Weekend Confirmed 137 - Halo 4, Assassin's Creed 3

By Andrew Yoon, Nov 02, 2012 11:00am PDT

Halo 4 is pretty darn good. And hosts Garnett Lee and Jeff Cannata have to agree. They talk all about the single-player campaign in this week's show. Then, Andrew Yoon talks about why Assassin's Creed 3 disappointed him, and special guest Christian Spicer talks about the Vita spin-off, Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 136: 11/02/2012

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 137 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, Part 1 - 00:00:26 - 00:12:36

    Round 1, Part 2 - 00:13:14 - 00:28:39

    Whatcha Been Playin Part 1 - 00:29:06 - 00:58:27

    Whatcha Been Playin Part 2 - 00:59:09 - 01:28:15

    Listener Feedback/Front Page News - 01:29:18 - 02:07:48

    Tailgate - 02:08:23 - 02:19:12

Follow the Weekend Confirmed crew on Twitter, too!

Weekend Confirmed @WeekendConfirmd

Garnett Lee @GarnettLee

Jeff Cannata @jeffcannata

Andrew Yoon @scxzor

Christian Spicer @spicer

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...


  • Hopefully it won't be for quite some time until the games journalism 'debate' comes up again, considering how much of an undying beast this topic always seems to be (and seemingly with little to no evolving arguments).

    I personally treat the writing, editorial and investigative, similarly to how sports journalism gets covered.

    Player contracts and trades, punishments and fines, behaviours, etc. are often revealed through PR unless it was something that was dug out as a scoop, or something that was leaked by an anonymous source, in which case the PR response is inevitable, much like with gaming where the more certain rumors get thrown out, the more it is the PR responsibility to address it. This is usually pretty general stuff; stuff that most people are interested in first and foremost. Everything else that is beyond gaming/sports that specifically delve into personnel profiles and/or specific process to me falls under investigative/ background pieces. The pieces to me are not for those who only want the stuff on games/sports, but are an absolute bonus for those who are interested; providing it is done right. It is totally extracurricular for me, and you can take it or leave it.

    For investigative/ background pieces, the best analogy I can give for both the "how it should be done" and the "how to do it in the worst way" appeared in the ESPN magazine: Michael Vick issue, which came out last year. Apologies in advance if you're not a sports person, as this is the best analogy I can give (you can just look it up yourself to see the negatives). I'll start with the worst way first.

    So in the ESPN Michael Vick issue, one of the main controversial articles was based on "What if Michael Vick was white?". Not only was this uninteresting (and not to mention making him out to be a Vanilla Ice knock-off that even the original would be embarrassed to be associated with), but it was clearly baiting for controversy and not even informative.

    This would be like a hypothetical article about: "What if Itagaki didn't like boobs so much; How would Dead or Alive turn out?" Why on the surface the title is preposterous (and my generate some cheap giggles), what use could a (hypothetical) article like this have?

    Now for the positives. In the same Michael Vick issue, there was an investigative piece that focused on Michael Vick going into jail, his experience, and the aftermath of it all (from his friends and relatives). This now is something that is much more interesting as it humanizes athletes that we've deemed fallen athletes (who had risen, though it is debatable if he has fallen again based on this year). Not only that, but the article was written in such a way that it doesn't force sides for you to take. It doesn't ask you to take sides. All it did in a very good way, was present the facts and perspectives, and let that speak for itself so you as the reader could have an opinion.

    To me, this is very close to the piece ran a few years back (I think it was a Wired article) that covered the rise and fall of Duke Nukem Forever (this was before it was bought by Gearbox). All the facts were presented, most of the personnel perspectives were sought after. This was an absolutely compelling piece that illustrated so many hazards and lessons from behind the scenes. Again, while all this is really fascinating, you do not need to read all this stuff as companion to your gaming; but it certainly does shed light on certain things as a bonus, if you do read about it (i.e. most of the gaming experience and levels on Duke Nukem Forever).

    I loved that Garnett straight up addressed the notion of 'not being journalists, but maintaining journalistic integrity' (apologies if I paraphrased it incorrectly). Jeff was spot on with the reasoning for why Dan doesn't do movie reviews anymore (so THAT'S why he's never present...), nor review games that are sponsored by the company that made them (I remember AC: Brotherhood being the case, and Jeff reiterating all this). You write and present your views that informs people, and it is up to them whether they take it or leave it, as long as you do it with no conflict of interest. Again, why Ariel isn't on the show while she works at Sony(?), nor with past guests like Shane Bettenhausen.

    I also think this is where the notion of journalism confuses people; those that are knee deep in the hobby feel compelled to address the coverage and writing of gaming as something that should be much higher than it should be. Every time this sort of treatment comes up, I always feel that the 'hardcore' are just doing the impossible and forcing people to like what they themselves like, which to me is pretty insulting.

    Phew, that was long winded. Apologies in advance as I haven't been on the forums for ages, so I guess I blew my load in one big burst (hey yo!).