Weekend Confirmed 176 - Shadowrun Returns, Bioshock Infinite

By Ozzie Mejia, Aug 02, 2013 3:00pm PDT

This week's Weeeknd Confirmed opens with host Garnett Lee welcoming in "Indie" Jeff Mattas and Nikole Zivalich to briefly discuss Nintendo's recent financials and where the company goes from here. Discussion turns to Shadowrun Returns and Bioshock Infinite's newly-announced DLC offerings. And in the second hour, it's the return of the king. The newly-engaged Jeff Cannata returns from the land of kangaroos and wallabies to tell tales of his time in Australia and go right back to loving to love things. The four-person crew takes a quick look at the state of gaming journalism before sending you into the weekend with a new cornucopia of Finishing Moves.

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 176: 8/2/2013

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 176 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 - 00:00:35 - 00:13:32

    Round 2 - 00:14:32 - 00:56:26

    Round 3 - 00:57:04 - 01:29:08

    Round 4/Finishing Moves - 01:29:57 - 02:08:27

Follow the Weekend Confirmed crew on Twitter, too!

Weekend Confirmed @WeekendConfirmd

Garnett Lee @GarnettLee

Jeff Cannata @JeffCannata

Jeff Mattas @JeffMattas

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. Check out his latest music video, I Brought It Here, featuring cameos from Jeff Cannata and Christian Spicer on YouTube. 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...

Comments


  • Regarding the discussion about the gaming press being sometimes myopic, I just happen to come across an old .plan update from John Carmack from 1997

    http://fd.fabiensanglard.net/doom3/pdfs/johnc-plan_1997.pdf

    "The usercommunity often exerts a lot of pressure towards confrontation,
    though. People like to pick a ”side”, and there are plenty of people inter-
    ested in fighting over it. There are a lot of people that dislike id software
    for no reason other than they have chosen another ”side”. I don’t want to
    encourage that.
    Magazine articles are usually the trigger for someone getting upset here.
    Its annoying to have something you are directly involved in misrepre-
    sented in some way for all the world to see. However, I have been mis-
    quoted enough by the press to make me assume that many inflamatory
    comments are taken out of context or otherwise massaged. It makes a
    good story, after all."


  • Nice work guys, I really enjoyed this episode. This is probably my favorite group (plus Andrew) and everyone was sharp in this one.

    Regarding Marcus and Phil, both were clearly behaving badly. I suspect there's a clever, friendly Marcus that comes out when he's just hanging out with the guys, and I wish we saw him in the media instead of the "Annoyed Gamer" schtick. I would much rather listen to someone who is excited about things than someone who just tries to be unpleasant.

    The only other thing I'd add is that, just as game creators have to be able to take honest criticism from the games media, media people have to be able to take honest criticism from the fans. In other words, "Hey guys, I don't like the drunk shows" is not the same as "I hate Garnett Lee." Everybody loves Garnett Lee. :)

  • Fantastic episode y'all. All for the "think about what you're putting out into the world" vibe. Just lost Jessica Curry (composer/co-designer of Dear Esther) from Twitter because she's getting fed up with the negativity on twitter.

    Really connected with what Jeff talked about in his finishing move - about making your comments about the creation or the action as opposed to the person. Hadn't though about it like that before, but that seems like a really great way to go about things.

    Much love to all of you. Have been listening for years and am never bored by you all.

    Congratulations Jeff!

  • Great show, everyone.

    I agree with Cannata that there has been a marked shift in our culture toward discourse without accountability, but it is worth stating explicitly that this shift has not happened in face-to-face interactions, but rather on the internet. I'm a college professor. I do well on class evaluations, but there is always---ALWAYS---at least one person who disliked the class, and sometimes this is expressed (in the anonymous context of the class evaluation) in a hurtful way. That's fine. But in person, no one has ever, in more than a decade of teaching, been hurtful in that way in person.

    Think of your own experiences in the gaming industry. How many times has someone said to your face, at a convention or meet-and-greet or just in public, something akin to the hateful comments you receive online/via Twitter? My guess would be never.

    The social contract that exists in public, and that helps to guide person-to-person relations to maintain a culture in which we all can live and get along, is basically absent on the internet. This is part of what has made the internet fun, and part of what attracted all of us to it in the first place. Remember the 90s? I can send messages to my friends! I can enter into a gaming world and rob someone of their gold! I can look at dirty pictures! It all felt so liberating.

    But the very lack of rules that enabled the phenomenal growth, diversity, and creativity of the internet has now reached the point that it brings out the worst in people. Kids who are probably completely normal members of their middle school classrooms use obscene language online and engage in inflammatory attacks in comments. Adults who treat each other politely in person--like Marcus and like Phil Fish--feel less constrained (no social contract) online and behave in what Cannata called an "inhuman" way.

    The answer is to guide the online interactions, to facilitate conversations, and to shape online communities into what you want them to be. There will always be Wild West pockets of anarchic, chaotic, vitriol-fueled critique and comments, so don't worry about squelching that. (And unfortunately for now, as Nicole noted, there is no sign that Twitter is going to make a change). But other sites have. BoingBoing has instituted a new discussion board format that is less open to hateful comments. IGN is moderating their boards much more intensively. Lots of websites are taking the problem of truly unregulated comments seriously as being harmful to the communities--and indeed the business--they are meant to promote.

    Lastly, I hope you will take all of this into account when inviting Marcus back to the show. I have always found his comments to be hurtful; he performs a personality that thrives on creating outrage, inspiring hatred, and deliberately trying to make other people feel bad. If he was the most brilliant comedian or the most insightful analyst ever, perhaps it would be worth it, but he's not. I don't think your listeners need that kind of voice, since there are enough personalities like that on the internet already.



  • Hello WC crew, I am a long time listener but first time commenter. After listening to this weeks show I felt there is a couple of things I would like to share.

    First regarding Ken Levine's comment about game journalists. I believe it was taken to personally on the show. Game Journalists are brilliant at what they do. They are able to criticize games from a technical level regarding things such as gameplay, level design, mechanics, immersion, story telling to name a few. However when it comes to receiving criticism about what they write or say rather it be on a podcast, written article or simple tweet, they often (not always) become defensive. As case in point as to how Garnett took Ken's comment.

    I believe Ken was referring to, even those who report with the utmost impartiallity in the games media don't necessarily fully understand the sway their words have on the general audience that reads or listens to their content. Without making this one point super long, basically by the sheer fact a games media outlet writes with their audience in mind first as opposed to the general gaming population, often times words or ideas are left out unintentionally that a dedicated reader would fill in the blank for, whereas the general reader wouldn't pick up on giving the same story potentially multiple spins left up to the reader.

    Second quick point I would like to make is regarding criticism over the internet. Not a single opinion has any sway over any person unless we choose to give that opinion the power to do so. If you have an opinion expect to be criticized by people who may or may not understand what your point really was for reasons like the one stated above. If your covering the story the way you believe is correct and dignified and are doing the gaming public as a whole a good service, don't worry so much about the negative comments. For their are going to be far more positive comments that outweigh them overall. If you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one. If you focus on negative comments and let them interfere with your life and how you handle business you run the risk of creating an internal censorship that will affect the quality of the work you produce.

    Enjoyed the podcast keep up the good work and I will keep listening. CHEERS!!!







  • Even with Nintendo's Wii U troubles, I can't believe anyone on the program can seriously say "Maybe it's time for Nintendo to go the way of Sega."

    Nintendo sold ONE HUNDRED MILLION Wiis.

    One
    Hundred
    Million

    Ok, the Wii might not have been a system that appealed to anyone on the show. It didn't entirely satisfy me either. But when they moved that many systems and made a profit on each one I'd say that they'd be completed fools to not try again and again, even after a misfire like Wii U. On top of that they had a highly successful hand held as well.

    Anyone in Nintendo's position would be batshit insane to go the way of Sega. I don't want to hear that garbage again. You guys are smarter than that.






  • Aren't first person games because of their perspective the one style of game that most benefits from a leap in technology and therefore is most held back by a not upgrading of engine.

    Verisimilitude and veracity of environment and the interaction with said environment is everything to that style of play so the better you can craft and design those environments the better that genre gets and the more game play possibilities that come from that.

    Say you are sniping people in a field of tall grass and the graphics have reached a point that if you watch close enough you can see them accurately moving throughout the grass. Or someone in a Crysis type Predator suit however you can still glimpse at him by fog or wind or rain accurately being deformed by his presence in it.

    Upping that lowest bar as high as they are allows developers so much more space it will be incredible to see.





  • The major problem that I'm sure these guys have some sense of (being around the same age) is the connectivity these days.

    I always had vehemet detractors toward my work in conceptual illustration, but the difference being these days that your personal space is invaded by those detractors.

    There is also room for discussion about what your personal space should be. I am in no way trying to justify horrible insults, but we are extending our space across the globe and maybe that's beyond a natural limit to consider yours. Because the fact remains that someone's dog dying in russia affects me very little. My dog, or even someone I know who's dog dies means something to me. Should I be able to comment on someone's loss who I will never care about?

    I think the answer to the vitriol expressed over everything these days is a bit of a combination of those three things

    People do need to learn to grow up in the way they talk to and about others. Those others need to grow a bit of thicker skin, instead of making massive changes or lashing out at everyone every time their feelings get hurt.

    And repurcusions need to be a bit more drastic, and used more honestly by those employing them. Meaning that someone who expresses an opinion you don't agree with shouldn't garner a ban hammer (As I have had posts deleted and been suspended on the shack for talking politics when someone else in the same thread was talking politics, but the moderator agreed with him, and not with me.) When your opinions and the way you express them cross the line, you should get banned. You should have to think before you post something.