Talk:video games

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 19:13, 11 February 2020

video games is a featured article, which means it showcases an important part of the Homestar Runner body of work and/or highlights the fine work of this wiki. We also might just think it's cool. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

Question!

Way back when the games were playable at the end of the e-mail, were they each the complete games? Or were they simplified versions? Tlk/Cnt01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You can still play them, just click on the box when getting a closer look at it. And yes, they are full versions, because the bottom bar is still there.

--Super Martyo Brother 23:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Vector game reference

As this is mere speculation, I've chosen not to add it to the page, but the giant vector-graphics Strong Bad head, at least to me, seems like it could be a reference to Sega/Gremlin's vector games Space Fury and Zektor, both of which featured giant heads as villains. --67.115.105.191 20:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There were actually lotsa games like this back in the day. I was playing Vector Breakout and Vector Pong on my brand spankin new Leading Edge 12mHz 80286 IBM-PC compatible machine (with 640k ram and a hard drive with a few megs' storage). Hey, I was 8, but man that was the coolest freakin thing I'd ever seen. Anywho, point is: this isn't a direct reference to any one game, but to the vector genre, which was an early attempt at wireframe 3d gaming. --Southpaw018|_talk 19:20, 28 Nov 2004 (MST)

It is indeed a reference to vector games in general...the giant, evil, player-taunting head just invokes memories of those two games in particular, though it could in fact be a reference to any of those early-80s games with the main villain taunting you (through that immortal primitive speech synthesis), from Berzerk, to Gorf, to Sinistar. So I just don't really know...that's why I didn't add it to Fun Facts. --67.115.105.191 22:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sinistar

I would vote for sinistar. Check out the resemblance (ok - it's kind of slight...) --Duke33 10:13, 14 Dec 2004 (MST)

Removed "fact"

I just removed the following:

• Strong Bad's intro is a reference to Pete Rose's book, "My Prison Without Bars", which was released about the same time as this e-mail.

"with no walls" is a common expression. --Tom 11:56, 5 Feb 2005 (MST)

Arguments for a specific fact

I just replaced the following, which had recently been removed:

• Strong Bad's intro is a reference to Pete Rose's book, "My Prison Without Bars", which was released about the same time as this e-mail.

Even though "with no walls" may be a common expression, Rose's book had been released only days before this email premiered. It was all over the news, and the reference to a prison missing something was timely and is therefore valid now. -- It's dot com 17:57, 22 Feb 2005 (MST)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, but I side with Tom on this one. It just seems too much like a coincidence. It's the only reference that could possibly be equated with the book, and Strong Bad makes a very different prison reference less than a minute later. --Jay 18:13, 22 Feb 2005 (MST)

You have to bear in mind the timing of it all. The email's debut was January 12, 2004. Only four days prior to that, My Prison Without Bars was released. It was the hot topic of the weekend. I vividly remember the Monday morning I first saw the email and thinking to myself: Wow, they put a pop-culture reference in there! If I had known of the Wiki's existence at the time, I would have added the fun fact then.

Time passes. Nearly thirteen months later, some anonymous contributor (I don't know who) adds the fact to the page, but it's been so long that the context and the feeling of a year ago are gone, and so it seems like this so-called fact is a stretch. I can see where you're coming from in this.

But it's not a stretch. The key phrase here is "prison without." Without bars, without walls -- or even, as Strong Bad says, without toilets -- it doesn't matter what it's without... The fact is that the phrase, given the context of the day, is too coincidental to be a coincidence. It is an apropos reference, and a valid fun fact.

Sincerely, and with warm regards,
-- It's dot com 20:27, 25 Feb 2005 (MST)

P.S. It's true that Strong Bad mentions Alcatraz, but I think that's because TBC already had prison on the brain due to the constant news coverage of Pete Rose's book (and the shocking revelations within it).

Agree with Tom??? How??? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  04:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil a vivid arguement, but I moved the fact to the STUFF page, and frankly, I agree with tom.

--Super Martyo Brother 23:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's dot com, that was too close of a vote to close that STUFF. -- Super Martyo boing! 04:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

STUFF closes automatically after two weeks, regardless of the votes. That's how many are decided. They can't stay open forever. --DorianGray

They can't, but I remember STUFF votes that were so close (like this one) they stood open for more people to vote on. I recall time when we waited until there were as many as 20 votes on each side until it was closed. May be we are a little rushing it here? It's dot com: I suggest opening the vote again. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some examples: Robots In Service - Been open for 23 days, with a total of 35 votes. Shorty - Been open for 18 days, with a total of 55 votes. A dingo took my baby! - Been open for 18 days, with a total of 44 votes. All this facts were as highly debated as this one and had many suppoerters and opposers on each site as this one. I don't call for a re-vote, I'm calling to keep this fact open for a few more days. 4-5 will be enough, or until we get a total of more then 35 votes. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I missed all this (getting ready for a trip), but if the book came out on Thursday and the SBEmail the next Monday, wouldn't TBC have already written the script before the book's brouha started? --H-ko 23:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No; TBC often wrote and produced an email over a weekend at the time this one came out. — It's dot com 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I totally didn't notice that this conversation had continued. I don't see why this vote should be reopened. In the history of STUFF, there have been 6 items where the vote was closer (by percentage) than it was here and 12 items where the result was decided by 1 or 2 votes. As for this fact, even though I am a supporter of it, I still believe the correct call was made: It was open for the full 14 days; the reason that this one was a low-voting item was apparently because a lot of people chose not to vote (notable active users who usually vote but didn't include Jay, Heimstern, and TBird). They did, however, have the opportunity to vote. There were a total of 8 days when nobody voted. Before that, the fact was on the page for 507 days—when anyone could have STUFF'd it—before anyone finally did. From the results of the vote combined with the general apathy toward this item and the length of time it remained on the page itself, my conclusion was that the people of the wiki were inclined toward this one just enough for it to be included on the page and have had plenty of chance to say otherwise. Therefore, I believe the process was followed, and the result should be upheld. — It's dot com 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, believe the vote should remain as it is. If it had been a one-vote difference, I could understand, but 14-12 is not too bad (about 53%-46%) and not on an item that drew everyone to the polls (so to speak). Dot com correctly observes that several users, myself included, stayed out of the vote (for anyone who's wondering, it had to do with my being in China and unable to do the proper research there, largely because 'Kipedia is blocked in China). STUFF items have to end sometime, and two weeks is a very reasonable amount of time, usually (the infernal Dairy Queen fact being an exception). Heimstern Läufer 01:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Closed STUFF

Easter Eggs!

It's great to find all these Easter Eggs that have now become official things, isn't it?

Games at the end

"Originally you could play the four games by clicking on them at the end of email. This has been changed as they are now accessible from the Scrolling Shooter Games Menu."

Ummm, I'm pretty sure you can still play the games from this email. In fact, I'm completely sure because I just did it. I'ma go ahead and fix this. Dementedc 23:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Game Developer's Conference (GDC)

I recall hearing on Gamespy back when this video was released that it was shown to the crowd during 2004's GDC. Is this true?

You can't control me

Judging by Strong Bad's tone of voice, he wasn't meaning "you can't control me" literally. Wolf O'Donnel 18:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Although, I don't know that that precludes the fun fact as written. -50.234.189.37 20:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)