JeffCannata said:
What constructive criticism has there been, exactly? Seems like it has all been "get rid of the music" (5 min of a 2 hour show, btw) and "get rid of Andrea". Maybe I missed something?
Anytime we try to go any deeper than this we get a lot of heat for discussing details that could be construed as spoilers.
I think you guys should also realize we get a lot of feedback from a lot of different sources and this forum is a tiny minority of our listeners. A tiny, angry minority. I ain't mad at you, and you aren't ignored, I just take what you say with a grain of salt
I appreciate you listening and commenting.
I am personally not angry at all. I find it impossible to be angry at people who record podcasts/shows, as they are spending time out of their day/week to make entertainment for others. That should be applauded. However, it helps to be critical at times, and even though I made multiple appreciative comments in previous threads, after this week I did feel the podcast was going slightly downhill.
Looking back at the podcasts from weeks past, one thing I noticed was there is very little debate on subjects. When Garnett ranted on Diablo III, there was no real response to him other than a bit of snickering. When Andy Reid ranted about Call of Duty, there was a few dismissive "oh yeahs," but no real response to the controversial, and arguably bigheaded comments he was making. When Andrea mentioned not using Steam ever, it was mentioned she'd get comments for saying such a thing, although it was never debated on the cast itself.
On TRS, if you disagree with Alex/Dan about something,you usually debate why you feel different, at least for a while. It is the same if they disagree with each other, or with you. There is, at least, a few minutes where you argue (polity) your point. Similarly. on Garnett's "Damn Shows" in the past, people would directly question what others had said - at times spitefully (LUKE). As a result, people (in threads like these) used to respond positively to that lively debate as it was interesting to hear. When that debate does not happen directly on the cast itself, then people (in threads like these) feel like they have to respond themselves, and may do it in a angry way because there is no one to receive their comments directly.
If I had any real constructive criticism to give it would be for everyone on the cast to debate things much more than they do. If someone says something that someone does not agree with, then debate why you feel differently, The back and forth you could get from that would be interesting for people to hear. The cast does not have to turn into a Lion's Den where people get snapped at for saying something wrong, but if someone says something that make people go "ughhhh," it should not be swept under the rug to quickly to move onto another subject. As I said earlier, the pre-show video currently seems a lot more fun than the podcast. It is more relaxed, and easy to listen to. It feels like friends are talking to each other. The cast itself feels more like people are doing their job, and acting more regimented. I don't know about others, but friends chatting, debating, and questioning each other is more interesting to me than listening to talking heads one after the other air their option . Approaching the podcast with a more freeform nature would only help things.
Oh, and I am certainly not part of the "get rid of Andrea" Club. Based on her past appearance she seems to have a slightly different view on certain games than the regular crew, which adds a lot to proceedings. Differing opinions are great, and there should be more of them - it will lead to a better overall product. People should talk about more about why people feel differently instead of shutting down so quick. The same could have been said for Andy Reid's appearance. If he was made back up his "I am a mature gamer... ect," comment it would have been an interesting listen. Instead, not only was possible good material let fall by the wayside, the whole thing turned into a negative as people reacted strongly against the final product that week.
And yes, even though the music is just a small percentage of the podcast, it is still part of it. It affects the overall flow of the show, and makes some people reach for the fastfoward button. If you watched a movie and thought a part of it was worse than the rest, you cannot just dismiss it as a separate 5 minute chunk - it is still a part of the overall product. I personally feel the current mishmash music used is off-putting. It is not just Del Rio's offerings (which are, at times, great), it is the weird mix of genres week after week. One week it is Rap, the next Dance, the next Techno, then Rock, then Alternative. With that mix there is bound to be something to annoy some subgroup of people as weeks go by. However, seeing as WC in a video game podcast, having music directly related to games would please more people. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, there are loads of game tunes out there that could be used. Also, there are bands out there that draw inspiration from video games for their music, and there are video game music composers that write tunes for games for a living. All of these could be tapped to get better music for the cast. If music must be used, then music direct from video games has the best chance of appeasing the audience of a video game centric podcast.
Anyways, I will shut up now, WC is still a good podcast. I have listened to 76 episodes from start to finish, and only gave up on one. If people react angrily here, it is only because they are passionate about listening. With such lively comments on here, it shows the podcast is getting a lot right, it is just people (including myself), think some parts could be better. We may be a "tiny, angry minority" right now, although it would be much less fun if we did not respond at all.
