Weekend Confirmed 153 - PlayStation 4 announcements, Year Walk, Crysis 3

Twice bitten, twice shy: The ongoing LIE of Remote Play. I truly want to be positive about the PS4, but frankly, I find myself shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Christian Spicer in my skepticism. Let's face it, Sony has a very bad track record when it comes to fulfilling their pie-in-the-sky promises, case in point, Remote Play. Christian was right on target here. Remote Play was a feature that the original PSP had, and all it ever allowed you to do was stream a video or play some music remotely from your PS3. Apparently you could play PSOne games as well, but I never saw this feature in action and the poor visual quality of PSOne games combined with the poor visual quality of Remote Play streaming made this proposition next to useless. Fool me once, shame on you, Sony.

I bought a PS Vita at launch in part on Sony's vague promises of improving Remote Play with the PS3, but in the end those promises went absolutely nowhere (despite the Vita prominently featuring a remote play app, as well as countless videos of hacked PS Vitas remotely running PS3 titles that were circulating on YouTube before the handheld's launch). More than a year later I still can't stream a PS3 game on my Vita, nor can I even connect to my PS3 through the internet and stream a basic video or song. I can only do the latter though my private network, and the amount of time it takes to do so I can simply walk up to my PS3, turn it on, play the desired song or video directly on my TV and make a sandwich. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Now Sony wants me to believe that THIS time, they will finally get it right IF and only IF I buy another expensive piece of hardware, the PS4. And as I said, I WANT to believe them. But right now, all the past evidence tells me this is just another example of Sony talking out of their ass once again, just now with David Perry and Mark Cerny adding to the stink. Then there's also the fact that the PS3 has a whole library of games RIGHT NOW that I would love to play using the feature, while the PS4 has absolutely nothing I want to play (yet). So not only is it hard for me to believe in the promise of Remote Play, it's also hard for me to get excited about.

Now let me briefly tell you about the exact opposite experience. Microsoft and the Xbox 360. Microsoft made so many promises at launch and over the years about how the 360 would revolutionize the Xbox and Xbox Live experience, and while I loved the original Xbox, I was highly skeptical. But look at their track record. Cross-game chat regardless of what game or experience you were in? "No way!" I scoffed. But they delivered. Custom Soundtracks in any game (via the dashboard)? "You're kidding me!" Done. Background downloading (even when the system has been turned off)? "Seriously?" Yeah, seriously. Backward Compatability of "most major titles" through emulation? "Hmm...not perfect, but they did a pretty good job overall. Pass". Queuing a purchase via Xbox.com and then having the download start as soon as I turn my console on at home? "Hmm...maybe Microsoft actually knows what they are doing."

This isn't to say that Microsoft is perfect, as they have made more than their share of pie-in-the-sky promises that they failed to deliver on, Velocity Girl & microtransactions being among the first offences and the Natal/Kinect being the worst. But overall, if you look at Microsoft's track record, you'll see that when they make a promise about what the Xbox 360 can or will be able to do, 9 times out of 10, it actually happens. So while I'm not really excited at all for the reveal of the Durango/Xbox 720 (largely because I fear it will be more about services and only incremental improvements on what the Xbox 360 is already doing, rather than something mindblowing), at least I know that when Microsoft announces a new feature for their next console, I can be relatively confident that Microsoft will execute it and the feature will more or less work as advertised.

With Sony, I really don't know what to "make.believe".

A bit of a negative episode this week IMO, if you break it down. Sony announced this....negative, negative, negative, but....... more negative talk. Seems to me like you guys were extremely underwhelmed by the whole "meeting". I guess I'm glad I watched the GiantBomb live stream of the event to get the opposite contrast of this podcast, where it seemed like a lot of positive talk for the most part.

Also gotta say I disagree with the whole Killzone looked ok talk. ( I am not a fan of killzone games) But technically its stunning. Yes perhaps Crysis 3 is showing things like that now, today. But that's mainly us PC people who know that. Most of my friends are all console gamers, and while I have been trying to tell them PC is the best ( particularly on my wallet), they strictly don't know this. They are the general - core gamer types that think Killzone's trailer is wizardry happening on the screen. So to us in the know, perhaps nothing that great ( it was great ), it was something the CORE gamers/ call of duty, madden gamers see and go HOLY shit!

Just wanted to put in my two cents, also 2 weeks in a row now about the podcast possibly being in trouble. :(

For a bit of fun: if you could wish for one title to be sitting on store shelves for the launch of PS4, assuming it would be executed perfectly and exceed all your expectations, what would it be? Same question for Xbox 720.

For me?
PS4: Wipeout
720: Banjo Kazooie :)

Assassin's Creed 4 could be one of the greatest video games ever.

If you need me to tell you why an open world ship-based game in which you visit ports and islands is one of the most exciting concepts then kindly return to your parents and ask for a real childhood.

Red Dead Redemption is one of my all time favourite games cause it was an open world cowboy simulator. Cactuses, trains, deserts, coyotees, riding into sun-sets, revolvers, dynamite, bank robberies, hats being shot off... That's what video games is all about, letting you step into a fantasy. And ever since Wind Waker I've ached for someone to make an open world sea captain simulator.

Sailing through trecherous storms,naval battles, sinking ships, swinging from ship to ship, climbing to the crows nest with a telescope, tropical islands, burdied treasure ... This game feels like it could be incredible. And there's some amazing possibilities with co-operative and competitive play. Imagine a naval based multiplayer death match.

But this game could also be the biggest disappointment ever. After AC3 was a buggy, sloppy effort with so much supurflous junk weighing it down, I'm worried this game could sink.

So, in a revelation that will shock absolutely nobody (save a Mr. Garnett Lee and Ms. Andrea Rene), the move from Lara Croft as hilariously shallow, super-woman caricature to full-fledged character complete with both strengths and weaknesses, personal challenges to overcome, and growth have made Tomb Raider a much richer experience.

Well, that along with a strong mix of gameplay styles, great presentation values, and some of the better videogame writing in recent memory. Oh, and a completely unnecessary multiplayer mode that I havent even bothered to touch yet, for those who are interested.

It's [pointlessly] early, but this is my GOTY thus far.

I've had enough of the negativity!

Just got done listening to the show and here I am. Wow, things have reached a new low. I can't stand the snark and immature criticism. I don't think I can last another week of this cynical whining hate. I'm just so disappointed by the crew. If you guys feel the need to pile on every negative aspect and spend so little focusing on what you thought was good then why bother? Do you even enjoy video games any more? Or are you just more interested in slinging venomous angst.

PS. I'm talking about the commenters here. Loved the podcast as always, keep up the fantastic work Garnet and crew.

No disrespect to the Weekend Confirmed team, but something's been grating on my mind for months now that I need to get off my chest.

I work in electronics retail, and every time you guys do the weekly bad console graphics pile-on, you remind me of my least favorite customer: The one who stands between two televisions of the same brand for 20 minutes, paralyzed with indecision over whether they should go with the second-to-top of line to save money, or shell out an extra $500-$1000 for the very best, not because they can tell the difference, but because they "know" that it's better. You know what I tell that customer? "You're not going to have both TVs sitting side by side in your living room. You're only going to have one, and if you're happy with the picture "TV A" is giving you, you're not going to be any less happy with it at home. But if you can't be satisfied with that, then pay the extra money and get "TV B"."

My point is, many gamers like myself are satisfied for the time being with what we're getting out of our consoles, even though we know that games generally look and run better on PCs. You've driven the point home several times that the PC version of multi-platform titles look better, week after week. But why do we need to obsess about it so much? Far Cry 3, Dishonored, and Sleeping Dogs were far, far from unplayable on consoles because they didn't run at 60fps on console, but one would think they were based on your collective griping about the aging consoles and the unusually long tail of this console generation. This is the gaming equivalent of a first-world problem. Please save the graphical gripes for games that have no excuse to look as bad as they do on any platform, such as Aliens: Colonial Marines instead of raining on the parade of gamers who would otherwise happy with the great experiences and great value that they are getting out of their current and hopefully future consoles.

Today is a good day my friends, for those of us in the Great South Land, the Downunder, Australia, we have the first R18+ game is on sale.

Now I will have some people to play against on Mortal Kombat since I imported it and risked a fine by customs. But aside from that it's a very welcomed, long overdue happening.

So stoked!

I've been playing video games for however long, and your going to give me instructions on how to play properly with this controller!!!! For real if you need to give instruction on how to use the most basic device of the system. Then that's not good.

So... Runner 2.

I loved the idea of the first game, but I hit a wall that I just couldn't overcome at a point.
Thus far, it seems like this game is made to be more fair, and more risk/reward oriented (you can actually avoid checkpoints, and you get bonus points for doing so.

Anyone else playing it, and what do you think?

I love hearing people be positive about things. "This thing has great potential because of X," "that thing is awesome because I also loved Y."

Look, it's fine that everyone on the show this week thinks everything sucks (over-generalization, but that was the overall feeling of the show). That's their opinion. I also I know it will pick up again though, and I'm happy to keep listening until that happens.

It's a bummer that there are so many negative comments here, and I hope that Garnett doesn't get too down because of it. A positive opinion is easier to defend, because you can be like "pff you're crazy, Drive Club is AWESOME." With a negative opinion, even if it's totally valid, you just dwell more and more on "no really, this sucked," and that's never fun. It may seem obvious, but most people don't realize that what you think about affects your mood, and if you think everything sucks, you're going to feel sucky. I don't want anyone to feel sucky.

This was a rough show for me, especially coming off the Valentine's show, which I thought was fantastic. Let me get that out first: I LOVED the Valentine's show.

A few things to bring up:

1) A general point: Garnett spent a lot of time bashing the presentation. A LOT of time. But we don't care about the presentation! Nobody will remember this presentation in November. I'm never going to watch this presentation again, but I'm going to spend the next 5-10 years with whatever console I buy. What do you guys think of the system itself? Apparently Garnett thinks it looks great, which is good to know, but until I read the comments, all I knew was that he thought the presentation sucked.

2) The sticks: Oh man, the sticks. Both controllers are fine. Aligned, offset, whatever. I have never bought into the "They love XBox!" thing, but this is the one case where it's clear that you just like the controller you use more often. That's fine, but I can't believe it's an issue. When you play a FPS on an XBox, your right thumb is down low on the stick for hours at a time, and it holds up just fine. Please, lord, let stick positions never be mentioned again.

3) I can't believe the second segment started with Christian (who I love!) saying, "When are journalists going to hold Sony accountable for breaking these promises?!" The system hasn't even come out yet!

4) You guys played Crysis 3 and the new Metal Gear game and couldn't find one segment to tell me about them? This is why I listen to the show. I get that you have restrictions and can't do rambling three-hour podcasts anymore, but Whatcha Been Playin is the key to the whole show. You can't leave it out in a week with two huge game releases, even if there's a console conference.

5) Garnett's reaction: Please don't play the fanboy card. There are a lot of well-reasoned critiques here of an episode that went a little bit off the rails. Everyone is here because we're fans of the show. Bashing the fans probably isn't the right move.

Just saw this series of Tweets from Garnett:

"I quit. Seriously The you didn’t love the PS4 presentation so therefore you’re an asshole crowd make me hate that I wasted my time on a show"

"For the record, not that anyone will get it right, I think the PS4 looks awesome."

"And that a box that rad warranted a far more aspirational presentation. So shoot me for wanting more and not just cheerleading."

First of all, people saying that Garnett is an asshole for his opinion are jerks.

But second, I think that Garnett's outrage at people thinking that he had a negative impression of the PS4 is more than a little bit unfair. Yes, he had a few nice things to say about the hardware. He said that Cerny's involvement had him "optimistic" and that it was "juicy." After that, I would say that the show was dominated by some pretty harsh criticism.

This goes back to what I was saying about Jeff's Fire Emblem comments from the previous show. When you spend 90% of your time talking about things that are bad about something, people are going to get the impression that your overall impression was negative unless you make a serious effort to emphasize the contrary.

I listened to the show again just to make sure that my memory of it wasn't colored, but no - it was very negative. Basically, things that might have been positive either got glossed over and set aside or turned into speculation about how it probably wouldn't be executed well, and things that were negative were dwelt on and joked about at length.

For example, I get the impression that Garnett thought that the Infamous trailer was really good. But it wasn't discussed at all except to say that it was a mistake not to show it first.

So to Garnett: I like the show and I think that you are probably the best show host in the world of video game coverage. But the PS4 episode was overwhelmingly negative and you can't blame people for coming away with the impression that you had a negative impression of it. People react to the amount of time you spend saying negative vs. positive things.

Hey everybody, I like many of you have been a fan from way back during the 1UP days and I honestly think that Garnett does an amazing job at being able to play devils advocate and balance the show from swinging too negative or too positive. I very much appreciate that aspect of the show, and to be honest it is what keeps me coming back. It also helps that you have a great cast with Canatta and Mattas being the regulars and sprinkle on some random guest here and there for flavor. Now obviously this perfect balance can't happen every show, but there usually is some semblance of that balance. Sadly last episode there wasn't any trace of that. It was all very negative and the only person who seemed to say anything positive was Mike Schramn. This by no way gives anyone the right to harass Garnett and i really hope you don't take this all too personally. It's the internet, they're dicks. They are only venting because of they want you to be as excited as they are. You have a great show, the only one I CAN'T miss every week. Keep up the good work!

Maybe I'm the aberration, but backwards compatibility means a lot to me. I always love going back and playing games, but don't like having to pull out old systems to do so. The new systems not having it would be bad for me.

It seems like 60% of gamers agree with me, too. Kotaku posted a poll after GameStop claimed this, and it ended up with the same results.

I won't completely skip the new machines if they aren't BC, but it will be a bummer.

I've come up with a bit of a theory, and I'd love to hear all of your thoughts on this.

Does mass-popularity RUIN multiplayer games?

I've been a fan of multiplayer shooters for 15 years. From Unreal Tournament and Goldeneye to Halo and Bad Company, I love competitive FPS games. In recent years however, I've found myself increasingly frustrated as I play my favorite games.

Over the past couple months, I've hit a bit of a breaking point. Halo 4 multiplayer has become so constantly frustrating, that I flat out stopped playing the game for 2 months (which for me, being a HUGE Halo fan, is unheard of). I thought to myself "343 has ruined everything I love about Halo. This game just sucks".

This past week, 343 was kind enough to give me early access to their new map pack. So I jumped back online with some friends to try the new maps. For the very first time, I played Halo 4 OUTSIDE of public matchmaking. And I had a blast.

Everything about the game felt fun, exciting, balanced, and well designed. So this got me thinking: Why do I find the game so maddeningly frustrating when I go in solo through public matchmaking? And why do I NOT find some other games just as frustrating?

I realized that the answer to both of those questions is the same: It's because of the people I play with.

When I play Halo online, I am constantly angered by the people I play with. Every single match is filled with players who run around shooting their own teammates, ignore objectives, or are AFK half the time. The game barely functions because only half the players in a given match give a damn about what's going on.

It's not just an issue of skill level... it's an issue of seriously trying to play the game vs just goofing around.

When I play Mass Effect 3, Fall of Cybertron, or even Bad Company 2, this trend is rarely an issue.
It seems to me that those games, despite their popularity, are only enjoyed by a more devout fan base that plays because they are genuinely interested in playing, improving, and experiencing each match.

By comparison, games like Halo and COD have reached a level of mass-market saturation. They've become a sort of "After School" activity. Kids jump in and play NOT because they really want to, but because their friends are all "hanging out" online together and that's the only game they all have.
So when I go into matchmaking, only half the people I play with have any real interest in playing the game.

So the question is: does mass-market appeal actually HARM multiplayer shooters more than it helps them? Should developers stop trying so hard to make their game accessible to EVERYONE and therefore mastered by nobody?

So in the conversation about services not being that important and it being about games. 2 extremely important points. Yes the Xbox with live beat the PS3, but never forget the winner of the gen had the WORST online SERVICE. Not about services, its about games!

Second let me take you back to a horrible service that launched long ago STEAM, now when steam launched it was not good it was extremely problematic unlike now. But it had Half life 2 so it was given life, not because it was a good service because it had a great game.

Where's Nicole? I MISS NICOLE!!!!!!!

I want everyone who is involved with Weekend Confirmed to know I really enjoy the show and I appreciate all the work you do every week. I’ve been listening for months and I look forward to a new episode every Friday. I listen because it’s like hanging out with friends having an interesting and fun chat about games. I like that the crew will sometimes talk about other personal interests outside of video games because it’s an opportunity to be introduced to something great that I may have missed otherwise. I’ve noticed there are responses about the negativity of the last episode but I think its fine. More often than not I agree with the crew but when I don’t it points out another perspective that I can still appreciate. I enjoy getting more than one side of a discussion. I don’t think the crew should worry about the tone that comes across because I still have the choice to listen. This show is not the end all, be all of opinions. If I didn’t enjoy it I’d go somewhere else. Don’t feel like you need to cater to an audience. Just be yourselves and let’s have some fun and interesting discussions. I’ve expressed the same feelings with a great review on iTunes as well because the crew deserves it and I would miss this show if it was gone. The show is free so it’s the least I could do. Keep up the good work and I’ll be back on Friday! :)

Great episode guys, I really appreciated it. I entirely agree with Garnett that this was a lackluster showing from Sony. His finishing move was right on the point. There was not enough WOW factor for a next-gen system reveal. Practically every system reveal up to this point has been able to lean on graphical leaps and bounds to wow the audience, and companies pushed that really hard. The PS3 demo, too, was even full of some awesome tech demos, realtime water and ducky demos, that while easy to mock, did showcase their system doing something that couldn't be done previously.

On Wednesday, we didn't get any WOW. I understand that this generation isn't going to leap ahead graphically, but that's something Sony knew going into this "meeting" and therefore they shouldn't have showed so many "demos" that leaned on their graphical capabilities to impress. Knack and Killzone made up the first 10 minutes of PS4 footage people saw at that event. There was nothing PS4 about those games. Each looked mildly better than current generation (expected), but showed nothing that pushed the envelope and made me excited about going out and spending $400+ on a new console. The WOW upgrade the PS4 holds over the PS3 is RAM, and they should have spent 10 minutes just explaining and detailing hypothetical on what that can mean for games going forward.

Either way, if you have to come out of your next generation console reveal defending half of your presentation, you can't possibly think you nailed it.

How bad was Christian Spicer on this weeks show? I actually had to stop listening for the first time ever because of his whining.

So Sony cuts ties with the company Garnett's gf works for.

Garnett takes a dump all over the PS4.

What a coincidence.

So I have a couple of counter points to Garnett and co. criticisms of the PS4 presser.

1. The main reason Sony hasn't changed the controller through 3, now 4, cycles is that a lot of people like the controller the way it is. Why piss them off by doing what Microsoft has done? It's not like they haven't tried a 360 controller to know whether they like it or not.

2. Sony's stock actually rose after the press conference.

3. I think you might be confusing the press conference Sony just had with an E3 press conference. I don't think that event was just for gamers. The way it was structured it felt like it was aimed as much at developers and publishers as it was gamers.

4. Speaking of my last point Sony still has GDC and E3 to talk about the PS4. By getting ahead of those events it allows developers to freely talk about the games they're currently working on for the next generation while also giving Sony the time to say, "hey that shit we were talking about at our event listen to these developers tell you how awesome it is and that it actually works." Also you know Sony will mention all that non gaming stuff at E3.

I've been thinking of saving up for a doghouse PC rather than a new console what with steam sales and my desire for a nicer PC to work with. But PS4 is kind of tempting for me, I never owned a Sony system and still don't own a blu-ray player (assuming it's still built in), unfortunately few new games pique my interest (maybe infamous, I had fun on PS3 demos) and honestly I'd rather pay to download a game I want vs. pay a monthly fee to play any game.
At any rate this last gen has convinced me that launch day purchases are 90% not worth it, so I'll just wait and see.

On the used games controversy, Shuhei Yoshida SWW Studios' head said Sony's official pr statement is that "all disc games on PS4 will work with any PS4." So that exact phrasing reminded me of one of the "SuperDae" leaks about the then Orbis allowing "multi-user" sign ins on one PS4 console (pictured in this fun graphic: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18cbv4k6xjv7fjpg/original.jpg ) So if you'll notice in the bubble next to SEA Account, the text reads "Rights" ie your license to play a game.
So what I think is interesting about Shuhei's quote is that it seems to allot for exactly this possibility. Basically publishers could still block the selling of disc games, but if you want to share your game at another person's house you can log into their system and allow that content to play. The point is I guess that I might not conclude that used games won't be blocked next gen just yet. It seems like Sony's vagueness would indicate that they themselves will not at least at first, but companies like EA, Activision etc might.
I think what could happen is that we just start to rethink retail games as being these big premium products, and/or games that we buy on become a much longer term part of our playing life. Like the whole thing about Destiny is that it will last for 10 years. Instead of the CoD model, you're just going to add and add content. Madden PS4 could finally be that supposed holy grail of a single purchase where you upgrade the roster every year. On the other hand, we could see a spate of singular game PSN accounts being created every time a major release comes out.
Or what could develop is that like with Netflix a certain number of users can be logged into an account simultaneously. Maybe if you and your house mates all of consoles, you can essentially buy every game once between you. If that happens though, perhaps you need a second layer of accounts for like "micro transaction" style purchases, where you let players buy that purple hat they want (apparently Team Fortress players love hats?) individually. It is kind of a "brave new world" but it is also exciting because it could finally mean the ascendancy of a digital market and a unified distribution model for all kinds of media.

New user here, got a couple of comments on this show and the new format in general.

The conversation on the PS4 was filled with a lot of negativity, almost nothing good to say at all about it. It just seemed like you guys were piling on.

As to the new format, I've given a few weeks to see any improvement. It just comes off a bit disjointed without Garnett being the centralized Host. It's like he interrupts just to tell someone to host the segment and it comes off kinda bad. I feel like there needs to be a voice that shuts down the Tera talk that goes on far too long for example. I'm not sure MMO talk is that interesting to people not playing that game. Maybe keep the idea of each guest brings a topic but have Garnett lead discussions on all of them.

On symmetrical sticks: FPS games designed around a controller need to lay off the face buttons anyway. Don't make me take my thumb off the 'look' stick, ever.

Get rid of 'jump', get rid of 'reload', I don't care. That stuff works great on a M/KB, but only because I'm never surrendering my mouselook.

I have listened to every 1Up Yours, Listen Up and Weekend Confirmed and now after 7 1/2 years I'm done, finished, UNSUBSCRIBED. The negativity is overwhelming, I'm looking at you Garnett, the contradictions, snarkiness and endless shitting on everything is too much. This weeks guests did not help at all either.
The funny thing is that at the beginning of the episode after the you asked us to spread the word and give a good review on iTunes I went to do just that, then the hipster BS hate machine kicked in and I asked myself why? What am I getting out of this podcast and it's not much anymore. Mostly a lot of negativity, screaming, whining, board games, MMO/RPG's, iOS games; all piled on top of illogical arguements, drunken ridiculousness and shitty music (Garnett's not Del Rio). So I'm done.
Now as I listen to the end of last Garnett Lee Podcast I will ever listen to, I'm sad it has come to this, I would tune in to get excited about something I love videogames but instead I'm exhausted and drained. And in the same week 1Up closes it's doors too, weird. I do have to say thank you for the last 7+ years but good bye and good luck.
One last thing I'm only a minute into this weeks 8-4 Play podcast and I already have a smile on my face, check it out, it's fun times except when they talk about Monster Hunter but it's JP what can you do.

I'm not a Sony fanboy. I own a PS3, but do the majority of my gaming on 360 and PC and I was really turned off by all of the snark this episode.

Now, obviously, if you think that the conference was a disaster, that's fine. That's your opinion. But it really seemed to me like the whole episode was a competition to see who could come up with the best burn on Sony and then high fives all around. Take Killzone, for example. "30 seconds to brown" oooh! Burn! But that's really unfair. That trailer wasn't very brown at all. If you don't like it, fine. But you can do it without the unnecessary snark.

As I posted earlier, I feel like the show, in general, has gotten excessively negative. I dont' know if people are trying to be funny or entertaining or what, but it really doesn't work for me..

All in all, a very echo-chambery episode. Usually, I feel like Garnet tries to make sure that there's a balance of opinions, but this time, he didn't even try.

For me personally, I didn't think that the conference was a home run, or anything. It was okay. I liked that they focused on gamers and am looking forward to see what games they show at GDC and E3.

Oh and Garnett I love you but don't you tempt fate when you clown on the FPS demo minutes before you orgasm over the Racing Sim demo? I get that it is your bag but the Car Sim demo is as cliched at a console release as the brown FPS is now. It just came off as a bit of a double standard.

The ONLY announcement at that entire PS4 conference that really excited me was the record/broadcast/share option built into the console.

Sony is basically taking one of the best features out of Halo, and making it standard across every game, and making it easier to share across the larger social media landscape.

Brilliant.

Everything else... meh, I'll wait to see more gameplay, and games I care more about.

I always wonder why people have separated Graphical Fidelity with Game Performance in their minds. Since Graphics represent not only things looking good but behaving appropriate when manipulated by the player. In that respect David Cage is right, creating emotive visceral experiences does become better as those experiences gain in tech because it frees developers from having to cut corners because the machine can not handle this or that. It is like way back in 07 when Crysis and Stalker came out and there were things built into those games for DX10 that could not be normalized because the game had to allow people with DX9 to play.

Graphics begin to really affect performance when consoles switch out because it creates a standard and a bar at which everyone has the same machine and thus nothing has to be cut out for the curve.

Garnett: just saw your angry tweet about the reaction to the podcast. I have to say that I also was surprised at your negative reaction to the Sony show, but not because I'm a Sony fanboy hiding behind "castle walls" as you put it. I just thought that your critique was mostly about the context in which Sony operates. I would think that the best way to evaluate the show would be to say, considering Sony's past mistakes and the current (before the show) expectations, and considering the markets and state of games in general, what is the best they could possibly do? And in that sense, they did very well. Your response felt like an emotional, instinctive response rather than a careful analysis of the big picture. But don't let the internet get to you, man.

Ok, now i'm worried about the show... is there any slight chance they stop doing it? please somebody answer this. first Totally Rad Show, now this... where i'm i supposed to get my videogame dose?

I didn't like the cynical tone of this episode. I don't understand why people can't be genuinely excited for the potential future of the industry. Even if they can't hit 100% of their promises, they seemed to show a genuine effort to do better. Who cares if you are a Sony or MS fan, it's an exciting time in the industry and the "prove it first and then I'll be happy" attitude was a real turn off this episode.

Holy Fuck! That Second Son footage was gameplay footage with a dynamic camera!? https://twitter.com/SuckerPunchProd/status/305040486165532672

It seems crazy if that's legit.

let me wax philosophic on the Media Molecule presentation. I know there was not really a game there, but what if they didn't even want to make a game? What if this was something you could add to Playstation Home?

What if i could literally build the world of Playstation Home with a move controller and way more time and creative energy then i have? That would be awsome. Beyond that, what if instead of manipulating clay and building materials i could manipulate cloth? What if I could take a bolt of cloth and form out clothing and hats and shoes? What if I could design objects and assign them animation triggers? Basically I'm talking about allowing players to design all the things that Microsoft is selling me on their Avatar section of Live. Then we just need a market place, and we've created an even better version of what Steam/Valve started with TF2 and the hat store. Now players are actually creating the models and the skin and stats and not just using them in home but importing them into other games.

I import the Killzone app into my Media Molecule thing, then I'm able to craft gun attachments and character skins on a 3D level and I'm doing it with a Move controller and actually painting instead of trying to use the sticks on the contoller to do it.

I mean it's way more then anything I think Sony is actually going to do, but ya know....someday....maybe....probably not.

Good podcast this week, but one thing really rubs me the wrong way. I hate to hear people always talking about 'voting with your wallet' because it's a damned lie.

When gamers buy or don't buy games they aren't 'voting' for anything, you can point to COD and Madden and say 'they make them cause gamers buy them' but I could point to Portal, Walking Dead, and Heavy Rain and ask 'where are all the interesting narrative single player experiences that gamers 'voted' for?'

The answer I suspect is that publishers don't make what we 'vote' for, they make what is easier, cheaper, and what they can bleed more money from (there's no real equivalent of map packs, weapon packs, or xp boosts in the Walking Dead, for instance).

Mainly though I hate it because it implies that all we can do as gamers is choose what we want more of from what's already out there. Developers should be looking to give us things we don't even know we want, not reading market data and cranking out more of what's selling.