Fuck. Where do you even begin with this? I don't know. You could say that with a comic as terrible as the first Android one, you should not follow it up. You should burn it. You should apologize to the world for unleashing something so stupid and awful. But to write a sequel - only 5 comics later! - as your 600th comic! - ugh! - just a terrible decision for Randy to make.
But like so many sequels, this one fails to live up to the (low, low, low) standard of the original. Let's take a look at what is happening here: The girl has a boy robot and the boy has a girl robot so the two robots sex it up (offscreen, luckily). That's not funny - that's...logical. The joke I suppose is in the colorful simile offered in by the girl, but I sure didn't laugh at it. Probably because it is so clearly wrong: robot sex, if the robots look like people as they do here, doesn't look like sex toys stuck together, it looks like people. Think about it: Imagine the hot robot action going on in panel 4, and imagine the...mantlepiece decoration Randall claims to own. Not exactly the same, hm?
So the comic is dumb on that level. But of course, for those of us with more than a passing interest in xkcd, there's the fact that here we are with yet another sex obsessed comic. We're at 4 of the last 9, by my count. And they aren't just, so to speak, normal sex comics - they have this very very strange feel to them that I usually describe as "creepy" but perhaps just "troubling" is better. Think about it - 596 was about stalking a girl while she bought sex toys (not to use! they were for her mantlepiece!). 598 was all about having a messed up view of girls because of over exposure to crappy porn. And of course, the last Android one and this one just make me continue to think Randall has got so frustrated withMegan humans that he is talking about fuckin' some robots. Probably his sense of PCness and anti-sexism was gnawing at him because he only objectified a woman last time and he had to make up for it by showing he isn't biased, he can objectify men too! nicely done.
stop with the sex obsession randall. we do not want to read about it. I will have to start a Repeat Offender page for it.
happy fucking 600th comic, randall. best of luck with your next 600. bitch.
But like so many sequels, this one fails to live up to the (low, low, low) standard of the original. Let's take a look at what is happening here: The girl has a boy robot and the boy has a girl robot so the two robots sex it up (offscreen, luckily). That's not funny - that's...logical. The joke I suppose is in the colorful simile offered in by the girl, but I sure didn't laugh at it. Probably because it is so clearly wrong: robot sex, if the robots look like people as they do here, doesn't look like sex toys stuck together, it looks like people. Think about it: Imagine the hot robot action going on in panel 4, and imagine the...mantlepiece decoration Randall claims to own. Not exactly the same, hm?
So the comic is dumb on that level. But of course, for those of us with more than a passing interest in xkcd, there's the fact that here we are with yet another sex obsessed comic. We're at 4 of the last 9, by my count. And they aren't just, so to speak, normal sex comics - they have this very very strange feel to them that I usually describe as "creepy" but perhaps just "troubling" is better. Think about it - 596 was about stalking a girl while she bought sex toys (not to use! they were for her mantlepiece!). 598 was all about having a messed up view of girls because of over exposure to crappy porn. And of course, the last Android one and this one just make me continue to think Randall has got so frustrated with
stop with the sex obsession randall. we do not want to read about it. I will have to start a Repeat Offender page for it.
happy fucking 600th comic, randall. best of luck with your next 600. bitch.
More like sexkcd, etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteIs this going to be a recurring character thing? A part of me wishes it will be so I can hate it properly.
>>sexkcd
ReplyDeleteFucking truth.
Prediction for 601:
Picture: Randall performing cunnilingus on a girl.
Caption: Incest, you raep what you sow.
Alt-text: That's what he said.
-----
This is how low xkcd has fallen. RSS feed deleted.
Carl:
ReplyDeleteIf 600 isn't exactly "Angriest Rants" material, is it at least enough to earn a new Repeat Offenders category? The ongoing trend of Randall being unnervingly graphic and frank about sexual situations, for no reason other than to prove that he is a Bad Enough Dude to do so, is starting to palpably irk even some of the brownest-nosed forumites.
I'll even volunteer to trawl the archives for examples if you need, though of course the largest concentration has inexplicably been in the last month or so.
@Anon 11:48PM
ReplyDeleteI've had xkcd on my RSS for quite some time and it's remained there through sheer inertia.
RSS also deleted.
So, the trend of sex started with 584, Unsatisfied, in which he portrayed stick figure oral sex. I think he was going for the concept that the character was always unsatisfied (hence the title!!!!) even during sex, board games, and mountain climbing on precipitous trails. He was always thinking of Megan.
ReplyDelete(I am not sure whether to count 583. I think this is just garden variety Randy. The sex is neither graphic, nor the focus. I have decided not to include it here.)
It really starts getting obvious in 592. 592 is about how sex causes drama and he totally wishes it wouldn't. Couple this with 584 (and maybe 583?) and you see a common thread. 584 is about being unsatisfied with what he has (and, though I don't think he is aware of it here, what he has is monogamy). 592 is about how he really wishes polyamory was feasible.
Now, I was given to understand that Randy had a girlfriend. I am going to posit that, some time shortly before 583/584, he stopped having a girlfriend. 584 is his angsty brooding about how he should have been happy with what he had.
592 makes me suspect that the reason the relationship broke off is that he decided to have sex with random people, and he doesn't feel that it should be a big deal.
I am not including 594 in my analysis; it is about uteri, not sex.
595 is about an android girlfriend. Once again, sex--and, since it's an android, it is consequence-free sex.
In 596 we see an off-the-camera sex incident causing burns, apparently, in a rather stalkerish way. Since I get the impression Randall has never dated Megan, I wonder if here he is not actually using her name to deflect suspicion that he is, in fact, thinking of his now-ex-girlfriend. She is not only being injured, but, we are forced to assume, she is injured sexually. Is he wishing harm upon someone, subconsciously or otherwise? (I would say this were a stretch were it not for the stalkerish and sexual violence overtones here.)
In 598, the porn strip, we see a more general sex-oriented focus. You could stretch and say that he is feeling unsatisfied at her lack of compression, but that is a stretch. But I think at this point he has perhaps mostly gotten the angst out of his system, but now that he is deprived of regular sex, he is obsessed with it. Also, he reads SMBC.
600, of course, is about sex toys. And sex. Sex sex sex oh my goodness sex.
Basically what I am saying is Randall got dumped and became obsessed with sex, both conceptually and in the sex-craved lunatic sense.
The fact that you get so angry about a webcomic being bad indicates you should see a shrink. I'm pretty sure you've got something wrong with you.
ReplyDeleteYup. In order to celebrate xkcd 600, it will be tossed off the RSS. Well, I'll still get my updates through xkcdsucks (man, what a hypocrite).
ReplyDeleteAlso, may I refer to today's Buttersafe (http://buttersafe.com/2009/06/23/kick-your-face/)?
Please resist the urge, will you? It's just a comic.
Concerning 600: Unfortunately, I am afraid there is no need to "comment" on it. A lame self-copy of a horrible comic? Oh well..
(Anyways, xkcd comes back on the RSS. Wouldn't want to miss the updates at xkcdsucks...)
Y'know, this trend would lead me to believe that Randall had some type of breakup recently.
ReplyDeleteMore specifically, a breakup that was caused by Randy's desire to have lots of casual sex.
ReplyDeleteEven more specifically, a breakup caused by a desire to have casual threesomes with a computer as the third party.
ReplyDeleteIs the second party also Randall?
ReplyDeleteThis comic was trite. I expected a bit more for numero 600. Randy's either being lazy or hit a writer's block.
ReplyDelete"Randy's either being lazy or hit a writer's block."
ReplyDeleteWelcome to a few hundred xkcd's ago.
Randy's a fucking hack is what's wrong. He can churn out anything he wants now and nobody will call him on his bullshit because the xkcd-fantard dipshits are too shortsighted to see xkcd's slow descent into Garfieldhood.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think Randy must have just discovered sex, at the ripe old age of 24, what with all the sex "jokes" recently. I imagine the sex Randy and his xkcd-fangirl (or prostitute) had must've been awkward as hell.
"Oh yeah you like it bitch don'tcha? Unf unf take it all"
"Umm..."
"Oh yes oh yes oh god OH MEGAN I LOVE YOU~aahh"
"Uh actually my name is Carl."
"What the fu
The sexkcd trend goes way back further than that, Rob. Check out 400:
ReplyDeletehttp://xkcd.com/400/
Yea you're right Ramsey.
ReplyDeleteThis cartoon would really lead anyone to believe that the only type of sexual interactions that Randy ever has are box munching. Thats it! Thats either all he does or all he knows how to draw.
I wonder what these toons will be like when he discovers vaginal intercourse.
@Mike G.
ReplyDeleteI wonder also what domain name will he associate with xkcd when this happens. "Hi.tting.it"? "St.ikccoit.us"? Damn it's hard to think of a name that ends in a valid domain name.
you guys my boyfriend told me he liked this comic
ReplyDeletei am seriously reconsidering our relationship
(sweetie if you are reading this we need to have a talk tonight)
ahahahahah Wilhelm. Also, applause to Rob's analysis!
Going back through the archives to find more SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX stuff...
ReplyDelete333 -- HOLY CRAP IT'S NOT CUNNILINGUS
316 -- Similarly!
306 -- Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Like Jack Nicholson in Anger Management"?
(Okay that one's not about sex but still I wonder.)
300 -- I think he's confusing "mildly sleazy" with "pig disgusting."
291 -- Bonus super early appearance of Beret Guy!
289 -- It almost looks like fellatio in panel 3. What a tweest!
275 -- Randall saying grotesquely inappropriate things to his girlfriend's father: A recurring theme? (cf. that fucking honesty in the media bullshit.)
242 -- I'm gonna stop here, since I actually think this one's legitimately clever. Even the alt text is cool!
What does 242 have to do with sex?
ReplyDeleteTRiG.
You forget your name thar, son?
ReplyDeletecaptcha: suckfh (Hmm.)
XKCD 600 made me laugh... but it was mostly from imagining this blog's reaction to it.
ReplyDeleteTRiG, I think 242 was so good, that Mael decided to stop looking for bad comics after seeing it, because it was in an era before XKCD started sucking.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing he meant 243?
ReplyDeleteI love you guys
ReplyDeleteAmanda, break up with him. No good will come of that relationship.
ReplyDeleteHe'll probably replace her with an android.
ReplyDelete@TRiG
ReplyDeletethe shape of the circles in 242 looks like a penis.
Wait-- 291? That's not really a SEX one.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would complain about him not having a great comic for 600, but he's never gone out of his way to make a celebratory comic at the milestone strips, so it'd be a waste.
ReplyDeleteCARL CARL I want to submit a guest post. Do you mind?
ReplyDeleteSo, it's obvious I'm not alone here in hating newkcd, but am I alone in missing the old xkcd? I mean, now that I think of it, there was a fair amount of suck back in the day too. I mean if you took out all the dumb sex jokes and emo stalker crap and what not from oh, the first 200... You'd get some fair strips, sure, but great as in great enough to excuse the accompanying rubbish?
ReplyDeleteSomewhere along the way his self-presentation went from "*shrug*" to "OMG I'm so awesome, look at how I fulfill various criteria of awesome such as knowing internet memes, being a /b/tard, having disgusting sexual obsessions and having crazy sex with lots of women! Also some of them are underage and it's non-consensual and solely to attack their parents/relatives!" Guess that trend's what really correlates with the decay in quality for me. It's not just that his ego grew exponentially, it also gained too much prominence in all the wrong areas.
I mean... I dunno... Can I bawwaw here about silly life philosophy crap? I wouldn't want to pointlessly draw flame or anything.
Eh, you won't get flamed by me anyway, and I am all that matters so GO AHEAD
ReplyDeletethere is probably something to that. The idea of going from "*shrug*" to "I AM AWESOME" has a lot to do with it. There was a time Randy didn't seem to care a lot about his reception etc. He was just putting something out there for people to read if they wanted. Now he's catering to the whims of his fanboys.
It is superfluous to agree that xkcd is indeed horrible, and has been for quite a while. Everyone who comes here agrees it sucks, whether fearfully and at a level that is just now peeking into their conscious mind, or to a degree that is somewhat obnoxious in its own right (cf. Carl). I wish someone would condemn xkcd in a manner sufficiently well-reasoned, subdued and well-written that I could enjoy it without the occasional groan at the incompetence of my fellow haters, as is the case with Carl's complaints.
ReplyDeletexkcd is so often insufferably annoying that I sometimes want to tear apart (in a most physical, visceral sense) its supporters (particularly those bile-rising creators of whatever that Randall/Norris site was). If Carl would simply surrender his ranting crown to one of the more entertaining contributors to this board, I think I would be satisfied. Better written and more prompt indictments of xkcd's failings would be most welcome.
@Hunter Barry -- Bingo! Some of the non SEX SEX SEX strips were there just because I thought they were interesting, like the "Hitch" one or the Beret Guy one.
ReplyDeleteCAPTCHA: Thorp. I love Gil Thorp.
Hey! that was fast :P
ReplyDelete/the anonymous guy whose comment just got deleted as the post was merged over
CAPTCHA:sucker
CARL DIS IS NOT HIS 600TH COMIC
ReplyDeleteFOR YOU SEE HE DOES NOT HAVE A COMIC #404
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL MAGNITUDE OF RANDY'S CLEVERNESS
@Mal:
ReplyDeleteBeret-Man's existential roots are a disappointing loss, don't you agree?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI did a little experiment with the xkcd fanbois on Reddit. They did not disappoint.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/8uglz/xkcd_android_boyfriend/c0agx2c
@Mr. O -- Not really, since the character itself sucks. A mediocre origin for a shitty character? Meh.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecomic 601 wouldn't be all that horrible, just standard-issue emo crap
ReplyDeleteexcept that RYAN NORTH MADE THE SAME FUCKING WARGAMES REFERENCE LIKE FIVE DAYS AGO
RANDALL GET OUT OF OTHER WEBCOMIC WRITER'S HEADS
601 I would've thought was just mediocre "Hey ho LOVE IS PAIN" (note the alt-text) and "HEY HO I KNOW NERD THINGS" but then yeah Dinosaur Comics.
ReplyDeleteMalethoth: And like, I could accept that yeah, okay, maybe he'd had this comic floating around for a while and just now got around to it, but then there's the whole SMBC thing?
ReplyDeleteRandy it is okay if you don't have an idea, but try to rip off old Achewood or something rather than last week's qwantz.
Hey ho! It looks like Carl's hypothesis that Randall just went through a break-up is now confirmed with 601.
ReplyDelete"I will have to start a Repeat Offender page for it."
ReplyDeleteYESSSS finally.
Oh, and riddle me this: what do you get when you cross Randall's sucky relationships, Randall's sucky sense of humor, last Friday's Dinosaur Comics, and xkcd #55? Why yes, what you get is xkcd #601!
Thanks for playing, I will now shoot myself for having at one time been an xkcd fan.
Some more sexkcds, between 400 and 583. All not exactly graphic, but with sexual theme as the main point.
ReplyDeletehttp://xkcd.com/403/ - let's have sex so the hookup network is symmetrical
http://xkcd.com/414/ - kama sutra mistranslations
http://xkcd.com/487/ - numerical sex positions
(http://xkcd.com/492/ - randy's playing scrabble with his family and he has letters to form the word "clitoris")
http://xkcd.com/507/ - lesbian experimentation with scientific rigor
http://xkcd.com/514/ - simultaneus orgasms
http://xkcd.com/550/ - the meme density shit
http://xkcd.com/563/ - fermirotica
I actually liked 601, since war games is one of the coolest movies I ever watched.
ReplyDeleteIt sucks that he stole the joke though.
Anon 10:35 here.
ReplyDeleteI just went through the last few Dinosaur comics, and I think you guys are really grasping at straws here.
They reference the same movie, but the way they referenced it is completely different.
601 confirms certain theories suggestied earlier that these sex comics are caused by Randull having personal issues of some kind.
ReplyDeletelol there's a natural language processing comic in dinosaur comics TOTAL RIPOFF XKCD MADE FUN OF COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS LIKE 3 YEARS AGO
ReplyDeleteRyan North is a computational linguist.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:00:
ReplyDeleteYou best be trollin'.
There is actually quite a big difference between two comics referencing the same scene from an old (and otherwise infrequently referenced) movie within a week of each other, and two comics referencing the same academic field within several years of each other- especially given that the author of one of the comics has a degree in that field, and that the other comic has "language" as one of its recurring themes (in theory at least).
http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=370
ReplyDeleteHoly mother of FUCK, cuddleseakitten. Is that one about Randy or is it just a coincidence?
ReplyDelete601.
ReplyDeleteIt is official.
Randy is an emo teenager posting on his myspace about how Megan broke his heart. Except on xkcd.
Oh no, 601 is another cry baby one. It's one of the worst, it's not even funny.
ReplyDeletePlus he's floating above the chair! argh!
Ok, after reading the forums apparently it's a reference to some computer game. So if you quote computer games that makes you a genius?
ReplyDeleteoh GOD THAT QWANTZ WAS HILARIOUS.
ReplyDeleteit really made my day
you can't break up with a person you are stalking
ReplyDeleteJonathan: Go find a copy of the movie "WarGames". Watch it. Then find a copy of the movie "WarGames 2", and burn it with a holy flame.
ReplyDeleteOn 601, I thought it was chuckle-worthy, but it is really, really creepy in the context of the latest xkcd. In a way, though, I'm finding the downfall more hilarious than the strip itself has been in a long time.
601 was depressing, and not for the reason he'd like it to be.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to assume that the AI is actually part of the stick figure's (who I'll call "Tony") AI collective conscious for whenever he develops gynoids for arc-wielding cherry stems and so forth. However, given that they're intelligent, they've decided that they could do better than Tony, and have left him.
Tony then goes to the raw AI, stored in his computer (and generated with Python's "import AI") and asks it the simple question: "What is the answer to the ultimate question of love?"
To which the AI responds, "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response."
Then they play Chinese Checkers.
@Jonathan
ReplyDeleteI pity you. How can you be so blind to Randall's genius? Let me read #601 again... RDOFLAODMO computers do not understand love!! That is effin' hilarious! Not only that, but ZOMG he referenced the movie WarGames! My penis is ejaculating pure nostalgia here. Randy has done it again! He truly is the Bill Watterson of our generation. Randall Patrick Munroe has done what no other person in history has ever done; compared love to a battlefield.
Can you not see how poetic, original, subtle, and most of all funny this is? Randall is a genius in every sense of the word. Randall is so beautiful, I want to kiss him.
Seriously though, xkcd is irredeemable shit and I wish Randall would go away forever.
Bad Joke + Nerd Culture Reference = COMEDY GOLD ON DIGG
Wait, there was a sequel to wargames?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I don't think the comics are really all that similar. They reference the same movie, but so what? Even if randy conciously decided he needed to reference wargames too, while reading qwantz, that doesn't make it a ripoff.
(but it was, of course, not funny at all)
601 is arguably, or maybe inarguably, worse than the android comics.
ReplyDeleteWah wah love is hard. This comic is so pathetic anymore.
this is what happens when you don't give a shit anymore.
ReplyDeletei'm honestly considering starting up a website called like XKCD++ or something. i can do this shit 10x better and still keep a MWF rotation. i'll rip off his page layout and url structure. we could even open it up to the jack asses that post on this blog (i say that with love) for guest strips.
***purchases xkcdplusplus.com***
I like the way you think Mike G.
ReplyDeleteWould the comics be stick figures? Would it be just like xkcdcouldbebetter or unique ideas?
Surely the collective of this blog could get an actual project like that going, at least for a little while.
It would be unique ideas and definitely stick figures. We could vote on them throughout the week and maybe just put one up every monday or something.
ReplyDeleteI could seriously do this with my opposite hand in about 15 minutes. and on top of that, i honestly believe that we could do xkcd better than randy, which would give this wonderful blog much more of a footing against the fanbois. it would be "look, you not only suck randy but we're better than you at your job."
that and it would be fun.
Sounds like a great idea. Don't make it like xkcdcouldbebetter, and make a bunch of stupid uterus/megan jokes, but actually seriously make a comic that's exactly like the old XKCD, but with new material.
ReplyDeleteCAPTCHA: blang. Why don't you write about it on your blang?
For all those who think the xkcd-related Wikipedia vandalism is bad:
ReplyDeletehttp://us.php.net/goto
(At least it's "vintage xkcd," though, if there is such a thing)
The first thing I thought when I read #601 was "hey, haven't I been reading about this on dinosaurcomics recently?"
ReplyDeleteWhat does xkcd even mean?
ReplyDeleteI would like to see it successful enough that Randall sends a cease and desist.
ReplyDeleteCuddlefish Prime: Since when is Wargames infrequently referenced? I'm always hearing, "The only winning move is not to play," or "How about a nice game of chess."
ReplyDeleteRe: emo xkcd
It's always been there. Barrel boy was pretty emo, even in the first comic. By 11 he was starting to get emo about love, and by 17 emo about romantic love.
Re: Transition from "meh" to "I am all that is awesome"
Maybe it isn't so much the decrease in quality but the decrease in perceived spontaneity. As covered in previous discussions, some jokes are only funny if they're spontaneous. The early, hand drawn comics felt like he could've just been doodling during class. It didn't feel like it was calculated to be funny, but just something that happened to amuse him at the time, and he let us in on it. In that sense, xkcd has always been like a blog (one of the complaints raised against it currently). The art has gradually become more sophisticated (in that the lines of the stick figures are less crude), which reduces the perceived spontaneity, reducing the humor.
xkcd stands for "X-rated Krappy Comic, Durr"
ReplyDeleteForgive me for what I am about to do:
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:04: www.xkcd.com/207
I only reason I read 601 was so that I could understand the comments on 601... actually its been that way for awhile. I kinda just keep visiting the xkcd website to see how bad its gonna get.
ReplyDelete@Way Walker
ReplyDeleteI think the very minor sophistication of the art has nothing to do with the perceived decline in quality.
However, I do think the decline in quality isn't as sudden as we all think. If you go through the archives, there are lots of duds in the first couple hundred. Though at least those duds don't seem nearly as lazily done as his current duds. And you won't catch dialogue as contrived / crappy as "constant novelty saps my initiative".
@John: i'm gonna do it. i'll keep this crowd updated on the (probably slow) progress.
ReplyDeletei would send carl a cease and desist from randy the second i got that thing.
although, he hasn't sent one to abstruse goose which is pretty much the exact same thing.
John: Actually, the whole problem is that they're not lazy, they're labored. It seems like he needed a comic so he sat down and tried to think of an idea for a comic. Earlier, it seemed like some idea popped in his head, he sketched it out on paper, and he put it on his blog. Or, even lazier, just screwing around in his notebook during a boring lecture.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is he's in that no man's land of not being lazy enough to seem spontaneous nor putting in enough effort to make a work of art. So, I guess the lazy criticism is valid in the sense that he's too lazy to do a good job, but it also needs to be noted that the charm of the early strips was because they were even lazier than now.
The contrived dialog is probably a good example of this. He's putting in just enough effort to think about what the characters are saying but not enough to make it realistic. With less effort the characters would talk like him, with more effort they'd talk like themselves, either of which can give realistic dialog. But, as it is, they just sound off.
Guys, you're going on about this all wrong. If you make xkcd++ that, it will always be a spawn of xkcd, and thus stand in it's shadow. Why not just make an individual comic that is good?
ReplyDeleteThe point of this is basically to defy those who say "I'd like to see you do it better!", well for that you don't need it to be a second xkcd that does not suck, you can just have your own ideas and avoid being accused of being a shameless rip-off
He didn't even get it right nerd-wise; chess is not considered a meaningful "game" as far as game theory goes.
ReplyDeleteAlso, emo, not funny, etc.
i currently do maintain a webcomic which i feel is better than randy's. i wanted to get xkcd++ going in addition and as a way to channel the creative output (rage) of this blog.
ReplyDeleteI would be glad to help with any comic you make. Send me an e-mail when you have some more details and we will get to work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMike:
ReplyDeleteI thought this comic was hilarious:
http://myapokalips.com/show/34#comic
I have high hopes for xkcd++
XKCD forumites have beat us to it
ReplyDeletehttp://xkcdsw.com
thanks asher.
ReplyDeleteand holy shit anon 7:37 - theyre up to fucking 1034 there's no way to compete with that.
im almost upset about this but that is sickening how many there are.
looks like i'll just be sending them periodically to carl instead to post here.
To be fair, many of those are awful one word edits. Then again, many of the original strips were awful to begin with.
ReplyDelete@anon 7:37: that website will never be good since they lack the ultimate in xkcd-parody fonts.
ReplyDeletexkcdsw, more like bitch about vista site
ReplyDeleteguys, let's make a fanboy parody blogwebsitething.
ReplyDeletewe can write deranged praise of every single one of randall's comics. IT WILL BE AWESOME.
And no one will be the wiser.
ReplyDeleteHAR HAR OUT OF THE 100 COMICS ON THE WEB TWO HAD A SIMILAR REFERENCE. Neway, I suppose when you go to a blog labled XKCDSucks your really going to run into a specific kind of crowd.
ReplyDeleteNeway, not a bad comic in my opinion, for #601 that is. Emo-ish, standard emo but it was a good reference to Wargames.
adam i can't tell if you are joking or just really dumb
ReplyDeleteif you are joking then congratulations on being convincingly dumb
THIS IS WHAT XKCD FANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
ReplyDeleteAt Mike G.:
ReplyDeleteI love your comics, I laughed harder than I had at XKCD in a while.
As in I didn't like some, but most were funny.
ReplyDeleteSorry, didn't want to pull a Randy fan.
please don't ever pull a randy fan
ReplyDeletei don't even know what that would entail but it sounds disturbing
Stop saying neway.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, I kinda like 601 in a bitter and cynical sort of way. It probably shows how messed up Munroe is, but its funny.
ReplyDeleteCarl, I TOTALLY did not see your email. I barely check it. My bad.
ReplyDelete601 is yours, mainly because I don't get the reference.
You know what pisses me off?
ReplyDeleteI really used to like xkcd. Now I check it hoping to see something good but none of them are.
Way to ruin my memories Randall. Thanks a bunch.
Fucker.
(Sorry everyone)
Oddly enough xkcdsw is funnier than the real xkcd. Oh wait, that's not odd.
ReplyDeletehah thanks tomical.
ReplyDeletei went through like 10 xkcdsw's and all that's there is like vista jokes. how many vista jokes can you make?
@Mike G:
ReplyDeleteThat's like asking how many rickroll or love is hard jokes can Randall make.
Way too many.
@Mike G:
ReplyDeleteI think that they have decided everything in existence is funnier followed by the line "At least it's better than Vista."
"Hey, I have AIDS. At least it's better than Vista."
@ Anon 1:08 pm : "He didn't even get it right nerd-wise; chess is not considered a meanginful 'game' as far as game theory goes."
ReplyDeleteMaybe if you're an idiot. Define the strategy sets as the mixed extension over all sequences of legal moves, the payoff from winning as 1, the payoff from losing as -1, and a tie as 0. Chess has rules about ending exogenously if 'nothing has happened in awhile', like moving the same piece back and forth to avoid losing, and the game ends in a draw, so the set of all sequences of legal moves is finite. So a Nash equilibrium exists; there are strategies for which the two players have no incentive to change how they're playing unless the other one does. Actually, Chess can be solved by throwing out strategies that are strictly dominated by other strategies, so the first player has a unique strategy (that involves no random decisions) that always wins; we just can't find it, because the set of all sequences of legal moves is crazy big. That all sounds pretty meaningful and nerdy.
Yes. But it's not "meaningful" in the sense that I meant because it's not interesting. Either White has a strategy that leads to checkmate, or only one that leads to stalemate, probably the former. White always plays that strategy. It's different from, say, the prisoner's dillemma because there's no meta-game reason to do anything else except ignorance of the strategies, and game theory assumes rational participants. The Nash equilibrium exists, but it's boring.
ReplyDeleteI don't appreciate the insult, by the way.
The chess part is ALSO a reference to Wargames. It's "nerdy" because "omg geeky reference let's suck randall's dick"
ReplyDeleteFunny, because I really, really like the "old" strips (though I only see the perceived "decline" at about strip 500, and then it's only a few of them that seem really below par for me), yet I completely despise the fanboyism and think 681 is one of the worst strips so far. This "geek reference = insta-laughs" is getting on my nerves; the newest comic is an atrocious mix of easy humour, fanboy pleasing and emo whining. Vomit inducing.
fernie i am very confused as to what your stance regarding xkcd is.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that Fernie has seen strip 681 and it sucked.
ReplyDeleteActually it probably will if we make it that far.
@Anonymous 10:30:
Don't expect cordiality from the Anons.
Fernie, are you posting from the future?
ReplyDeleteI come from the future.
ReplyDeleteI bring you: xkcd 681!
xkcd has now become so bad that even Randall hates it, and only continues to make it because he's greedy as fuck. He has resorted to self-parody.
Also, he doesn't even draw it on paper anymore, he just uses Mspaint.
http://i40.tinypic.com/ztaycg.png
@Anon at 10:30
ReplyDeleteYou neglect to consider the possibility of Black having the unbeatable strategy! It is quite unlikely, but could certainly exist, and how fascinating would it be if that was the case, eh? All the poor saps who tend to lose when playing black would probably feel quite foolish (quite irrationally, I'll acknowledge) were that to be the case.
No, it couldn't. Chess is a game where each side has identical abilities, and has complete knowledge of the opponent, and there are no elements of chance. EITHER white or black has an unbeatable strategy, not both.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm not actually sure WHICH has the unbeatable strategy. I'm not sure anyone does.
ReplyDeleteOh just a note on Randall apparently ripping off every other person ever about everything.
ReplyDeleteOH GOD NOES APPLEGEEKS RIPPED OFF GEIST PANIK, THOSE SLEEZY BASTARDS.
http://www.hookiedookiepanic.com/geist/pics/59.jpg
http://www.applegeeks.com/lite/strips/aglite476.jpg
Guys some friend on MSN said this to me totally out of the blue:
ReplyDelete"how bad is xkcd recently
it is pretty bad"
This is a SIGN
Who the fuck reads Geist Panik?
ReplyDeleteYeah, really?
ReplyDeleteBesides 8:59 anonymous, this is within FIVE DAYS OF EACH OTHER.
Wait, so it's ok for other comics to apparently rip each other off, but xkcd can't?
ReplyDeleteHeh, awesome...
I suppose it's ok as long as you realize Randy's a talentLESS hack who plagiarizes from other people.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption that it's okay and normal for two very similar people to dump their partners (and that the partners shouldn't be surprised, or mind) is a big, creepy nerd fallacy.
ReplyDelete