Weekend Confirmed 133 - Resident Evil 6, Tokyo Jungle, Borderlands 2

By Jeff Mattas, Oct 05, 2012 11:00am PDT

On this week's episode of Weekend Confirmed, host Garnett Lee is joined by Jeff Cannata and Nikole Zivalich to dissect new games like Resident Evil 6, the animal-laden Tokyo Jungle, Pokemon Black 2, and to chat a bit more about the loot-filled Borderlands 2. Finishing Moves wraps things up, followed by the post-show NFL TailGate.

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 133: 10/05/2012

Subscription Links:

Here's a handy pop-up player so you can listen from right here on the page. Let us know how it works for you.

If you're viewing this in the GameFly application, you can play Weekend Confirmed Episode 133 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:

    Show Breakdown:

    Round 1 00:00:30 – 00:28:16

    Whatcha Been Playing Part 1 00:28:51 – 00:59:11

    Whatcha Been Playing Part 2 01:00:42 – 01:28:12

    Listener Feedback/Front Page News 01:29:02 – 02:05:15

    TailGate 02:05:57 – 02:18:16

Follow the Weekend Confirmed crew on Twitter, too!

Weekend Confirmed @WeekendConfirmd

Garnett Lee @GarnettLee

Jeff Cannata @jeffcannata

Nikole Zivalich @NikoleZ

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.

Original music in the show by Del Rio. Get his latest Album, Club Tipsy 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.

Click here to comment...


  • I apologize in advance for this rambling (error littered) message, I am in the middle of some homework and was listening to Weekend Confirmed and had to get this off my chest.

    I think Jeff’s statement around the 33rd to 34th minute about the wrongheadedness of art. His claim that the leaders make money in the long term while followers only make money in the short term seems a little too general. I am really honing in on that line because I feel like that claim is wrong more often than not when it comes to videogames.

    I think the videogames industry is littered with examples of instances where followers make money. Considering all the sequels and reboots, it is easy for somebody not involved in the industry (other than playing games) to see why developers get the impression that new, innovating mechanics and games don’t make money (enough to run a huge studio) and turn instead to copycat games. Now before you shoot me in the parking lot over this next part, I love all of these games: look at almost every Zelda game after OoT (with a lot of similar elements), look at every Halo game, look at every Uncharted game, look at all the JRPGs in the PS1/2 era, Madden, COD, etc… – you could make a strong argument that from a bird’s-eye view these are games that are the same and they are hugely successful franchises. If I were a developer I could look at the industry, look at what actually sells (not this lala land stuff where innovative games all make money in the undefined “long term” and see what games sell enough copies to actually run a large studio. I think developers look and see COD and Halo and Madden at the top of the sales charts and think “that is what consumers are buying, lets make a similar game.” As for “long term” success, what the heck do you mean by long term? In the accounting sense, it means greater than a year – and in that sense I’ll say there are plenty of repetitive franchises and games that are successful after one-year. But I will say after 5 years, after console generation, there are markedly fewer that still can maintain that success (though rereleasing games and making old games available for download on consoles and PCs has the potential to change this). You could make the argument that there is no long-term success in videogames, as true success for a game (mainstream or indy) seems to be determined by sales figures in the launch window.

    I think for every innovative game that sells well, there are plenty of innovative games that don’t – being aware that what is innovative is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with Jeff that games like Amnesia are doing innovative things and are selling well – but that game wasn’t a $60 retail console game, that game’s developer probably didn’t have the overhead of a huge studio to eat into that margin. They oftentimes sold that game on a Steam sale for something like 5-10$, maybe less. If you really want innovative games, look to a lot of the developers in the PC space. However, I think it is very tough to draw some kind of parallel between the studio that made Amnesia and the one that Made RE6 (Capcom) – one has a lower overhead and can afford to take risks (I think you know which).

    I know that this is a bit of a rambling message, but I felt somewhat passionate about this subject (not that I care for RE6). It seems like the whole industry (largely on the console side) is built on repetitive, uncreative games. But reviewers and people in general will get games in genres they love and look for the innovative parts (new health system, new HUD, new battle rifle, whatever) and assign that to the game as whole, when if you take a step back and compare it with what came before – they’re the same freaking game more or less! It is nice to be a reviewer and a consumer and to be able to pick and choose your battles and poo-poo one game for lack of innovation as a whole but adore another that may actually be less innovative because you love the franchise or whatever. I’m not saying loving or hating the repetitive/innovative is wrong – but I just think that if you put yourself in the shoes of a large developer with all the problems and benefits that go with it, you’ll be able to empathize with why they make the decisions they do about the content of their games.