we have to get along with others, even those who don't feel compelled to get along with people unlike themselves. And, especially if you want money from those people then, like DoubtingThomas said you have to put parts of your true self away in a little box until it's time to bring it out again.

So I guess whether you feel shame about that or not is the bone of contention here?

Everyone has to put parts of themselves in a little box if they want to function in society. I don't know where this notion that every part of every person had to be accepted and loved by everyone.

Was it twitter? Facebook? Who put this notion in our heads that every aspect of our personality had to be publicized, and if it wasn't immediately embraced then we have to feel repressed?

You don't get to be loved by everyone. If you're very lucky, you get to be loved by a few. Focus on them, and wear the mask for the rest of the world. That's not ideal, that's just the world.

To flip things around: Who put the idea in your head that you should hide yourself from others? Isn't that a form of deception?

That is not a form of deception. And it's not hiding. There are things people want to keep for themselves.

The deception is more likely to be that you *think* you know someone because they play games.

wordsmythe:

Actually, the proper way to flip that around is: how many of you gentlefolk would like it if I forced y'all to know more about me than you already do, and then force you to embrace those parts (and the parts you already know) wholeheartedly and without reservation? Sound good?

If it's a girl or a guy prospect, he or she should know about your hobbies, but that doesn't obligate them to be interested in the same. Stopping yourself from droning on and on and on about your 12th level Paladin in front of a date who doesn't care about D&D does both of you a favor.

I suppose it comes down to a viewpoint difference. To me, it's transparency and answering questions directly. To others, it's over-volunteering.

I guess I don't trust "need to know" mentalities. Too much X Files, probably.

Demiurge wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
doubtingthomas396 wrote:
Ghostship wrote:

I border on the pissing and moaning side far too often.

My point was simply, its great, in an ideal world to say "This is what I like, and to hell with the rest of you" but the fact is that we have to get along with others, even those who don't feel compelled to get along with people unlike themselves. And, especially if you want money from those people then, like DoubtingThomas said you have to put parts of your true self away in a little box until it's time to bring it out again.

So I guess whether you feel shame about that or not is the bone of contention here?

Everyone has to put parts of themselves in a little box if they want to function in society. I don't know where this notion that every part of every person had to be accepted and loved by everyone.

Was it twitter? Facebook? Who put this notion in our heads that every aspect of our personality had to be publicized, and if it wasn't immediately embraced then we have to feel repressed?

You don't get to be loved by everyone. If you're very lucky, you get to be loved by a few. Focus on them, and wear the mask for the rest of the world. That's not ideal, that's just the world.

To flip things around: Who put the idea in your head that you should hide yourself from others? Isn't that a form of deception?

That is not a form of deception. And it's not hiding. There are things people want to keep for themselves.

The deception is more likely to be that you *think* you know someone because they play games.

What Demiurge said.

It's not deception. It's called living in a society with other people.

I wear clothes, thus hiding my magnificent body from people. Is that deception, or is that courtesy to other people who don't want to see my junk? Are decency laws mandating that everyone be a liar?

We all need privacy, even if Facebook doesn't want us to have it. I like that there are aspects of my personality I can share with my wife alone. It makes the relationship more special, rather than her just being some woman I share a house with.

wordsmythe wrote:

I suppose it comes down to a viewpoint difference. To me, it's transparency and answering questions directly. To others, it's over-volunteering.

I guess I don't trust "need to know" mentalities. Too much X Files, probably.

How about if you don't think of it as "need to know" and instead think of it as "deserve to know."

Frankly, anyone who's going to think less of me because I'm a gamer, or an NRA member, or a member of whatever other group I choose to associate with, then they don't deserve to get to know me for realsies. They can have "socially acceptable" DoubtingThomas396, and think they know me. I don't have time for superficial relationships.

But that's just the introvert in me talking. I'm well aware that 90% of the population requires other people to live with themselves. That's not a criticism, it's just a reality (look up the definition of extroversion sometime). Extroverts fascinate me, because the things they need to feel rejuvenated would exhaust the hell out of me. The idea that someone would actually like the fact that their boss makes them stay late so they can go to some bar and "hang out" with their coworkers just because a major holiday is nearby is simultaneously amazing and horrifying to me.

Mind Blown.

I never realized that's what an introvert was supposed to be. I'd always fancied myself one, but I have zero problems with partying to relax and have fun. Wow.

IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z9iGD7hIu8s/ToFRsAuZvKI/AAAAAAAAAMs/-Nf8rNyHquA/s400/michelangelo-tmnt.jpg)

I actually shifted from an introvert to an extrovert around junior high. I used to avoid attention, now I like meeting and sharing myself with new people—which I don't think is such a bad thing.

wordsmythe wrote:

sharing myself with new people

I'll let someone better than I take this joke on.

wordsmythe:

I looked up the meanings after The revelation on this thread and it seems that an extrovert is someone who draws psychological energy from interacting with people, while someone who is an introvert is recharged by doing solitary activities. I draw energy from both. I never seem to have enough time in the day to do everything I want! Ambivert?

LarryC wrote:

wordsmythe:

I looked up the meanings after The revelation on this thread and it seems that an extrovert is someone who draws psychological energy from interacting with people, while someone who is an introvert is recharged by doing solitary activities. I draw energy from both. I never seem to have enough time in the day to do everything I want! Ambivert?

As far as I can tell, this utterly binary introvert/extrovert "definition" is just a convenient way to sell books to the type of person who buys books about pop-psychology, and in actuality, most people exist upon a spectrum of behavior.

TheHipGamer wrote:
LarryC wrote:

wordsmythe:

I looked up the meanings after The revelation on this thread and it seems that an extrovert is someone who draws psychological energy from interacting with people, while someone who is an introvert is recharged by doing solitary activities. I draw energy from both. I never seem to have enough time in the day to do everything I want! Ambivert?

As far as I can tell, this utterly binary introvert/extrovert "definition" is just a convenient way to sell books to the type of person who buys books about pop-psychology, and in actuality, most people exist upon a spectrum of behavior.

Yes, but the extremes still need to be defined. If someones believes only extremes exist then they have a lot to learn.

garion333 wrote:

Yes, but the extremes still need to be defined. If someones believes only extremes exist then they have a lot to learn. ;)

People who believe only extremes exist are IDIOTS, no exception!!