PC Gamer, Vede, and Penny Arcade: We love you! But I hate you
From Scott Kurtz's blog this morning (be gentle, his server's dyspeptic):
I must admit, it seemed pretty funky to me too.
Originally Posted by Scott Kurtz
That's pretty weird, but I don't think Penny Arcade will mind too much. Good, no GREAT, ammo for their newspost, and it won't affect sales of their game in the least. The only people who were going to play it were PA fans anyway, and nothing is going to sway them either way.
Anecdotally speaking, I don't think that's true because I'm not really a big PA fan (I like PA, but don't read the site/comics very much) but PC Gamer's preview has stoked my interest in the PA game quite a bit.
Originally Posted by Daniel Elliot
Eh. I took it more as... I Don't get it (PA) But I'm Weird so since I don't like the comic, I won't like the game. Which means it will probably be great.
Err.. did I read the same editorial that he did?
I see him saying P-A is sometimes funny and sometimes not, and I see him taking potshots at the "cult of P-A" that mandates that everything they do is gold and cannot go wrong. I'm with him there. Sometimes P-A is funny. Often I can see how someone who's younger and really into whatever's hip and cool could be convinced it's funny, even when it's just, well, stupid.
I just don't get where Kurtz is coming from, at all. Vede didn't seem to shit all over P-A to me. The only think he took some shots at was the cultish following that states that "P-A" == good. I think I'm all right with the editors of gaming magazines not feeling inclined to blindly follow the masses no matter what.
For me personally I think the editorial has a mix of all kinds of stuff--complaints, groupthink, Garfield, fanboys, etc.--some of which may or may not be on the ball (PA fanboyism) an others really depend on your point of view (is Garfield really that bad? I never thought so).
I dislike fanboyism immensely--the kind of rampant "groupthink" that Vederman derides for me stretches back to the dittohead days when Limbaugh was in his prime ('92 or thereabouts). His buddy he describes pretty much as being "one of them" (my words), gushing over every PA strip and marveling at the humor, then reading their blog and generally agreeing with everything they say. Okay so maybe Vederman's buddy isn't quite like that, but there are quite a few that are.
Structurally I don't think PA and Garfield are alike at all; quite a few guys here say PA is really a 2-panel comic since you can often remove the middle panel and still get most if not all of the joke. Garfield I don't think is like that, but of course Jim Davis is long dead and I haven't read it consistently since the 80s.
The way Vederman wrote the end of the column, I don't think he really thinks that he hopes the issue sells bad and the game fails, it's just, in the end, a joke. If he did mean it, that'd be completely ridiculous and he should be out on his ass as an EIC faster than the speed of light.
While the PA fan base may be fanatics, in a way I think they're a good kind of fanatic. You meet a lot of these guys at PAX, and anyone who does any kind of work at PAX will tell you its probably the best convention in the entire year's worth of trade and consumer shows. Why? Because you talk to a lot of gamers, there's always something fun and cool going on, and the Enforcers (volunteer staff) are frankly awesome and the most helpful show staff I've ever encountered. Sure there's a lot of underage people and obvious, um, closeted people, but it's still pretty cool, and that's (I believe) an extension of the PA philosophy/ideal.
jesus christ, what a cock
Uhoh, Angrycoder is angry again. :(
Wow, the "Vede" sure can write teh funnay... I don't expect high discourse in a gaming magazine but "I fucked his mom last night" jokes?
time for me to start misspelling loose
What I'm wondering is who Angrycoder is talking about?
Himself? Maybe he's posting while looking down in the bathroom.
Greg Vederman is an idiotic assclown who's always thought he was more funny than he actually is. I've known this since before I stopped subscribing to that craptastic magazine years ago. The fact that they made him "Editor-in-Chief" only assures me that nothing has changed and it's still just as much ass as it was back then, probably much worse. They kept sending me the damn thing for almost 2 years after my subscription was supposed to run out. Eventually they got smart and the new issues stopped coming, which did kind of suck because since they were so chock full of ads they made really good fly-swatters.
Maybe "The Vede" needs to take a long look in the mirror and realize that he himself is more "lasagna" than Garfield and Penny Arcade put together.
Last edited by Glycerine; 06-06-2007 at 09:48 AM.
Completely harmless editorial on the culture of franchising, fandom and fucking your friend's mother.
Kurtz, after all these years, still can't stand the jocks.
This is a small, completely tangential point, but Jim Davis is still alive and creating new strips as far as I know. I think you've got him confused with Charles Schulz, creator of Peanuts, who passed away in 2000.
Originally Posted by Alan Dunkin
Just to mess with the Vede's history; I'm definitely younger than him and I still bought the Garfields and thought they were the best as a kid... but only up until about book 9 or so. It was a jump the shark kind of moment, because by then the cast narrowed down from 5 or so to just Garfield and Jon, Davis started drawing fewer and fewer backgrounds, and Garfield looked less and less like a Cat and more like a human.
As far as the editorial, it was a dicky thing to do considering they're publishing five covers of their magazine based on Penny Arcade. I'm just not sure if he's flipping the readers off or Penny Arcade.
Though the idea of a zombie Jim Davis writing the comic would explain a hell of a lot.
Originally Posted by LesJarvis
Gabe mentioned this in his front-page post a few weeks ago when the issue first game out.
Originally Posted by Gabe
I agree it was a fairly class-less thing to do.
Jesus Christ. As many times as I may have considered Vede to be an "idiotic assclown" during the years that I shared a house with him, he isn't and has never been one in regards to his job. He cares deeply about the magazine and about PC gaming.
Originally Posted by Glycerine
We actually discussed this issue on the last PCG podcast in which Vede gave what I thought was a very reasoned explanation of why he wrote what he wrote, and how he felt it had been misconstrued by many. It was clear to me that Greg is baffled and a bit upset about the way that editorial was received. I wound up agreeing with him, but that section got cut because he was concerned that talking about it more might just fan the flames, but on reflection it would probably have helped clear the air.
At the very worst this was an attempt at humor that backfired, Vede maybe could have made his point more clearly but then certain elements of the audience took that and ran the rest of the way with it, way past what was intended. It amazes me that after getting FIVE different covers and a glowing feature story inside, what everyone's picked up on are a few comments in an editor's letter that were a minor miscalculation at worst, refreshing candor at best. If anything the response on the forums only validates everything Greg said about the PA audience hivemind.
(For the record, I think PA is hilarious, most of the time.)
These comments look like they're little but well-intended sarcastic and depreciating jokes that Kurtz took to heart for dubious reasons.
Anyhow, the somber fact that there is no PC release that was significant enough to take the place of Penny-Arcade's craptastic game on the cover is solid proof that PC Gamer is well past its prime.
Is there anything that the PA guys won't get huffy about? jesus.
Originally Posted by LesJarvis
Hell, you know who is pushing for the fucking Garfield movies? Its Jim Davis himself. No one wanted a 2nd garfield movie but Davis got involved and got it green lit. He's threatening to fund a 3rd one himself is the studios wont make it. The man makes George Lucas look sane.
This is bullshit, too. They just had STARCRAFT II on their last cover for fuck's sake, the biggest PC game to be announced in years. And if you knew some of the stuff that was going to be on future covers you'd know how much shit you were really talking.
Originally Posted by aphoristic gamer
The summer is a notoriously slow time for gaming releases and announcements, but even setting that aside I applaud PCG for featuring PA - a cult indie brand - on their cover when usually the publisher-level mandate is to favor huge, solid-gold franchises with mass audience recognition. I don't know if I would have done it when I was EIC.
I don't really know why I'm vociferously defending PCG so - it's not like they pay me that much - but I just can't help myself when certain people don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Failed attempt at humor incenses Internet hordes. News at 11.
Jim Davis will now be referred to as Zombie Jim Davis in the future.
Traded Gears for Mario game
That's funny. If you're an 11 year old boy. I stopped subscribing to PCG when the fart jokes and the "OMG WE'VE GOT ANOTHER UNIVERSAL EXCLUSIVE AND GUESS WHAT? WE GAVE IT 10/10 IT'S JUST TEH AWESOME" replaced all the content.
I LOL'd at the whole thing.
I mean, come on people, the game itself got a cover (x5) and nice juicy write up in the mag. The only even partially negative press was that editorial, and that was more railing against the rabid fanboism mentality than anything directed personally at G&T.
Let's put this in perspective. I really like and respect Steve Bauman (former editor-in-chief of CGM), I really like and respect Jeff Green over at GFW/CGW, I'm ambivalent about Greg Vederman mostly because I don't read PCG very often. But at the end of the day these guys are still just game journalists, and their editorials are pretty much glorified message board posts in print form (and I say that with much love and respect!). The point is, they are there for you to agree or disagree with as you see fit. They are not meant to be reviews of a game or the gaming industry, they are not presented as indisputable fact, and they are heavily laced with personal opinion and attmepted comedy and inside humor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it falls flat, but it's certainly nothing to get all bent out of shape over.
If I decide to dislike something just because Greg Vederman wrote something negative about it, then I belong right there alongside the same idiots that believe that there has never been a bad Penny Arcade strip in the history of the comic.
I hope the Penny Arcade game is successful, but on it's own merits as a good game, not because legions of mindless drones will buy it out of misguided loyalty to their favorite web comic.
I still remember Kurtz going off on some reviewer who complained that one of Kurtz's proteges/friends had basically duplicated the Fantastic Four comics.
The guy seems very protective of his friends... I guess that's a good thing. But the editorial didn't seem nearly as hateful as Scott Kurtz made it sound
Vede was right. But I'm still letting my subscription lapse because I have absolutely no use for the disc and paying $25 a year for it is ridiculous. I'll resubscribe when I find a deal for the bare issues.
Kurtz is oversensitive and has a history of throwing elbows when he doesn't need to.
I like the art style, but Penny Arcade is self-indulgent all the time and funny about 25% of the time. Good for them that they're making a living at it.
Kurtz is an asshat. I'm of the view that anything he says, I should automatically disagree with. Thus I conclude that Vede is a god among men deserving of my undying support.