Weekend Confirmed 148 - Disney Infinity, Path of Exile, CES 2013, video game legislation

This week it was hard to decide if I was listening to Weekend Confirmed, or the NRA discussing Kindegarten Shooting simulator, they both seemed to have the same amount of reasoned arguments.

I've been listening regularly for the last year, and have really enjoyed the show for the most part, but this last show has made me consider dropping it from my rotation.

While I enjoyed the format, this week made me feel like the cast is completely out of touch with "average joe" gamer (which when they say it comes off as derisive).
While it started with BBT, and regardless of whether or not one likes the show, criticism should be based on actual knowledge or experience, and not simply what someone else told you. Credit that to Jeff Mattis, making statements while admitting he had never watched the show.

Then Garnett goes on talking about glorification of violence and decides to make an example of Hunger Games teaching girls how to shoot a bow and arrow and kill each other. Obviously, Garnett has not actually read or seen the dystopian young adult novel or movie, or he would understand the context of violence and its presence.

Honestly, I know this will never get to the eyes of the creative staff of the show, but it would really behoove the show to step out of the ivory tower and away from the Disney catered lunches before they lose relevance.

I have been a long, long time listener (many years of 1Up Yours), and I love all of you guys, but I just had to login and say that I think it has really been going off the rails of late. The new format is a really bad idea, and the first segment is exactly why: you spent a quarter of the show talking about this new Disney toy that none of you (even Andrea) will ever play. It's going to be like Skylanders, and make a bunch of money, and none of you nor your target audience is the least bit interested. It was worth maybe 10 minutes of chatter, but you gave Andrea her own segment, and that was her idea to talk about, so the opening quarter of the show was gone just like that.

The advantage that you guys have over me talking on the phone with my little brother is that you have access to all the games, often in advance. I listen to your show to get excited about games and hear about new ones. That's why Whatcha Been Playin should be the opening hour (at least) of every show. If a new game comes out (like DMC), you need to get somebody on the show who has played it, because that's what we want to hear about! There have been several weeks lately where nobody talked about what they had been playing at all, except for Jeff Mattis rattling off titles in finishing moves. The last thing I want to listen to is another discussion of where Diablo 3 went wrong or what needs to change in modern MMOs. You guys aren't game designers, and you're not good at game theory. What you're good at is playing games and talking about that experience in an entertaining way.

Nintendo announced a new Mario. And a new Zelda. And a new Mario Kart.... and probably a few other things, I'm not sure, I fell asleep watching the video, cause I got so bored.

I think I've finally checked out when it comes to Nintendo's core franchises. I mean, for all the shit that COD and Assassin's Creed and other franchises get for iterating and milking the cow so hard it develops udder cancer, Nintendo has finally hit the tipping point with me where I just no longer give a shit about their games.

Most of them. That Yoshi game could be fun, and I enjoyed Kirby's Epic Yarn on a purely superficial level (it was just so darn CUTE, even if it was ridiculously easy).

Games like the new Monolith RPG, the Shin Megaten/ Fire Emblem crossover could be interesting depending on exactly what genre it is.

But yeah, the days of me buying a console day one just for the promise of the new Mario or the new Zelda has apparently passed me by.

Jeff I think you'd be surprised at what kids are capable of when it comes to building things in video games. My 5 and 7 year old boys constantly readjust my expectations of what kids are capable of. My oldest has created some stunning tracks in the Trials Evolution track editor. Their little brains are amazing. I think a make-and-play style aspect for that Disney game could be really appealing to little'ns.

I take issue with the notion that the games industry needs to tone down the violence in it's content and it's advertising.

To the guy who was sad his wife didn't like the commercials for games, here's a hint: Those games weren't made for or designed for people like your wife. In a shocking twist of fate that may shatter your very worldview, not all games are made to appeal to all people.

IMO the issue with games is not the level of violence, it's the fact that there's no other content to balance it out. If we look at movies and movie advertisements for example, there's plenty of violence and shooting. Django Unchained and it's ilk are plenty violent, they're just counter-balanced by the fact that you have 100 or so chick-flicks, comedies, dramas and other genres.

The gaming industry doesn't need to adjust it's image by way of toning down the violence. It needs to adjust it's image to make sure that there's a wide breadth of content for a wide breath of consumer. That way, this dude's wife can get as queasy as she wants over shooters or assassin's creed 3, cause there will be commercial a few minutes later for some game about a working professional woman trying to balance her career goals with the hilarious missteps in her dating life (or something).

*Note: The Dead Island promotion was created for exactly the reaction this show gave it. Not one single person was going to buy the new Dead Island for a damn Zombie torsoe, but I can guarantee you the number of mentions of Facebook and throughout the media ensures that everybody in the target audience knows the game is coming out.

Pouring one out for THQ.

They tried to do things the right way, investing in great games and cool ideas (which to be fair, didn't always line up... looking at you, Homefront).

Sadly, they picked the wrong time in a generation to make the switch from a company built on licensed crap to a company built on great games, and they flubbed a few major gambles.

Hopefully the companies that picked the bones will do right by the developers they picked up. If Sega fucks up Relic, I will fly to Japan myself and burn Sonic in effigy outside their headquarters.

Oh, and Ubisoft picking up South Park and THQ Montreal? Awesome. Granted, it's a little hilarious that the original AC lead is back making games under the Ubisoft banner, and a little scary to think how much of the game development scene in Montreal Ubisoft has their fingers in. Still, they know their shit, and I have great hope for both games.

I have never been more angry and disappointed when listening to an episode of WC than I was during this one.

I don't like FPS most of the time or Zombie games for that matter but I would not have the presumption to tell and bully companies about how they market their product. It is ludicrous to me that people think they are somehow justified in doing that.

As consumers it is not our job to regulate marketing, it is our job to choose from the materials presented whether it jives and purchase it. Marketing and ads and promotional materials should be allowed to be grotesque and out of taste if that is a good reflection of the final product.

It comes off more as people who are ashamed of video games and are afraid of any bit of content that falls outside their acceptable taste line. Hey guess what NOT every product is intended for everyone therefore it shouldn't be assumed that every product should be advertised and promoted for everyone. I am sorry to the guy from last week but I would guess no matter how they advertise Assassin's Creed 3 or Battlefield 3 your wife isn't going to to want to play them for reasons deeper than just those ads.

This is just more examples of how the rise of nerd culture makes me want to disengage entirely from it.

On violence and video games...

Although I agree on many things brought up on the podcast, especially the role of marketing, I think it's easy to miss the bigger picture. To me it's no big surprise that school shootings of various magnitudes are not uncommon in the States. America has a hurting economy and is getting increasingly insecure in terms of social welfare and labor. Combine this with very lax weapon regulations and powerful lobbyist groups - it's a seedbed for trouble.

Now, I actually do believe that video games influence people to some degree. Most of the times though, it's something that most people are able to cope with. The key thing to understand is that while violent games (as well as other media) are not the actual CAUSE of real-life violence, they might serve as the EXPRESSION for how real-life violence manifests itself. While regulating the games industry to some degree would probably be a good thing, the root cause of the problem lies somewhere else.

Can someone explain exactly how the bill is a bad thing? It won't stop kids from buying video games. People often underestimate kids want for the out of reach material that is not for them.

You have seen it in comics, in movies and most especially in music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tkS8khyBou0#t=1576s

Hell you would almost think any savvy publisher would want the controversy / warning labels all over the games. I do remember back on 1UP Yours that John Davison was talking about how the kids he was dealing with already had plans how to get GTAIV months before that came out.

Kids want the violent, weird, other products and they will always find ways to get them (my friends older brother buying him Perfect Dark was my earliest encounter with this.)

Andrea says she had a problem with games like Battlefield 3 being too real, but says she shanked everyone in Dishonored? In My experience with Battlefield, it's about playing the objectives and teamwork, not about killing everyone, while in Dishonored, the killing was much more played up. Did anyone elae find this backward?

On the subject of Big Bang Theory, the reason I find it enjoyable is that I can relate to each one of them minus Wolowitz in most of his situations. Whether that is unfortunate or not, is your own opinion. I can be very misunderstanding of sarcasm, and I argue most of my discussions logically like Sheldon. I struggle to this day to talk to girls like Raj, though alcohol not required to talk just ask one out. I remember an episode a few seasons ago that discussed the "Death of Batman" as it was occurring in comics, and I have had many discussions like that in real life about comics. Heck, I have had that regular schedule of going to the comic book store for new books on Wednesday. I have dressed up for a San Diego Comic Con as The Question. I do idolize characters that are brought onto the show like Lavar Burton as a Next Generation fan. I have done the video game nights. I would also drop what I'm doing to go see a Indiana Jones screening in a theater like they did.

These are characters that are based on true archetypes, that not only do I represent but I have also interacted with since at least middle school(Pogs, Magic the Gathering back then). I've known people excited to get that Battlestar Galactica toast, or Star Wars toaster related imprint. These types of characteristics are exaggerated in this show, but in my experience have hit the nail on the head of a few people I personally met through my life. I find it entertaining that the show brings them out, and puts them in situations I'm too familiar with as examples in the previous paragraph support too.

The article points to the show being a mockery of the culture I embrace. That, like any nerd, dissecting and analyzing the points in which people laugh shows it isn't with them but at them. A perfect example of what he refers to in his article would be the football episode. In this episode, Leonard learned football to hang out with Penny for her football Saturdays. I know people who would do things during the game like Leonard did, and found it a funny episode and a favorite of mine. They are things I have seen friends do too. I don't view it as mockery per the article, but telling the truth of the story. My main issues with the show are the popularization of phrases like "Bazinga" and the exaggeration of how they play things like Wii Sports. Regardless, at the end of it, I'm not offended by it but rather excited moment to moment by it still(There was a Tardis in the Halloween episode!). Because, whether I like it or not, I've been in many of those situations before and relate to them a bit too closely.

Regarding the "1%" argument, is it fair to assume that "1%" is shorthand "any chance at all"? If that is the case, I don't think it is unfathomable to hypothesize that banning violent movies, games and music might have a small chance at preventing an act of senseless violence. There are many psychologists who find that fantasizing about acts of violence is not a healthy way of dealing with stress or more serious mental ailments. Violent video games (as well as other violent media, depending on the context) are ostensibly violent fantasies.

Do I think violent media should be banned? No, we have a First Amendment to prevent that. I do think, however, people who enjoy violent games are quick to exonerate them of any negative social impact. It may sound callous in the wake of tragedy, but the violent media debate and the gun control debate are not necessarily about right and wrong. The question at the heart of both of them is: how much freedom do you want to give up for security? Every society must decide where they want to set that balance.

i found you discussion about violence in video games very interesting, because i'm only 14 a lot of my friends go for the big triple A tiles like a halo,COD or AC because lets be honest teenagers aren't looking for a deep story they are looking for a fast paced game that gets there adrenaline running. but i find myself different i seem to enjoy games like journey and fez. as well. don't get me wrong i like the triple A titles it's just i play them for the story and the connections i get with other charcters. Another thing is i'm Australian so we don't have a R rating for games so Games like the walking dead, Syndicate and Mortal combat never came out here because are government hasn't woken up and realized games aren't like pong or space invaders anymore. So the sooner the non gamers realize that games like journey can show kids and adults that life is one big journey rather then think games like COD are to practice killing for the real world.

The new format is great.

One thing that kind of got swept asides during the Diablo 3 / Path of exile discussion was Andrea's comment about it being a different time when Diablo 2 was released.

Like Garnett, I wasn't as taken with Diablo 3 as 2 and part of it is this. There simply wasn't a lot of that style of game when 2 came out.

I think the discussion on realistic video game violence in this episode was interesting because it is indicative of how the community as a whole views violence in the medium. As soon as Andrea expressed her opinion on violence in games being too realistic, everyone was quick to put her in the "well that's your opinion" box.

So does anyone think that video games can ever go too far or be too realistic as far as violence is concerned? Is there a too much? Most people agree that violence against women, sexual violence, violence targeting minorities, and violence against children are too far. I agree but I'm not talking about those categories. People also like to set the narrative/artistic context requirement and fine, lets say that whatever violent act in a game that we are discussing has that. Even under those circumstances, is there a limit to how violent a game should be? Is there a line for you personally that you prefer not to cross even in the most artistic game? If so, what is it?

Final fantasy all the bravest is getting awful reviews, and I completely agree and disagree????

All right let me explain the music is awesome, and the combat looks great. Then when looking for depth it never really shows up, but I LOVE the game.

Why you ask? Well my 18 month daughter, that's right! Most of the stuff she uses on the iPhone or iPad is fisher price, but she absolutely adores this game. She just swipes the whole screen and stuff happens to really good music. She can only take so much of numbers, shapes, and letters after all:)

I have to admit I was a little surprised to hear the crew's opinion of The Big Bang Theory. It's one thing to not enjoy the show because you don't think it's funny, after all humor (especially sitcom humor) is highly subjective. But not liking the show because it "makes fun of" geek culture?

No offense, but you all sounded like bunch of oversensitive babies. Are you looking to be coddled by your entertainment? Are you only satisfied when video games and the people who play them are being portrayed as hip, cool and attractive? A lot of us have flaws that are kind of funny. Is it wrong to laugh at ourselves a little?

Most comedy comes from laughing at our flaws.

So I have been thinking about Jeffs idea of a "physical object" being included in games to help with resale and piracy. This is what I've been thinking. What if the new consoles had some kind of NFC built into the box itself and games came simply with a small card. Each console would come with a folder of sorts with slots for the cards so that they would be easy to store without loss. Upon opening the game you would simply pull out the card and place it in the folder which is kept on top of the console. When you started the game it would link your user name to the card which in turn would grant you the license for the game. The cards would be single user so that if the game disc was sold it would require the new owner to purchase a new card to play the full game (the disc itself would allow a trial version of the game to be played), which would allow publishers to make money on used games. Cards could be customized for each game and save game data could be held on them as well so that if I wanted to take my save game to another xbox I would just place my folder near my buddies XBox and my save game would become available. With no save game data held on the hard disk itself it would free up more memory on the console. Not to mention you wouldn't need a display case to hold a bunch figures, just a simple folder.

It's my first post here, but I've been listening to you guys for the past 2 years, and I watch the daily show on YouTube (you really should make that a bigger show). Thought I'd just comment on a couple of things:

The new format is interesting, and it worked well enough, though when I first listened to how it was supposed to work my first thought was: "Isn't that just a ridiculously long Finishing Move?' It's not that different from what you guys normally do, it's more focused. Most pre-show videos I saw had guests including things they wanted to talk about on the list of show topics. I wonder how the format will work when there is more to talk about (come March it'll probably be chaos).

I agree with Jeff Mattis, that I want to punch hipster Dante in the face... Yet is it worth a buy?

About The Big Bang Theory... I think we're giving too much credit to someone's tumbler article, even more since it makes some ridiculously silly points. After listening to the show I went out and read it, and in fairness I should have known what I was getting into when I read that the author was sick and tired of having people defend the show. When the very notion of people liking a show makes someone angry, you can know a pretty close-minded rambling is to follow.

Some of the points are really baffling, saying that if you think the show's funny you're looking at the show through Penny's eyes... The show creates a contrast between how 'normal people' and geeks behave. And the vast majority of the time, the nerds are shown in a majorly positive light. And if we're laughing 'at' them... Guess what, that's what every sitcom does. Community does it... a lot. The difference is that Abed is one of the characters, so it's not focused entirely on his behaviour. That Jeff Winger gives a speech on the pilot episode, where he praises every character having barely met them in a rather ridiculous manner only so the group can be together and he can get together with Britta (the joke there is the cynicism of his character), is used as evidence to Abed's treatment by the group should tell you quite a lot about the reasoning within the article.

The article specifically brings up the fact that nerds have always been described as people the protagonists avoided. Here's a show where geeks are at the forefront, being described as really nice, professionally successful people who have their own passions and are not, for the most part, afraid of showing their love for fantasy, sci-fi, etc, and it's wrong because it accurately reflects that outside their comfort zone their demeanor would be considered 'weird'? Yes people, it's weird to be out late to watch a new cut of Indiana Jones. And the ultimate message of the show is somewhat similar to what I feel: Yes it's normally considered 'weird' to be ridiculously excited by wanting to buy a new issue of 'The Boys', or the Blu-Ray collector's edition of Blade Runner, but this is my passion and I'm excited about this. So to hell with all the rest.

In every sitcom we know the characters, experience moments where they are ridiculed, laugh at the situation, and because of what they went through we feel closer to them. Just because a show is making fun of stuff I like, suddenly it's wrong and 'offensive' (I'm really beggining to hate this word)? Like it or not, if we live in a world where it's more acceptable to behave like a nerd (like Jeff said on a TRS episode: 'We won'), quite a large portion (I hesitate in saying 'the majority') of the reason why comes directly from this show. Hating it because it dares to make fun of something we like, or of people we identify with, really doesn't negate any of that.

In the end, if we're laughing 'at' them yet at the same time advancing the acceptance of Nerd culture, our culture, to more and more people, then that, to me, is the deffiniton of us laughing 'with' them.

P.S.: As a disclaimer, I've seen the first, what, three seasons of TBBT, and a few episodes here and there since then. I do think Community is a better show, and my favorite comedy, though when Arrested Development season 4 comes out on Netflix that may change.

About BBT: The show does nothing more or less for a subset of archetypes than any sitcom past or present. Some get offended by it - some point out that the nerds are successful and are making strides in their lives by getting through their emotional quirks and boundaries. Some don't think it's funny, some think it's endearing. All I know is, the focus on discussing whether or not BBT is worthwhile is tantamount to acting just like the nerds from the show. A criticism that came up is that the show is shallow - outside of gameplay experiences that range from completely derivative to actual originality, how shallow are the worlds, characters, and stories we get in most video games? I'd much rather discuss how we can change that - to the extent that we can, given the juggernauts of the industry glorify violence, and what company is really going to give that up? Isn't this much more interesting than trying to state that Penny is the foil to the nerds' nerd exploits when in reality she's a failed actress working part time at the Cheesecake factory while the nerds have masters/Ph.Ds and actually have character growth, unlike the 'jock' stereotype on the show?

Glorifying violence: ya no, Hunger Games doesn't do it.

About the new format: I love it, but you have to stick with it. Work out the kinks! Don't just give it up, the old format was stale.

About Disney Infinity, re: creativity ala LBP and Minecraft: Definitely, Infinity looks much more like LBP than MC. Repurposing assets to create something fun and exciting - I don't get what's wrong with this? Minecraft is literally creating everything from the ground up, but there are people (like myself), who don't enjoy it. It's also really bizarre that Jeff brought up, as a negative, that you have to create your own games in DI, that he dislikes re-purposing assets as opposed to ground-up creation, but doesn't bring up that in Minecraft, there's very little to do before you use your imagination. Just a weird little quirk in the discussion. At least I can use Disney characters for some fun little racer as opposed to having to create that same Disney character, then the racer.

RE Disney Infinity - If you think about it, Disney characters don't usually overlap into each other's story world's. (i.e. Ariel does not show up as a mermaid in Peter Pan or the Dalmatian puppies are not in Lady & the Tramp for example) When kids play with toys however, all bets are off - like the way Andy plays in the Toy Story movies for example.

It seems to me that the concept of Disney Infinity is to allow me to play with the characters Mike and Sully in a 'stand-alone' Monsters Inc. game experience or 'set'. Then I can take Mike or Sully and use them with Mr. Incredible, or Jack Sparrow in the 'toy box' mode which is like a Minecraft-like canvas of objects and attributes brought to the play space by the characters of those contributing worlds.

The conceit of the character design, (stylized maquettes(sp?)), is likely so that Disney canon is not broken and actual characters are not seen to be intermingling with each other - only their 'toy-like' representations.

I think Disney may have a tiger by the tail here.

Having read the post on The Big Bang Theory, referenced in this week’s show, I came away wondering what show was being described – and really, in a larger sense, what comedy show *isn’t* guilty of some or all of the exact same criticisms being leveled here and, more importantly, if they really should be treated as valid in the first place?

If you think TBBT sets up the audience to laugh only ‘at’ the characters I think you’re missing the point and you’re dead wrong. I don’t think there’s been a sitcom, since the dawn of the art form, that doesn’t include characters whom we are meant to laugh ‘at’ so I’m not sure how TBBT stands out in this regard or should be somehow set aside as a special case.

Furthermore the suggestion that Penny is the person the audience is meant to identify with as the, “normal”, person in this group is wholly untrue. I have little in common with this woman and I’m not sure why anyone would suggest that a wannabe actress whose only accomplishment on the show has been a hemorrhoid commercial and rep-theatre production of RENT over a bowling alley, is somehow the ‘safe zone’ for the rest of us is, well, just not seeing the same show I’m seeing.

TBBT is successful as a comedy for many reasons. Yes there is referential humor but I’m not prepared to ditch Family Guy, Seinfeld and countless others for exactly the same reason as Jeff C alluded to I think. We all share quirks of personality - all sitcoms are ‘guilty’ of exaggerating these traits to bring about amusement. Where this tumblr commentary goes off the rails for me is in the assertion that we, the audience, are somehow in on the joke and are mean-spirited because of it – that these characters are people we wouldn’t associate with otherwise. That’s just plain ridiculous.

Putting it more bluntly, the way-over-the-top insensitivity ascribed to the creative impulse behind TBBT is simply unfair in my opinion. To suggest that simple ridicule and debasement of these characters is the only reason they get laughs would also be to suggest that I Love Lucy should be torn down as a bad example of what a housewife should be, or Felix Unger for being fastidiously tidy, that Deputy Barney Fife can’t tie his shoes straight much less catch crooks or that Ted Baxter is just a blow-hard in an empty suit doing the news. I’m sorry, if you’re going to suggest the laughter I found in the portrayal of Edith Bunker was ONLY because she was somewhat of a nincompoop, then you’re missing out on a lot of what makes comedy such a strong and, yes sometimes, meaningful escape.

We can’t all like the same thing so I’m glad we have a variety of choices in our entertainment. If you think TBBT’s purpose is simply to give you a virtual wedgie and take your lunch money well I’m sorry you feel that way. Please know that I don’t think you are worthless as a person because you like to alphabetize your DVD’s or attend the odd comic book convention. (I do both as well.) If that’s truly a source of insecurity for you then television is probably too much for you in general - much less the mostly benign, and sometimes banal, humor found in The Big Bang Theory.

Finally project X was announced for North America this summer:)

So the WiiU games announcement last week. Ultimate monster hunter that the game is going to have voice chat. This has me excited to actually play the game:) need for speed coming to the WiiU awesome. I want to play DmC but I'm going to hold off and hope for a Goat edition on the WiiU.

Lego city undercover coming out the same day as UMH which game do you choose?

Pikmin and the 101 being delayed yeah it sucks, but as long as they're are good game when they come out I don't really care:)

Jeff C, I had a strange thought hearing you talk about Diablo 3, and the way you express creativity.

Do you partake in Pokemon? If not, I would strongly recommend you jump in.

The gameplay is extremely simple, perfectly suited to portable gaming, but there's so many permutations of how you build your team, and the fights with the gym leaders encourages you to learn their strengths and weaknesses and swap out team members strategically, and the game is balanced in such a way that there is no optimal team build. All your Pokemon are going to be weak to something.

Granted, if you get into tournaments or online PVP, you're going against breeders and EV trainers, and people with a stable of lvl100 legendaries that they collected from all the previous games, but that doesn't preclude you from trading or battling with your friends.

The stories of these games are dumb as dumb gets, but they're bursting with whimsy. There's really a lot to like.

Hello to the WC crew and all the Shackers, I have been a long time lurker, but after listening to the last episode, I had to come out of hiding.

What really surprised me is the hate on Big Bang Theory, especially the amount of venom coming at the show because it works with the stereotypes of nerds and geeks "as seen by the producers". Well, I don´t know Chuck Lorre or Bill Prady, but I would argue they used to be more geeks in their youth, than jocks. So they probably know something about it.

What is more important though, the stereotypes are not only with the nerds (the four guys), but basically with ALL THE CHARACTERS on the show. The fun factor is not in the plain "DnD jokes" (which the author of the article took out of a working context to make his point), but with the interactions that happen in situations when the "geeks meet the normal people".

I respect that the WC crew has an opinion and (for various reasons) don´t like the show, but I was taken aback by the credit that was given to a random, poorly argumented and out of the context-written blogpost. Not only by the WC crew but also by Ben Kuchera at Penny Arcade. Why?

I am totally OK with people not liking the show, because I can enjoy it nevertheless. What struck me was the campaign against a show that is anything but a "swing at a nerd". It is poking fun at us, sure, but have we become so self-entitled and serious, that we can´t laugh at the things we do and, honestly, obsess about?

Because it is a bit dissonant if we hate the show for showing us a (hyperbolic, yet somewhat true) reflection of ourselves and then go and talk about... Skylanders and Disney Infinity.

On the subject of coop in games like diablo 3 and borderlands 2 . . .

I think it's arguable that the most innovative coop experience this year wasn't BL2 or Diablo, it was Journey. While the other games are mastering drop in / drop out, the fun falls apart when playing with randoms. Journey delved deeper and analyzed the psychology of coop. In most games, coop breaks immersion, but Journey figured out how being anonymous could enhance the experience and deepen immersion rather than take away from it.

So my question to the weekend confirmed crew is this: how or what should Borderlands 3, Diablo 4, and Halo 5 learn from Journey?

You know the argument that never seems to come up is that almost every kid in America has grown up while we have been at war. No kid under the age 11/12 has known a day where were not at war. Every young adult in there early twenties had their formative years shaped around an active war. That means their friends, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, etc could all be involved in this protracted conflict.

While we are siting all the games, books, and movies why not talk about one of the biggest influences real life conflict going on all the time. I am not pro or anti war, but to ignore the elephant in the corner seems odd to me.

Hey guys, just thought I'd dip in and give my two cents about the new format:

I really do like the idea. I'm generally less a fan of rigidly structured media, but it's hard to strike a balance between that and anarchy, I know. This seems like it could be really cool. The only thing I would really have to suggest - and I know I'm not the first - is to really trust each person to host their own segment. I know that it's the first time, and it's human nature to want to take control (if you want a job done well, do it yourself right?), but it was a little jarring to hear "OK Andrea, it's your segment, take it away... oh, but first, here's something I was thinking of."

As well as that, I think this idea will only really work to its full potential if each segment discusses multiple things. Variety is the spice of life and all that. If you talk about Disney Infinity for the entire segment, that's fine, but you'll have covered so much in such detail that the next time you want to bring it up, you'll be running into similar territories of conversation, and run into danger of boring the listener in subsequent episodes.

One way to counteract the problem discussed in the first paragraph, I think, would be to have whoever is hosting the first segment to do the intro. That way there's a smooth, easily noticeable host for the first part; otherwise, it's Garnett-time and oh wait no he isn't the host for the first segment it's actually someone else.

Again, these are just my ideas. Keep going w/it! It makes an interesting change.

PS: Yay Brendon Chung (not Chang).

To Jeff's point about turning video games into happy meals, I think what he's getting at is meta games and social media. So basically the realistic equivalent of that now is Playstation Home where you get a Chun Li avatar or whatever for buying Street Fighter. The thing is that no one actually thinks Home is fun (similar to the reaction to this Disney concept). Maybe it would be if it was a lot less clunky and there was more creation inside the game, rather than just acquiring/buying things. Like maybe if in Home there was a really intricate game system for designing and constructing custom outfits, and like the cloth all draped realistically, and different fabrics had different physics and so forth. Then you could get like special patterns to use for clothing you make---like for Chun Li a blue with gold accents---from games rather than a pre-made recreation of an outfit.

To me the problem with the Dead Island statue is not that its a gorified woman, but that the presentation doesn't account for a zombie context. The bikini woman is just beheaded and delimbed. Like if it was just a zombie girl in a bikini, and it actually informed the setting, it could work and be kind of cool. But zombies don't carve up their victims like a turkey, they just eat them. So really its just an example of lurid debauchery from man babies.

So the problem to me is that as the game industry has become so hit driven and based online gameplay, it has also become increasingly homogeneous as a culture and demographically oriented. The result is that when you make content for these games it only has to be not offensive to the 18-24 male mindset its meant to sell to. Essentially the "hardcore" aspects of the video game industry has become like The Howard Stern Show or something.

That said, Andrea's point that the violence should be fantasy based does not really solve the problem. What this argument does is reduce the video game debate to "they either have to be these violent chauvinist things or really infantile and for one's "inner child" and/or actual children." It is exactly the kind of fogey antiquated perspective the people in congress want to promote. The problem isn't that violence can't make legitimate entertainment. Its that the violence in games as of late is really dumb, and comes from a place of fulfilling banal power fantasies.

That said, Jeff had it completely wrong with his "ejaculatory" accusation of Cyberpunk 7070. I mean perhaps there is something to that take on the imagery, but the whole point of that trailer was the subvert the conventional femme fetal, Madonna-whore pyscho drama that often plays out in media. That was a sexualized woman who couldn't simply be "put down" with a bullet because she was a crazy cyborg. The suggestion is that we will have to deal with her as a character because of the cyber punk setting.

Speaking of which it would have been nice if you actually talked about how cool that trailer was rather than resorting to glib talking points from daytime talk shows. My only problem with this new format is that it seemed to lead you down to this place of trying to sound important rather than actually talking about video games. I was half expecting Andrea to shout out "Think of the children! Won't somebody think of the children!!!"

The place of the video game writer/critic is to unpack game media in a constructive way. Like its very easy for an outsider to demagogue games and say "Oh but Call of Duty is worse than Saving Private Ryan because you are the one killing the people!!" lol. Where are we if people inside the industry can't get over that one confused notion? Its more significant to say "Call of Duty is dumb because its distilling war down to grown up G.I. Joes" and going into how to change that.

Garnett you talked about wanting your gaming experience to be the entire wall. Microsoft showed this at this year's CES. I don't think it is crazy to believe that we will see this feature in the new Xbox. Here is the story from The Verge. http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/14/3875404/microsoft-next-xbox-IllumiRoom-teaser

The first 25 minutes of this episode is a hilarious exercise in exasperation. If you say you're going to let someone have the floor, for the love of GOD let them have a floor. Not 30 seconds after Andrea starts her report on Disney Infinity someone jumps in talking about some element of the game she hasn't had a chance to cover yet. Time and again she tries to pull the conversation back on track, but Jeff and Garnett ride roughshod over the effort. More than once I found myself shouting "LET HER TALK FOR CRYING OUT LOUD"!

I'm glad I kept listening, because the rest of the show was great. But, seriously, have some regard for your fellow guests!

If anyone didn't know, 'Cowboys & Engines' the steam-punk western short film on Kickstarter that Jeff C is starring in is through the link below :)

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1865079920/cowboys-and-engines-a-steampunk-western

Why in the world are a group of middle-aged men evaluating an unreleased disney skylanders targeted for children

Tutorials Kids!!! I love you Jeff!

I think Andrea's point about the differences between mediums is worthy of deeper discussion. Often times in the last year, listening to the show, I've heard comparisons made to video games and movies. Of course, that's completely valid on one level... they are, after all, both forms of electronic entertainment which make use of both visual and aural senses.

But from a broader perspective, they are much different-- cinema (especially the experience of going to the movie theater) is a largely passive exercise: We sit back and the information on the screen, and from the speakers, streams into us. Yes, we identify with the characters, appreciate the aesthetics, and so forth. But we are passive participants. The media scholar Marshall McLuhan considered cinema to be a "hot" medium, meaning it did most of the work for the viewer.

Video games, in general, are the opposite. We must be active participants-- we must control what is happening on the screen. There is an added, and very powerful, tactile sensory bias. Someone on the show this week, I think Garnett, mentioned "player agency"-- a wonderful and very accurate term. In McLuan-esque terms, this would be a trait of a "cool" medium... a medium that requires active participation on the part of the viewer.

So when we're talking about violence in video games or even discussing the challenge of bringing about a satisfying ending to a video game, it is vital to consider the wonderful peculiarities of video games versus other media.

To the former: I would caution that there is no evidence that the experiential, player-as-agent nature of video games is either more or less impacting in terms of engendering real world violence than, for example, television or movies. So more research is needed, yes.

To the latter: I am firmly convinced that the disappointing endings of some games are at least partially a result of the developers' apparent need to provide a flim-like conclusion to a video game experience. As Garnett implied, it may be easier for developers, in terms of time and money, to craft a few film-like endings to a game, funneling all of the player choices into this, rather than creating endings which chain out all of the myriad of choices we, as players, can potentially make in a game.

Take, for example, the end of Mass Effect 3. In the last minutes of the last mission of ME3, the player's agency is all but eliminated. Even the tactile control of Shepard is dramatically restricted... the character shuffles, slowly, along a very linear path. ME3 goes from "cool" to "hot", where we become passive observers (with a few dialogue choices). This, of course, does not excuse poor writing or poor game design, but I think we must conclude that the medium-defying factors exacerbate the situation... for some to intolerable levels.

So let's remember that video games are a distinct medium with distinct properties.