Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 4311-4315 (20-25 July 2020)
Tova:
--- Quote from: Gnabberwocky on 22 Jul 2020, 20:00 ---Am I overthinking it, or is that postscript text one of the most horrifically bad puns of all time? I honestly can't tell if he realized its meaning.
--- End quote ---
Fairly sure it was intentional.
And yeah, the art shift... there just seems to be an increased incidence of characters looking more and more generically like each other.
Farideh:
I seriously wonder if Jeph just forgot about Sven's glasses. Oh well, good thing Hanners recognized him.
"...donating to something I might benefit directly from." My, so presumptuous!
Gus_Smedstad:
Honestly, I'm not seeing the ethical dilemma. Who exactly is harmed if Sven gives money to May? If it's not entirely altruistic, so what?
Now, we'd certainly have a case for conflict of interest if Sven had control of how the money's spent, but he doesn't. What gets done with the money is entirely up to May.
Likewise, there'd be an issue if Sven were donating someone else's money, making decisions based on his own self-interest. But since it's his money, that's not an issue.
And Farideh is right, May could have no interest in further shenanigans. Though honestly, I doubt that she's done experimenting, and Sven is convenient.
Case:
--- Quote from: Penquin47 on 22 Jul 2020, 18:47 ---I miss my Commodore 64 so much. That thing taught my big brother to read, I swear.
--- End quote ---
Aye, the breadbox was magic *nods sagely*
Gus_Smedstad:
--- Quote from: Tova on 21 Jul 2020, 22:06 ---The way you say "still a collector's item" would, if I didn't know better, lead me to think you believed it is collectible in spite of being famously horrible, rather than because.
--- End quote ---
I probably should have phrased that as something more like "the canonical example of something that's collectible because it's horrible, rather than because of excellence." And since I don't want to hear a nitpick of that phrase either, I'll make explicit that excellence is often enough a relative value with collector's items, rather than an absolute. Something may be collectible because it was excellent for its time, even if it's outdated today.
And no, I don't think ET's infamy is in any way Truthy. Leaving aside the commercial failure, it was an incredibly rushed project by a single programmer, and videos showing exactly how bad the gameplay was aren't difficult to find. The most you can say about ET's infamy as that many people accept it without doing research on it - but just because it's a popularly held opinion doesn't mean it's wrong, or that there's no basis for the reputation if you do dig.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version