SMBC Theater - Wargames -

SMBC Theater – Wargames

Hand to Mouth and SMBC Theater
Views: 153154
Like: 1118
SMBC imagines a new lesson for Wargames.

Created and Written by Zach Weiner and James Ashby
Co-Producers Angel Askins and Chason Chaffin
Alternate cut Directed and Edited by Jason Axinn

*Wargames property of United Artists / MGM – this version is PARODY*


  1. You know, the best first move is not the middle, It's the corner. In the middle the opponent has eight options, only four of which result in a win. In the corner seven of the eight options result in a win. Just thought you should know.

  2. @GerMachineGun To be fair, that one option that doesn't result in a win (when you start with the corner) is the most common move anyone makes, the middle.

  3. @fallouthirteen Right so then you take the opposite corner say "Game over, all I had to do was get the corners" and hope they fall for it by taking one of the remaining corners.

  4. Anyone who really knows tic tac toe knows the corner is best.

  5. @BilegerantNinja

    Penis jokes you say? I think you crave Logical Fallus-ies!

  6. The only winning move is to play, perfectly, waiting for your opponent to make a mistake.

  7. The only winning move is to play, perfectly, waiting for your opponent to make a mistake.

  8. What we see here is impossible. He tried to play all the possibles gaming routines, so obviously he tried to do that and it didn't work.

  9. isn't this how the fallout series started? (JK lol)

  10. Not actually very funny. Real irony is preferable to pseudo-irony, which is what is depicted here. No win for you.

  11. It's better to start out in a corner, actually.

    We're talking about tic-tac-toe, right?

  12. @BilegerantNinja Biggest comment is .. best comment?

  13. @INTPTT Yes. If you go first and take the corner, you cannot lose, only tie.

  14. @gamerunknown No, you're doing game DESIGN. And you're doing it wrong. Chess has a story: it is about simulating war; you build the story of the battle as you play. It is minimalist. There are no graphics, but that is not part of game design (unless you are thinking of art STYLE, not graphics quality). You don't need a patch, cause the game is bug-free. If it wasn't bug free, it would be bad that it wasn't supported, but a physical game is rarely buggy, so no patch.

  15. @MrHeyheyhey27

    Story mode as opposed to PvP, if it weren't bug free and it was a joke (parodying untenable criticisms of modern games, if you must press the point). Intellectual checkmate!

  16. Indeed, the only truly unwinnable game is The Game. Wait a minute… DAMMIT, I LOST!

  17. @MrHeyheyhey27 Can't teabag opponents, and there is no Right Trigger I can hold down for five seconds while 20 different bars go up CHESS SUUUUUUUUCKS. Get wth the TIMES man, it's all SKATEBOARDS and iPods now!

  18. @minodragon You're playing The Game 1.0, you need to install the 1.5 patch.

    In 1.0 you can lose if someone reminds you of it, but that is not in the true spirit of The Game. When played at its purest you should only be able to lose if it rises unbidden from your subconscious, because you saw that picture of dogs playing poker for example.

    In 1.5 you do NOT lose if someone deliberately references The Game, you wait until you STOP thinking about it then you resume play as normal.

  19. @DeusExInfernus Congrats, you've outsmarted an 80's supercomputer. Next challenge is outsmarting a TI-83.

  20. @TheDrCN Too bad, that could have been the most epic comment of all time, if you'd said T-800 instead…

  21. @TheDrCN 80's supercomputers were like 1.2 Ghz desktop computers from 10 years ago.

  22. I love that I'm not alone in knowing way too much tic-tac-toe strategy 😀

  23. Yeah, but the userbase is as broad as it is varied, as well as consistant. No wonder people still play it!

  24. Ad hominem (redundant), strawman (non sequitur).

  25. Non sequitur. Not "non-sequitor". A factual observation can still be made against the person and it can still be redundant (idiots have low IQs by definition). Whether or not I read is irrelevant to my argument. I suppose it's more of a red herring than a strawman in that regard, but it is entirely a non sequitur. Assuming someone doesn't read as they don't play chess is an inductive fallacy unless every non-chess player is illiterate. Intellectual checkmate.

  26. My argument was logically sound, which is why any attempt to rebut it will inevitably be fallacious. Your most recent post was utterly devoid of logic. It constituted poisoning the well, further ad hominem aspersions and special pleading. I eagerly anticipate the moment you cede that your objection is baseless.

  27. Further ad hominems. Please consult an entry level text on logic before resuming this debate.

  28. You're a babbling fool. It's not a non sequitor to conclude that someone who is not bright enough to play chess probably doesn't read much either. They are related. And you are dumb.

  29. When instituting an ad hominem attack on someone's reading comprehension, it's best to utilise standard usage. Thus "non sequitur", rather than "non sequitor". Finding reading boring does not follow from finding chess boring. Such an argument is a red herring at any rate.

  30. You know….I'm pretty sure you're an illiterate quidnunc who doesn't know what you're talking about.

  31. Take the middle square… touch him on the penis.

  32. Before or after the planet fucking exploded?

  33. In thermonuclear war, everybody loses, but maybe you can lose the least.

  34. Don't you think you might be overreacting just the teensiest bit?

  35. But then do you touch them on the penis?

  36. Player One should take a corner square, because if Player Two doesn't take the middle, he loses.

  37. Did Stephen Hawking hack into their computer network or something?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.