Weekend Confirmed Episode 27

Hey! Long time listener (1UP Yours days), rare commenter, in training games developer.


Just a quick comment on the whole; shooting is a binary, primitive interaction. I was thinking that for shooters to move on as a game genre, we (humanity) need to create innovative ways of solving conflicts that may or may not involve violence. A problem can only come down to the right solution or the wrong solution. Yes or no. No middle ground. A compromise only causes more conflicts and may seem to be like the right solution, but really it is the wrong solution just made to sound like it is the right solution.

In a shooter, the conflict can only result in one of two solutions being the outcome, I die or the enemy dies. This interaction between both parties can be broken down to; who has the faster reflexes? Or who has the bigger gun? Which leads me to ask; can shooting be changed as a conflict solver when our basic primal instincts are deeply imbedded in the fundamentals of the interaction? Our ancestors fought over some “thing” that they saw someone else doing or in possession of and tried to get it for themselves. Either be fighting for it or simply taking that “thing” away from the other person. An example of this is two children. One has made something impressive for their age using blocks and another child witnesses this. They have only a few options with dealing with this: Destroy it out of jealousy, try to fight over it out of jealousy or tell someone significant (i.e. adult) that the other child isn't letting them play with the blocks, again out of jealousy. This emotion of jealousy comes from the 2nd child’s inability to replicate this structure. Either the child can build it or they can’t build it. Yes or no.

A shooting mechanic, being the basic form of interaction and conflict solving, therefore cannot be removed or altered from the genre and forever will be binary and primitive, since this form of interaction can be traced back through early development and our (humanity) past.


Keep up the excellent work you all do at Shacknews!

Oh for the love of god, really? More football talk? Cripes, I fall asleep whenever you guys talk about Madden or NCAA or whatever, but at least that's excusable because they're actually videogames, but just straight up talking about football? No thank you.

Disclaimer: The following rant does a lot of generalizing. I understand this.

The fact that Madden even requires talking about sort of pisses me off. I remember a day when the kind of person who called themselves a gamer was the kid who begged his parents for a note to get out of gym class, but the mainstreaming of the medium is such that now the kid who calls himself a gamer is just as likely to be on the football team. The kind of person who loses their shit and lines up overnight waiting for the new Halo is quite possibly the same kind of person who would have beaten the shit out of the kid playing Zelda back in the day.

And I can't even call that good for the industry. Once regular people started playing games, companies wanted to make actual money on these things, which leads to enormous budgets and the same pitfalls that come with making a shit-ton of money being the entertainment business. Lack of innovation, sequels out the ass, and your big-name titles catering to the lowest common denominator. Case in point: The dominance of the shooter.

This is not an attempt to stir up the "why are we always killing things in games" debate. We've always killed stuff in games. Link kills monsters, Mario kills turtles, we kill tiny little army men in Civ and Starcraft, I'm sure there are point-and-click adventure games where you killed a ton of dudes. Roguelikes. Zork. Whatever. Things die. But there is a giant chasm of difference between jumping on a goomba or smiting a moblin and picking up some realistic assault rifle and mowing down terrorists or zombies. We killed things in the old days because we were trying to save a princess. Why do we kill things in Call of Duty? Because shooting people in the head is fun?

Compare the gaming space to the other facets of the entertainment world and it starts to look pretty juvenile. Except for when a new Pokémon game comes out, the yearly top 10 sales charts look pretty much like a top 10 box office full of Jean Claude Van Damme movies.

Jesus I should have gone to bed an hour ago.

On the release timeframe topic, I think that longer is always better. For example, a 3 year gap between each Halo release in the trilogy was perfect for me. When each game is of such a high quality, I'm very ok with the developer taking all the time they need to produce another triple AAA product because I will be playing their current game for many years. However, if a developer's sequel isn't moving the gameplay of the series forward enough then there really shouldn't be a sequel (unless of course it's a gameplay mechanic that is timeless; 3D Mario platformers for instance, yet Nintendo still add a lot to each iteration) and no amount of time is excusable.

On a side note, I would gladly wait 10 years (until Bungie's tenure with Activision is over) for Bungie to make Halo 4, no offense 343 Industries.

I'm waiting for someone to post a vid of Jeff on that soap. The Bold and the Beautiful or whatever soap he said. It's probably extra lawlzy.

YO GARNETT! Bet your gonna be happy when on the podcast tomorrow since the Boys finaly got a win. Bout damn time too.

The issue of Halo Reach online co-op not working without a hard drive got me thinking.......

*** Conspiricy Theory Time ***

I'm an admitted Halo fanboy, so I read A LOT of news on bungie's website, including listening to all their podcasts. Back in 2008, while interviewing one of their tools engineers, the topic of harddrive requirement came up.

The Halo engine for the original X-Box was built on the foundation of having a built-in harddrive to run from.... the entire game was constructed around this. Every Halo game since runs on that same engine.... sure, it has been overhauled almost beyond recognition, but it is still the same bare engine.

Back to the podcast: the bungie guys were talking about the lead-up to Halo 3. Bungie's opinion was that they know how to make a game that runs off a hard drive, so they should make Halo 3 in the same way. It was Microsoft that put their foot down and said: "No, Halo 3 needs to be able to run without a hard drive".

This is what lead to a lot of the technical shortcomings of Halo 3, such as the lower screen resolution.
The Halo engine is constructed in a way that works best with a hard drive. Halo 3, ODST, and Reach have all been built to run without one. Even though most of us have harddrives, Bungie hasn't been able to get the most out of their engine because they build the game to work without one.

Cut ahead to Reach.

Leading up to launch, Bungie was strangely mysterious anytime the topic of campaign co-op was raised: in particular, how many players would it support? Joseph Tung was asked this question directly by Gamespot, and his response was "we're not talking about that yet?".

Back during the Halo Reach Multiplayer Beta, one of the playlists was called "Network Test 1". This playlist was running a "Generator Defence" gametype, running on Halo's co-op network model, opposed to thier standard multiplayer network model. The generator defence playlist supported..... 6 players.

It didn't take a genious to figure out Bungie was testing their co-op network model for 6 player co-op.

Now, the game has shipped, and only 4-player co-op is present in the game. It could simply be that Bungie tested 6 player co-op, and figured it would be too much for their network model to handle.

OR.....

It could be that Bungie decided "we can make it work, but only if we take full advantage of a hard drive."
This would mean players without hard drives wouldn't be able to play on-line co-op, explaining the current situation.

Garnett said "there's no way they would do that" reffering to the possibility that this could have been done on purpose. I disagree. I think Bungie absolutely could have made this decision. I could also imagin Microsoft reacting to this decision by saying "Don't tell anyone about this because we don't want to lose a single sale". Microsoft has jerked Bungie around on the PR side before. They told Bungie to change Halo: Recon to Halo ODST, then made Bungie sell it as a full $60 release instead of an add-on as it was designed to be. They even pulled Reach gameplay footage from Bungie's own website in the weeks leading up to release, claiming Bungie didn't have the rights to show new footage.

So, we know co-op matchmaking is being added to the playlist options in the middle of October. My personally long shot theory: 6 player co-op will roll out at the same time, and on-line co-op will still require a hard drive. Even if the 6 player co-op doesn't end up happening, I think Microsoft is playing dumb on this as long as they can, when it was by design the entire time. If it truly was some kind of mistake, Bungie would have made mention of it in an update by now, but so far they've pretended the issue doesn't exsist. I'd bet money Microsoft told them to keep their mouth shut on this one.

Ok. Rant over. Discuss.......................... I'm tired now.

I LOVE GAMES.. I AM A GAMER!! GAMES GAMES GAMES GAMES GAMES !!!! ok so who do you guys like on Sunday? Philly or Washington / Steelers or Ravens .. no other games really peak my interest.

Everyone seems to lose when it comes to the Kotick/EA/Tim Schafer war of words, but I do feel like one major point has been hit upon that could be Kotick's Achilles Heel. Activision seems to mostly be coasting on the success of CoD and Blizzard, but their other cash cows truly are suffering from a major slump, and they are not getting much traction when trying to extend their grasp on the music game genre.

I know that Activision's Bobby Kotick is pretty much universally reviled by gamers, but in the end he answers to the Activision board and investors. This makes me wonder; How low will Activision's stock and reputation have to sink for Kotick to get ousted?

I think Kotick will be golden through this year. Black Ops looks like it is not just riding what MW2 offered and while it isn't a revolution, it is distinctly its own beast. Does everything depend on what happens with CoD next year, or is Kotick the video game industry's version of herpes?

What do you guys think? Is Kotick and evil genius, just a genius, or a leech? Will he keep his job no matter how bad he makes the company look, or is he on borrowed time as head honcho of Activision? Lemme hear what you think!

Hey Garnett, did you play much F1 2010 yet? The Codemasters forums are chock full of folks complaining about A LOT of bugs on all platforms. I wondered if you might have some insight into how none of the reviews seem to notice all the glaring problems with this game.

I was all set to LOVE this game. Grid was great. Dirt and Dirt 2 were great. I was thrilled to hear CM would be handling F1. Now it seems like it's Race Driver 3 all over again :(

I really feel like I wasted my money.

We will be able to get a 3DS in North America in March. I wonder if the 25,000 yen (about $300) price-point means we can expect it to sell for around $250 here. Interesting. I'm a little disappointed that I'll have to wait until March to get my hands on one, but, whatever.

So. Will you buy one if it sells for $250? If so, do you plan on getting it in aqua blue or cosmo black? Or just wait a year or two until they release a new version with a bunch of different colors?

BTW I am looking forward to a lot of F1 2010 talk this weekend Garnett! The driving model is fantastic, but the AI is such a piece of shit. You basically have to race the AI all throughout practice, qualifying, and even backmarkers during the race won't move for you.

Some people are saying that there is no AI at all, just predetermined lap times and 'dummies' put out on track to block you. If true, that pretty much ruins the game completely.

The Bears still suck.

GT5 is a title for car enthusiasts, that's why it has mainstream appeal and racks up huge sales figures.

Over the past 12 months I've been playing and pretty much exhausted Forza 3 and NFS Shift. The online features, dynamic weather and attention to detail is what will ensure GT5 is played for many years by a loyal and dedicated community.

It's been a long wait but once GT5 is released I would hope the games structure ensures it will have virtually limitless playability and can be kept fresh with regular DLC tied in with major motor races and motor shows.

Wow. You guys have some serious delusions about the importance of story in Halo. You really think the average pre-pubescent troll on Xbox Live is ruminating over the moral quandaries of being a Spartan or whatever?
I don't think most people even know what the story of Halo is. I don't know what the story of Halo is, and I've played through 3 and a half campaigns of it now. It appears to be a retread of humans versus aliens though, with the aliens having some religious zealotry.
I think that's about it though. You fight aliens, and you win. They all lived happily ever after.

I still think that "Dudebro: My Shit Is Fucked Up So I Got to Shoot/Slice You II: It's Straight-Up Dawg Time" is the best upcoming game title. http://www.grimoireassemblyforge.com/dudebro2/site/

Surgeon General’s Warning: Do not operate the assault rifle while using the guitar controller function. You WILL hurt yourself. The axe currently does not support wood chopping and will not in the future. If a strong odor starts to emanate from the device, replace brain, as it may have become spoiled.

BTW, "duodecim" just means "XII" (twelve) in Latin.

Much better show, the dynamic of all 3 hosts can't be beat.

Jeff, I was just curious. There's a lot of pet hair, dirt, debris...even hairballs and dust bunnies under the couch! I don't have time to vacuum, and in this day and age, I would love it if technology could make my life less complicated.

Any recommendations for a vacuum that could vacuum every day, all by itself?

Sports and Games,

I have always disliked the idea that a "gamer" or an "athlete" has to be a certain way. I've been a runner for 20+ years and my running friends often react with the same surprise or disdain that some gamers react to sports.

I am not sure what the deal is. Sports and games are both two ways I can be a kid for a couple of hours. (Which is way I don't play fantasy sports). Sitting in front of the TV with a controller in my hand or the Broncos on TV or going running; a part of me is an 8 year old again living the moment.

Jeff C. I saw on twitter that you were doing a training run for a marathon.? I've done 4. How is the training going. I am running Boston next April.

Saw Garnett's Tweet about being frustrated with the NFL hate feedback.

Not surprisingly that will happen on any topic, but I think it's a little ridiculous on how much great stuff is talked about on the show that people are going to hate on something like that. If you do not like the NFL or a topic they are talking about, you could always skip the topic.

I listen to around 6 current video game podcasts and by far Weekend Confirmed has the best actual video game discussions, they have topics and actually go into them at length rather than do 1-2 jokes on a subject and quickly move to the next. For those that listen to other podcasts, you know you get ALOT of talk other than video games, while done for comedic purposes or it's done to reflect their show and it's personalities, in the end it's their show.

Anyways, don't let the hate frustrate you Garnett, you been in the game too long to know that already but just know that people also had no problems with the NFL talk and also love the show.

Youll be happy to know my love of this podcast and its general banter has gotten me to post on here finally.

In regards to the NFL speak, it does seem a bit out of place; much like jeffs talk about boardgames seems a departure from the normal banter and medium of the podcast. Do it in the post show thread? But ultimately you guys can decide on what you'd like to broadcast.

To 1suggest a few things else you could implement instead : a maandatory angry videogame related rant (to spark conversation on here), or throw it over to del rio and your producer lady to have a spot/get some lighthearted end of show banter on.

As some topics of discussion:

As an australian-living gamer, whilst I import cheaper english versions of asian pacific games, the vast majority of the veryactive videogame community here is accustomed to a much more expensive pricing for games then when compared to the US. New release games customarily sell for $90-100AUD (85-95$ US), before inevitable discounting will usual result in drops to $50 then sub 30$. Whilst it is hard to compare the economic realities of such things as living costs and minimum wages between our countries, it does tie in with a point you have been discussing in episodes regarding price. What would it take/would a game haveto do for an american to pay +80$ for a standard edition of a game?

Will new games that come out released concurrently on all major platforms ever be playable in multiplayer on all platforms concurrently? I.E perhaps a future call of duty have a server containing PS and Xbox patrons simultaneously? (Pc gamers unallowed to participate in FPS duels with consolte counterparts obviously :P)

What games did you treasure playing at the time, but now only enjoy the nostalgic memories of, unable to play such games for whatever reason now? Aesthetics or maturity levels?

Given the popularity of sequels, is there a game that you believe has reached its apogee(no videogame pun intended :P) , and could not be furthered improved upon with a modern day reiteration or sequel?

Ill ramble less, sleep more next time.

I think Japan is having such a hard time getting the western market is becuase of the cultural differences. I think part of the problem is that Japanese games have such a feminized male characters, I'm not homophobic either, that western audiences have a hard time relating with them. Think back to the early JRPGs. The male characters were super ripped and hardcore and wielded huge swords that doubled as guns. Now we have Hope from FFXIII. I'm not saying we need to return to the super testosterone heroes, but for me it's hard to identify with Hope.

I've also seen a lot of this in animes. Before it was always giant robots battling, or something that has magic cards with it. Now its a lot of creepy voyeuristic stuff, or underage girls.

Garnett I totally agree with you on Valkyrie Chronicles II. I love the game play, I like the story line with the country in civil war. What the crap is with the whole high school drama. One minute they're doing something stupid or Colette is saying something dumb. Then the next minute your killing people in battle. I just wish there was a scene with Colette sitting in the bathroom in the dark with her rifle "762 millimeter full metal jacket."

Keep up the great work guys.

Great show as usual guys... always love listening!

Garnett, your comments about going back to Red Dead got me thinking. I know you are not finished yet, but I would like to ask a question in advance. No spoilers, I promise :) I'd love to know what Jeff and Brian think about my experience as well.

I played the crap out of Red Dead... I got the 100% completion achievement and everything. I was completely engrossed in the characters and story. As you said, it is an incredibly engaging experience.

BUT.... after finishing the game, I spent a week or two playing some Mass Effect 2 DLC and a few other games. I fully intended to go back to Red Dead, but every time I sat down with the intention of playing it, I just couldn't find any motivation. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, and I've come to realize that Red Dead was a truly unique experience for me: It is the only game I've ever played that entertained and engaged me from start to finish through story alone.

The experience of living as John Marsdon was incredible, but as soon as I reached the end of the story, that was it for me. Looking back at the 50-plus hours I poured into the game, I cannot think of a single moment of truly entertaining GAMEPLAY. Every single task I completed in that game was done to progress the story.... not because it was actually fun for me.

It is a game that impresses the player with the wealth of different things you are "able" to do.... but are any of these things actually fun?

Is hunting and skinning animals actually fun, or do we do it just to earn money/achievements and complete tasks?

Are the many mini-games actually fun, or are they in fact clumsy, tedious, and repetative... only bareable because of the change of pace they represent?

Are the gang hideouts fun and exciting, or simply a matter of spamming the left trigger to cycle the auto lock between targets over and over and over?

The most suprising thing to me is that I have never been the kind of gamer who invests large amounts of time into a game purely for story.... If I am going to dedicate 40 or 50 hours to a game, it is only because I find the gameplay engaging and fun. Yet, for me, Red Dead pulled it off. In some ways, I find this to be the game's single most impressive achievement. At the same time, it makes it difficult for me to consider it as a contender for game of the year, when I have absolutley no desire to play it ever again.

Garnett, I would love to know what you think after you've finished the game, and allowed a little time to pass.

I liked the NFL "pick em" segment at the end of the show. I didn't like that the Texans made the Goatgirls look good on Sunday. :-)

How about in addition to the picks, two or more of you play a featured game of Madden using the teams you've picked and talk about that on the next week's show?

Great show! I loved it...

Lots of topics to discuss, but the GOTY talk got me thinking also, since this really is the best year for games I can remember.

Red Dead, Heavy Rain, and Civ V are certainly up there for me. Starcraft 2 was too much of a retread for my taste, and I always try to reward innovation. Frankly, I largely burned out on RTS games by playing Age of Empires far too much.For the same reason, I'd not give it to Civ V... it's a great game, but isn't gigantically unique: really just polishing a great formula to perfection. Halo? I'm just not that into things that feel like rail shooters... burnt out on that around NOLF 2 (which was a great game that no FPS has come near for my taste since).

Heavy Rain was amazing, but a bit short. Red Dead wasn't perfect either for my taste, as I found it lagged a bit around the 3/4 point and didn't have much replay value (as Brian pointed out, and I strongly agree with him on that).

Even though it came out at the very end of 2009, I'd lean toward Solium Infernum for my GOTY, it's highly unique, has multiplayer (not perfect for that though as it doens't do a good job of it) and lots of replay value. I guess it also get disqualified as having not been release exaclty this year though.

I think, unless something surprising comes out before year end, it will be Mass Effect 2 for me for GOTY. The game felt extremely smooth, I got emotionally involved in it, it was a good length, and I did replay it and was tempted to start another replay... not bad at all, and the first Bioware game I really loved since BG II.

For sheer replay value, I think I'd choose the alpha of Dwarf Fortress. Put in nearly 100 hours so far, and barely feel like I've started ;)

Haha, Halo in Goldfinger. "No, Master Chief, I expect you to die!"

Wow can we really not have Real world Football talk as I thought i was listening to a Video Game Podcast. You guys want to talk about Madden that would be on topic.

On the subject of game prices, Garnett said this at about 1 minute 25 seconds: "We're completely in a layered system now of 'you're either a $60 boxed game, or you're a $15 and under, probably digitally distributed... game.'"

Well, that's the way the megapublishers run things. More accurately, their "price tiers" seem to be these:

$60: Main, full-scale development video games
$15 and under: DLC for main titles, "mini-game" marketing efforts
$20 to $40: scattershot shovelware (e.g.: Activision Value titles)

In the meantime, we have independent developers on PC pricing throughout the $10 to $40 range for their titles, partly out of necessity for value proposition, and there's also the need for huge sales to generate buzz. There were some very notable indie titles last year, like Trine, Aaaaa!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity, VVVVVV, Gratuitous Space Battles, etc.

I don't think we're going to see the megapublishers offer games like Bioshock 2 or Singularity for $40 on launch. But right now, months after their release, Bioshock 2 (PC) is $35 at GoGamer, and Singularity (PC) is $38. Therein lies an answer for the gamer who wants to save their money: wait four to eight months.

On a side note, what happened to Singularity is sad. I got it for PC for $50 after hearing the Bombcast and Weekend Confirmed discussions on it, as well as seeing gameplay videos (via Giant Bomb and Youtube), and deciding that I liked the gameplay I was seeing. It's a fun game, though it's essentially a console game sitting on the PC that has very good mouse controls and a less stellar keyboard binding; I haven't bothered with multiplayer at all. The game had a few reveals years ago, and then it went completely dark until release, and then aside from a patch to fix the texture streaming problems on PC, no announced future supportability, no hope for mod tools, nothing. It seemed almost like Raven tried to foster this internally grown IP into something big, but maybe it took a year or two longer than optimal, and now they just want to leave it be after release and patching. Raven is currently working on multiplayer maps for Call of Duty: Black Ops, as well as at least one unannounced project.

I have sympathy for wanting GT5 right now...but as someone waiting for certain other sim games (Storm of War: Battle of Britain, 1C Maddox's Korean War sim, and the DCS A-10 Warthog/Thunderbolt II sim)...those do take a fair degree of time to make (Battle of Britain has been in development for over 5 years now I think).

Also as a flight sim guy, I can sort of see the importance of seemingly small less important details like weather or wind. I remember when IL2: 1946 (or was it Pacific Fighters) incorporated engine torque and that was a huge deal...and those sort of things appeal to the hardcore niche that sims are often aimed at...when IL2 Sturmovik came out originally...the fact that my plane could get hit in the wing and I could look over and see a huuuge scary hole (with cables and everything visible) blown in the wing and have my whole handling really affected by that loss of wing surface (and thus loss of lift) really made it that much more immersive. I can actually understand sacrificing some performance for simulation if you're making a hardcore game like that...flight sims regularly require beefy machines to handle all the systems they're simulating.

I kind of think that maybe GT5 needs the ability to turn things like that off...to reduce realism like a flight sim on things like weather if people want more performance...but I can also understand the sort of idea or artistic integrity and wanting people to experience that stuff. GT5 kind of is in this weird place because it straddles the line between game and simulator...and I respect that (tbh, I suck at racing sims and tend to like Burnout...but I've started to get into Forza 3 with my brothers crazy Porche wheel and its really satisfying to race properly and not just ram and rewind my way through the game (my previous approach that yielded mixed results)). GT5 is kind of where Rainbow Six or GRAW is compared to an ARMA...its nice to have these levels of realism vs gameyness and I like having something like Sega Rally Revo on one side and then some crazy Papyrus style thing on the other end so I have choice. Hell, I'd like to have a little more on the crazy side in FPS games...but we're seeing sort of a resurgence in that of late with Bulletstorm, and Duke...and there are some neat things going on in the open source side of things with stuff like Quake2world and xonotic and nexuiz...that are coming from the Quake engines that Carmack has very kindly let loose...hell I'm working on a Q3 mod that is still being developed (has been in development for like almost 10 years now)...and I'd love to dabble in making a standalone thing sometime...holy shit I got side-tracked there. I'll just stop typing because I can't remember what point I was making anymore.

Regarding the debate about Gran Turismo 5, I feel like it's legit to think that the game has been long overdue for release. All of these new features are nice and all, but they could have put them it in future iterations. Gran Turismo is the type of franchise that each new game replaces its predecessor, unlike say Final Fantasy. So it doesn't need to be delayed infinitely to accommodate for every single idea that Kazunori wakes up to. I find it hard to believe that the game's core mechanic isn't polished to this point unless Polyphony Digital's other other ten projects are preventing it.

To me, GT5 is now GT6. It's as if Polyphony Digital was working on GT 2 and delayed it to the point where it basically became GT 3. I bought both those games and enjoyed them until the new one came out. I can't say the same with GT4 because, well, GT5 isn't here yet and there have been many other options. Are those options better than Gran Turismo? It doesn't matter. We buy and play new games.

After all, Metroid's absence birthed Castlevania and perhaps the same can be said about Shadow Complex.

Listening to this week's Weekend Confirmed and the discussion about Gran Turismo, I was struck by an idea.

Gran Turismo should be a subscription service.

There's no reason Gran Turismo has to be released all at once. If the continual highly-polished trade show builds aren't proof of that, Prologue certainly was. Tracks, cars, and even gameplay modes are all relatively modular. The PS3 has a hard drive; it could easily support engine overhauls in patches and large amounts of downloadable content. A new set of cars every month; a new track every other month; and new features (like dynamic weather!) added periodically doesn't seem like a farfetched proposition.

How much more powerful would it be if, at Sony's press conference, Yamauchi's latest announcement of the new gee-whiz feature in GT5 showing off the abilities of the PS3 was concluded with "It's in next week's patch?" Or when Ferrari announced the 458 Italia with fanfare about it being in Gran Turismo 5, how much more effective would it have been if it was available for download immediately?

And more importantly to the livelihood of Polyphony Digital, how much revenue would they have brought in over the past three years while doing the same amount of development work?

Garnett - let us not forget about HeavyRain for GOTY. You loved it So!

RedDead is fantastic, though.

The Japanese dilemma is interesting, though I don't know enough about Japanese games to really analyse it. Cultural differences is always the first thing that's mentioned, but is language an issue at all? I can't help but notice that Nintendo's designers are doing pretty well globally, and that their games pretty much across the board lack any story- and dialogue beyond "Rescue princess!" and "Hi! It's a me, Mario!".

Level-5 is a possible (and very interesting) outlier with the "Professor Layton" games which to me feel very western even though they incorporate some of the annoyances that came with Japanese design.

It'd be very interesting to hear/read someone applying http://www.amazon.com/Art-Game-Design-book-lenses/dp/0123694965/ to a JRPG. Fantastic book if you want to think deep about game design.

Yeah, Garnett, you're just not an adequate representative of Japanese game fandom. I appreciate your effort, but a passionate player's going to do better than someone whose attention is split. I'd say the same for a podcast that ignored the great Western games except for Valve and Blizzard output.

1. Brian can knock JRPG mechanics at will when Level-5 itself created the incredibly innovative Inazuma 11 series, the best new property of this generation (in my opinion). Brian's blind flailing happens often enough that it's irritating.
2. You came back from Tokyo without any original thoughts or hidden gems. If you're spending the money, you should have at least 1 cool thing that wasn't presented elsewhere. On things you know about (say, Tomb Raider), you're brilliant. What happened?
3. You guys spoke in cliches on the Japan-on-Westernization, didn't say anything that hadn't been said before, and, again, underplayed 1 of the biggest stories of this generation: portable games. It sounded like only Garnett had comprehension of the matter equal to that of any forum poster.

At this point, the podcast's more specialized (a la Giant Bomb's) than comprehensive, which isn't your goal, I think. That's not a problem for Shacknews' "PC games and console action and shooter ones" demographic, but I think a lot of people want at least 1 show that tries to cover trends within the whole industry. I apologize if it's purposely not trying to be that. Think about inviting a Kohler, Nutt, Bettenhausen, or 1 of the Siliconera guys, perhaps?

As far as the GT5 release date discussion, I don't understand why it's even an issue. With as many quality games that come out on a yearly basis, I don't even have enough money to purchase all of them, let alone devote the time to each that it probably deserves. GT5 could not be released until 2012, and I still wouldn't have my backlog finished.

Sometimes I think gamers are a little to focused on being "on to the next one" and not enjoying what they already have.

Love the show and the enthusiasm the three of you bring weekly to the podcast.

I didn't see anyone bring this up so I thought I would to see what your thoughts and the communities would be.

This last episode I heard throughout the podcast sneering remarks about the PS3 and it's fans. Things like 'We would only play the 360 version, not PS3' and 'we don't play PS3 games.' These things were said in a sarcastic way, yes it was obvious, but why say it at all in such an inside joke sort of way? If you listen to the Joystiq, Rebel FM or a few Podcast from 1up you have heard this over and over again.

I feel you three are better than that and shouldn't go down that road. I can only speak for myself, but as a PS3 fan who appreciates all consoles and PC games, I find it frustrating that a few web trolls bring out such a negative energy on the podcast. I would have thought if you guys had an issue with trolls, you might have a segment on the show talking about that, instead of letting the trolls win by bringing it up in such a destructive way.
I'm just ranting because it's such a downer on the Joystiq and Rebel FM podcast when they spend a few minutes of every episode lumping all PS3 fans into one group of trolls. Please don't do that.
Then again, I'm just one guy who likes listening to people talk about games, what do I know?

Keep up the great work and thanks for putting in extra time to do the show every week.

sweet. time to get drunk and eat chicken fingers

I know people usually jump to movies when they're making a comparison between media but games are a lot more like books than movies. Like books they have one form of revenue and also like books they usually get re-released in different packaging for a cheaper price. Think paper back and soft cover. Like games a lot of the revenue goes to "Licensed" or familiar franchises. Compare Call of Duty to Harry Potter and Madden to the James Paterson books. Licensed products and very popular franchises. Also like books there's a lot of 'hey if you like this book you might want to read mine to'. When Harry Potter was big a lot of similar books were released at the time. I know that Twilight shit is utter garbage but young girls are into it now and usually in that section you find a lot of other vampire themed books. I think if you guys payed more attention to that market you would see that they're a lot more like books than movies.

Hell yes, talk hockey next week!

Or when the season starts. Whichever.

Thank goodness for Jeff's grounded comment. On a rare occasion a comment completely eclipses the balance of the show:

"The mainstream isn't thinking about videogames every week like we do".

GOTY right now would be a hard call for me. Starcraft 2, Stalker: Call of Pripyat, Red Dead, and BF:BC2 (for MP) are all strong contenders for me, and I haven't had a chance to try Civ 5 yet...but that one could very definately be GOTY for me as well.

I've played some Reach...and I guess I'm just not a Halo guy...its not bad playing the campaign CO-OP with my brother, but alone it just really doesn't do it for me and even in CO-OP its not my GOTY. I respect Halo Reach and I enjoy it...but its just not a game I love.

I have a hard time calling BF:BC2 my GOTY this year even though its my favorite multiplayer game to come out in 2010...it had a lot of issues and the SP just isn't there...if I were to break it into MP and SP...BF:BC2 would be my MP game of the year unless CoD:Black Ops takes the crown for me (it'd basically have to be CoD4 but better...I didn't much like MW2 and it didn't have any staying power for me, but I loved the hell out of CoD4 and played it until BC2 came out). That having been said SC2 was an amazing MP experience as well.

Stalker:CoP and Red Dead are both games that I keep coming back to...much like Farcry 2, they are like places that I constantly visit...alternate realities that I go to live in sometimes, they're deeply engrossing and I love them both. Stalker:CoP may have a slight edge just because of some of the crazy emergent experiences I've had and the fact that the game is so stark and crazy...it may have some rough edges...but its not broken like the first two...its just a little rough and I'm ok with that. Just between those two its a hard choice for me, and there are many many games that aren't those two.

I love SC2 because its this return to this thing that used to be made. People gripe that it didn't innovate or that it didn't adopt "advancements" introduced by other games...and I think this is the wrong attitude because it assumes that theres this linear correct path of progress and advancement for games. I actually think more games should at least examine older gameplay paradigms to see if those are more fitting for what they're trying to do. Too often I think that developers and gamers alike fall into this trap of "this is the sort of game we're supposed to want/make now because its been pre-ordained: people want Counter Strike/CoD/WoW/Halo now so thats what we're supposed to make" and whole styles of gameplay get discarded because "well we aren't doing that anymore" and I think its limiting just as much as the hesitance to do new things is limiting. People bashed SC2 because it was a peon based RTS and "they don't make those anymore...those have been done" and I think thats to SC2's credit...if they don't make those anymore, then why not and isn't that all the more reason for someone TO make that. Its no different than what Capcom did with SF4...which helped to revitalize a whole genre. Hell I'd love to see more companies do that...I'd love to see someone try to bring back the old school fast paced movement trick oriented deathmatch FPS with really fucking powerful weapons into the modern day. I'd love to see some really awesome Space Combat Sims come out. Just because something is old-school or doesn't follow the current trends everyone is focused on doesn't mean its wrong...we have room for variety and those things are part of having said variety.

Holy shit that last point I fucking got waaaay off on a tangent with. And I just realized that I never even thought of Super Mario Galaxy 2, SSF4, Bayonetta, or others that I consider to be contenders even though they might not be the most obvious picks to me (though SMG2 was fucking great, and SSF4 was a solid game that I've had an insane amount of fun with).