The Index of the Giant's Comments V―On a Saner Forum, We Wouldn't Need this Index

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalmegil

Seems like some semblance of a changed circumstance should be necessary before removing, especially when we're still using the lopsided +2 rule to keep things in the index.

---

Does that mean now's the time to talk about codifying removal procedure (again)?

I would say get rid of the Munchkin quote. It's incredibly specific (I don't think Munchkin cards are very mainstream) and kinda silly (since there already is an OOTS card game which apparently is very similar to Munchkin). I think the amount of people who have wondered "Will there ever be a Munchkin card game" may possibly number only that one person.


However, an OOTS video game is much more mainstream, and is a possibility that I would think a large portion of readers have thought about at some point. I think that quote is a good one to keep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlebum2002

I would say get rid of the Munchkin quote. It's incredibly specific (I don't think Munchkin cards are very mainstream) and kinda silly (since there already is an OOTS card game which apparently is very similar to Munchkin). I think the amount of people who have wondered "Will there ever be a Munchkin card game" may possibly number only that one person.


However, an OOTS video game is much more mainstream, and is a possibility that I would think a large portion of readers have thought about at some point. I think that quote is a good one to keep.

---

Munchkin is pretty widely sold, Target carries it, I think Walmart carries it, Barnes and Noble carries it, Books a Million carries it. I think I've seen it at a grocery store and am sure I've seen it at a drug store.

Nor is Munchkin much like the existing OotS game, both have cards and rooms and monsters and treasures, but that comes pretty close to exhausting the similarities. Munchkin is a LOT faster playing. I don't see that much overlap.

Video games are HARD to make, and tie-ins are usually to really widely known things like major movies; similarly, video games are a big enough deal that major movies are made based on them. Web-comics, not so much. Conversely, Munchkin regularly produces new sets, and uses webcomic artists as artists.

I could much more readily see a munchkin tie in than almost any other form of commercial tie in. I'd never have considered a videogame tie in.

I think you've got which is more likely reversed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Lampert

Munchkin is pretty widely sold, Target carries it, I think Walmart carries it, Barnes and Noble carries it, Books a Million carries it. I think I've seen it at a grocery store and am sure I've seen it at a drug store.

Nor is Munchkin much like the existing OotS game, both have cards and rooms and monsters and treasures, but that comes pretty close to exhausting the similarities. Munchkin is a LOT faster playing. I don't see that much overlap.

Video games are HARD to make, and tie-ins are usually to really widely known things like major movies; similarly, video games are a big enough deal that major movies are made based on them. Web-comics, not so much. Conversely, Munchkin regularly produces new sets, and uses webcomic artists as artists.

I could much more readily see a munchkin tie in than almost any other form of commercial tie in. I'd never have considered a videogame tie in.

I think you've got which is more likely reversed.

---

1) What decade are you living in? A developer could create an OOTS game for mobile in a week. They already have a Futurama mobile game, and Futurama is a MUCH bigger property than OOTS, so it certainly can't be said that OOTS is too big for mobile.

2)I'm not talking about "which scenario is more likely", I'm talking about "which scenario is more likely to be asked about". And while the Munchkin card game might be popular, it's popularity isn't even close to being close to the popularity of "video games". I would be willing to bet the amount of people who have heard of "video games" is thousands of times more than the amount of people who have heard of "Munchkin card game". (Even more than that outside of a community which reads a D&D themed webcomic)

So yes, the average Munchkin card owner might realize that there is a chance that OOTS would do a tie-in, but the average OOTS reader has a MUCH higher chance of being in the "has heard of video games, and knows that they do tie-ins" group than in the "has heard of Munchkin, and knows they do tie-ins" group.

Therefore, the amount of people who would wonder why there is not an OOTS video game (since there are literally millions of mobile video games, a large number of which are tie-ins) would indeed be much higher than the amount of people who wonder why there is not a Munchkin card game.


3)As I have never heard of or played Munchkin, I was referring to this quote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forbiddenwar

The OOTS game is very, very similar to munchkin, in my and my gaming group's honest opinion, except OOTS is better. more strategic and cooperative.

---

EDIT: Oh yeah, and 4) If you read the quotes, the Munchin card game is summed up as "I have an exclusive deal with Ape for OOTS card games, so this isn't going to happen", but the video game quote is summed up as "I've been approached 3 times, and THEY backed out (implying that Rich was open to the idea". So the fact that an OOTS video game is still a (albeit slim) possibility makes this quote more worthwhile, even more so due to the explosion of popularity in quickly and easily made mobile video games that you are apparently unaware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlebum2002

1) What decade are you living in? A developer could create an OOTS game for mobile in a week. They already have a Futurama mobile game, and Futurama is a MUCH bigger property than OOTS, so it certainly can't be said that OOTS is too big for mobile.

---

Where did I say it was too big? It's far too niche and too small for anyone to do a major video game. I said vidoe tie in games are typically things like major motion pictures and you think that I'm objecting that a webcomic is TOO BIG!

What planet are you living on? And in what universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Lampert

Where did I say it was too big? It's far too niche and too small for anyone to do a major video game. I said vidoe tie in games are typically things like major motion pictures and you think that I'm objecting that a webcomic is TOO BIG!

What planet are you living on? And in what universe?

---

LOL what on earth makes you think a mobile game needs to be tied in with a large franchise to succeed? There are literally tens of millions of games which prove that premise wrong.

I mean, if you honestly think OOTS (or anything, for that matter) is too SMALL of a property for a mobile video game, then you obviously know absolutely nothing about mobile video games. Mobile video games are often created by small companies or even individuals invented totally out of the blue. The fact that a game has ANY outside connection prior to being created would make it more accessible than a large portion of existing mobile games.

So what universe do I live in? I live in this crazy universe where every day thousands of games are created which have no ties to any properties at all, and therefore the idea that a property is "too small" for a video game is laughable.

Now, your argument isn't dumb, or ludicrous, or wrong. It is a perfectly reasonable argument for, say 10 years ago, when mobile games were still very obscure and a tiny market and video games were still actually difficult to create, and tying them to a large franchise was a good way toi ensure popularity. It's not a bad argument, it's actually very quaint, like my dad telling a company that he will complain about them to Consumer Reports or asking why no one watches the evening news anymore or wonders when gas will be $.30 a gallon again. I kinda enjoy it when people don't realize what decade it is.

....We don't have "commercial viability" as criteria for inclusion, so I'm having a hard time understanding how this branch of conversation relates to the inclusion of quotes that brought it about....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

....We don't have "commercial viability" as criteria for inclusion, so I'm having a hard time understanding how this branch of conversation relates to the inclusion of quotes that brought it about....

---

I totally agree. I'll go back to my original statement.

A much larger number of OOTS readers have heard of video games than Munchkin card games, so therefore the amount of people who are curious about them will be much larger, and therefore I think the video game quote should stay while the card game quote should go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlebum2002

A much larger number of OOTS readers have heard of video games than Munchkin card games, so therefore the amount of people who are curious about them will be much larger, and therefore I think the video game quote should stay while the card game quote should go.

---

I dunno...if we're looking at it from that angle, I'd think the mention of the card/board game exclusivity arrangement makes that quote far more broadly applicable than the few specific instances of the video games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

....We don't have "commercial viability" as criteria for inclusion, so I'm having a hard time understanding how this branch of conversation relates to the inclusion of quotes that brought it about....

---

You're forgetting this isn't a sane thread anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

I dunno...if we're looking at it from that angle, I'd think the mention of the card/board game exclusivity arrangement makes that quote far more broadly applicable than the few specific instances of the video games.

---

I'm just trying to say that I think more people have thought in their head "I wonder why there isn't an OOTS video game" than "I wonder why there isn't an OOTS Munchkin card game"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throknor

You're forgetting this isn't a sane thread anymore.

---

It's no less sane now than it was before, though.

After all, the last thread ended with discussion about what plantains are because of how the word plantain is pronounced because some pronunciation is loosely to similar to "phantom" because a desire to have the thread title reference Star Wars even if the numbering didn't quite match; an ultimately tenuous connection to be sure, but a connection that exists :smalltongue: (Maybe I should've suggested "Should've Shien This Coming", but I still think that was way too obscure)

Yeah, it's too obscure. What does it reference? (I'm guessing it's a Sean Connery line from some movie.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Miel

Yeah, it's too obscure. What does it reference? (I'm guessing it's a Sean Connery line from some movie.)

---

The rather generic "Should've seen this coming" on account of the banana theme starting to lose f(l)avor, and the fifth form of lightsaber combat, what with this being the fifth Index thread. (Given how much I love finding loose connections, I don't declare something "too obscure" lightly :smalltongue: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

The rather generic "Should've seen this coming" on account of the banana theme starting to lose f(l)avor, and the fifth form of lightsaber combat, what with this being the fifth Index thread. (Given how much I love finding loose connections, I don't declare something "too obscure" lightly :smalltongue: )

---

Doesn't seem any more obscure than referencing a banana joke that has since been scrubbed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keltest

Doesn't seem any more obscure than referencing a banana joke that has since been scrubbed.

---

That you could have seen without ever having left this forum...And even though the effect is greatly diminished without the image, you could possibly figure it out (and the title proposal I ended up going with was made pre-scrub anyway). Most importantly, "banana" is a common English word; so even without knowing about the joke it looks like a silly title on its face, rather than a firm appearance of missing something (which is where I draw the line between a reference and an in-joke; an in-joke breaks flow by leaving no doubt that you're missing something if you aren't privy to it already, while a reference only has reduced effect).

Meanwhile, none the names of lightsaber forms are even mentioned in the movies that I can recall, and with this not being a Star Wars forum there's no reason familiarity with secondary or tertiary material should be expected for the general audience. And "Shien" is certainly not a common English word....

Wow, this current page is the least thread-relevant in a long time :smalltongue:

To get back in topic, let me suggest a new quote: Why some books make for a much bigger PDF file than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwynfrid

Wow, this current page is the least thread-relevant in a long time :smalltongue:

To get back in topic, let me suggest a new quote: Why some books make for a much bigger PDF file than others.

---

Good grief! An actual quote from the Giant? In this thread? I thought this thread was just about voting and arguing these days?

Seriously though, this thread has become a lot less useful for tracking new quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustIgnoreMe

Good grief! An actual quote from the Giant? In this thread? I thought this thread was just about voting and arguing these days?

Seriously though, this thread has become a lot less useful for tracking new quotes.

---

Amusingly, your comment lamenting this only contributes to the same.

I like the new quote. It's useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustIgnoreMe

Seriously though, this thread has become a lot less useful for tracking new quotes.

---

People keep complaining about this, but that was never its actual intended purpose. It's a reference work, not a feed.

Yeah, I'm for including the new quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ti'esar

People keep complaining about this, but that was never its actual intended purpose. It's a reference work, not a feed.

---

This.

If you want something else, simply get on the Giant's forum profile and click on "Find latest posts", like you'd do for any other forumer.

Re: the game and card game quotes, could they not be combined? Perhaps add one - and any future adaptation questions - as See Also of the other.

I, too, believe the new quote is worth including.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwynfrid

Wow, this current page is the least thread-relevant in a long time :smalltongue:

To get back in topic, let me suggest a new quote: Why some books make for a much bigger PDF file than others.

---

Adding my support to including this.

Proposed for inclusion: The Giant's comments on why he won't include a random button.

This is a suggestion that has been made at least three times over the last few years.
1) http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...=random+button
2)http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...=random+button
3) http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...=random+button

The most recent one is today. I went to the index looking for the quote, but it doesn't seem to be there. Probably nobody thought it worth including before. But since this is a question that comes up occasionally, I think it is worth including.

Eeeehhhhhh. Seems more about site functionality than about the comic. Convince me otherwise, though, and my support will follow.

I vote for including it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hroþila

This.

If you want something else, simply get on the Giant's forum profile and click on "Find latest posts", like you'd do for any other forumer.

---

For a number of years that didn't work so the early quote threads did serve that function. It still isn't necessarily a good way to find a quote on a subject, but at least now one can use it to occasionally check directly rather than watch this thread for new posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Throknor

For a number of years that didn't work so the early quote threads did serve that function. It still isn't necessarily a good way to find a quote on a subject, but at least now one can use it to occasionally check directly rather than watch this thread for new posts.

---

If I remember correctly, the failure of the forum's search function was one of the reasons for the index being created. It's certainly what it was used for during that time.

Times change, of course, but this thread has changed from one that I read regularly because it provided me with useful information, to one that I feel I can pretty much ignore now because it has stopped providing me with useful information. Which is a shame, because I'm not likely to start forum-stalking the Giant's every post on the offchance that one of them tells me something new about OotS.