Supposedly Fun Games You'll Never Play (...Out of Sentiment)


Funny enough, despite everything I said I am looking forward to Zanki Zero. Cautiously, since the premise has a yellow flag or two. Danganronpa was great for the premise and characters, though, and I’d really like to see what an entirely new creation comes out looking like.


This totally flew under the radar for me, thanks for the heads up. I would also hope that it evolved beyond a lot of tropes that Danganronpa ultimately fell victim to in some of its characters. And gameplay wise, can we please get rid of these mini-games that add no value to the actual game itself?


PUBG has been the only military themed shooter I’ve been able to stomach since I gave up on that whole genre after playing Modern Warfare 2 and CODBLOPS back to back in high-school. It just started to feel gross to me to be turning currently ongoing conflicts that people are still dying in into theming for a Fun Entertainment Product. PUBG feels abstracted enough that it doesn’t feel gross to me, and games that go far enough into genre, like Wolfenstein or Metal Gear, are usually fine too (although each of those have their own issues). It doesn’t help though when games go out of their way to use real-life guns, since as far as I understand it, those have to be licensed and thus the gun manufacturers profit from the sales of that game. Plenty of games I’m otherwise totally fine with do this, which is always disappointing.

I wish i’d known about the Hat in Time dev’s shittiness and Jontron’s involvement before I played through that game. I hadn’t been paying attention to it and then a friend gifted it to me for Xmas, and I had a pretty good time with it. Then I saw Jontron’s name in the end credits and suddenly just felt very tired lol. At least I didn’t give any of my own money for it, I guess? It’s a shame because it is otherwise a pretty cute little game with some decent platforming level design and a really nice soundtrack.


That would be the dream. I don’t think they’ll ever wean themselves off of minigames, though. Watch DR4 be a cross-over with WarioWare, haha


No matter how fun or creative they look I never play FPS or frankly any shooters. Mind you, it is way more about the fact I just don’t enjoy shooting in games than any personal views about guns. My older brother used to play a lot of FPS back when he was alive so I’ve watched a lot of early 2000s PC FPS games, and even played some of them but I never could get into them. Splatoon was the closest I ever was to wanting to play shooter cause of it’s aesthetic and the fact they shoot each other with ink, not guns.


I am constantly frustrated by the amount of people I see playing Secret Hitler

even if I find it mechanically interesting, I refuse to take any part in this game. Using the name Hitler doesn’t add anything to the game other than the lovely “haha shock humor get it? because it’s offensive?” from Max Temkin (who has been accused of sexual assault) and marketing. (I’m also aware that Temkin is Jewish but fucking come on)

It’s frustrating because the game actually has interesting political undertones about fascism and it’s rise but like literally you could have called the game “Secret Fascist” and the game would be identical. There’s literally no benefit to bringing the name “Hitler” which is effectively synonymous with the Holocaust into this?

I’m in a really bad mood today.


It’s a shock marketing thing, but yeah. I completely agree with your sentiment.
Once I heard about Temkin being accused of sexual assault I threw my CAH set in the bin as well. Can’t see myself playing that game again.


In the few times I’ve found myself in places where someone wanted to play tabletop games, Cards Against Humanity was always the thing people wanted to play and I always backed out of it. Cheap shock humor sells, I guess!

Also doesn’t help that Max Temkin sucks and I never want to encounter anything involving the CAH people ever again. Every time they did something with Giant Bomb at PAX I found myself wishing for a time machine so I could skip their part of the livestream, but I digress.


Rimworld, because of the whole kerfuffle about how it handles sexuality/gender. It seems to be right up my alley and I was planning on picking it up for a while, but then it became clear the creator isn’t the kind of guy I want my money going towards.

And definitely Kingdom Come: Deliverance. It actually sort of annoyed me how many sites that claim to care about these sorts of issues ran plenty of articles about that game while completely failing to address all the ways in which its problematic. Or even worse, the ones that presented it as “some people feel this way, while others feel that way” kind of issue while simultaneously posting guides to benefit from its sudden popularity. Everything surrounding that game is just gross.

Anyway, in most of these situations I find that it’s not necessarily the actual content of the game that pushes me away, it’s almost always how the creators defend that content. I fully get that sometimes you create something that betrays your own areas of ignorance in ways you couldn’t anticipate, and I’m sympathetic to the fact that we all have issues we need to be working on. If you just offer a genuine apology and work to correct however your beliefs manifested themselves in your game, I’m willing to give you another shot. But these guys almost always take the criticism personally, lash out at those calling them out, and double down on whatever toxic behavior got them into the situation in the first place. And I just don’t want to participate in that.


I get a twinge every time my students play it.

My personal rule on irony and shock value s: once it has been stripped away by time and shifting context, is it still awesome?

Mel Brooks created The Producers as a weapon against fascism.

The Producers uses Hitler to get folks in the door, but then MERCILESSLY mocks him and the notion of fascism. Never ONCE in the text of that movie does hitler ever look like a good or worthy human being. Only as a lost ideal that, when translated to reality, looks sad and pathetic. An observer from the future watching the movie would see a story of something ill advised and awful, and a clear mockery of those who seek to profit from the ignorance and fear of others.

Wolfenstein 2 uses Hitler in a similar way but adds a note of terror. The Hitler that shows up in Wolfenstein is no longer in control of himself, but demands that everyone around him act as if he is. Because the terrifying thing is that, though he cannot control himself, he has full control over others – the juxtaposition of power and frailty, horror and comedy – shows exactly what hitler was and is. The game also gives you an achievement for killing him, and then immediately kills you afterwards. Stripped of context, an anthropologist could use this to reconstruct EXACTLY what Hitler is and was.

And then there’s Secret Hitler. If I found a copy of Secret Hitler in a bunker beneath the smoking Ruins of America, I would be able to tell that Fascists were something that some people didn’t like, were good at being hidden, and wanted to get someone named Hitler into power and that that was how you win.


Totally agree, especially regarding Wolfenstein 2. I thought the game did a great job of demonstrating what a person who had complete power over everyone and that no one could challenge or question would eventually come to be like.


Honestly that I still see Max Temkin retweets on my timeline from time to time is not fucking cool. Really should have been apparent right from the start with CAH that he isn’t using shock value in good faith and reflective of how he views things.


FWIW I just proposed a humanities class for next year using it as an entry point to talk about how Hitler rose to power.


Art representing atrocities, whether it be those perpetrated Hitler or Columbus or any other party, is always ethically finicky. (I enjoy this Lindsay Ellis video essay about Nazi satire.) Even art that attempts to show the horrors of history can come off as exploitative of suffering. There’s no easy answer to what is acceptable and what is appropriate. I would argue that there isn’t any answer. It’s all a mess.

I don’t really feel comfortable with the way Wolfenstein portrays Nazis or the Holocaust, and I don’t ever intend to pay money for them. But I also find the Wolfenstein games to be very interesting (and campy) narratives about fascism. So when people talk about Wolfenstein, I tell people why I’m not really comfortable with those games, and try to ask them to critically address the ethics of that representation, but I also don’t chide them for playing them.


I think that’s the best approach you can take: Know your limits and be polite but firm about them.


That’s mine too. A narcostate. NARCOSTATE???


So… some shit came out about certain male developers regarding harassment over the weekend. To not break Rule 10 of the forums, I won’t name names or give a source, but the following companies are dead to me while said men who work there are still there:

  • Riot (League of Legends)
  • Raw Fury Games (Publisher of The Last Night (ew), Night Call, and Sable among others)

Then there was the whole shit with Microsoft and ICE and I know they are very different parts of a huge company, but I just can not feel comfortable giving any company money that helps those terrorists.


Just for the record for everyone, Raw Fury is the publisher not the developer.


I changed the wording just to be sure.


Jonathan Blow games. Like he thinks women are biologically predisposed against an interest in technology and that’s why there are fewer of them in the industry, and he readily tried to defend that perspective, it just annoys me to see him mentioned any more.