Weekend Confirmed Episode 23

I strongly agree that there is far too much "shooting" in current computer games for my taste (last three words are critical here).

I have no problem with violence or violent games, but it is not true that games are essentially about conflict, much less violence. That is one kind of game: a type of game that is titilating to many, so it "works" as far as sales and is easy to do. I buy violent games often, and enjoy them. However, I need elements of story, creativity, humor, or other interest to really enjoy a game these days.

Fpr example, if Red Dead Redpemption were contantly killing things, I"d not have enjoyed it. As it turns out, about 60% of the game is killing stuff, but I spent hours playing poker, talking with folks, hunting (which is at least not killing people) and so on. Still had too much killing things for my taste.

Again, think of movies: how many movies have non-stop killing? Very few actually.

Now, to computer games:

-The Sims, the best selling PC series ever, is not at all about violence, and I love it. It also isn't about confilct, unless you want it to be. It is essentially about relationships, creativity, building a life, and the cycle of life itself.

-Heavy Rain has violence in it, but it isn't non-stop killing and it isn't essentially about conflict. I'm not surprised that I found the game more "mature" than many, possibly for this reason.

-Many and various simulators, including the extremely popular Sim City, flying sims, economic sims, etc. are not about non-stop killing or conflict.

-Traditional games like Chess, Go, and such, are indeed about conflict, but they aren't about "killing stuff" and certainly not about representations of shooting humanoids.

-Note that some sports are about conflict between entities, but many sports are not... all races, gymnastics, and many other sports are really about competing against one's own personal best, which I don't even really see as conflict.

I'd like to see a balance between violent and non-violent games match that of movies much closer... that means probably about 20% violent games, and leaving the other 80% focusing on other stuff, as indicated by the kinds of games above.

Whats with the Gran Turismo 5 haterade? Gran Turismo seems to always out sell it's competition. If you dig up some numbers. I'll bet GT5 Prologue trumped a few titles. I know you love racing titles Garnett but to imply that the award wasn't warranted by GT5 seems a bit of a rush to judgment. GT5 is less of a game and more of an application and car enthusiast wet dream.

Lets look at the features.

Gran Turismo 5-Data Logger Visualization Technology - Every automobile race team on the planet will write off PS3 so every member can analyze race data. For broadcast/enthusiast TV, the ca freely critique race data and point out pattern and racing styles.

GT TV/ Museum - provides a wealth of content/context as to what you are driving.

1,000+ cars - !
70 tracks - !

GT online racing has definitely come a long way. You can hop in for a quick race or you can get in race for for specific control schemes.

GT5 will be the title to beat this year.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but whenever games companies complain about the used games market it seems like it's just greed on their part. Publishers have it good - games are priced higher than any other mass entertainment, and have a shorter shelf life than most too. They're also in a position where digital distribution is already a big part of the industry. Movies, music, and books don't have the ability to sell you extras online after you bought the main product, for instance.

It seems to me that games companies are just getting more and more greedy because any time they try to push the boundaries of what people will pay for, gamers always take the brunt and cough up the money. We don't even debate paying for xbox live anymore, day one and on-disc dlc is widely accepted now, and Kotick himself even said he could have got away with charging more for the MW2 map packs.

I won't buy fifa 11 because of it's extra charge for sports play - it's fucking incredible that EA release a sports game every year that offers only a few tweaks and updates on the old one, then complain that people trade them in. But I feel like for everyone who takes a stance, 20 gamers just say 'deal with it' and pay whatever they're asked to. Until gamers show there are things they won't pay for, then publishers will always be looking to squeeze more money out of them.

Bought Beat Hazard off of Garnett's recommendation. I never did get a chance to buy Audiosurf, so this is my first experience with a music-generated game. I threw four Anjunabeats trance tracks at it, in this order:

Super8 vs. DJ Tab - First Aid (Original Mix)
Ronski Speed with Stoneface & Terminal - Drowning Sunlight (Vocal Mix)
Aalto - Taurine (Original Mix)
Jono Grant vs. Mike Koglin - Circuits (Original Mix)

(Note to Garnett: these are all available on Beatport; also, the breakdown and climax of "First Aid" was MADE for this game)

Wow. This takes me back to the early 2000's, when I'd play trance tracks on Winamp and have the Geiss visualization plugin running; the patterns in the color changing and the cannon traces. This is a bit more fun and involved. It helps that I've memorized these tracks for mix DJing, so I'm seeing some interesting patterns in the game tied to progression changes in the song.

In reference to the discussion of games getting considerable coverage up to their release date, only to be dropped for the new hotness a few days later...

Maybe shacknews could run a weekly article, maybe call it "Two weeks gone", that lists all the games that were released in between 2 and 3 weeks prior. That way, there is a centralized location to talk about how good (or bad) recent games were. Run it on the weekend, perhaps? Hmmm, maybe a better name would be "20/20 Hindsight", listing games released 21-28 days before...

Just a though.

Hey guys, love the show. First time commenter!

I'm a student. I don't have much of a disposable income. I never buy games at launch for full price, I just cannata afford it. I don't often buy used games, mainly because the price benefit just isn't there. I wait till I can pick them up at a reasonable price, generally $25-$30 (US). This sometimes takes well over a year, but I am content with waiting.

Does this make me a bad person? Am I less of a hard core gamer?

I sometimes get the impression that I am the scum of the industry. If I did start buying new games the amount of gaming I could do would be hugely cut down and my standard of living would have to drop. I recently picked up a brand new, sealed Tomb Raider: Underworld for $14 and I'm loving it. I don't have any problem with it being nearly 2 years old.

This brings up a point about addressing value in game reviews: If Tomb Raider: Underworld wasn't released in 2008, but came out today for $14, would your review be identical? Doesn't the extreme price depreciation for games make addressing the value kinda difficult? Should games be briefly reviewed again when they hit Classics/Platinum Hits/Players Choice?

Thanks for your time, keep up the awesome work with the show!

- @aaronights

I think that the problem with video game storytelling, and specifically, shooting mechanics infringing upon a story, is that realism does not a fun game make. In reality a person wouldn't get away with killing 300 people, as you would in GTA. but would bringing realism to an action story make it more fun to the player? Regenerating health, health packs, and having superhuman armor and abilities are all tools to make a game more interesting and entertaining for the player, and to counter these superhuman abilities you either amp up the amount of enemies or make improbably strong ones.

If Bioshock was only about the story, with little or no shooting involved, would it have been more fun if you were realistically fragile and only encountered one or two enemies in that entire game? Maybe, but I'm not sure I'd be entertained by pure story in an interactive format. If i'm supposed to be the character, I need to have some impact on what happens, or I just won't care. Even Heavy Rain had some game mechanics to it. You can replace the shooting mechanic with other game mechanics, but then you're just in a different, pre-existing genre. Would Bioshock have been better if it were a puzzle game or a survival game? Maybe, that's for the game developers to figure out when they try to set that tone.

One game that has come up repeatedly in this weeks discussion is Bioshock. While the main topic has centered around violence in videogames, another common theme has grabbed my attention.
It seems that almost no one who played Bioshock has anything good to say about the game's shooting mechanics. This is an opinion that I share. Personally, I think Bioshock played like crap, but it seemed to win most players over thanks to its fantastic presentation.

This got me thinking.... how many of us will play and enjoy a game because of high production values, even if the core gameplay isn't very good? This sounds like a silly question, but the longer I think about it, the more I realize that some of gamings biggest hits over the past few years realy don't play very well.

Examples:

a) I already mentioned Bioshock, but what the heck... I'll bring it up again. I found the first 15 minutes to be briliant. But as soon as I picked up that pistol, the game went south. Boring weapons, repetative encounters, complete lack of enemy AI.... not a very imoressive shooter. Bioshock 2, although fairly positively recieved, gets none of the praise that the original enjoys, yet every review I read pointed out that Bioshock 2 plays much better than the original. Strange, no?

b) Uncharted 1 and 2: Incredible visuals, fantastic settings, great sound and voice acting, convincing animations.... all Unchated's strengths are arguably no more than skin deep. Atrociouse enemy AI, boring weapons, sloppy targeting with bad hit detection, inconsistant and unpredictable platforming.... nothing about these games really preforms well at a core level, yet players are so wrapped up in the "experience" that they still love it.

c) I know I'll get some flak for this, but what the hell: Red Dead Redemption. I played the F$#K out of this game. I got 100% campaign complete and everything. Yet looking back, I can't remember a single moment of truly compelling gameplay. Nothing that makes me want to go back and play it again just to experience the raw mechanics and challenges of the game. I played because I was so engrossed in the story and the characters. Like everyone else who played the game, I would ride my horse to the top of a ridge just to watch the sunset. But now that I've seen the end, I have absolutely no desire to go back and play the game.... because the actual gameplay just wasn't fun.

d) Modern Warfare 1 & 2. Now, credit where it is due; the Modern Warfare series controls fantasticaly well. Player movement, targeting, and weapon handeling is all top notch. Beyond that, however, I can't think of modern warfare without picturing a cardboard cutout shooting gallery, because that is basically all it is. There is no enemy variety, nothing dynamic to their behavior. Combat boils down to targets poping out of windows or doorways, and you have to shoot them before you move on. This one single gameplay mechanic is surrounded with the best pyrotechnics money can buy. But really, after the first 15 minutes you've seen everything the game has to offer.

Anyway, these are just my personal examples, but what about everyone else? Are there other games you feel get by on presentation over gameplay? Will you put up with flawed mechanics or core gameplay if the presentation is engaging enough? Or am I just completely crazy :)

PAX Live Weekend Confirmed Question Submission Thread

As announced in the show, if you're coming to the live show at PAX and would like to submit a question in advance this is the place to do it. We'll review every post, select the best, and then put them in a hat. When we get to QA, every other question we'll pull randomly and that person will jump to next up at the mic with their question.

First off, Board Games ROCK!

Now, on the case of used games. I buy used games due to availability issues. First a little setup, I don't have a lot of money, and so i usually get one game every month or two, I also tend to like quirky weird games. so when two games i want come out in the same month, I have to pick one. when I come back a month or 2 later and because nothing new i want is out i decide to get the game from a few months ago that i passed up. In a world without used games this wouldn't always be possible because the games I want don't stay on retail shelves. Stores buy one or two copies and when they sell thats the end of it. Without used games i would never be able to play these games, it's not that i wouldn't buy it new its that i can't unless i get it in the first few months it comes out. Digital Distribution fixes this to some degree, but I'm one of those few people that still "collect games" so i like my boxes (and will not buy used if there is no box/booklet).


P.S. if you want me to buy your game when it comes out, add something cool to the box for no extra charge [like the soundtracks that come with some Atlas games]

I found the debate about shooting in games very interesting, but when Garnett lamented that some of the later games in the Tomb Raider franchise had gone too much in an actiony direction I was struck with a great idea for a game (everyone has one).

As Garnett, my chief love for Tomb Raider has always come from the exploration part of the game, so what about a game, kind of Indiana Jonesy, where you are simply traversing these ruins, tombs etc. uncovering information about this ancient forgotten civilisation, all the while you are dodging ancient traps, wildlife, and solving puzzles to advance in the game.

Just wanted to share the idea that just flew into my head, great show as always (needs a bit of Berghammer though (he has whimsy like birch))

Also, when will I be able to buy me a Weekend Confirmed t-shirt?

Regards :)

Re: Trailers

I'v taken it much further than trailers. I managed to avoid any info about Bioshock due to a total lack of interest. I bought it shortly after the release due to the overwhelming praise, and I think the lack of spoilers made me enjoy it much more. I did the same thing with Dragons Age, and again I think I enjoyed it much more than I would've. SInce then an almost total media blackout has become my MO.

The problem I have now is that I like game news sites / podcasts, and avoiding spoilers is a minefield.

After playing a bit of Shank - I have to really ask myself, is shooting really the most violent way to kill an enemy as a game mechanic. I realize that the argument is that it is used too much, but I do hear a smatter of people associate violence with the gunplay in games. But out of all the ways to kill somebody I would have to say that shooting is probably not the most violent. Maybe the most efficient...

I could not agree with Jeff more regarding trailers giving away too much. Some of them do what they should (as any good trailer does), but there are some abysmal ones out there.

My prime example is one of the "trailers" for Metal Gear Solid 4. Anyone else remember the trailer that was just the Vamp and Raiden fight scene in its entirety? It wasn't a trailer, it was just the cutscene. All of it. And so, when I got to that point in the game, I was utterly bored for 5 minutes because I'd seen it before.

Similarly, Konami also did a "trailer" for the Shadow Moses level. That trailer was literally just someone playing through the level. It completely destroyed any change that scene in the game had of shocking or surprising me. What could have been a cool twist (not to mention the PS1 throw back section), was predictable and expected.

Hay Guys, I kinda hope you see this. I know you guys talked about this a while ago, but I agree with Garnett on how people try to mathematically figure out how much money one ends up spending per hour of game play. Well, now some game media outlets are doing it now.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/gaming-s-greatest-values/1408251

I saw this and just thought how weird it is not only players doing this, but journalists too. its kinda sad.

Garnett: When you inevitably talk about the Xbox live price hike, can you at least temper your discussion with the fact that live has had several substantial applications developed for it, and of those applications, several are available in the US only (last.fm [the only other region is the UK], netflix, and likely this new ESPN thing) as well as the fact that other regions have been paying the equivalent of $60/yr for years now?
I'm not trying to defend Microsoft, but I really dislike all the knee-jerk reactions I'm seeing without considering any of those factors.

I lost some respect for Garnett when he asked if they were still doing Idle Thumbs.

PC Gamer interviewed Gabe Newell about a Half-LIfe movie and he told them he thought the only way a decent film could be made would be to do it in-house, at Valve.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/08/26/valve-want-to-make-the-half-life-movie-themselves/

Do you guys think Valve could pull of a feature film or that a Half-Life movie in general is a good idea? SlashFilm reported on the PC Gamer interview and postulated that perhaps it's best if a game was left to be just that - a game.

i few of my freinds want to get into gaming, they have consoles but never really use them past guitar hero/ wii sports
what games do you reccomend to train them up with?
i was thinking beat hazard for the twin stick shooting mechanic to get them used to using thumbs independantly cause some game cameras can be a bitch if you dont know how to move them
and fable two as a nice easy all rounder
anything else you can think of?

Love the show. Though I have to comment on the Dominion discussion. Dominion is a great game (and the expansions do make it even better imo) but I personally prefer Thunderstone. If you liked Dominion I highly recommend trying to locate Thunderstone at PAX and give it a play. It has essentially the same mechanics but a little less downtown and a decent dungeon crawling theme. The base game is excellent and the organizing tools they give you in the first expansion (specifically a box made to hold all the cards and the nice labeled dividers) make it an absolute delight to play.

-miyu

Thanks for talking about my comment about used games.

I guess my main wish is that the pricing of gaming would go down. That way I could buy all my games new and buy more of the games that I have to pass on now because of a tighter budget. Sadly, I only see the price of gaming on the home consoles going up unless the future of digital distribution includes a rental option like OnLive. Despite the great sales on Steam it sure does seem like digital only products go down in price rarely and at a much slower pace than at the big box stores.

As far as Jeff's comments on returning games. The dirty secret of retail is that you CAN return games. All you have to do is be an asshole who rants and raves and complains to the stores corporate headquarters or district manager.

I can't tell you how many times I had to refuse a return for a good, non-verbally abusive customer out of fear of getting fired just to watch the DM break policy time and time again for the absolute worst customers just because they made a stink.

It is sad, but oh so true!

Ok, I registered just to point out the fact that I absolutely died when garnett started laughing about the middle name being hard comment, thanks for making my night!

thanks so much for finally talking about Beat Hazard - I've lost waaay too much time staring at the pretty colors and trying not to seizure out. <3

After hearing the Gamescom awards I wasn't pleased to say the least. I was at Gamescom and Sony had the worst stand. Gran turismo was poor compared to need for speed, killzone was just killzone 2 again, motorstorm has changed ethos for the worst and finally three ps3 consoles overheated. I am ashamed of the European press as usual. Ea were the real stars.

I would like to say (as this is my first post after listening to the show for a while) that the conversation was informative and intellectually stimulating as usual. I am in the Navy stationed in Guam and i love listening to this to help keep my mind active about games.

i have one request though...
Jeff, bring back the "acoustic" front page song!!
I like the mix, but there's something captivating about the live in-studio version... if only for nostalgia.

thanks, love the show guys.

Hey Garnett, Jeff and Brian,

Thanks immensely for finding the time to discuss my post. As I'm sure is quite clear by now, I love you guys and, still being extremely new to the industry, I'm fascinated by how you guys approach reviews: with what mindset, etc.

My main question wasn't just that the review was 6 days after release, it was that, the next day, Lara would be overshadowed on the marketplace by new Arcade titles. It ties completely in what Jeff said about the pace in which new games are being released. There's always the next game to play; There's always another experience to be had, and I need to know if it's worth spending my time on the new hotness or not.

I also really like what Jeff said about the idea of a discussion being had about a game after release, and it's something I definitely do enjoy on the Totally Rad Show. However, I think the idea of not reading a review until after I've played the game is somewhat flawed. It's something I do myself, but usually only:

A: After I've played through a game I picked up on a whim, and surprisingly enjoyed it. This doesn't happen as much anymore - I simply don't have the expendable income to say "Oh, this looks interesting." Also, I tend to follow the news to such a degree that I tend to know what every game is like before I go into a store.

B: If I'm really looking forward to the game anyway. The only real example I can think of right now is Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit. I've never played a NFS game before, but I love Criterion so damned much that it's pretty much the only game I'm excited for this year. I won't read any reviews until afterwards, and then I'll go online and tell everyone how much I loved it.

C: I guess this one is very, very new to me, but it's also valid now. Guardian of Light was the first game I ever received early, and there WERE no reviews for me to read. Once I'd posted mine on embargo, I was curious to head to other outlets and see if my opinion matched up with everyone else's.

I think Brian's right as well - it's a lot to do with the internet being what it is. People want information, and they want it now. I think John Davison did a great job with Gamepro, in posting the review online quickly, and then doing that magazine feature which compared a large variety of major outlets and saw what the general consensus was.

I think also, a large proponent of who's to blame here is the publisher/developer. I'm not stupid, I know that Shacknews is a bigger site than Game Rant, but I also know that I got my review code on the... Thursday (I think) before release. I also know that IGN got their code AT LEAST the Monday before that. You know, like Brian said, the embargo goes a long way to sorting it out, but from our discussion in the review thread, you said that you didn't get the code til the day before release, which was the day after the embargo lifted. To me, that sucks. You know, from what I understand, 1UP Yours was a pretty big thing, and from that, a lot of the listeners will realise that "Hey, Garnett Lee loves Tomb Raider, let's see what he thinks."

I'm not saying that review codes should be given out on a priority basis "Well, IGN is the big dog, so we're going to give them the first code, then the second goes to Gametrailers, then the third..." but perhaps it should be standardised. You know, everyone gets a Press release at the same time, right? Why can't the same be true for game review codes?


I know this is long, but I'll wrap it up here with my own thoughts about why I write reviews, and the sort of approach I take.

When I first started writing reviews, they were for no-one but me. I posted them on a tumblr address (Uncharted 2: http://speedydesiato.tumblr.com/post/318672931/uncharted2 ) (Indigo Prophecy: http://speedydesiato.tumblr.com/post/511482529/indigoprophecy ) and I was pretty proud of them. I know I must seem very fanboyish, but screw it, I'm young and haven't had much experience yet - but I was trying to really listen to what Davison had said on Listen UP, which was the idea that you should write a review based on what YOU feel, and not much else. And you should start a review saying straight to your reader "Look, this is what I like. If you like the same things as me, then your opinion will probably coincide with mine, and you should read on." It just seems like such a perfect idea - if someone wants to find out what happens on level X in game Y, they can find it on the MILLION other games websites out there.

But then it came to writing my first 'proper' review. Here I was, playing a game before thousands of other people in the world, and I had to let people know what I thought. But here's the trick, I also want to suggest to them whether or not they should buy it, but THEY'VE got to be the ones that make that decision. So I was stuck between a rock and a hard place: I wanted my Guardian of Light review to focus primarily on my experience, but I also had to make sure that I explained the mechanics of the game to someone who didn't know anything about it. That, admittedly, I found very difficult. I won't post the link here (I don't want to seem that I'm simply plugging my site - if you're curious, you can find it online... you might even see a name you recognise now writing for us!) but I still think I'm pretty happy with it.

I feel that I probably went off on a tangent there, but to summarise: Personally, I read reviews because I want to know whether I should buy a game. I then go to people whose opinion I believe I can trust.

Anyway, if you guys did read this and want to reply, please do so. It's an area of 'games journalism' that I'm interested in, and I'd like to discuss this... especially with someone who's not 17, and only been writing 'professionally' about games for 7 months lol. :)

PS: It's Phil-eep Bow-sher. :)

PPS: I'd love to be on the show one day Garnett. Maybe some time next year we could sort something out?

While I don't think that shooting in video games somehow makes them more childish or cheapens the experience in some way, but I do agree with Jeff in wishing that maybe there was sometimes more alternatives to shooting or fighting. One example that really stood out to me lately happened while playing Mass Effect 1, in which I was raiding a bar full of gangsters. When I happened upon a couple of workers in the back with guns, I was given the opportunity to bypass the confrontation entirely through intimidation. And while I really enjoyed Mass Effect 2's conversation scenes, I wish it didn't rely so heavily on shooting as a means to an end. It would be awesome to be able to talk your way out of a situation instead of shoot your way out.

I'll just chime in with this, there are other stores than GameStop. I shop a lot at Independent game stores where they let you return an opened game you bought new but didn't like and get (at the store I shop at) where you can get your money back (pre-tax total) in store credit minus a $5 restocking fee, and then that game goes up for sale used for $5 less than new, as long as it's not longer than a few days after purchase.

Regarding the steam survey retrieving data on installed programs... Brian suggested that the only likely reason would be to sell the mined data to interested advertising parties. Now, I cannot definitively comment one way or the other regarding the legality this practice, or indeed Valve's scruples as a company, but there is at least one reason for adding software statistics to the steam survey that is only in the interest of a better end user experience. Many programs can either interfere with the steam itself or prevent the game that a user is using steam to play from running properly. Whether it is because the program in question is a resource hog, or in the case of some antivirus or firewall software, it affects steam or a steam apps connection to the network, preventing either updating or online multiplayer from functioning as intended.

I'm sure that data on programs it's users have installed which may have compatibility problems is incredibly valuable to both Valve and it's growing number of publishing partners who want their games to run their best and take as many third party troublemakers (*cough* Norton *cough*) out of the equation as possible. At least, they don't want it to be a guessing game.

There is really something that bugs me.
The discussion on maturity in video games last week sunk into a pretty creepy argument about "life is about confrontation, Video Games are just mimicking this through shooting mechanics" and this week, it came back to this as if the only way you can interact with the world when you are confronted with conflict is to Shoot/punch/cut it in the face.
I don't want to fall in the cliché of "this is so american" but really, you don't need to shoot the opposition to undermine it. Alan Wake really struck me as a good example of how the shooting mechanics actually takes away from the game. Good horror does not involve you shooting the monster chasing you, you MUST be helpless against it to be afraid. And the fact is that Alan is spending the entire game killing people who during the day are just regular people, there is no consequences to those murders, and it is murder, there is no way around this, even if they are possessed, they are people after all, you kill hicks all night long there, with no consequence, it's wrong.
The ending of the Boss in MGS3 was mentioned, and I would like to remind you of Heavy Rain as well, for all the flaws this story had, the one moment when you have your finger on a trigger (during the religious fanatic interrogation scene) you are pushed by the game in one direction (shooting) and your head has to remain cool in order to do the right thing (not pull that trigger). This scene was a hundred times more powerful than any shooting gallery you are presented with in shooters.

Garnett, you say games have not managed to get you to kill 12 guys and feel like a badass... Ok, maybe not a badass, but Shadow of the Colossus offers 12 colossi and not one more to defeat, and each confrontation is more powerful than any set piece I can think of where mowing through hundreds of enemies is your goal. You say GTA 4 needs truckload of corpses to convey the badassness of Nico? I could not disagree more. That war scared immigrant would be so much more credible if he could hold the violence in check for the entire games until one explosive final showdown where his past catches up with him. That would have been more powerful.

Violence should be used with parsimony, just like horror is more efficient when it is not thrown in your face, violence is more effective when it is not trivialized. Uncharted was in my opinion a game that should have cut 60 to 75% of it's gun fights.

To get to my conclusion, I really don't understand why Violence should be a part of games to the extend it is right now. Adventure games such as Full Throttle introduced us to super badasses that don't spend all their time freaking dropping bodies left and right. Shooting someone in the face is the simplest way to interact with it and it is considered a failure by hardcore MGS players (no kill walk through is the ultimate goal in the series). Rapture was not a friendly place? Ok, but have you ever thought about the fact that after that game, because of you, it has become a graveyard where NO ONE LIVES. If you play the game normally, there is not going to be anyone alive in the entire game after you've had your way. Don't you think that this is wrong? That this makes you a despicable individual even if you save a handful of little girls? I do. And the same goes for so many games.

I'm not saying the no game should be about shooting your enemies, Dead Space is about being attacked by space zombies, so yeah, right, I'll use my mining tools to survive, no problem. But it is both simplistic and puerile to offer NO alternate interaction method with the world the developer want you to believe in.

One final example : Fallout. Max out you charisma and intelligence, you'll be able to win the game through sweet talk and dialog, even the last boss in the game will kill himself when presented with the evidence of his failure. THAT is choice, THAT is offering a real depth of interaction, and therefore a real living, breathing world I can relate to. You can still shoot everything in the face, but you can do something else as well. THIS is mature gaming.

Oh, heu, I love the show to death by the way, Garnett I've listened to every single podcast you have made since the 1up yours days and have followed what John and Mangod have been up to because of your podcasts, and Jeff, TRS is the best thing on Revision 3, no question. Brian, I admit I discovered you with this podcast, but man are you a great addition to the people I trust on the web.
By the way, when is Billy coming back?

Board games. Awesome.

Yes, this is a video game podcast, but very few high profile ones delve into the tabletop, so I'm jumping on the opportunity to comment.

Dominion is a great game, and rightly deserves it's place as a 'Cannata-board game', due to the variations it can be played. Jeff mentioned that only 10 types of cards are chosen per game, out of a possible 24. So, just with the base set you're looking at just under 2 million variations to play the game. Then there's 4 other box sets each adding another 12 or 24 types of cards to the mix.... you'll never need another game again.

Plus Puerto Rico.

Something that is incredibly important for all media, but especially so for video games is feeling an emotional connection with the protagonist. Limbo works so well because the player feels lost, alone, confused, and desperate just like the boy. In many AAA retail games the player is supposed to feel like a bad ass controlling a bad ass character. The easiest way to do this is to give the character a bunch of guns and throw a bunch of enemies at him. The guy on the screen does cool stuff and the player feels cool because he had to use his skills to win the fight.
Contrast shooting with something like using speech in Fallout 3. The player clicks [Speech 55%] and then a die rolls. The NPC then says a line based on success or failure. The character on screen never does anything cool and the player did nothing but click once. Mass Effect 2 is a little better. Commander Shepard does some cool things, but the player is basically doing a quick-time event. Alpha Protocol had many faults, but at least it was trying to add skill to the speech conflict by having the James Bond / Jason Bourne / Jack Bauer choice. Hopefully someday a developer will figure out how to make talking to characters both skilled based and interesting.

Another fantastic 'cast, made better by the mention of the brilliant Dominion. I'm a big fan of board ad card games, particularly those of German origin (Imperial, Dominion, Carcassonne, etc).

A quick point in relation to Trailers and Teasers: I see the majority of game trailers as the equivalent of a teaser to a film, then a game demo as the trailer. Demos have been done in a similar way to great trailers, without revealing the plot (the original Half Life did this, if I remember correctly), this seems to be continuing with both Red Faction Armageddon, Dead Space 2 and Dead Rising 2*. A successful trailer is one which conveys the feeling of the media, without ruining the actual viewing. Should demos occur in the middle of the game, as they often do? In my experience playing a demo, later buying the game and playing that level again, something I am not a fan of. I quite liked the model that Fable 2 episodic used, though didn't buy it as I already had finished the game; it's a pity that it didn't seem particularly successful though.

*I'm not completely happy that they aren't free, though that is besides the point

Hey lads, great show as usual.

Continueing the talk about gaming within one's fishbowl. I live in a fairly small town outside of a capital city in Australia. I'm a huge gamer, but I keep my gaming habits very secret to most of the people I'm around. My immediate circle knows my gaming habits, and I have a bunch of friends that are in the same boat, but outside of that, I don't mention my love of gaming to anybody I don't know, and definitely wouldn't mention it at a job interview (and I'm a Sysadmin). I live in a big footy town (is that a jock town to US folk?) and the stigma still stands, if you like video games other than Tiger Woods golf or other sports games, you're a giant nerd with 0 social skills. So I think demographic in which you live really dictates how one shows their love for gaming. To the general public where I live, gaming isn't even remotely close to being seen as another type of Media for consumers. It's a scary land of nerdy folk that don't go to pubs.

Hey guys. Great show as always!

Your discussion this week regarding the prevelance of 'shooting' in videogames really stuck with me. In particular, Jeff made a few comments that I feel were getting to the root of a very interesting subject...

Let me say right off the bat that I love shooters. Halo, Gears of War, Mass Effect and Bad Company are some of my favorite games/series of all time.

However, I do feel there is an industry-wide tendancy to stick shooting into many games that just don't need it. Bioshock jumped right to the top of my mind. The things that made Bioshock special were the story, environment, and sense of wonder as you explore the world of rapture. I, however, was never able to enjoy any of these things nearly as much as I wanted to because the game forced me to run through the environment shooting constantly. Aggrevating this problem is the fact that, when stripped of all artistic ambience and story, Bioshock is nothing more than a 3rd rate shooter at best. The controls, weapon variety and balance, player movement, enemy AI, encounter design..... none of these elements come close to matching today's top tier shooters.

Brian brought up the point that most games are about conflict and struggle, which means violence, which ends up meaning "shoot things". I have no problem with this, but only if it contributes to the gameplay and story. Nothing about Bioshock made me want to feel like a badass, growing in power as the story progressed. What it did effectively was make me feel small, lost, and in awe of the environment.... the first 15 minutes were absolutley spectacular, but all that went out the window the moment I picked up that stupid pistol.

I find myself wishing that Bioshock didn't present the obsticles of Rapture as something for the player to 'fight back against'.

Imagine playing a Bioshock where the goal of the player was to stay invisible to the dangers around you. To avoid or outsmart the enemies, or set traps for them, or pit them against each other. To feel vulnerable or exposed, rather than simply shooting everything.

I should also point out that I feel truly great storytelling and action based on shooting can co-exsist. Example: Mass Effect 2 (I get the feeling Halo Reach might be in this category as well.... Brian? ;) ). I have no problem with the combat in Mass Effect 2 for 2 reasons:

1) it fits the story and the universe it takes place in

2) the shooting mechanics are very well implemented and fun.

Brian and Garnet seemed to take the discussion in the direction of "Bioshock would suck if you just took the shooting out of it", but I think the point Jeff was trying to get at (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it would be far more interesting if Bioshock and other games like it were built from the ground up in a different way completely.... a design that wasn't focused on the need to "fight" anything...?

I think that the big reason shooters are so popular isn't because fans of the genre have a secret wish to shoot hundreds of people in the face, rather it''s that they enjoy the instant gratification that the shooting mechanic provides.

Along with the instant gratification there's also the adrenaline rush one gets from surviving overwhelming odds, which then in turn allows the player to feel powerful, if not invincible, kinda like Kurt Russell's character in Big Trouble in Little China after he drinks Eggs magic potion...is it getting hot in here?

As it's been said, once more developers figure out how to use other game mechanics for action oriented games that deliver the same level of instant gratification that shooting does then I think we'll see the video game body count began to drop.

Personally I think sophisticated voice recognition and the ability to have full conversations within the narrative of the game might be the game changer. It could be a combination of what we've seen in Mass Effect and Call of Duty's so-called battle chatter. When a character in the game asks the player a question, we'll see hints or suggestions how to respond written in text on the screen but then we'll create the actual dialogue and speak it ourselves. Plus these moments would happen at anytime. The action wouldn't have to come to a grinding halt whenever we wanted to shoot the breeze. I'm sure that's all a long way off though.

somthing i realise i take for granted the other day, being able to jump from one game to the other, i was trying to get a friend of mine into gaming everytime i switched titles i'd get questions like;
why cant i see my character? because its a different type of camera
why cant i get my menu up? because its a different button
why did i just throw a grenade instead of reload? BECAUSE ITS A DIFFERENT BUTTON
but...why?
and so on and so forth
anyone else noticed this with new gamers?

We have a print by Misha: Painting, Tattoos and Graphic design called "Our Lady of the Arcade" to give away. All you have to do is "like" the post for this on our Weekend Confirmed Fan Page on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/weekendconfirmed We will pick a random winner from the that thread on facebook on Tuesday Sept.31st at 11am PST. The winner will receive a print, 8 1/2" x 11", signed and numbered by Misha (Valued at $50) and we will also throw in a Weekend Confirmed T-shirt and give you a shout out on next week's podcast.

We are doing this on the Fan Page because we already did one through Chatty. Good luck and thanks for all the great feedback and support for Weekend Confirmed.

Del Rio - Ghost!

Ahhhh... The start to another good weekend.