Honestly theres a million different blogs podcasts etceteras that shout their dumb ass opinions about all the new dumbass games, partly because of an actual interest and also partly capitalizing on trends. I like things like "Games Only Scott Likes" where you might hear about why some old game you've never played is actually fairly cool as hell + fun. Tho that's probably b/c I'm at a point where I don't see a need to pay full price for games when the backlog of sick games I haven't played or maybe even heard of is insanely large and reasonably priced. The idea of paying money, and more importantly, using free time to play incrementally upgraded sequels seems inane compared to jamming on some really unique older (as in 'not new', I dont mean retro or w/e) games that slipped under the radar.
If there's more people covering ground then there will be less good slipping under the radar.
I don't listen to Geeknights to hear a review about the shit I can get a review about every other place on the internet. If they were to get a correspondent, why not just go somewhere else to get that?
I listen to Geeknights because I get the Rym and Scott banter hour, and usually it's about shit that I like. Who cares how late a game review is? That's not why they're on the microphones. Clearly R/S aren't going to cater to a lowest common denominator reviews show that just takes in everything and shits out content.
Listen to Geeknights for Geeknights, that the fucking point. Right?
See I feel that you missed the point. That or you don't see a story as part of the game, that the mechanics are the main feature. Which is cool, I disagree but what can you do. I would posit what about games like Spec-ops the line where the story is an integral element.
I don't listen to Geeknights to hear a review about the shit I can get a review about every other place on the internet. If they were to get a correspondent, why not just go somewhere else to get that?
I listen to Geeknights because I get the Rym and Scott banter hour, and usually it's about shit that I like. Who cares how late a game review is? That's not why they're on the microphones. Clearly R/S aren't going to cater to a lowest common denominator reviews show that just takes in everything and shits out content.
Listen to Geeknights for Geeknights, that the fucking point. Right?
Geeknights should just become the Seinfeld of podcasts. The podcast about nothing.
See I feel that you missed the point. That or you don't see a story as part of the game, that the mechanics are the main feature. Which is cool, I disagree but what can you do. I would posit what about games like Spec-ops the line where the story is an integral element.
Never heard of Spec-ops the line. If the story is truly integrated, then it will be in the category along with Portal, Dwarf Fortress, etc.
If there's more people covering ground then there will be less good slipping under the radar.
And the currently slipped will remain slipped? There is no uncovered ground within the realm of "new videogame releases."
lol what are you saying? You argue that there are plenty of great games not known about then when I present a solution your response is that its not worth it since there will always be unknown games?
Spe Ops: The Line will get its discussion in due time.
Trailer makes it look like every other generic war porn fps. Yawn! It's $30 on Steam, so hell no. There is a free demo, though. I will play a demo of just about anything.
Spe Ops: The Line will get its discussion in due time.
Trailer makes it look like every other generic war porn fps. Yawn! It's $30 on Steam, so hell no. There is a free demo, though. I will play a demo of just about anything.
See this is what I mean. Despite all the news a hype around it its just brushed off with out a second thought. Hell a simple wiki read would solve it.
Spe Ops: The Line will get its discussion in due time.
Trailer makes it look like every other generic war porn fps. Yawn! It's $30 on Steam, so hell no. There is a free demo, though. I will play a demo of just about anything.
See this is what I mean. Despite all the news a hype around it its just brushed off with out a second thought. Hell a simple wiki read would solve it.
2 cents: The interview/guest episodes are my jam, but if GeekNights were only interviews I probably wouldn't be inclined listen. They are an uncommon treat, and probably best kept that way.
Though I gotta say I would like to hear you guys throw down with someone you disagree with. You wouldn't invite such a person on your own show (or maybe they'd decline to appear even if you did), but perhaps if you were invited to talk about something somewhere else that would be the proper forum for such an argument...
Spe Ops: The Line will get its discussion in due time.
Trailer makes it look like every other generic war porn fps. Yawn! It's $30 on Steam, so hell no. There is a free demo, though. I will play a demo of just about anything.
See this is what I mean. Despite all the news a hype around it its just brushed off with out a second thought. Hell a simple wiki read would solve it.
Read the wiki. Opinion unchanged.
Then you have become the thing you hate old man :P
lol what are you saying? You argue that there are plenty of great games not known about then when I present a solution your response is that its not worth it since there will always be unknown games?
Fuck man I dont know. You said they should cover new game releases, I was just saying I don't care about that and I think it's cooler that they sometimes cover older games that were relatively unnoticed. Then you said something about if they cover NEW games, then there will be less undiscovered games in the future. Then I was all like "Well then all the old games will still be uncovered? PLus like all these new releases are still like totally covered a million times over!!"
I just mean who cares about the "future uncovered games" when theres a bajillion current older good games that are cheaper. Theres a ton of people constantly clamoring over themselves to talk about the new indie releases, or good lord, the new AAA releases... and everything in between. If there's a gap in videogame coverage somewhere that R+S "should" cover, it's definitely not in the realm of new releases.
Alternatively you could delve deeper into a game that you do like. Talk strategies or other crap. I assume that's what people are bitching about (people be bitching everyday)
I mean I like Planetside 2, so I listen to a podcast dedicated to only talking about Planetside 2. They manage to get an hour every week with special interview eps. When I played WOW I listened to a World of Warcraft Podcast.
Ok cool maybe here is a succinct way to put my point: Perhaps there is merit in being "behind" in videogame coverage, especially given the state of its media coverage.
Scrym have different opinions about what's good than you (and me). They state some of these opinions as facts, as some are (Things like microtransactions are really bullshit and get me to stop playing several games). However, not all of their opinions are absolute truths, nor things you need to share. If you disagree with their opinions of what games they're interested in, that is your problem, not their's.
That being said, stating that all RPGs in the style of Earthbound/Final Fantasy/Chrono Trigger have horrible game mechanics is inherently untrue. Are they super exciting? No. But they're not horrible. You don't like them. There is a difference.
Spe Ops: The Line will get its discussion in due time.
Trailer makes it look like every other generic war porn fps. Yawn! It's $30 on Steam, so hell no. There is a free demo, though. I will play a demo of just about anything.
See this is what I mean. Despite all the news a hype around it its just brushed off with out a second thought. Hell a simple wiki read would solve it.
Read the wiki. Opinion unchanged.
Then you have become the thing you hate old man :P
I'm not saying it definitely is what I guess it to be. I can't know that unless I actually play it. I'm just saying I see almost no evidence to suggest that my guess is wrong. Much like our episode where we judged anime by the chart, we were pretty much dead on. I'm not going to put in significant effort into finding out if my guess is right considering how much other shit I have to do in my life.
Spe Ops: The Line will get its discussion in due time.
Trailer makes it look like every other generic war porn fps. Yawn! It's $30 on Steam, so hell no. There is a free demo, though. I will play a demo of just about anything.
See this is what I mean. Despite all the news a hype around it its just brushed off with out a second thought. Hell a simple wiki read would solve it.
Read the wiki. Opinion unchanged.
Then you have become the thing you hate old man :P
I'm not saying it definitely is what I guess it to be. I can't know that unless I actually play it. I'm just saying I see almost no evidence to suggest that my guess is wrong. Much like our episode where we judged anime by the chart, we were pretty much dead on. I'm not going to put in significant effort into finding out if my guess is right considering how much other shit I have to do in my life.
It will be interesting to have a discussion after you have played it. That said how much you enjoyment will be tinged by cynicism is up to debate.
That said how much you enjoyment will be tinged by cynicism is up to debate.
It's not cynicism, it's experience.
I've ridden the tallest of rollercoasters. You can't impress me even with a perfectly serviceable 200 footer.
I made the mistake of watching the IMDB top 250 from top to bottom. Otherwise really good movies, that are good enough to be amongst the top 250 rated of all-time, get a "meh" because I'm comparing them to the greatest of the greats.
If I was younger, I would probably have a completely different opinion simply as a consequence of age. I would not have played the Quakes and the Counter-Strikes, and instead have played the Halos and the Calls of Doody.
I drink from yet untasted wells. Your fancy expensive mineral water tastes to me of piss.
That's the one with the totally bullshit storytelling device that completely and utterly ruins any valuable point the game ham-fistedly attempted to make, right? The one that nerds repeatedly shit themselves over for being so innovative and thought-provoking, thus confirming that the majority of the Internet consists of mouth-breathing troglodytes who need to read a book?
That's the one with the totally bullshit storytelling device that completely and utterly ruins any valuable point the game ham-fistedly attempted to make, right? The one that nerds repeatedly shit themselves over for being so innovative and thought-provoking, thus confirming that the majority of the Internet consists of mouth-breathing troglodytes who need to read a book?
That SpecOps game?
Ooooh shit. Is this true?
Please be true, thus reaffirming my amazing powers of assessment.
That said how much you enjoyment will be tinged by cynicism is up to debate.
It's not cynicism, it's experience.
I've ridden the tallest of rollercoasters. You can't impress me even with a perfectly serviceable 200 footer.
I made the mistake of watching the IMDB top 250 from top to bottom. Otherwise really good movies, that are good enough to be amongst the top 250 rated of all-time, get a "meh" because I'm comparing them to the greatest of the greats.
If I was younger, I would probably have a completely different opinion simply as a consequence of age. I would not have played the Quakes and the Counter-Strikes, and instead have played the Halos and the Calls of Doody.
I drink from yet untasted wells. Your fancy expensive mineral water tastes to me of piss.
What happens if a new and better roller coaster comes a long and you realise that the prior ones were only good due to nostalgia?
That's the one with the totally bullshit storytelling device that completely and utterly ruins any valuable point the game ham-fistedly attempted to make, right? The one that nerds repeatedly shit themselves over for being so innovative and thought-provoking, thus confirming that the majority of the Internet consists of mouth-breathing troglodytes who need to read a book?
That SpecOps game?
Not going into whether your right or wrong, as that discussion has already been had, care to name any other game that did anything similar?
Guy's you are talking to someone who won't hike another mountain because he did that already once or twice and doesn't need to do it again because they are all the same. You can not win against someone who does not see the point in climbing more then one mountain for fun With friends (knowing Co-op always makes it better)
Another game that puts you into a forced narrative, removing your ability to make any meaningful decisions? How about "most of them?"
Anyway, the discussion about this game has been had. I watched clips of it online. My opinion was literally unchanged. As a game, whatever - as a method of conveying a "deeper" message, it falls flat because of a single design decision.
I've ridden the tallest of rollercoasters. You can't impress me even with a perfectly serviceable 200 footer.
You bring up this god damn rollercoaster time and time again and I think it's pretty good analogy. You have ridden the tallest rollercoaster so you don't even care that you haven't ridden the one with most loops, or best scenery or cool tricks. It's all about the tallness.
Another game that puts you into a forced narrative, removing your ability to make any meaningful decisions? How about "most of them?"
Anyway, the discussion about this game has been had. I watched clips of it online. My opinion was literally unchanged. As a game, whatever - as a method of conveying a "deeper" message, it falls flat because of a single design decision.
Right see I thought you had played it. I don't want to be rude but thats like saying you've seen a film when you've read the wiki.
It's not cynicism, it's experience.
I've ridden the tallest of rollercoasters. You can't impress me even with a perfectly serviceable 200 footer.
You bring up this god damn rollercoaster time and time again and I think it's pretty good analogy. You have ridden the tallest rollercoaster so you don't even care that you haven't ridden the one with most loops, or best scenery or cool tricks. It's all about the tallness.
It actually works quite well in what Scott, and to an extent Rym, is looking for. One specific thing. Now the other stuff is cool but if its not really high then its not worth it.
Comments
I listen to Geeknights because I get the Rym and Scott banter hour, and usually it's about shit that I like. Who cares how late a game review is? That's not why they're on the microphones. Clearly R/S aren't going to cater to a lowest common denominator reviews show that just takes in everything and shits out content.
Listen to Geeknights for Geeknights, that the fucking point. Right?
Though I gotta say I would like to hear you guys throw down with someone you disagree with. You wouldn't invite such a person on your own show (or maybe they'd decline to appear even if you did), but perhaps if you were invited to talk about something somewhere else that would be the proper forum for such an argument...
I just mean who cares about the "future uncovered games" when theres a bajillion current older good games that are cheaper. Theres a ton of people constantly clamoring over themselves to talk about the new indie releases, or good lord, the new AAA releases... and everything in between. If there's a gap in videogame coverage somewhere that R+S "should" cover, it's definitely not in the realm of new releases.
I mean I like Planetside 2, so I listen to a podcast dedicated to only talking about Planetside 2. They manage to get an hour every week with special interview eps. When I played WOW I listened to a World of Warcraft Podcast.
Scrym have different opinions about what's good than you (and me). They state some of these opinions as facts, as some are (Things like microtransactions are really bullshit and get me to stop playing several games). However, not all of their opinions are absolute truths, nor things you need to share. If you disagree with their opinions of what games they're interested in, that is your problem, not their's.
That being said, stating that all RPGs in the style of Earthbound/Final Fantasy/Chrono Trigger have horrible game mechanics is inherently untrue. Are they super exciting? No. But they're not horrible. You don't like them. There is a difference.
I've ridden the tallest of rollercoasters. You can't impress me even with a perfectly serviceable 200 footer.
I made the mistake of watching the IMDB top 250 from top to bottom. Otherwise really good movies, that are good enough to be amongst the top 250 rated of all-time, get a "meh" because I'm comparing them to the greatest of the greats.
If I was younger, I would probably have a completely different opinion simply as a consequence of age. I would not have played the Quakes and the Counter-Strikes, and instead have played the Halos and the Calls of Doody.
I drink from yet untasted wells. Your fancy expensive mineral water tastes to me of piss.
That SpecOps game?
Please be true, thus reaffirming my amazing powers of assessment.
Another game that puts you into a forced narrative, removing your ability to make any meaningful decisions? How about "most of them?"
Anyway, the discussion about this game has been had. I watched clips of it online. My opinion was literally unchanged. As a game, whatever - as a method of conveying a "deeper" message, it falls flat because of a single design decision.