I have to say, other than the shock of realising that Elijah Wood is in the cast (I think or at least hope because they are going to frame the story with flashforward scenes with him and Ian Holm looking back), I am cautiously pleased by the cast for the new films. Now we'll just have to see if lightning can strike twice. And if the two-film split makes any sense.

Also something cheerful: here is Martin Freeman being a hobbit. SO CUTE!

Re: Jay Lake, I genuinely have no patience for writers who think it's appropriate to critique reviewers. I mean, read that stuff if you want, and I guess it's okay to say thank you if someone says something you like but whinging just makes everyone involved look bad. Not that Lake needs much help there :/ The dude is totally chronic for spurious self-justification. Don't me wrong, I have a vague degree of sympathy for that (not that I think it's okay to do it) since it's the easiest thing in the world to convince yourself that if you've been to Africa / got a gay friend / adopted a Chinese baby you can in no way be prejudiced ever.

the only things I actually seem to like are obscure Euro/Russian titles from Good Old Games, and I've come to realize I don't really have the attitude for games everyone else does.

And this is bad because...?

Oh, wait, Arthur just said that but better!

Michal:

Heh. I'm going to assume that the "Arthur" commenting over there is Arthur B, who is a braver soul than I. Though I'm still a bit miffed by what Lake is trying to say even when he provides such long explanations.

It is. What I'm taking from his responses is that following the whole racefail thing he's now really sensitive about being called out for a lack of standing, which would kind of explain why he jumps to declare what standing he has in his response to the Mainspring review...

...except you weren't actually addressing his lack of standing. Oh well.

Alasdair:

In all honesty, I'm seriously thinking about getting out of the game review racket. I don't have the money to buy new stuff, the only things I actually seem to like are obscure Euro/Russian titles from Good Old Games, and I've come to realize I don't really have the attitude for games everyone else does. You can kinda tell the writing is on the wall when Yahtzee describes Portal 2 as "a sightseeing tour that begrudgingly has a puzzle game in it" and your initial reaction is This is a bad thing because...?

I honestly don't think any of that's a problem. I have no qualms about reviewing games long after their release date, and I think there is in fact value in having reviews which go back and look at games after the hype has died down and after the thrill of discovering a new game along with everyone else has passed and seeing if it's stood the test of time so far. And reviews of obscure Euro/Russian titles are actually way more useful than reviews of popular games which have had exhaustive coverage already.

As far as having a different attitude towards games from other reviewers, I don't really think it's a problem so long as that attitude is evident in your review; it's better to acknowledge your biases upfront than pretend to an objectivity that nobody actually possesses, not just because it's more honest but also because it's more informative - it puts the reader in a position where they can say "Well, they clearly have a problem with this part of the game, but that's not the sort of thing that bothers me". (This is actually why I think Yahtzee's reviews work, when they do work - the man is incredibly critical about everything, but he enunciates his criticisms to a sufficient extent to let you decide whether the thing he's complaining about would be a deal-breaker for you or not.)

Basically I have been really enjoying your game reviews and would be super disappointed if you stopped. :)

Essentially what Jay Lake seems to be suggesting is this:

"Everyone interprets the book in different ways, and what you think I was trying to convey is in fact the complete polar opposite of what I was actually trying to say in Mainspring about Africa."

And his final explanation for shoving in the bit about his life in sub-Saharan Africa makes no sense to me.

I mentioned my experience in Africa because I was musing on the connections between fiction and life.

Or trying to show off.

I'm just surprised that Jay Lake seems to care what I think. Also, happy that Imaro might get a little more exposure thanks to the amount of traffic coming in from his site to my blog.

Jay Lake's attention strikes me as being a bit like the eye of Sauron ... do you want us to gather round his front gates while you sneak in the back?

Heh. I'm going to assume that the "Arthur" commenting over there is Arthur B, who is a braver soul than I. Though I'm still a bit miffed by what Lake is trying to say even when he provides such long explanations.

Ah, Team Fortress. The cartoonish humour never gets old. :-)

Hey look, I got Jay Lake's attention (second link down). I don't know why it's an "odd critique", or what living in Nigeria has to do with anything, but there ya go.

To be honest, the entire "I did in fact spend some years of my life in sub-Saharan Africa" statement strikes me as a bit of a "I know more about the subject because I've lived in Africa, so hah!", which he tries to soften by preceding it with the words "Although it's not germane to either reading or critiquing the book..."

And the whole "Mainspring is about 19th century attitudes..." is pretty much the equivalent of the author trying to excuse the book by saying "I'm not being racist and stereotyping, I'm being realistic!". "Odd critique" has nothing to do with it as far as I can see, but maybe I'm just reading far too much between the words.

I still do really like one game, which is now free to play, by the way.

Also, science!

Still sounds like you did better than me, Cyrus. I saved my money and bought F.E.A.R. 3, because goddammit I thought the first two games were fun.

I shouldn't have spent my money. The plot only makes vague sense, the gameplay is afflicted with terminal consoleitis, and even the co-op isn't enough of a gimmick to redeem it. I tried bashing out a review of it, but I just couldn't make it compelling.

In all honesty, I'm seriously thinking about getting out of the game review racket. I don't have the money to buy new stuff, the only things I actually seem to like are obscure Euro/Russian titles from Good Old Games, and I've come to realize I don't really have the attitude for games everyone else does. You can kinda tell the writing is on the wall when Yahtzee describes Portal 2 as "a sightseeing tour that begrudgingly has a puzzle game in it" and your initial reaction is This is a bad thing because...?

So I just finished playing LA Noire last night, and I have mixed feelings about it: the city itself is quite beautiful, although there's very little to do in it; the adventure aspects are fun, even if you don't really have a choice as to how the case turns out; some characters are endearing, while others have no explanation as to their actions. Overall, it isn't bad.

Then we get to the ending.

I don't know what is going on with Rockstar's writing team -- ever since GTA IV they've been trying to include these big storylines with realistic characters, only to fall flat on their faces every time, whether it's through having the protagonist make dumb decisions, be unsympathetic, or being railroaded into a bullshit situation. They did it with GTA, RDR, and they did it here. Spoilers follow:

Yeah! Finished at #30, just this month, I think. Quite concise compared to SiP, though I basically made a face at the last panel (creepy factor more than anything, but that's neither here nor there).

Re: Jaylake--I will totally join in the efforts to sneak in the back.

Wait-- has ECHO ended?

Jay Lake's attention strikes me as being a bit like the eye of Sauron ... do you want us to gather round his front gates while you sneak in the back?

@Pyrofennec - is it finished then? I guess I thought it was going to go on forever like SiP so I didn't pay much attention after the first volume. I felt broadly okay-to-meh about it, at the time but that was largely based on affection for SiP.

I'm slightly creeped out by the fact that Mister Lake gives us his weight.

Hey look, I got Jay Lake's attention (second link down). I don't know why it's an "odd critique", or what living in Nigeria has to do with anything, but there ya go.

*Sigh*

Why the fuck can't Rowling just refrain from telling people how to interpret her books? I'm happy enough with knowing that Harry beat Voldemort, married Ginny Weasley and gave birth to lots of incestuously-named children without being treated to in-depth knowledge of what his favourite TV-show was during his pre-Hogwarts years.

So as I understand it this whole Pottermore deal is that it's kind of like an online director's commentary for the books where you progress through the website comment as you read through the books themselves. This is meant to encourage reading and be a means for Rowling to provide us with her extensive piles of background notes which never made their way into the books.

In other words... it's like an MMO of the Silmarillion.

Rowling is never going to let go of Harry Potter.

At least the effects are decent.

Paging Kyra? I finished reading Terry Moore's Echo. It turned out more or less pretty good but the women get declothed with alarming frequency (also there are Les Yay moments :<).

Of course, our dismissal of this comic could just be a result of the fact we've spent too long reading webcomics and therefore have become snooty elitists.

Or it could be that Randall is a terrible person who refuses to concede legitimacy to other people's interests.

Holy crap, that webcomic is offensive.

So, if we are to take Randall the Wise's Theory of Snobbishness at face value, just because I can appreciate the difference between real champagne and some second-rate sparkling wine, then I must be a complaisant narcissist with no regard for other's thoughts or feelings.

Ironically, you could also take that same concept and reason that just because the non-connoisseur displays what can be described as patronizing contempt towards his connoisseur friend's tastes, then he himself must be an arrogant snob too.

Also! The bit where he says "spend enough time with any of them and you'll become a snobby connoisseur" bugs me. Because the implication is that being a snob - being full of sneering condescension for others who don't share your tastes - is the same thing as having an enthusiasm or a well-developed interest in something. Sometimes, when someone's really knowledgeable about something and we hear them talk about it we might feel a little small by comparison. But it's petty and solipsistic to imagine that the only reason people have to be interested in stuff is to produce that feeling in us. Gah.