Weekend Confirmed 80 - Battlefield 3 beta, Gears of War 3, Resistance 3

Anyone else feel like developers keep treading down the same well beaten apocalyptical scenario? What about class warfare, race warfare, environmental disasters, etc.? Why do we play so many modern shooting games and post-nuclear or post asteroid type titles? I guess part of the problem is that developers need to create mutants and other non-realistic enemy types.

I am excited for I Am Alive and with games like Disaster Report were more prevalent... And better.

Hello folks!...i just want to share some thoughts on an upcomming game:
Dark Souls....I just installed it :D .
I'm thinking Cannata is going to hate it, though.
Think of it like this Jeff. It's an adventure. Adventures need stakes. If you know that every situation can lead to certain death the stakes are raised and you have yourself some REAL excitement. Every moment is a potential death or a FANTASTIC triumph .

It's all about the stakes and mastery, something you reviewers rarely have time to appreciate I find....
Thoughts ?

//Niklas

Re: Annual Sports Releases

Garnett, I completely agree with you regarding your wish to see sports franchises slow down their release schedule.

There was 1 major point that I feel like you were about to express, but never quite nailed it:

With the current release schedule, the developers don't have time to learn from their mistakes. By the time Madden 2011 ships, the pre-production team has already sketched out the feature set for Madden 2012.

With any other non-sports franchise, the developers have time to see how their game actually performs in the hands of gamers. They can take that experience and learn from it when developing a sequel.

Sports-game developers have to make these decisions based on what they know about their game before it is even finished. This makes it less of an iterative process, and more like reinventing the wheel every time.

Having said that, the argument still stands that their current model is so financially successful that I don't see EA changing their approach any time soon. Why go to all the trouble of making a better game when the ones you already make are selling so well ;)

Since there was a lot of talk about season passes and the notion of paying for a promise, I thought it was worth letting everybody know that the first batch of Gears of War 3 DLC is already starting to get some bad rep.

Besides already being on the disk (whole other can of worms), the new maps will not be in the mp map rotation, or for use in public Horde matches.

That basically means that the maps will only be available for private matches with friends. So unless you can routinely get 4 buddies together for Horde or 9 other buddies for a full game of MP, the maps probably won't give you much extra play-time.

I'm certainly glad that I haven't paid for the season pass for Gears 3.

Are popular multiplayer games being designed towards their target audience - 18 - 35 yo (males)?

It's become a popular trend for these games to require incredible amounts of time to even compete on the same level as the people, namely children who aren't even supposed to be playing the game, who have an unlimited amount of time to earn better weapons, kickbacks, perks, etc. Really, if you don't have the same amount of disposable time as children, you're pretty much screwed. You don't even have a chance in most games.

Thing is, I'm constantly hearing from everyone that they DON'T have the time to put into these games. Whether it's college, jobs, family, etc. people are always complaining that there's not enough time in the day.

But, so far, it doesn't seem like developers are trying to accommodate their audience. Why do you think this is, and what do you think they could do to change things?

I'm pretty sure this has been brought up before, but it seems that not even I'm immune to the regurgitation of topics from time to time. ;p

It's pronounced (Wa-too-la-koo-la) in case you read it on the show. People seem to have problems figuring it out.
Hey guys got a question and something nerdy I want to share.
Question: My friends and I are spread all over the country and play xbox live and psn to still be able to hang out. We would really like to play something other than a shooter. I know it's too much to ask for a good RPG that has co-op (not counting Two Worlds 2), but is there a dungeon crawler or maybe adventure game that we could play that doesn't revolve around a look down sight mechanic. We mostly play in groups of 2-6 so something with drop-in drop-out would also be nice. Any suggestions? Oh and while your at it what's the answer to world peace?

Nerdy sharing: my son is 4 and just starting to play video games with me. We play Lego Star Wars together a couple hours a week. He absolutely love it. Figuring he would like the movies I got out the original trilligoy on DVD and asked him if he wanted to watch them. He loved them. We watched all three one a night before bed and his eyes were glued to them.
Proud of him I am. In my young padawan the force is strong.
That's all. Love the show guys. Thanks for taking your time to make it every week.

I've been lucky enough to get a copy of Rage (on 360) early. I'm only about 4 hours in but so far the game is gorgeous! Although it doesn't do anything groundbreaking, what it does do, it does very well.

I'm not the biggest fan of open-world games, but the game is directed enough for me that I have never felt lost or overwhelmed by the world around me. The gunplay is sublime, as expected, and the impact each shot has is communicated so well thanks to the animations of the enemies. There was one really magical moment where I nailed a bandit in the head with one of the boomerang-like wingsticks while he came charging at me. I managed to loot his body while he aimlessly stumbled towards me in his last steps, before he hit the ground - so gratifying, and one of those moments that you wouldn't find in any other game and only occurred thanks to the culmination of so many great design concepts.

The character designs and facial animations are all great, and the visual style of places such as Wellspring bring the world together so coherently and present such an authentic sense of history and character, just like I thought Gears 3 and Resistance 3 managed to achieve. I'm loving it so far and can't wait to play some more.

1) Just because Jeff and Garnett like shooters more doesn't mean the genre is in decline. There have been plenty of good games - Radiant Historia and SMT Strange Journey on DS and the Ys games on PSP for example.

2) JRPGs don't have to "be more responsive" to what Western gamers want Garnett. That's incredibly egocentric. I'd rather they simply focused on making a good game with a fun battle system and an interesting story. And not having horrendous voice acting.

3) By the time Square released FFX on PS2, they had already released 2 games - The Bouncer and Driving Emotion Type-S. Add FFX-2, FFXII, two Kingdom Hearts games, the FF7 game with Vincent, Brave Fencer Musashi sequel, a Mana game, a Saga game etc etc. Garnett made it sound like Square released two games the entire gen.

4) Listening to you and Jeff sit there and list everything you want in a JRPG in terms of polish, combat, towns, characters, equipment etc. makes me think one thing. It's already been done, in Xenoblade for the Wii. Unfortunately Nintendo has decided to shaft gamers and not bring it over. If Garnett and Jeff really want a JRPG with all the stuff you listed on the show, put your money where your mouth is and import Xenoblade, because it already has everything you listed off.

I just listened to the discussion about Battlefield 3, and wanted to comment on something Garnet stated. To paraphrase Garnet, he said that if you have a good PC, then of course you'll get the PC version over a console one. I disagree, and let me try to explain why I'm leaning towards buying a copy for the xbox360 over the PC:

1) Hackers. I owned both copies of MW2 (PC and Xbox). The cheating, aim bots, and map hacks on the PC are rampant. Valve and Steam are always behind the curve. While the consoles had their glitching problems (infinite care packages), these were quickly patched and pale in comparison to the cheats on the PC.

2) Controls. This may seem crazy, but there are some advantages of using a controller over a keyboard/mouse. I like having the analog control of the thumb sticks. This means I can crawl really slow and go around a corner really slow. On the PC: the keyboard is only "on" or "off". Thus trying the "slice the pie" of an open door, or peak over the crest of the hill is much more difficult on PC. Now, given: aiming using the mouse is much, much more precise, but this brings me to my next point:

3) Sniping. I've played the Beta for both the PC and Xbox360. There are SO many more snipers on PC. Why? Because it's so much easier to snipe with a mouse than the controller. This turns BF3 into sniping stand-offs, where 1/2 of both teams are sniping back and forth. Now maybe some people like that, but I find it boring and enjoy having a few good snipers, but the majority of players advancing or defending the tactical positions. I guess this is personal preference, but on the PC, when I just peak my head around the corner (or over a hill/fence/bush), it's 75% of the time it's instant death. On the console, I know I have chance to spot a sniper and get back to cover or lay-down suppressive fire. I think that is MUCH more enjoyable.

4) Friends. Let's face it. In order to get BF3 to look BETTER than the xbox, you'll need to spend 800 to 1000 dollars on a new PC. Most of my friends don't have that scratch (or their wives won't let them spend it on a new PC just to play a new game). Therefore if I want to play with friends, I need the xbox version.

5) Vehicle controls. Have you ever tried to fly a plane using a keyboard and mouse? It's impossible. However, very do-able with a console controller. Since BF is so vehicle centric, this is another reason to get the console version. Sure, you can get a joystick for the PC, but that's another 30-40 bucks to spend.

6) Drivers. After spending 45 minutes updated my video card and audio card drivers, just so that the Beta works properly on my PC, I was reminded why so often I get frustrated at PC gaming.

Sure, the PC version looks better on a high-end PC, but looks aren't everything. I'll totally understand why some may prefer the PC over console: mouse and keyboard is preferred to some. Also the graphics look amazing on the PC. However I get why console gaming is also preferred by some, and why I'll likely buy the xbox version instead of the PC.

Just got round to Jame Stevenson's question of the week, where the question was: "What is the most difficult in-game decision you have had to make?"

The Pitt is mine for most difficult in-game decision also, but for slightly differing reasons. This is the case where whatever 'side' you choose, both are morally grey where they either have great intentions but done in morally questionable methods and compromise, or more nafarious ulterior motives but mixed with the morally good myopic intentions.

Great question, and even better choice. What are your games?

It's pronounced (Wa-too-la-koo-la) in case you read it on the show. People seem to have problems figuring it out.
Hey guys got a question and something nerdy I want to share.
Question: My friends and I are spread all over the country and play xbox live and psn to still be able to hang out. We would really like to play something other than a shooter. I know it's too much to ask for a good RPG that has co-op (not counting Two Worlds 2), but is there a dungeon crawler or maybe adventure game that we could play that doesn't revolve around a look down sight mechanic. We mostly play in groups of 2-6 so something with drop-in drop-out would also be nice. Any suggestions? Oh and while your at it what's the answer to world peace?

Nerdy sharing: my son is 4 and just starting to play video games with me. We play Lego Star Wars together a couple hours a week. He absolutely love it. Figuring he would like the movies I got out the original trilligoy on DVD and asked him if he wanted to watch them. He loved them. We watched all three one a night before bed and his eyes were glued to them.
Proud of him I am. In my young padawan the force is strong.
That's all. Love the show guys. Thanks for taking your time to make it every week.

Just on the discussion about Gears and Resistance, isn't it great that we're to the point that great developers recognise how to make awesome sequels? For a long time, it seemed the first game in many series was always "the best". Now, it's great to see studios expand upon the fundamental gameplay in interesting ways to create something exciting and compelling. I can't wait to see how Arkham City, Revelations and Uncharted 3 turn out.

Wow, this episode sounded like Garnet was a spokesman for BF3, lol. It almost felt as though we were playing different games tbh. And to be fair, maybe we were since i've been playing on console and he on PC, though the only difference i've notice on the PC version is the pacing. I felt the pacing was much slow on PC than on console.

I posted my complaints on a separate forum, but first let me tackle Battlelog. That thing is crap. Are we serious? It's completely useless and unnecessary. EVERYTHING in Battlelog needs to be in the game - from stat tracking, to fricken server list. What the hell are server lists doing on a website? Its another layer that i don't need. The thing about elite is that ALL that is on the game and managed ON THE GAME. I have the option to check out stuff on other devices or programs like the internet or my phone or whatever, but i never have to leave my experience to check my info. Also, for console gamers, what the hell is the point of Platoons? They do nothing. At least elite or Killzone2 has groups and clans that can be managed and accessed through the game. It's almost like you just listen to someone pitch the service to you with out even using it.

As for my complaints about the game (i hope that's not too long for the average poster here to read):

I think everything around shooting is pretty much broken. The shooting feel spot on, the recoil is nice for this game. The only thing about shooting i don't like is the damage. I'm starting to feel that this game doesn't need Cod like damage. Its very frustrating on such a big map where all the guns available are lethal at just about any range. I'm getting sniped more efficiently with a M14, than i can snipe them with a SV98. Why? No/less bullet drop. On a sniper, i have to aim slightly above there head at distance, with an assault or whatever, i just put the reticule on them and i hit...bullsh*t.

Also, i can't react to anything. Such an open map and bullets are flying everywhere, i feel like i should have more time to react to things, but 3 quick shots (sometimes just 1 for some reason :?) from whatever gun, at whatever distance, and i'm down.

I think mid range combat is fun, i do enjoy that. Long range is broken because of damage and range of the guns, CQC is still broken from BC2 for the same problems.

And what a terrible map. I blows my mind that they're not showing off Caspian Border...Why give us this crappy MoH knock off map when you have a much more bad ass map ready and waiting?

Another complaint, is destruction. Wow they really killed it. That was one thing i really like in BC2. In Metro, at least, it seems they've given us less destruction, and pretty much made everything superficial (People just start taking out the predetermined breakable walls because they're obviously there for a strategic purpose). In BC2, if felt like you could pave your own way through the map. A few restriction on what you could and what you couldn't destroy, but that was fine. This time, they just made it look about 10times more fancy, but removed the things that made it unique...at least in Metro.

And those console menus! WHY CAN'T I PAUSE THE GAME WHEN I WANT TO -

"Oh, wanna edit a few things in the pause menu really quick? Well, to bad, you died so you have to wait 15 secs before you can do anything."

"Oh, you're team just lose because you're were playing with idiots and you want to leave? Nope, you gotta wait a about 1 minute 30 seconds before you can do anything of the sort."

- Ugh. They continue to have the worst menus in existence. From changing you're guns to changing your sensitivity, it is just the worst experience possible. I can not express in words how much i hate that menu system.

....there are so many problems, i feel i could go on forever. (...)Oh and boy, i think they need to stress that all those gameplay shots were from PC because the PS3 version, which apparently is the best looking console version, looks a lot like BC2 with a few more lighting effects >.>

Notice how 12 and 13 are both loved for their combat systems. Final Fantasy is not about random battles or ATB or whatever. FF needs what every good role playing game needs. Non-linearity, a good battle system, and a good story/characterization. Final Fantasy 13 lacked 2 of those.

Also yes Grandia is the best RPG battle system ever.

I was pretty disheartened by Insominiac guy's comics about their multiplayer. I enjoy MvC3, but thtat design aesthtic works only because whatever character I play they are just as overpowered as any other player.

To expect people to slog through like 60 levels of play so they can be as overpowered as the dude who's spawn camping them and invisible, with a shield and a shotgun that lights them on fire is rediculous. I would probably still be playing if it was a level playing field. They either need to balance the perks and open them to everyone, or remove them entirely, or something. Doing nothing is a real disservice to the player.

During your discussion about yearly sports games, it seemed that you were saying that they need a longer dev cycle, but still release a game every year. What would you think if they had 2 studios working on them like call of duty? Then the studios would have 2 years to make more significant improvements, but there would still be a new game each year. 

Oh god, Final Fantasy X? Kill me.

I'll take 40 more games like FFXIII before I play another game like Final Fantasy X.

With regards to new JRPGs that retain the classic flavour... you knew someone was gonna say it... you guys are totally overlooking Dragon Quest.

While Final Fantasy did very well for itself, particularly in the west, by reinventing the wheel with each new game, Dragon Quest has continued to hold steady, slowly evolving the series over time while maintaining traditional JRPG gameplay. Sure, they look dated and hokey compared to Final Fantasy's glossy productions, but the trade-off is that they also lack the bloated self-indulgences that have been hurting FF games for the past decade or so.

Equipment, that's what final fantasy needs back. That and a leveling system that's more basic than these wonder wheels.

RPG are all about being able to customize, and for the most part FF has absolutely no ability to customize your character. It's all about spread sheet stats, and if I have no influence over that or story why bother.

3 character battle systems should go as well. That is nothing more than a by product of Chrono Trigger, but CT allowed for combos. Unless they bring back a combo system your not engaging the player with enough battle field management. That's my personnel opinion of why I have not finished a FF since 9. Well that and time maybe a 30 hour quest would be nice:)

I have to say for this episode with Garnett attempting to change things up, I have to say it felt similar to me. Not saying its a bad thing, but I think in attempting to keep things a little more loose, it just seemed to me that it was the 'regular' show, only without a conscious segment announcement; just much smooter transitions, which is fine to me.

Its one of those 'rock and a hard place' situations where I felt that the last few weeks, considering the games there were/are out, the first segment really bled into the second, which to me, leaves less time for the Warning/listener discussion segments. Yet at the same time we do want to hear about the game experiences of the first segment, so it really is a difficult one to balance. This week had a little less listener feedback, though again I understand with time constraints.

Kudos to you though Garnett (and Xav when he was here to play around with the news) in trying to shake things up. It's not an overnight thing, so I do expect it to become smoother in the following weeks, as long as your are comfortable sir!

During the conversation about BF3 graphics on console vs PC, Jeff made the comment that this is the time we SHOULD be getting new hardware.

I am THRILLED that we are not getting new hardware yet. There are so many fantastic looking games coming out for the current crop of hardware, that look stunning.

Nevermind the games coming out this holiday season like BF3, Rage, SkyRim, or Uncharted 3. What about the stunners slated for 2010 and beyond?

Bioshock Infinite
The Last Guardian
Max Payne 3
Prey 2
Dishonored
Darksiders 2
Hitman Absolution
Mass Effect 3
Far Cry 3
SSX
Syndicate
Tomb Raider
Aliens: Colonial Marines
Metro: Last Light
Borderlands 2
Asura's Wrath
Brothers in Arms: Furious 4
The Darkness 2
XCOM

Plus stuff like Halo 4 and Overstrike, which have been announced but not seen, but sure to look great?

For the first time ever, we're really seeing developers crank every last ounce of juice out of the hardware on the market. We're getting great looking games, a ton of different art-styles and aesthetics, and the user-base is only getting bigger.

Why ask publishers to start making games for a smaller audience all over again when there's still so much good left to explore on the current hardware?

Wow, this episode sounded like Garnet was a spokesman for BF3, lol. It almost felt as though we were playing different games tbh. And to be fair, maybe we were since i've been playing on console and he on PC, though the only difference i've notice on the PC version is the pacing. I felt the pacing was much slow on PC than on console.

I posted my complaints on a separate forum, but first let me tackle Battlelog. That thing is crap. Are we serious? It's completely useless and unnecessary. EVERYTHING in Battlelog needs to be in the game. From stat tracking to fricken server list. Wth are server lists doing on a website. Its another layer that i don't need. The thing about elite is that ALL that is on the game and managed ON THE GAME. I have the option to check out stuff on other devices or programs like the internet or my phone or whatever, but i never have to leave my experience to check my info. Also, for console gamers, what the hell is the point of Platoons? They do nothing. At least elite or Killzone2 (haven't played KZ3 has groups and clans that can be managed and accessed through the game. It's almost like you just listen to someone pitch the service to you with out even using it.

As for my complaints about the game (i hope that's not too long for the average poster here to read):

I think everything around shooting is pretty much broken. The shooting feel spot on, the recoil is nice for this game. The only thing about shooting i don't like is the damage. I'm starting to feel that this game doesn't need Cod like damage. Its very frustrating on such a big map where all the guns available are lethal at just about any range. I'm getting sniped more efficiently with a M14, than i can snipe them with a SV98. Why? No/less bullet drop. On a sniper, i have to aim slightly above there head at distance, with an assault or whatever, i just put the reticule on them and i hit...bullsh*t.

Also, i can't react to anything. Such an open map and bullets are flying everywhere, i feel like i should have more time to react to things, but 3 quick shots (sometimes just 1 for some reason :?) from whatever gun, at whatever distance, and i'm down.

I think mid range combat is fun, i do enjoy that. Long range is broken because of damage and range of the guns, CQC is still broken from BC2 for the same problems.

And what a terrible map. I blows my mind that they're not showing off Caspian Border...Why give us this crappy MoH knock off map when you have a much more bad ass map ready and waiting?

Another complaint, is destruction. Wow they really killed it. That was one thing i really like in BC2. In Metro, at least, it seems they've given us less destruction, and pretty much made everything superficial (People just start taking out the predetermined breakable walls because they're obviously there for a strategic purpose). In BC2, if felt like you could pave your own way through the map. A few restriction on what you could and what you couldn't destroy, but that was fine. This time, they just made it look about 10times more fancy, but removed the things that made it unique...at least in Metro.

And those console menus! WHY CAN'T I PAUSE THE GAME WHEN I WANT TO -

"Oh, wanna edit a few things in the pause menu really quick? Well, to bad, you died so you have to wait 15 secs before you can do anything."

"Oh, you're team just lose because you're were playing with idiots and you want to leave? Nope, you gotta wait a about 1 minute 30 seconds before you can do anything of the sort."

- Ugh. They continue to have the worst menus in existence. From changing you're guns to changing your sensitivity, it is just the worst experience possible. I can not express in words how much i hate that menu system.

....there are so many problems, i feel i could go on forever. (...)Oh and boy, i think they need to stress that all those gameplay shots were from PC because the PS3 version, which apparently is the best looking console version, looks a lot like BC2 with a few more lighting effects >.>

Garnett was way off with his comments about BattleLog and COD Elite.

Elite is FREE for everyone who buys MW3, you only have to pay if you want to become a premium member.

With FREE Elite you get:
-Career Profile (this includes all of the stats, performance tracking, recent match logs etc.)
-Acces to ELite on PC, consoles and mobile devices.
-Performance analysis (including stuff like heat-maps, strategies, weapon performance, guides etc.)
-customizing load-outs through Elite
-Track and compare alll stats with other players
-Public groups
-Theater mode
-Clan options

The important thing is that all of this free content is far superior to Battle Log, and it is also FREE.

The premium service gives you:
-The DLC
-The Competitions and League events
-Strategy videos and professional tgactics (whatever that is)
-Extra clan emblems
-Elite TV
-Premium groups
-more HD storage for the Theater

I realise I must come across like an Activision rep or something, I'm just tired of all the hate towards a game that I love. I remember a few months back you had a DJ on the show who also talked about his annoyance with all the COD hate that circulates within the gaming community.

Of all the elements of the new Ninja Gaiden game to potentially worry about, I'm pretty sure the storyline is at the bottom of the list.

Seriously, it's not like Ninja Gaiden has ever had a story that made a lick of sense.

I think the game looks pretty cool. People seem to be down on the notion of focusing on the act of cutting through people, with the blade slowing down as it sinks into flesh, forcing the player to mash a button to finish the kill.

I think it could work. Action games to me are all about finding a rhythm, so if they build the encounters and enemies to work within a new rhythm, then it can work. If they try and force this slower mechanic into the same balls-out, never-slow-down frame-work of Ninja Gaiden 2, then they're fucked.

BTW. I completed Ninja Gaiden Black and Ninja Gaiden 2 on Master Ninja difficulty. So I'm definitely looking forward to NG3.

Season pass are a scam. Unless they announce everything in the package, your probably not getting what you want. Side stories how many people just play death match waste of money for them. Multiplayer maps, how many just play singleplayer and horde, again a waste.

It's effictivelly going to the grocery store the manager saying give me $30 and you'll save $15 with all the stuff I bring back. Then him buying you a bunch of food your allergic too, pretty much useless to you!

If they announce it ahead of time I'd be much more interested, otherwise I feel I'd be wasting my money.

On the topic of JRPGs, the game you guys probably should have been talking about was Xenoblade Chronicles. I haven't played it myself, but I've heard it described as "the best JRPG of this generation" and "the game Final Fantasy XIII should have been".

Unfortunately, this game will continue to go unnoticed because a) it's on Wii, and b) Nintendo doesn't think it will sell in the states and won't release it here.

Sadly, they're probably right.

Is it annoying to anyone else the constant use of the term post-apocalyptic world, rather than the term post-cataclysmic world. It's just one of those stupid pet peeves I have every time someone say post-apocalyptic world I'm always screaming "no you damn fool that mean NO survivors!" it gets me every damn time:)

I know that everyone has forgotten about it (including Square Enix) Final Fantasy versus 13 looks like it is doing alot of what you guys are describing about modernizing the JRPG sub-genre

It would be nice if we had more than a few minutes of footage (both CG teaser and gameplay) over the last FIVE YEARS. Seriously Square?! I get it, SE takes it's time with developing products, thats great, more power to you. But you couldn't have shown or mentioned anything at TGS?
/rant

You guys are way off base about Square. Their biggest problem isn't in their game design philosophy (no, it's their second biggest), it's in workflow and efficiency. How many years ago was Versus announced again...?

However, one thing about your discussion of traditional RPG systems did resonate with me, though. Final Fantasy, as a series, tends to reinvent itself from one game to the next; many critics cite this as the series's greatest strength, the thing that keeps it (barely) insulated from accusations that JRPGs are stale and safe. I agree to an extent, but I also think that this compulsion to reinvent itself can be a weakness.

Lots of my favorite games this generation are vastly improved sequels to bold but flawed experiments; Assassin's Creed 2 and Uncharted 2 come to mind. The strength of these second tries is that they already have a solid base on which to improve, both conceptually and in the actual game engine they use. Final Fantasy, on the other hand, tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I would kill a man to give Square another shot with the broken-as-hell Junction system from FFVIII, but they'll never do it, not in a million years.

What about you guys? What do you think of FF's compulsion to reinvent itself every time? Strength? Weakness? Some of both?

Garnett returns and Xav is suddenly "sick"?

Shenanigans.