Weekend Confirmed 68 - Earth Defense Force, Dungeon Siege, Transformers

By Garnett Lee, Jul 08, 2011 11:00am PDT

The heat may be getting to the crew as this week the show starts out a little...well, let's call it loose. Andrea Rene checks in for her monthly appearance, joining Xav, Jeff, and Garnett to talk Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon, Dungeon Siege III, Transformers Dark of the Moon, and more. In the Warning the conversation turns to whether we enjoy games like Darksiders for what they are or for scratching the Zelda itch while we wait for the next game in the series. Xav kicks off a new approach on the news, inviting more discussion on the stories that have the community buzzing. That takes things right up to Finishing Moves to end things on a high note.

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 68: 07/08/2011

Subscription Links:

If you're viewing this in the GameFly application, you can play Weekend Confirmed Episode 68 directly.

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 Part 1: Start: 00:00:00 End: 00:29:50

  • Whatcha' Been Playin Part 2: Start: 00:30:24 End: 01:00:16

  • The Warning: Start: 01:01:24 End: 01:31:04

  • Featured music Del Rio feat. Mista Perkins - "What I Used To Be" Start: 01:31:04 End: 01:34:15

  • The Front Page news: Start: 01:34:15 End: 02:14:32

Weekend Confirmed's own Del Rio supplies the featured music this week. It's the world exclusive premier of the track "What I Used to Be" featuring Mista Perkins from Del Rio's upcoming second album "Club Tipsy" coming this September.

Follow Del Rio delriomusic and Mista Perkins on twitter to keep up with their latest goings on. And listen to his album on Revernation.

Help Garnett's brother Andrew on his donation drive to ride for Children's Hospital. If you can, please give him a hand in supporting a good cause.

Original music in the show by Del Rio. Get his latest Album, The Wait is Over on iTunes. Check out more, including the Super Mega Worm mix and other mash-ups on his ReverbNation page or Facebook page, and follow him on twitter delriomusic.

Andrea Rene hosts the Clevver Games Channel. For more, check out the Clevver Games Facebook page and follow Andrea on twitter.

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!

Remember to join the Official Facebook Weekend Confirmed Page and 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










  • I wanted to chime in on the debate about graphics in classic games in relation to their level of enjoyment today. I think that when you are talking about games on past generations of consoles (pre-PS3/360) you will find that a person's enjoyment of the experience is directly tied to their nostalgic connection to that title. Contra happens to be one of my all time favorite games simply because it harkens back to a simpler time and place for me personally. Yes its a fun game on its own accord, but it certainly would not capture the mass attention and acclaim it did in 1987 if it was released today in its original state. I also feel that there is a distinction between "dated" and "vintage". Retro gaming is a genre all it's own and is a legitimate market because it tugs on the heartstrings of nostalgic gamers and offers experience far different than the 3D shooter overload of today. I enjoy both kinds of games for very different reasons. I feel a game like Battlefield, Uncharted or Call of Duty is a "better" game than Contra, but I continue to go back to the Konami classic to get that nostalgic hit.

    I think a great debate could be when do games graduate from simply being stale, to being retro. My feeling is that a game needs to age - to sit for a long while im a dormant state in order for it to be "re-discovered" as a classic. I do not feel the same enjoyment or connection for say Halo: Combat Evolved as I do for Contra because I feel like today's shooters are improved versions of that experience. As much as I loved Halo when it came out, it has clearly been trumped by other FPS franchises both visually and in gameplay. Would I rather play an uglier game that is basically the same kind of experience? No. I want the best looking and playing games I can find for that genre.

    So my answer really is: graphics do no matter as much for "retro/classic" gaming. Clearly they dont stand up to today's visually stunning games. In these cases it is about the nostalgic, or different type of experience that contrasts today's intense gaming experiences. On the other hand, graphics are VERY important when being compared to other games of current-gen consoles. I want the best looking and playing game I can find on my PS3/360.


  • Here's a question I'm wondering about the you guys and the gaming press. If you're starting to realize that the Hardcore is becoming a minority and can no longer reach the number of people needed to make big corporations not cancel or release games in the US, why reduce your listeners?

    I know every website gets crap for coming off bias or having a preference for a particular system, but seeing how it's reducing the number of people who take your opinions as honest, why not change?

    I know that in my group of friends when this generation started we all considered review scores as a solid resource for determing weather or not to consider purchasing a game. As this generation has progressed some of the larger sites we used to trust we no longer even visit unless it's to download a podcast. I mean you hear on a couple of shows people say "it's not that we don't like X system, we just prefer Y", and even if they don't say that it comes through in the personalities on the podcasts. I know there are some journalists that will scoff at certain games if it's not released for a system they are interested in.

    It's strange because when this generation started I used to go to sites that covered all systems and know I go to sites that are geared towards a particular systems, because I know they're at least excited or willing to give the system and it's games a chance.

    It may just be human nature to only want to talk about the things you're interested in and these types of issues might be unavoidable, but you end up making yourself become more of a whisper than a voice of the gaming community.

    I'm sure you're starting to see this in video game sales, where games you spend time talking about aren't selling the numbers you were hoping or the studios are closed etc.

    I think it would be beneficial for yourself and the gaming sites to really try to get a group of together of individuals who actually don't all game together and play the same games but are so different in their gaming tastes and preferences that there is more of varied opinion.

    As it is right now I just listen to the podcast and others like yours just for the banter and less and less for recommendations as to what games I should be interested in.

    I don't think at all that I am the template for your entire audience but I'm sure you're able to look at your numbers and see that there is less and less correlation between what you're talking/pushing about and what's selling.

    As it is right now, I think developers/publishers are seeing that as well, which is why you see more interaction between the publishers and the gamers than there was in the past. Prior to this generation there was a huge gap between the two and gamers could only rely on the media, magazines or online. As it is now you don't need to subscribe to a paper magazine or an online website to get the information you can go to the companies websites/blog or facebook page etc..

    I think many gamers are finding this even more beneficial since they know they can be confident that if they are interested in something it won't be overlooked or ignored like it can on a game media's site or podcast. You guys need to work on a way of not phasing yourself out because you want to be a favorite of one console and thereby reducing your followers, but follow what third party publishers are doing and become more multiplatform. You obviously see that developers can't ignore it without losing profits, so you also can't ignore for the same reasons right?

    sorry for the run on sentences and grammatical errors, just woke up, and started typing.




  • In regards to Garnett's question, I absolutely believe graphics matter for the playability of a game. With that said it depends on the type of game in question. If it's a side scroller or platformer which are intended to provide the gamer with hours of repetitive fun focused almost entirely on the mechanics of the game with a story as more of an afterthought then there's much more leeway on the quality of graphics. But if the game is attempting to connect with the player on an emotional level like a Deadspace or Elderscrolls than I think the graphics and art need to be atleast up to par with recent titles or they will more often than not fall short of there intended goal. It's one thing to make a player happy like Kirby, Mario, and others do, but it's a whole other thing to give a gamer true anxiety to walk around a virtual corner being projected on your television...

    As for Jeff's finishing move, the tactile feedback is absolutely what drives a physical game atleast for me. For example, I was playing yahtzee yesterday with one of the kids at my work (I'm a teacher) and realized it's actually a pretty damn boring game. But the actual feeling of rolling dice around in the cup then ultimately throwing them in a box was a pretty satisfying feeling. If that were transferred into a digital form (It probably already has) I would have absolutely no interest in giving it a try.




  • Graphics huh?

    Graphics are a key part of 'video' games no? Reviewers are not a methodical process. It's an opinionated piece of writing about a person's experience playing a game. And besides early 3d games of n64/psx era, good visuals tend to hold up well. It's like saying classic art aren't worth looking at because of 'archaic' techniques. Snes games still look great. So do most last gen games that had a strong art component (wind waker, okami, ff12, etc).

    If I search an archive of old reviews and pick a game that is praised for 'great visuals' I'd tend to agree.
    The opposite should alsoapply. If a game was criticized for looking like shit a decade ago, would the graphics all of the sudden look great (I guess this is where the art analogy dies ;P) today?

    In the end, graphics are an important part of the gaming experience and it's well worth writing about in reviews if they stand out in a good or bad way. If a review was purely about gameplay, wouldn't it just be a substitute for a gamefaqs gameplay guide or a manual (oh manuals T_T)?

















  • On Garnett's question regarding graphics and their importance in the enjoyment of a game, I would side with Jeff in the sense that for me graphical prowess and art direction are two side of the same coin.
    For instance, I will replay Full throttle and Monkey island any day because their art direction was solid and they did not push the graphical power of the engine they worked in, they just focused on looking good because they had a ton of personality. On the other hand, I will never replay the early King's Quest, because they now look dated and horrible, the art direction not being as strong.
    I started to play games in the CGA era and I have to say, I am glad those days are long gone, but I also love to death the Bit Trip series and their clever use of pixel art. Sword and Swrocery was a great example of a game that shines through it's art direction and will not age, a good example of the opposite is Crash Bandicoot, play the early games and behold how ugly they have become. The library of the first PS is full of those games that tried to push an engine to its limit and ultimately doomed themselves to irrelevance five years down the line.