That revelation is dumb and bad. Have you ever painted a house? Have you ever covered both ears with paint? And so what if he says it to himself? It’s still a completely left field, intuitive leap that makes no sense and has no connection to the larger mystery.

Do you ever miss the SCUMM interface? I agree that it was sort of visually cumbersome, but I think a lot of recent adventure games suffer because the only interaction seems to be “click on thing, then click on other thing.” The SCUMM interface allowed for more specificity and control, which in turn made for better…

I think he’ll land a punch on Kenny Olynyk’s snout.

No. That’s what internet detectives guessed. In fact the show explicitly says that he had painted his ears green while painting the house.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure gazing at a picture for a few minutes 17 years after you first saw it and wildly intuiting that a faded green house was in fact painted green by the actual killer which you know because a child who saw him running through the forest said he had green ears and people are forever painting their…

As a mystery, the first season could not have been worse. I mean, they ladled out clues constantly, and had all this intricate stuff going on, and the most important crack in the case comes because Woody Harrelson intuits that a guy with green ears might be connected to a green house which the audience didn’t ever…

A lot of commenters here seem unfamiliar with the R Kelly verdict.

Except that the computer attached to it can’t push that 5k for anything remotely computationally stressful, like games.

So I’m guessing the bad name was the one at the beginning of the trailer, not the new name?

P.S. That is a bad game for a video game, movie, or anything that’s not a direct-to-DVD sequel.

Loved Enemy Unknown. Still early on in Enemy Within and like it a lot less— very janky/buggy, and I think it’s an example of where more isn’t necessarily better. But love the engine and played endless hours of the original.

Nothing clever to say, but this is great, important work.

I like ‘em mesmerizing and inscrutable.

I’ve always struggled to find a way to both oppose the annoying sports moralism about Bonds (and say it’s ridiculous he’s not in the Hall of Fame), and admit that he’s an all-time great, while also saying that clearly his late-career absurd power surge is a historical abnormality that almost certainly is due to the…

I think your own lack of experience with the incredibly aggressive poptimist hordes is the problem here. Because let me tell you: these people are really, really aggressive. I mean, someone on Twitter told me tonight that he was called an MRA simply for saying that he doesn’t like Taylor Swift, and not only do I…

I agree with most of what you say, but I will point out that it was the interviewer that mentioned Taylor Swift first.

There are a dozen comments in this thread talking about precisely the kind of larger pop music culture that I am; mine is the only one that you’ve dismissed as irrelevant— because you don’t agree with it.

But you see the flipside of that, right? Your claim here means that everyone has to be pursuing the same kind of success. That’s artistic conservatism; it’s making the world of music smaller rather than bigger. And for what? Why does it matter that this one dude doesn’t like Taylor Swift, when our entire culture (most…

A debate, of course, that you’re taking a side on in the first half of your comment here. Which is just what Harvilla is trying to do too: you’re both trying to stake out your space on that debate, but can’t handle pushback or disagreement, so you in fact claim that my comment isn’t relevant when it plainly is. It’s a…

You know, Wagner, I find you generally to be as unimpressive as any professional writer I’ve ever read in any forum at any time (don’t ban me, Burneko!) but even by your low standards, this is pitiful. Harvilla wrote a post not about Taylor Swift but about Taylor Swift’s relationship to music and music criticism writ…