Monday, June 22, 2009

Comic 600: Fucked Up Robots

ughhhhhhhhh
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 with Megan 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.

125 comments:

  1. More like sexkcd, etc. etc.

    Is this going to be a recurring character thing? A part of me wishes it will be so I can hate it properly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. >>sexkcd
    Fucking 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cuddlefish PrimeJune 23, 2009 at 1:23 AM

    Carl:

    If 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.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Anon 11:48PM

    I've had xkcd on my RSS for quite some time and it's remained there through sheer inertia.

    RSS also deleted.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 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.

    (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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yup. 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).

    Also, 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...)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Y'know, this trend would lead me to believe that Randall had some type of breakup recently.

    ReplyDelete
  9. More specifically, a breakup that was caused by Randy's desire to have lots of casual sex.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Even more specifically, a breakup caused by a desire to have casual threesomes with a computer as the third party.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is the second party also Randall?

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comic was trite. I expected a bit more for numero 600. Randy's either being lazy or hit a writer's block.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Randy's either being lazy or hit a writer's block."

    Welcome to a few hundred xkcd's ago.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 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.

    Also, 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

    ReplyDelete
  15. The sexkcd trend goes way back further than that, Rob. Check out 400:

    http://xkcd.com/400/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yea you're right Ramsey.

    This 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.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Mike G.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  18. you guys my boyfriend told me he liked this comic

    i 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!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Going back through the archives to find more SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX stuff...

    333 -- 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!

    ReplyDelete
  20. What does 242 have to do with sex?

    TRiG.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You forget your name thar, son?

    captcha: suckfh (Hmm.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. XKCD 600 made me laugh... but it was mostly from imagining this blog's reaction to it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. TRiG, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm guessing he meant 243?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I love you guys

    ReplyDelete
  26. Amanda, break up with him. No good will come of that relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  27. He'll probably replace her with an android.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @TRiG

    the shape of the circles in 242 looks like a penis.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wait-- 291? That's not really a SEX one.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Also, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  31. CARL CARL I want to submit a guest post. Do you mind?

    ReplyDelete
  32. So, 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?

    Somewhere 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.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Eh, you won't get flamed by me anyway, and I am all that matters so GO AHEAD

    there 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.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 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.

    xkcd 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.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @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.

    CAPTCHA: Thorp. I love Gil Thorp.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey! that was fast :P

    /the anonymous guy whose comment just got deleted as the post was merged over

    CAPTCHA:sucker

    ReplyDelete
  37. CARL DIS IS NOT HIS 600TH COMIC

    FOR YOU SEE HE DOES NOT HAVE A COMIC #404

    DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FULL MAGNITUDE OF RANDY'S CLEVERNESS

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Mal:

    Beret-Man's existential roots are a disappointing loss, don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I did a little experiment with the xkcd fanbois on Reddit. They did not disappoint.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/8uglz/xkcd_android_boyfriend/c0agx2c

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Mr. O -- Not really, since the character itself sucks. A mediocre origin for a shitty character? Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. comic 601 wouldn't be all that horrible, just standard-issue emo crap

    except that RYAN NORTH MADE THE SAME FUCKING WARGAMES REFERENCE LIKE FIVE DAYS AGO

    RANDALL GET OUT OF OTHER WEBCOMIC WRITER'S HEADS

    ReplyDelete
  44. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Malethoth: 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?

    Randy 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.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hey ho! It looks like Carl's hypothesis that Randall just went through a break-up is now confirmed with 601.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I will have to start a Repeat Offender page for it."

    YESSSS 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.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Some more sexkcds, between 400 and 583. All not exactly graphic, but with sexual theme as the main point.

    http://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

    ReplyDelete
  49. I actually liked 601, since war games is one of the coolest movies I ever watched.

    It sucks that he stole the joke though.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon 10:35 here.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 601 confirms certain theories suggestied earlier that these sex comics are caused by Randull having personal issues of some kind.

    ReplyDelete
  52. lol there's a natural language processing comic in dinosaur comics TOTAL RIPOFF XKCD MADE FUN OF COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS LIKE 3 YEARS AGO

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ryan North is a computational linguist.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anon 11:00:

    You 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).

    ReplyDelete
  55. http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=370

    ReplyDelete
  56. Holy mother of FUCK, cuddleseakitten. Is that one about Randy or is it just a coincidence?

    ReplyDelete
  57. 601.

    It is official.

    Randy is an emo teenager posting on his myspace about how Megan broke his heart. Except on xkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oh no, 601 is another cry baby one. It's one of the worst, it's not even funny.

    Plus he's floating above the chair! argh!

    ReplyDelete
  59. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  60. oh GOD THAT QWANTZ WAS HILARIOUS.
    it really made my day

    ReplyDelete
  61. you can't break up with a person you are stalking

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jonathan: 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.

    On 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.

    ReplyDelete
  63. 601 was depressing, and not for the reason he'd like it to be.

    I'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.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Jonathan
    I 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

    ReplyDelete
  65. Wait, there was a sequel to wargames?

    Anyway, 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)

    ReplyDelete
  66. 601 is arguably, or maybe inarguably, worse than the android comics.

    Wah wah love is hard. This comic is so pathetic anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  67. this is what happens when you don't give a shit anymore.

    i'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***

    ReplyDelete
  68. I like the way you think Mike G.

    Would 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.

    ReplyDelete
  69. 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.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  70. 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.

    CAPTCHA: blang. Why don't you write about it on your blang?

    ReplyDelete
  71. For all those who think the xkcd-related Wikipedia vandalism is bad:

    http://us.php.net/goto

    (At least it's "vintage xkcd," though, if there is such a thing)

    ReplyDelete
  72. The first thing I thought when I read #601 was "hey, haven't I been reading about this on dinosaurcomics recently?"

    ReplyDelete
  73. What does xkcd even mean?

    ReplyDelete
  74. I would like to see it successful enough that Randall sends a cease and desist.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Cuddlefish 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."

    Re: 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.

    ReplyDelete
  76. xkcd stands for "X-rated Krappy Comic, Durr"

    ReplyDelete
  77. Forgive me for what I am about to do:

    Anon 11:04: www.xkcd.com/207

    ReplyDelete
  78. 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
  79. @Way Walker

    I 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".

    ReplyDelete
  80. @John: i'm gonna do it. i'll keep this crowd updated on the (probably slow) progress.

    i 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.

    ReplyDelete
  81. 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.

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  82. 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?

    The 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

    ReplyDelete
  83. He didn't even get it right nerd-wise; chess is not considered a meaningful "game" as far as game theory goes.

    Also, emo, not funny, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  84. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mike:
    I thought this comic was hilarious:
    http://myapokalips.com/show/34#comic

    I have high hopes for xkcd++

    ReplyDelete
  88. XKCD forumites have beat us to it

    http://xkcdsw.com

    ReplyDelete
  89. thanks asher.

    and 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.

    ReplyDelete
  90. To be fair, many of those are awful one word edits. Then again, many of the original strips were awful to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @anon 7:37: that website will never be good since they lack the ultimate in xkcd-parody fonts.

    ReplyDelete
  92. xkcdsw, more like bitch about vista site

    ReplyDelete
  93. guys, let's make a fanboy parody blogwebsitething.

    we can write deranged praise of every single one of randall's comics. IT WILL BE AWESOME.

    ReplyDelete
  94. And no one will be the wiser.

    ReplyDelete
  95. HAR 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.

    Neway, not a bad comic in my opinion, for #601 that is. Emo-ish, standard emo but it was a good reference to Wargames.

    ReplyDelete
  96. adam i can't tell if you are joking or just really dumb

    if you are joking then congratulations on being convincingly dumb

    ReplyDelete
  97. Cuddlefish PrimeJune 24, 2009 at 9:50 PM

    THIS IS WHAT XKCD FANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

    ReplyDelete
  98. At Mike G.:
    I love your comics, I laughed harder than I had at XKCD in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  99. As in I didn't like some, but most were funny.

    Sorry, didn't want to pull a Randy fan.

    ReplyDelete
  100. please don't ever pull a randy fan

    i don't even know what that would entail but it sounds disturbing

    ReplyDelete
  101. I dunno, I kinda like 601 in a bitter and cynical sort of way. It probably shows how messed up Munroe is, but its funny.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Carl, I TOTALLY did not see your email. I barely check it. My bad.

    601 is yours, mainly because I don't get the reference.

    ReplyDelete
  103. You know what pisses me off?

    I 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)

    ReplyDelete
  104. Oddly enough xkcdsw is funnier than the real xkcd. Oh wait, that's not odd.

    ReplyDelete
  105. hah thanks tomical.

    i went through like 10 xkcdsw's and all that's there is like vista jokes. how many vista jokes can you make?

    ReplyDelete
  106. @Mike G:

    That's like asking how many rickroll or love is hard jokes can Randall make.

    Way too many.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @Mike G:

    I 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."

    ReplyDelete
  108. @ 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."

    Maybe 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.

    ReplyDelete
  109. 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.

    I don't appreciate the insult, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  110. The chess part is ALSO a reference to Wargames. It's "nerdy" because "omg geeky reference let's suck randall's dick"

    Funny, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  111. fernie i am very confused as to what your stance regarding xkcd is.

    ReplyDelete
  112. All I know is that Fernie has seen strip 681 and it sucked.

    Actually it probably will if we make it that far.

    @Anonymous 10:30:

    Don't expect cordiality from the Anons.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Fernie, are you posting from the future?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Cuddlefish OmegaJune 25, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    I come from the future.
    I 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

    ReplyDelete
  115. @Anon at 10:30

    You 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.

    ReplyDelete
  116. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Though I'm not actually sure WHICH has the unbeatable strategy. I'm not sure anyone does.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Oh just a note on Randall apparently ripping off every other person ever about everything.

    OH 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

    ReplyDelete
  119. Guys some friend on MSN said this to me totally out of the blue:

    "how bad is xkcd recently
    it is pretty bad"

    This is a SIGN

    ReplyDelete
  120. Yeah, really?

    Besides 8:59 anonymous, this is within FIVE DAYS OF EACH OTHER.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Wait, so it's ok for other comics to apparently rip each other off, but xkcd can't?

    Heh, awesome...

    ReplyDelete
  122. I suppose it's ok as long as you realize Randy's a talentLESS hack who plagiarizes from other people.

    ReplyDelete
  123. The 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