It demonstrably doesn't. Belief doesn't enter into it. But I know it's easier to dismiss than address.

You're right, seeing them side by side, I have to take it back: even the men on the covers of romance novels aren't as sexualized and objectified as the average comic book female.

You're right, there isn't one. The men are dominant and powerful and the women are comparatively weak sexual objects there almost solely as eye candy.

This is not the definition of a sexist portrayal, how?

The primary function of their poses are not to "look sexy." Their poses actually make some form of combat sense, as opposed to Black Widow, who is more concerned with twisting her spine to show us her butt than with actually preparing for a fight.

EDIT: Alright, their poses don't really make "combat sense" (why would Captain America put his shield above him instead of between him and the enemy?), but no, they're not actively sexualized in the same way Black Widow is, as that image is meant to demonstrate. They're at least FACING the enemy.

My favorite part is the implication that every time we've seen a fictitious NYC struck with a disaster, it's been the same fictitious NYC. The fictitious New Yorkers still living there are hardcore as fuck, I'd've been out of there by '98 at the latest.

(Also explains why an inordinate percentage of FNYC's population appears to be construction workers.)

For those wondering what was going on with me, I had just finished a really difficult project, was glad to be free, drank too much, ate too little, and long story short I barely remember doing the second half of THOR or any of this recording. I hope it's more amusing than obnoxious, I'd hate to have ruined some otherwise good eps. As I said on Twitter, alcohol & I have decided to see other people for a while.

Synecdoche is one of the worst movies ever and if you liked it I will fight you.

EDIT: Except Eddie. Eddie can like it if he wants.

I have to be honest, I get like that too. Not so much with good reviews, but when people I know tell me specifically I have GOT to see something, after I hear that too many times there's a part of my brain that goes "Fuck you! You're not the boss of me!" It's totally stupid but it's a knee-jerk reaction I can't really do anything about. Then I'll hold off on checking something out until I know the idiot resentment towards it has passed and I can give it a fair shake.

This is, incidentally, why I have yet to watch Community or Dr. Who.

This, except for the IMAX 3D part. That's a big hell to the no.

RE: "I hate my voice" -- one of the most popular radio personalities in the U.S. is Ira Glass, who has one of the worst radio voices I can think of. If he can do it, anyone can.

Teague, you're talking about two different things and acting like they're the same thing.

1) Is a story necessary in a game.
2) Can you tell a story in a game without stopping the gameplay to do so.

I can agree with you on point 1, that it isn't necessary to add a story to a game. If you take away the story of Portal then it becomes very much like Mario -- you're trying to accomplish a task and not die, for fun. That it is also telling you a story as it goes is a value-add.

Obviously to point 2, you can tell a story without using cutscenes. Portal does so. Bioshock does so (except for a handful of cases). It's also worth noting that often cutscenes are setting up a situation that you then play through. Cutscenes do not necessarily remove story from the gameplay, necessarily.

If you removed the gameplay from the Portal games and just watched them, you would be watching a story. I don't understand what it is about being able to interact and try to not-die-for-fun during the story that suddenly makes it not a story, or what it is about adding a throughline to gameplay that suddenly makes it not gameplay.

I don't know what to do with that except to say that there are games which tell a story without any or with very few cutscenes. Portal is one, Bioshock another. So your argument would be valid if it were true, but it's not. So it's not. It's okay not to have an opinion if you don't have information.

According to this definition, nothing that can be considered a "game" has ever existed. Every game has a set outcome that you either achieve by winning or fail to achieve by losing. What's the difference if the outcome is "I didn't fall in any of the holes and defeated Bowser" (Mario) or "I ate all the pills" (Pac-Man) versus "I completed the plotline by accomplishing a similar set of tasks as I would have accomplished in a game with no plotline"?