It’s that most wonderful time of the week once again! In a week that was pretty “meh” with actual news, we had a fair share of off-the-wall news. Hell, I’m even going to be linking to that website. You long-time listeners of “The Bender” know which one I’m talking about.

There was a tie for this week’s Lager of Excellence, and the winner will be shown to you all in a moment. First, though, the loser.

Fidgit has compiled a list of the ten absolute worst lines of dialogue from Dennis Dyack’s Too Human. My personal favorite: “Your fear soaks your armor. I can smell it.”

Dennis, guys… I love Silicon Knights. Hell, I’m in the crowd that Too Human is an alright game. However, after spending the weekend playing it, it simply cannot be denied: Too Human is the most pretentious story ever told in video games.

Ever.

This week’s winner of the not-so-prestigious Lager of Excellence is G4’s Kevin Pereira, and his off the cuff remarks regarding GameSpot’s bullshit review system, and how Operation Darkness — OPERATION FUCKIN’ DARNKESS — was scored higher than Too Human.

Too Human: Screw the HatersMy two pennies concerning the negative reviews Too Human has been receiving. Relax: The game is FUN!

GameSpot hasn’t known how their own review system works for ages. Sure, it’s nice to know that they kept the ridiculous levels of nitpicking douchebaggery that Jeff Gerstmann took with him into work each day… before they fired him… but they are simply unable to balance out their own reviews. As Pereira points out, Operation Darkness, a game so bad that the Paula Abdul of video game review sites (IGN) gave it a 2.5, received a higher score on GameSpot than Too Human, even while the OD review was much, much more critical.

This coming from a guy who thought Too Human was a technical pile of ass — even if you do feel like a bad motherfucker.

So, Pereira scored epic levels of win with his anti-GameSpot rant. But, who gets the bitch slapped?

That guy. For those of you who don’t recognize who that goofy lookin’ dickweed is, that is Douglas Edric Stanley. Stanley, who I will not refer to by name for the remainder of this bit, thought that he would celebrate the 30th anniversary of Space Invaders with this exhibit:

…yep. Those are alien space ships… attacking the World Trade Center.

Now, while I find the exhibit personally reprehensible (as would any sensible person, I’m sure), I was willing to just let it slide as just another wannabe rebel using a world tragedy to grab the attention of a few hot-headed people. In fact, when I saw this originally on Kotaku (I just threw up in my mouth a little), I simply shook it off and was done with it. Then I read his piece of shit blog:

After three days of a steady downward spiral in public discussion of the piece, I have just given my agreement to the organizers of the Leipzig Games Convention to simply turn off the installation Invaders! While I realize the dangerous precedent of allowing the lowest common denominator dictate what is and is not a valid form of expression, unfortunately the current tone has totally obfuscated the original aims of the piece. While I take full responsibility for the uncomfortable ambiguity of certain aspects of this work, it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy’s sake, and unfortunately, this is what the piece has now become. The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work. Contrary to previous reports, I am an American, and it saddens me that we as a people remain so profoundly unable to process this event outside of some obscure, but tacitly understood, criteria of purely anesthetized artistic representation. Due to these profound misunderstandings, I simply feel that from an artistic point of view, the work has lost the ability to have any valuable impact, poetic or otherwise. I have not been pressured by the Leipziger Messe, nor by the Computerspiele Museum in this decision — to the contrary, they have offered their support in defending the right of artists to speak freely, and in whatever context they may choose.

First of all, way to show your own maturity by taking shot after shot at those of “the lowest common denominator”, who merely have something you obviously lack: tact. Now, a couple of comments on the bold areas:

1.) “it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy’s sake”… what the hell did you think was going to happen? You’re using the destruction of the World Trade Center for… nothing. This isn’t a statement on world affairs, it’s not some kind of metaphor for war or strife, hell, it’s not even a protest against the sitting president. It, literally, is nothing more than exploitation in order to generate a little bit of buzz for your otherwise lackluster career.

2.) “The American response to this work has been, frankly, immature, and lacking the sophistication and consideration that other parts of the world have so far shown the work” … contrary to popular belief, most decent Americans look down on scumbags who try to profit off needless death. You show me an Englishman who wouldn’t be offended at “Bus Bomb Hunter ‘05″, or a Russian who wouldn’t be disgusted by “Beslan Elementary Bully”, and I’ll show you a liar.

I must admit that I admire your desire for attention and publicity. To that effect, you’ve done an admirable job and I only hope to be able to emulate your buzz at some point in the future… only, without being a pretentious dick.

…oh… wait… anyways…

While I, and most reasonable human beings, consider your “art” to be little more than an exercise in bad taste, in a million years I would never ask or demand you had taken it down. For you see, I value the social phenomena of public perception, and I would want everybody in this world to see the exhibit. You know, so the world can see how much of a heartless, tactless, slimy, self-righteous, opportunistic asshole you truly are.

Popularity: 1% [?]