Work Hard, Work Hard
April 27, 2014 6:53 AM   Subscribe

"Work is a large component of many types of game. The professional chess player competing in a tournament game does not have the carefree, leisurely attitude sometimes implied by the term “playing”: she is performing massive amounts of cognitive work. Similarly with poker players or tennis players: they are not merely fooling around but labouring mightily. [...] But videogames seem more and more to resemble work in a different sense: working for the Man ." [Previously]
posted by postcommunism (40 comments total) 18 users marked this as a favorite
Ha! Rory Marinich shows up in the comments.
posted by blue t-shirt at 7:10 AM on April 27, 2014

It looks like the author considers the very notion of a structured system of rewards to be capitalist. I get the impression this is meant as a condemnation. If the example of Little Big Planet giving you the "job" of being a game designer was meant seriously, this seems like the kind of condemnation that never doesn't apply, though there may be some games to which it applies less--eg. Minecraft has achievements and a final boss, and a lot of people take the job of mining to make their constructions feel more valuable, but the actual reason you play is to build what you want, and you always have the option to do it in creative mode.

He doesn't deny the utility of structured rewards, so I guess this is just meant to provoke designers to explore different kinds of game. I imagine he'd appreciate Tabletop Simulator.
posted by LogicalDash at 7:23 AM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

Similarly with... tennis players...

A link to the DF Wallace tennis essay on general principle alone.
posted by mr. digits at 7:24 AM on April 27, 2014

This was a great article. I've often found the existence of German daily-life simulation games, like Bus Driver, and the kind of drudgery one finds in WoW, as calling out for this kind of criticism. Play should give us access to the vision of a better world, not the broken one we live in. But then again, today just having a job at all is for many an exercise in fantasy role play.
posted by dis_integration at 7:30 AM on April 27, 2014

Games: chess, baduk, poker
Not games: crossword puzzles, computer games

OK, got it.
posted by fredludd at 7:35 AM on April 27, 2014 [2 favorites]

As the author points out, play is often very hard work. Competitive play is brutal. When I go to an athletic competition that matters to me, I am often sick to my stomach and anxious all day long. Often, play allows us to work harder than we do at our jobs, and allows us to confront things in a much more real way than we do in our employment.

However, the idea that you work in order to "buy beer and go on holiday" (as the article says) instead of making it "more fun or involving to continue doing your job, rather than letting you get outside it," seems to me to be missing the point of work. Good work is just like that. It's what has kept me in my current position for a very long time.
posted by Peach at 7:42 AM on April 27, 2014 [5 favorites]

Ha! Rory Marinich shows up in the comments.

And makes a great critique. The criticism, or observations, in the article seem meaningful to me only in a very narrow interpretation of these things. If you take the inherent "value" in games as simulation, then exploration, challenge, achievement, even practice are all part of the mix, and the resemblance to "work" is not at all surprising - indeed, it's rather the point. It's about engaging successfully - just like life.
posted by emmet at 7:47 AM on April 27, 2014 [3 favorites]

This is the impression I get when I walk through casinos. The average age of the players skews high, mostly retirees who were workers when manual labour in factories or rote work in clerical or secretarial pools was more the common experience of work than it is now. And what do they do with their time and money once they've reached their well-earned retirement? Sit at a machine, pull a lever, again and again, just like work.
posted by TimTypeZed at 7:48 AM on April 27, 2014 [5 favorites]

Looking forward to reading this, as I've been noticing that the games my kids play on iPads tend to be "follow these explicit instructions quickly and accurately" games rather than "practice this until you can do it without losing a life" or "navigate this imaginary world and solve puzzles" games like I grew up with.
posted by davejay at 8:13 AM on April 27, 2014 [4 favorites]

I thought it was a rather interesting essay. And it was not actually that negative. More questioning. Why do we enjoy "playing" games that are very much like work? What does this imply about the ultimate goals of our current social organisation?
posted by mary8nne at 8:40 AM on April 27, 2014 [3 favorites]

The brain's reward system: capitalist!
posted by zscore at 8:42 AM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

No game has ever made people hate capitalism more than Monopoly.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:44 AM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

That's because they don't play it right.

And yeah, part of the reason I fell out of love with MMOs is eventually I reach a point where I log in and my to-do list for the game is longer and more detailed than my to-do list for real life and I'm like "y'know if I worked on my actual to-do list instead of this for a couple hours, I'd get some real shit done."
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 8:48 AM on April 27, 2014 [4 favorites]

Having a bit of a hard time understanding exactly what would fall outside his definition of work-like games, because every time I think I've got a handle on it he expands the definition further. I mean, if LittleBigPlanet's level creator is like a job because you are performing a task that has traditionally been seen as a job, and can only use the tools provided to you by the game developers, then doesn't any game that asks you to do something and gives you a set of tools fall into that category? I don't recall if LBP rewards you explicitly for making levels (besides trophies, which arguably are a meta-game system and may or may not count for the purposes of this discussion). But do external rewards like in-game community reputation count as sufficient, working-for-the-Man-esque compulsion?

What about a game like Noby Noby Boy, where you have a limited toolset of actions and only the most nebulous of goals (basically, stretch your character enough to add your length to a giant entity called "Girl" in order to stretch her far enough to get to other planets in our solar system—yeah, that's not going to make sense unless you play it)? Would it be fine if you didn't have the goal of stretching Girl, even though all stretching Girl really does is unlock other playgrounds that are essentially like the playgrounds you already have access to but in different colours and with different props?

And then what about Outrun, which he mentions in the comments as being a game that sits outside the current trend. But why? There's a really obvious goal: win the race. Is it because there's no real measure of "progress" in the game besides a score? i.e. you don't gain experience, you don't gain levels in order to access new content, when you play a new game you essentially retain nothing from the previous race? Would that mean all arcade games fall outside this definition? Besides the ones that DO track your progress, I mean—Initial D, for example, can spit out swipe cards that you can use to store your career and take to other machines to keep progressing.

Or maybe it's simply the existence of a structure for all your interactions that is the problem (though again, Outrun vs. Wipeout suggests not). So what about something like Dwarf Fortress, which has highly structured game systems, but then basically says "do what you want, failure is success!"? The game's original intent was to serve as a sort of storytelling engine, and inherently the tale of a highly successful fortress that never runs into any problems is boring, so the game is geared towards finding ways to make you fail—as dwarves immigrate to your fortress, the resource pressures increase, a government and an explicit economy start up, and eventually "bad things" start to happen. So even though Dwarf Fortress sounds like it has no goal, really there are things the game developers do to funnel you towards a particular conclusion, i.e. the fall of the fortress. Does that mean the game is too structured to fit the definition of "slow gaming"?

I guess what I'm looking for is a set of guiding principles or something, because I don't feel like the author is wrong necessarily, I just don't really know how to make his proposal work without eliminating everything relevant to making a game a GAME.
posted by chrominance at 8:51 AM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

(And yes, I realize the fact that I can't conceive of a game that incorporates absolutely none of these proto-capitalist structures probably says something about the correctness of his thesis.)
posted by chrominance at 8:52 AM on April 27, 2014

This article was interesting but there is too much focus on sociology and not enough on psychology. Maybe that's what has always bugged me about Adorno. Adorno's claim that we play using "afterimages of the work process itself" has some truth to it, sure, but it's a pretty vague effect and I think it is only a small part of we enjoy the games or why we play the way we do. The concept of 'gamification' is really useful here, and gets at a lot of what the author is talking about, but there is no mention of it at all in the article.

The contrast of work and play in videogames is revealing, sure, but I'm not sure I buy all the concern. Why is work bad and play good in videogames? Because performing "work" in videogames makes us more likely to accept the appropriation of our proletarian production in our real lives? Because it turns us into unthinking zombies more generally? I'm all for critical thinking and all that, and I'm certainly less a fan of grinding in RPGs than I used to be, but where do you draw the line about what somebody else can really enjoy? Do I have to stop reading novels because they just acclimate me to capitalism's determinism?

It's worth thinking about the values and patterns of thinking that our entertainment is inculcating in us, yes. And I would even concede that some of those inculcations may benefit the owners of capital at the expense of everyone else. Or hinder us reaching our full potential as human beings. But games and human choices about what they do with their "not-obligatory" time are a much, much richer world than simply replicating capitalism.
posted by ropeladder at 8:54 AM on April 27, 2014 [2 favorites]

Actually, I think he's missing a huge piece of the sociology puzzle as well: war. Humans have been playing games for millennia and a good many of them have been tied up with preparations for or mimicking violence. He mentions this from an authority/following orders standpoint, but blaming this all on our economic system is a bit myopic.
posted by ropeladder at 9:03 AM on April 27, 2014 [3 favorites]

I've often found the existence of German daily-life simulation games, like Bus Driver, and the kind of drudgery one finds in WoW, as calling out for this kind of criticism. Play should give us access to the vision of a better world, not the broken one we live in.

I think there's an important difference between those two examples.

In WoW, people often do repetitive, dull, annoying things on their way to a goal. It's working to improve one's place in life. Chances are, the reason they play the game is not because they love "kill 250 cave squirrels" quests, but they accept the bad with the good.

In those simulators, people actually buy and play the game specifically because they want the experience of driving a virtual bus. (Or train, forklift, tractor, etc.) It is even more repetetive and dull than WoW grinding, but people are choosing to do it willingly, not in the pursuit of some goal.

That gives me pause a bit. As a "serious casual" MMO gamer I always thought those simulators were kind of meaningless and depressing, but in a sense, those players are getting a purer "doing this because I want to" play experience.
posted by Foosnark at 9:05 AM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

...perhaps I should not judge other peoples' preference for repetetive drudgery games, since I like 2048 so much.
posted by Foosnark at 9:11 AM on April 27, 2014 [4 favorites]

There are a lot of activities which people do as "work" that might be fun to do once or twice, just not every day for years on end. I think this is where the bus / zamboni / garbage truck / whatever simulators come in. They let you virtually dabble in an occupation that is otherwise closed to you unless you want to commit a significant fraction of your life to it.

My amateur-hour explanation for their outsize popularity in some countries (e.g. Germany especially) is that it has something to do with how professionalized those cultures are in terms of occupations and how hard it would be for someone to actually get a job as a bus driver without some huge educational/certification commitment.

But there are lots of things that I can think of that would be fun to do for an afternoon but really crappy to do as a 9-5/50wk/20yr career. Driving a bus or operating an excavator or working in a coal mine or flying an airliner, just to name a few simulation games that I've seen and appear to be popular, are definitely on that list.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:11 AM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

I'm sorry, but I can't take a paper that quotes Morrissey seriously.
posted by deathpanels at 9:40 AM on April 27, 2014 [2 favorites]

I think that what the author's groping towards is the difference between games and toys. Both can be entertainment, but they are different in ways that matter to the thesis of the article. As LogicalDash suggests, examining Minecraft, probably the canonical modern example of a computer toy (despite the strong game elements available within it), would give a lot of missing context to the discussion.
posted by NortonDC at 9:50 AM on April 27, 2014

There are a lot of activities which people do as "work" that might be fun to do once or twice, just not every day for years on end. I think this is where the bus / zamboni / garbage truck / whatever simulators come in. They let you virtually dabble in an occupation that is otherwise closed to you unless you want to commit a significant fraction of your life to it.

I think that's a big part of it, yeah. I've got OMSI 2 on my Steam wishlist because the idea of being a fly-by-night bus driver sounds cool but I'm never going to actually do it. Not just because of the professional obligations you'd need to fulfill but also because the actual job of being a bus driver includes dealing with drunk people and people who don't know where they should get off and people who spit on you because transit sucks in this city and etc. etc. etc. Plus I think there's an element of mastery involved that you don't really get in other games. The better simulators (flight simulators in particular) basically ask you to jump into a highly complex and detailed simulation and figure out a whole bunch of stuff. This fantastic Giant Bomb video of Digital Combat Simulator: A-10C Warthog is basically 40 minutes of staring at A-10 control panels full of toggle switches before any actual flying happens. One of my fondest memories of Euro Truck Simulator 2 was figuring out how to properly back into a parking spot with my semi truck.
posted by chrominance at 9:55 AM on April 27, 2014

In WoW, people often do repetitive, dull, annoying things on their way to a goal. It's working to improve one's place in life. Chances are, the reason they play the game is not because they love "kill 250 cave squirrels" quests, but they accept the bad with the good.

This article, while flawed, does sum up why I could never get into things like WOW. But I would barely get started, much less kill 250 cave squirrels. All in all I think it explains why I don’t play video games any more, even though I feel like a fan.

Then again I did enjoy Shenmue 1 & 2, and even drove a forklift, although I wasn’t particularly thrilled with that aspect of it. I wonder what the difference was. Something about it was appealing enough to keep me doing it, for a while anyway.
posted by bongo_x at 9:59 AM on April 27, 2014

No game has ever made people hate capitalism more than Monopoly.

That was the creators' intent!
posted by damayanti at 10:15 AM on April 27, 2014 [3 favorites]

The author would likely be very bad or very good at nomic I'm not sure which.
posted by Carillon at 10:39 AM on April 27, 2014

More seriously unless the games calvinball, a certain part of a games allure is the structure and logic of its rule system. I guess you could say the boss is the game designer but it seems to me the driving force is the structure provided by the rules. And yes I know someone came up with the rules but that doesn't mean they don't relinquish control.
posted by Carillon at 10:50 AM on April 27, 2014

Damn my capitalist brain!

Is there any chance I could trade it in for an anarcho-socialist brain?
posted by Doleful Creature at 10:55 AM on April 27, 2014

Basically feels like another "no, your kind of fun is the badwrongfun" article. We play games because we prefer something about the game to real life. There are thus as many possible things to "get" out of playing a game as there are things you can be dissatisfied with in real life.

Some of us like that games give us freedom because we find it superior to the lack of freedom we feel in our own lives. Others like games that give us rules and a set path because we like the simplicity or clarity of the game better than the murky ambiguity of real life. Some of us like grinding because it gives us a sense of achievement when we overcome it - others like our sense of achievement to come from reflex tests or cognitive thinking tests - and still other folks don't really want or need a sense of achievement, they just want all the options unlocked at the start so they can screw around. Some folks play games because their life demands a lot of their brain and they want to turn their mind off for a while - other people play games because their real life doesn't challenge their mind at all (or not in the right ways) and they want something that does. I think one of the most ancient and obvious ways games have appealed to people over real life is by being, or trying to be, fair, when we all know life isn't fair.

All of which gets at, well, there are lots of reasons why you might want to play a bus-driver sim. Hell you could be an actual real-life bus driver and still want to play a bus-driver sim. Maybe you like the fact that you can play the game, or not play it, whenever you want. Maybe you just like that you can mute the sound of screaming kids. Maybe you like screwing around in-game and ignoring the objectives. Maybe you play the game because you know that if you do well at the game, you can wind up filthy stinking rich in-game and driving a bus that has chrome-plated rims, retractable machine guns and a jet engine, which sure as hell ain't gonna happen in real life.

All I get from Poole is that he's dissatisfied with the games he's playing lately; that they're not offering him the kind of fun he wants. So he uses that as a jumping-off point for a basically Marxist critique of the fact that other people might want different kinds of fun and their kinds of fun are wrong. And I'm not really interested in telling folks that their kind of fun is wrong. I think you can make a (strong) case for, and a call for, the "Slow Gaming" kind of gaming that he ends his piece by calling for, and I think you can do it without telling everybody else that they're doing it wrong.
posted by mstokes650 at 10:58 AM on April 27, 2014 [7 favorites]

Maybe I'm playing the wrong games...

Three games have ever truly captured me. Civilization II, Haven and Hearth and Minecraft. It seems to me that none of these three games fits his Capitalism thesis. True, you can do things in order to get results which is similar to work-and-earn-money. And I will admit that they can all get very grindy. But none of them are structured like work. To progress I don't have to do anything I don't feel like doing at this moment. They don't have those tiresome missions or bosses.

(Civilization II had advisers. There was someone telling you what to do. The advisers were embarrassingly bad. They could be disabled. When I played the advisers and the throne room always were so I didn't have to listen to them or waste time in an ugly inflexible building project.)

It seems to me that his argument is based on a limited set of computer games - but they are a very common sort of game and I have had trouble finding games I like so perhaps the non-structured ones are rare enough that he can honestly overlook them.
posted by Jane the Brown at 11:36 AM on April 27, 2014

Random thoughts:

I restore old cars as a hobby. There are many, many parts of it which are labor-intensive and not really all that fun, taken as individual tasks, but the overall activity itself is fun. It's also way different than what I do to earn a living and allows me to exercise skills I otherwise would never know I had or get a chance to hone. The video games I've enjoyed are similar in general "feel" to me. Most of us play a type of video game we show some aptitude for, and enjoy honing our game skills.

Video games and other "pleasure" activities do not, generally, come with timelines attached, and often when they do they cease being fun ("you have four weeks from today to complete the quest in Game X because it will cease working then" or "if you don't knit that sweater by May you have to throw it out"). This differs greatly from work. I did not generally enjoy working on cars when it was Sunday at midnight and I needed the car to get to work Monday AM. Remove the time requirement, and it's a lot more fun. This is a meaningful difference to work.

Video games and hobbies also allow "leveling up", "commensurate rewards", "equal opportunity" and "completion", things that are rare or missing entirely in real work.
posted by maxwelton at 11:49 AM on April 27, 2014 [2 favorites]

First time posting, hope I do this right...

Being someone who probably pays more attention to games than 99.9% of the general population, reading this was more than a little frustrating until I realized the publish date was 2008. Since this article was written, two very big things have happened:

1. Free to play

2. Alpha funding

Free to play has brought its share of misery into the world, but it has also made it possible to create a business model out of tapping into the ENORMOUS international audience for super hardcore competitive games with huge possibility spaces born of their crazy complexity. Nearly as many people play Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2 as play all other Steam games combined. League of Legends has more active users than all of Steam combined.

Not that MOBAs or free FPS games are exactly the types of games the author is calling for by the end, I just wanted to mention them as a contrast to the authors assertion that video games, by and large, don't trade in the types of play that chess and tennis foster.

Alpha Funding is the big one. Specifically, the game that ushered in the age of Alpha funding, Minecraft. Minecraft is nothing but the freedom to play with deep, complex systems and a very loose suggested path for progression. Anecdotally, it is by far the most popular game with children and has sold nearly 40 million copies.

This has made the rest of the industry stand up and take notice. Go into steam and click on the Early Access section (a commodified version of what Mojang did to be able to create Minecraft) and you'll find dozens of systems rich, heavily social (and in cases like the survivalism fetishizing clones of DayZ, deeply disturbing and anti-social), nigh-structureless games which consistently occupy the Top 10 Sellers chart.

Fuzzy crossworld puzzles like the Call of Duty single player campaigns and Assassins Creed and grindy MMOs like WoW are still around, but their audience and influence is waning (though still strong).

In retrospect, the author's observations were quite prescient and I wonder how he feels about these current trends.

btw, I'm referencing Steam so much here because that's one of the few places you can actually get data on these kinds of games. I promise I don't work for Valve :P
posted by Reyturner at 12:04 PM on April 27, 2014 [7 favorites]

Reyturner is right; this piece makes no sense and is hopelessly outdated. 6 years is around 20% of the history of console/pc gaming. It's like an analysis of the current state of American History which only looks at trends and stats up until World War II. You're gonna have a bad time if you think it says much about today.
posted by Justinian at 12:34 PM on April 27, 2014

I've been playing Dark Souls lately. It has a currency system embedded in it - kill enemies, take their souls, use them to buy character/weapon upgrades and various weapons and tools.

But I find that very quickly, I've arrived at a state where I kinda let go of caring about its currency system. Just earlier today I stood outside of what I knew was the door to a new boss encounter, looked at my frighteningly low health bar, lack of healing items, and the amount of currency I'd collected. I knew that if I walked through that door, I'd die in the boss arena (you can't retreat from a boss fight), and lose all my money. If I was operating under a capitalist mindset that would have been the worst thing ever.

I grinned, and walked through the door. I saw a gorgeous new view, and then a gargoyle came to life and pounded me into paste. And I laughed, because that's pretty much what I was expecting to happen, and turned off the console. If I decide the number of imaginary currency items in a save file really matters, I'll transfer the save file to my computer and find an editor for it.

I'm not playing it "to win". I'm playing it to play. When I got to choose a special item at the beginning of the game, I took the binoculars, because my main intent in playing this game is virtual tourism. I'm going to a gorgeous imaginary place and spending time just looking at it. And now and then having an epic, memorable boss battle to anchor a gorgeous view into my mind.

I mean, yeah, sure, there's systems in this game. There's systems in any game. And I've had to put a little time into getting a basic competence at these systems so I can win those battles. If I was a twelve-year-old boy with nothing else to do I might be interested in thoroughly mastering those systems. But I'm neither; I'm a fortysomething lady taking a laid-back little vacation in a magical land where everything wants to kill me. if anything, I kinda feel like the central message of this game is anti-capitalist: let go of worrying about having enough currency, let go of fear, and just be.
posted by egypturnash at 12:48 PM on April 27, 2014 [2 favorites]

This subject is implicitly recognized in the tiny area of ludology, so I'm sure there are more formally written articles that can help inform on the issue.

Alternatively, I think an instructive way to understand this article is to see its similarities to Ebert's "Video games can never be art". That one was controversial, too. But my take-home from that was that Ebert had some good points.

I think this author would question the conformist argument of "Well, why shouldn't computer gameplay closely mirror aspects of real-life work?" Regardless of whether author's article managed to articulate it, I feel there exists a deeper understanding of games than at that level. The fact that on cognitive and psychological levels, work and play are intimately related it does not follow that games must imitate, reference, or distill real-life Work as We/Society Knows It. The kinds of work done in games might better be understood first on their own terms. I do think there's value in being aware of the general questions and issues. How games might have the power to expand people's minds—challenge people's intuitions about life—is an open question. Do the rules of games serve to train, or can they also to edify? Do games liberate humanity?

Personally I am skeptical of the argument "Well, look at these contemporary counterexamples of play not emulating/recreating real-life work such as Minecraft", since it could be argued that the dominant economic forces are counter to the design of subversive, progressive, or liberal, etc. games. The concern about the role of hierarchy in games is there, as the title of the article makes clear. At the minimum I feel the article at least airs a valid question, and that alone is valuable.

I am also skeptical of the argument "Well, at the highest levels [of self-actualization, etc.], work and play are indistinguishable; therefore what's wrong if games resemble work?". I think many people of privilege have some idea of what this conceptual state of being might be like. The problem is that even that ideal is susceptible to a failure of imagination. Merely consider the alternative: could there be the possibility a) that there are forms of play that totally unlike the modes of "Work" that we are socially conditioned to recognize (this is where the Adorno* stuff is relevant), or the dual possibility b) that there might exist totally new, unfamiliar kinds of work? And couldn't games help us imagine such possibilities? Now that would be work.

*The fact that the author refers to Adorno suggests to me that while the role of violence in games is clearly not in the scope of the essay, it definitely is part of a broader analysis/critique: E.g., violence, conflict, power, resources, reward, decision making, etc.—all these terms are conceptual avenues for thinking about the social and psychological effects of computer game systems.
posted by polymodus at 4:04 PM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

No game has ever made people hate capitalism more than Monopoly.

That was the intention.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:41 PM on April 27, 2014

That's because they don't play it right.

The "proper rules" for Monopoly aren't particularly better. It's still the same terrible game with the same terrible flaws (luck-driven, takes too long, has player elimination, the first player to complete a set of properties usually wins, etc.) except that the properties get bought up more quickly so you get to "agonizing, endless negotiation so that two players can complete sets of properties simultaneously" slightly faster.

Monopoly is not an execution problem. It is a design problem.
posted by mightygodking at 4:49 PM on April 27, 2014

My idea is that social networking is turning personal life into work
posted by thelonius at 5:10 PM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

Well, yeah. In real life, if I mess up at work I can get fired, knock out real-world websites, do some real damage. Even in my hobby, a slip can result in burns, cuts, or other injury. Games are fun, even if they're similar to work, because there's no real responsibility, no real risk, no reason to stress out or panic when things don't go to plan. Your mileage may vary, but that's why I'm playing a game right now instead of being out in the shop -- I'm tired, sore, and know that working with power tools runs a risk of the aforementioned injuries, so I"m shooting aliens and robots instead.
posted by Blackanvil at 5:31 PM on April 27, 2014 [1 favorite]

Hey, HEY! You forgot Nazis, Robots, Aliens, and Nazis! I mean, that's an awesome night, come home and kill me some Nazis. I'm not averse to killing Robots or Aliens, but man, I love me some Nazi killin'. As to the heavy socio-psychological stuff, well you kids look like you'rer havin' some fun and I'll leave you to it.
posted by evilDoug at 7:00 PM on April 27, 2014

« Older Geo-cosmos, an interactive globe in 10 million...   |   Down the Rabbit Hole Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments