Weekend Confirmed Episode 37

By Garnett Lee, Dec 03, 2010 12:00pm PST Fix yourself one last leftover turkey and stuffing sandwich and get ready for a great show. Epic Mickey and Gran Turismo 5 both arrived and headline this week's Whatcha' Been Playin? In the Warning Jeff's return to World of Warcraft gets things started and then it's on to your thoughts on having fun versus being competitive. Sales for Move and Kinect, a new squad-based shooter from Yakuza's creator, and the rest of the week's videogame news bring the show home in the Front Page.

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 37 - 12/03/2010

Subscription Links:

We've got a handy player to listen to the show right here on the site if you like:
Listen to Weekend Confirmed Episode 37 (player window will pop-up)

And if you're on GameCenter, you can play the show here:
Download Weekend Confirmed Episode 37

Weekend Confirmed comes in four segments to make it easy to listen to in segments or all at once. Here's the timing for this week's episode:

Whatcha' Been Playin: Start: 00:00:00 End: 00:30:08

Whatcha' Been Playin and Cannata-ford a New Game: Start: 00:31:12 End: 01:02:04

The Warning: Start: 01:02:56 End: 01:34:40

Music Break featuring "Let Me Put You at Ease": 01:34:40 End: 01:37:50

The Front Page: Start: 01:37:50 End: 02:08:37

NFL 'Tailgate': Start: 02:09:39 End: 02:18:23

Music Break this week features "Let Me Put You at Ease" by Jonathan Carter aka graphicnapkin. For more, check out his official site and follow him on Twitter.

Original music in the show by Del Rio. Get his latest single, Small Town Hero on iTunes. Check out more, including the Super Mega Worm mix and other mash-ups on his ReverbNation page or Facebook page.

Jeff can also be seen on The Totally Rad Show. They've gone daily so there's a new segment to watch every day of the week!

Our Official Facebook Weekend Confirmed Page is coming along now so add us to your Facebook routine. We'll be keeping you up with the latest on the show there as well.

Click here to comment...

Comments

See All Comments | 58 Threads | 216 Comments
  • This is a general Weekend Confirmed comment that applies to a lot of things being said in previous shows...most times by Garnett. First, I love the show and listen to every post, even though the argument bias can be frustrating sometimes (ex: like how the PS trophy "Level" system was deemed worthless in one show, but the overall XBL gamerscore was considered a great way to track overall progress in another...I believe both statements were made by Kanada, but I'm not positive. Oh and btw...I think both PSN trophies and XBL achievements are near worthless, so hopefully any fanboys can stop crying out troll).

    ANYWAY, that being said. Garnett, although I thoroughly agree with you that developers should push what can be done in games, especially when it comes to player choice/consequence...I think we as the game players often forget what is required to do that. All game devs are under the same restrictions: time & budget.

    This article got me thinking: http://gameinternals.com/post/2072558330/understanding-pac-man-ghost-behavior

    I saw how incredibly complex programming for a "simple" game of pacman is. Some of the requests that we make as gamers would just fall short of requiring game manufacturers to be capable of creating true AI. Having a game where your one decision at any given moment would change every conversation, quest, geographical location...is an undertaking beyond what can be accomplished by a game developer. We have to remember that a writer for that type of game would never finish the story, because it would have near infinite endings...let alone the guy(s) who have to code that stuff.

    Although we should keep pushing and expect more out of our developers, we have to remember the ultimate cliche saying of "Rome wasn't built in a day". We complained about the delays of GT5, but could you imagine the length of time that it would have taken for Fable 3 to come out if everything and anything could be changed on the fly by the player? Peter Molyneux tends to dream like that (aloud) and I think he "gets" what we want, but if he can't produce it, and even abandoned his Milo project, it says something to how difficult a task it is...ESPECIALLY when budget/marketing/time restrictions are involved. Game producers only know that COD:BO sold a TON withOUT all of that "player choice" so do we ever think that a producer will care enough to sink millions of dollars and several years (maybe even a decade) into an "ultimate choose your own adventure" game that still may or may not sell?

    All things having been said, my point is this... when we as gamers talk about what would make a game better, we should also keep in mind the business/logistics side of things and not expect a developer to be able to deliver a mind-blowing, unbelievable game with infinite choices...in a little over a year and under budget.

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 6 replies.

      • I agree with you heartily, we definitely can't lower our standards of developers. I just think that we should be reasonable in our expectations. I also do agree with you that developers should ask for more feedback on what gamers want. THAT's for sure. That comes down to a more personal issues I believe though, as some devs have massive egos and are looking more for bugs as opposed to feedback from their beta tests. They have their vision, and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise.

        I'm still waiting to open my copy of Fable 3 (still in A.Creed Brotherhood) and I heard some of the complaints about the issues, but I'm still looking forward to drawing my own opinion. However, I think that you touched on a partial point of my argument...the restrictions of the developer. With this push of "social gaming" that's easy for everyone, publishers are crunching down hard on developers to make their games accessible. This is benefiting some games, like Rock Band 3 (auto "no fail" mode/drop in drop out/filtering) but others (Marvel vs. Capcom 3's "easy" mode) will make classic games lose their competitive edge. Fable 3 probably falls into the latter category and although Peter was at the healm, I'm sure that a lot of concessions were made that Peter didn't want, but were forced upon him by the publisher executives and he tried to implement their requests in the best way he could given their demands. When I say that Peter "gets" it, I'm more referring to the speeches he makes at the early stages of the development of his games. Although we tend to eye-roll because of his track record of over promising, under delivering, we often find ourselves saying...'if he CAN do what he's saying, that would be awesome!" But what is part of someone's vision often quickly gets cut due to the reality of what type of time/money it would take to do it.

        I work for one of the big 3, and I've heard & seen some really interesting & trivial things get shot down or changes imposed by execs due to something that another game that sold well did...things that the dev had no say in. There's a game that I won't name that was supposed to have a fantastic co-op mode...but because another monster seller did NOT have it in its game, the publisher didn't want to spend the money to add it and that portion, which quite possibly could have been the most well received mode, was canned.

        So again, I think we should definitely hold devs accountable for crafting a great experience and judge heavily upon what IS in the game, (and push for improvements, yes) but a lot of what's holding them back from making the games that we want them to is simply the business of making games. So I just think that we should try at least keep our "wish list" within the realm of what's financially feasible.