Weekend Confirmed Episode Whimsy | Let's All Love Loving Things

As for calling for Andrea's head, I'm following the thread back and we will look into it.
Thank you for your candidness

I suspect the tweet that's causing such uproar was not her hoping to win said t-shirt but instead promoting a contest running on her outlet. Pretty much SOP if your outlet has some sort of giveaway to retweet that to get it out there. But again, I don't know.
The problem is not the tweet, though that is disappointing in itself, but rather this:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=43764178
 
To be fair to Andrea, we only have one source for the notion of Machinima getting money to post livestreams, and it's from a guy on Twitter that I've never heard of. Does anyone here know this Travis Lopes?

He may be on the up and up, but for all we know he could just be some guy on the internet talking shit. If we're going to go all detective GAF on this, someone ought to check the source.
 
To be fair to Andrea, we only have one source for the notion of Machinima getting money to post livestreams, and it's from a guy on Twitter that I've never heard of. Does anyone here know this Travis Lopes?

He may be on the up and up, but for all we know he could just be some guy on the internet talking shit. If we're going to go all detective GAF on this, someone ought to check the source.
That's why I was careful to preface everything with "if this is true" and end everything with "I hope they look into this" A few tweets by Gerstmann and this other guy doesn't prove anything and the fact that it aligns nicely with the work she did on NFS could be a misunderstanding or coincidence
 
That's why I was careful to preface everything with "if this is true" and end everything with "I hope they look into this" A few tweets by Gerstmann and this other guy doesn't prove anything and the fact that it aligns nicely with the work she did on NFS could be a misunderstanding or coincidence
the dude has a webpage with contact info listed on his twitter profile. shouldn't be hard to track him down. Of course, you'd also need to find someone else to corroborate his story.
since we are talking about journalism here, after all
 
It amazes me that some of those in the gaming media who profess the loudest about how they protect their opinions and try to uphold ethics are the ones constantly exposing those aspects to outside influences. If they truly valued it, as much as they profess, then why would they put the put their ethics and opinions in compromising positions by taking special treatment from PR and publishers? I think the gaming medias actions speak louder than their words about how much they truly value it.

EDIT: That games journalism thread keeps delivering. Wow!
 
Wow. I haven't even gotten to this part of the show yet. Just listened to the first segment this morning, and, as a whole different criticism, that segment on the UI's of these systems, was one of the most boring Podcast segments I've ever listened to. I think you all realized that by the end too...but it sounds like that all gets overshadowed here.
 
Andrea is definitely a shill. She was pushing NFS pretty hard, even saying outright that it was better than Forza Horizon. Then she goes on to talk about some FTP Marvel game like its the second coming.

I respect Garnett but he really needs to keep the climbers off of WC.
 
If one can read the "Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos" thread and not understand why I termed it a witch hunt, then I don't know where to go with the discussion.

I'm happy to engage in dialog on this and any other subject. I've said I want to look into things because that's the logical next step. Look at the very definition you linked. Asking questions is great and by all means something we should all engage in. The tone of the discussion turned dark pretty early on.

I get an emotional reaction. At what point do cooler heads prevail and it becomes a productive discussion?
 
If Machinima is paying people to promote NFS and Andrea is on WC talking up NFS that does look pretty bad. (Even if she is not one of the people getting paid)

Here's a link to a random Youtube video of a guy who plays NFS as part of the promotion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1bkPN4sv3k

"As a perk of being a Machinima partner, I received a free copy of "Need for Speed: Most Wanted" and a monetary bonus for posting this video as part of a promotion for NFSMW!"
There are a lot of these around...

This is from needforspeed.com:

Our friends at Machinima enjoyed a two-hour Most Wanted session recently: one hour of single-player gameplay followed by a one hour multiplayer sesh.

You can see the highlights right here on the blog.

We also delivered 900 copies of the game to their army of video directors. We'll be collating...
So that promotion definitely seems real.

Now, of course it's possible or even likely that because of that promotion she got to play NFS and is genuinely into it...but it looks bad. Machinima appears to be promoting the game heavily in partnership with Criterion and/or EA, so it's not like she can come on WC and say it sucks.

Now that said, listening to that part of the episode again she didn't actually say that much about NFS, and Jeff was the one who first brought it up, so it's not like out of nowhere she launched into a 10 minute diatribe on how amazing NFS is.

But "to be up front Machinima, my employer, is actively promoting NFS and I'm working on that promotion" would have been nice.
 
Hmm ok.

I've stayed in this thread. I haven't looked at the other beyond what was posted in here. I still think people are on an unfair crusade against game media (a... witch hunt... I guess). I saw the thread using a Polygon news report as proof of "lol journalism". People just do not understand the difference between journalism and reporting and criticism.

I can see why you could be frustrated from things like that.

I was only speaking within the context of this thread. I have no idea how bad the other thread is. If the witch hunt comment was considering things outside of this thread, then that's fair I guess. I thought it was a response directly to questions about Andrea's part in Weekend Confirmed.

I can understand if you don't like people "calling out" a friend or something. I just felt "witch hunt" in context of this thread (and only this thread) was really dismissive of the concerns of us listeners.
But it looks like you're including comments from the other thread - which looks too much like an angry mob for my liking.
 
So keeping in mind that Machinima started life as YouTube channel the situation probably is something like this.

They have a network of content creators who make the shows that hit Machinima. They likely get some sort of rev share deal from the ads on their views I'd guess.

EA wants to get a bunch of NFS videos out on YouTube, puts one and one together, and concludes that it will give these creators a copy of the game and then some cash to incentivise them to do the videos ahead of other stuff they might cover. And then Machinima coordinates the getting games out to them and then showing them on their channel.

I don't work for them nor have I ever seen their deals but from what I've gathered it's something along these lines.

Now, the vids these creators post are clearly paid for. From what I've seen they're all live streams and that sort of thing. So it's hard to color the game you're seeing but I can definitely see where they'd be all about how cool it is since it's their income at the time.

That said, if I'm interested, I could probably watch the feed and just turn off the sound or ignore overly glowing stuff.
 
I get an emotional reaction. At what point do cooler heads prevail and it becomes a productive discussion?
I have to say that everytime my head cools off, something new pops up and makes me want to vomit again.

This can only work as a positive discussion because if we really want to change things we aren't going to get far with twitter attacks and comment bombing dumb press releases disguised as articles.

I think the point at which PR and journalists became friends was the turning point. I know how that sounds, but you guys have gotten into bed with eachother at the detriment to your readers/fans. You are friends with them...it can be mutually beneficial, you're part of the same promotions sometimes (not by choice often) but in the end this symbotic relationship cost us. SOME of you know the difference, but the people coming up that see this as the way things are, they took the wrong message from it, that it's all ok.

church and state man, church and state.
 
Jeff has said "Game X has sponsored my show" before talking about some games in the past.
Yeah, he's pretty good about full disclosure. Some of the things they do on TRS may be suspect, but at the end of the day it's an entertainment piece and I never felt they weren't giving me their honest opinion. Which is all that really matters in the end.
 
Thought this should be quoted for this thread from the Eurogamer/Doritos, etc thread:
I am really glad this thread exists.

This kind of stuff exists in other business and media-related stuff too but just because it exists there doesn't mean gamers have to put up with it.

Hopefully this thread will actually change some people's reading habits and others' reporting habits.

In my experience it's tough sometimes as a writer on a blog/site/whatever b/c often times you're paid very little (paid per post or have a post requirement) and then there is a pre-approved list of "stories" or topics you can write about. Often times these "stories" are just links to PR releases or better yet, other sites' "articles" about that PR release. The writer doesn't really care about the story and has very little incentive to write something better than "passable" for that post. They do the bare minimum required to have that post "count" as a post and move on.

So from that perspective it might be easy to let the writer off the hook b/c they're "just doing their job" and the real "bad guys" are the people running the site and/or editors. But I don't think that is right. These "writers" need to stand up for better quality and integrity too, just like the readers need to demand better quality.

The problem, however, is that there are so many people that want to crack into this "business" that many writers feel/are easily replaced by someone that "plays ball." And because creating a site and getting a following isn't all that hard, the same can be said for websites. If one site stops playing ball, another will spring up to take its place.

This "business" needs to be changed from the top down, down up, inside out, and outside in if real lasting change is going to take place.

But like I said, this problem is not isolated to gaming sites. I used to live in San Diego and now San Diego's newspaper is basically just a mouthpiece for propaganda but it still is represented as "news." Here is a NY Times piece about that for those interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/b...bune-open-about-its-pro-business-motives.html

This post is already too long but screw it, right?

I was offerred a free trip across the country to cover a major video-game company presentation. I am not sure why representatives from this company contacted me and offered me the trip, etc, but it happened. They said they liked things I had posted about games and whatever before...so yeah...whatever.

I ACCEPTED THE TRIP. I was given no guidelines for what the company wanted from me or why they were sending me to this presentation. It wasn't like I was hired to cover the event by the company and sent there to write things for the company's site or told to tweet positive things, etc. Look, I'll be the first to admit, I'd be willing to do that but I'd make it VERY clear that is exactly what I was doing when I was doing those things. You would never see a tweet or something from me that was disguised as one thing when it was really another.

This trip, that wasn't the case. I wasn't hired by anyone to cover anything. I was told the company was familiar with past things I had done at similar events. They sent me there. The story goes...

I flew across the country, a car service picked me up from the airport, took me to the event, and I was provided food, etc. During the presentation at the event I started doing what I have always done at those types of events, tweeting my honest impressions and feelings along with some fashion updates on what people were wearing (b/c that cracks me up).

Then during the hands-on portion of the event I received a call from someone at PR saying essentially that they had read my tweets and then reminding me who paid for my trip. I was then told to meet a PR rep at the event where I would meet a company rep who would "work with me for the remainder of the event to make sure I was having the most enjoyable time possible and had all of my questions answered." I was babysat. I was so pissed about the whole experience.

I shot a bunch of video about the whole thing on my phone while there, as it was happening, my thoughts, etc. I decided not to really do anything with it b/c this business, like any business, is small and I didn't want to burn any bridges with "raw" "in the moment" emotions.

But the more I see stuff like this going on, the more I know we all need to stand up for everything we believe in, even if one of those things is just how games are covered, or whatever.

Dang. Sorry if this was long and didn't make sense.
Get this man on the show. If Jeff and Andrea are going to dismiss it and navel gaze then, by God, you and Christian can hash this out, Garnett.

It needs to be talked about and it does your fans and the industry a disservice with the responses on last week's show.

I was disgusted with Cannata's "jealousy" comment; I lost whatever respect I had for him.
 
If one can read the "Games Journalism! Wainwright/Florence/Tomb Raider/Eurogamer/Libel Threats/Doritos" thread and not understand why I termed it a witch hunt, then I don't know where to go with the discussion.

I'm happy to engage in dialog on this and any other subject. I've said I want to look into things because that's the logical next step. Look at the very definition you linked. Asking questions is great and by all means something we should all engage in. The tone of the discussion turned dark pretty early on.

I get an emotional reaction. At what point do cooler heads prevail and it becomes a productive discussion?
I think there is a lot of productive and positive discussion going on in the other thread. There's also plenty of conclusion-jumping and finger-pointing as well, but in a public forum, you're bound to get some amount of reactionary people, especially when exposed to some "red-flag" behavior.

I hope you're able to follow up and get to the bottom of this to your and your audience's satisfaction. (Even though you've said repeatedly that investigation isn't really your thing.)
 
So keeping in mind that Machinima started life as YouTube channel the situation probably is something like this.

They have a network of content creators who make the shows that hit Machinima. They likely get some sort of rev share deal from the ads on their views I'd guess.

EA wants to get a bunch of NFS videos out on YouTube, puts one and one together, and concludes that it will give these creators a copy of the game and then some cash to incentivise them to do the videos ahead of other stuff they might cover. And then Machinima coordinates the getting games out to them and then showing them on their channel.

I don't work for them nor have I ever seen their deals but from what I've gathered it's something along these lines.

Now, the vids these creators post are clearly paid for. From what I've seen they're all live streams and that sort of thing. So it's hard to color the game you're seeing but I can definitely see where they'd be all about how cool it is since it's their income at the time.
The videos are awful by themselves but to have someone come on your show being paid $$$ by EA for posting videos, promote those videos on your show, and then tell you with a straight face that there's no payola in games media (all in one episode, no less!). That's a bridge too far for me. Beyond the pale.
 
christianspicer said:
Then during the hands-on portion of the event I received a call from someone at PR saying essentially that they had read my tweets and then reminding me who paid for my trip. I was then told to meet a PR rep at the event where I would meet a company rep who would "work with me for the remainder of the event to make sure I was having the most enjoyable time possible and had all of my questions answered." I was babysat.
Holy shit.

I agree with DangerStepp, please have this man on the show soon please. He'd be a good counterpoint to Andrea "that's bullcocky I tell you" Rene.
 
God damn. Video game journalism is fucked. It's all about kids posting reviews on youtube now, and hell, those guys are perfectly happy getting free shit without thinking about it.
It's not fucked. I believe Garnett has integrity. The problem is, the cat is out of the bag right now. If Garnett and others in positions of somewhat authority, with good podcasts and websites, can at least CURB this stuff and FUCKING ADMIT IT instead of calling it 'jealousy,' then it could be fixed. Right now, it's gotten out of hand. Those youtube type reviewers will always be there. Just do a better job of keeping them, and ANYTHING connected to them, the fuck out of weekend confirmed.
 
It's not fucked. I believe Garnett has integrity. The problem is, the cat is out of the bag right now. If Garnett and others in positions of somewhat authority, with good podcasts and websites, can at least CURB this stuff and FUCKING ADMIT IT instead of calling it 'jealousy,' then it could be fixed. Right now, it's gotten out of hand. Those youtube type reviewers will always be there. Just do a better job of keeping them, and ANYTHING connected to them, the fuck out of weekend confirmed.
I don't doubt Garnett but he's still tap dancing around the issue.

The "Games Jingoism mega-thread" is very much a blood bath right now but holy shit if it isn't pulling up things that look incredibly shifty regarding the enthusiast press and gaming related PR.

Andrea isn't exactly a viking on the podcast when it comes to speaking from a place of knowledge...or passion about video games. The information revealed today (if true) really starts connecting the dots regarding what her role is on the podcast.

Hint: It's not impartial, knowledgeable discussion
 
Andrea isn't exactly a viking on the podcast when it comes to speaking from a place of knowledge...or passion about video games. The information revealed today (if true) really starts connecting the dots regarding what her role is on the podcast.

Hint: It's not impartial, knowledgeable discussion
Good God, I could not agree more.
 
I consider critic vs journalist in other fields. When I read something from a movie critic, I totally expect a bias. This person got to see the movie for free early and attend parties and stuff. But I still value their opinion because they've seen a lot more movies than I have and it's just fun to read others' opinions. I will always be wary of the bias and treat their opinion as... opinion. Not as fact.

A journalist, to me, does investigative work. I expect what they write to be as neutral as humanly possible because it tells a story or teaches something.

Journalism and Criticism (and Reporting) are not the same thing.

This is journalism.
This is criticism.
This is reporting.

Some of the confusion comes from video game critics or reporters claiming to be journalists. But they're not. Garnett has it right. He is definitely not a journalist.

I'm not very good with English or expressing myself. So I hope those examples help to explain how I see the difference.

EDIT: I guess maybe I expect criticism to be about opinions and journalism to be about facts.
Though there are definitely arguments to be made about trying to keep as neutral an opinion as possible too. So I do understand why people are so angry about this. But I guess I don't agree with them about what is "possible".

EDIT2: Journalists can write about their opinions too. But then it is called an editorial and is clearly opinion not to be taken with the same weight as their other work.

EDIT3: The news about Andrea is unsurprising. All she ever does is talk about how awesome and amazing an upcoming game is and that I should pre-order it. Or check out this awesome "best miniseries ever" about Halo, "even if you're not a fan of the series". I value Garnett's and Jeff's and Andrew's opinions though I often disagree. Andrea is... PR. She is everything that people are truly angry about in this fight against games media. She comes in and pretends to be a neutral source but is really just reciting PR and trying to sell me the new greatest game ever.
If this is not true, then please explain clearly to me why Borderlands 2 is "perfect" and why Need for Speed is awesome and why the Halo miniseries is "the best" and "even though people say it has bad writing [you] think it's great" and what makes Marvel so special compared to all the other unsuccessful MMOs released. Or... anything! Say something other than "THIS UPCOMING GAME IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Stupid one liners like "I am a huge Nintendo fan" or "I play racing games until my thumbs bleed" isn't enough. If these statements are true, expand on them and prove it. Just saying it and then following with some PR speak is worthless.
All of her statements could be valid opinions but she doesn't support anything she says with anything. Which just makes it look like she doesn't know what she is talking about and is just telling me what PR wants her to tell me.
There is still is a ``point'', or certain view, that the journalist wants to come across. So, I still consider it biased, but I'm overly cynical.

Cold, emotionless fact reporting seems to me to be highest on the objectivity scale. There is less to the text, beyond the facts, to bias it. (Even then, omission of certain facts could also result in a *biased* report.)

I am not naive enough to think that objectivity, as an ideal, exists. I don't even pretend that I am objective about anything I say, and I don't expect others to be either, regardless of whatever journalistic ideal they claim to be ascribing to. For me, it all comes down to how much crap I can put up with, and by crap I mean possible opinions I disagree with, or heck, even hard facts I'd rather not hear. I am aware of my own fallibility, and I am equally aware of others'.

Don't mistake my cynicism as saying that objectivity, where it is desired, isn't a good thing to strive for; it is, and I believe strongly that. I'm just more realistic in my expectations.
 
I don't like Andrea [contributions to the show] because I don't find her opinions interesting, I couldn't care less if she was paid by all the publishers. (As I said earlier, I'm very realistic in my expectations of objectivity.) She doesn't give well-reasoned, deep arguments and opinions. That's why I tend to like the two Jeffs, Mattas and Cannata, more. More than Garnett even, but he's a good show producer/moderator/conversation lead, when he's not interjecting with juvenile humor (I'll admit, Garnett, if you are reading this, some jokes have been really funny ;)). Garnett and the two Jeffs is the show at its best for me. Spicer [contributions], I don't like much either.
 
I had to go back and listen to this portion to refresh myself.

I really don't think they understand what people are upset about at all. They made jokes about the Doritos/Keighley thing and completely miss the point, which leads me to believe none of them read the Rab Florence article, which is more a commentary of the industry condition (he merely uses the Keighley picture as a point of reference for a much larger problem). Whenever they actually approach the PR/Press in bed issue, Jeff basically said, "Reader beware and that there are other sites to use."

Do me a favor and at least do the required reading below:

Shawn Elliot - 1 (aegies is Arthur Gies of polygon.com) 2 3 4 5 6
Jeff Green on the way it actually works, and another post, an another

This is only a small portion of what actually exists.

After you understand what this is really all about how deep of an issue it is then please feel free to discuss it next week in a manner that shows a little more respect to the subject at hand as well as your audience.

It's a cancer and it needs to be treated as such; it's not a joke. Please communicate this to your friends, Garnett.
 
I never believed this would reach this point but anyone that cares about gaming media needs to stand up and fight for their profession. See John Walker and Tom Bramwell.

Perception is reality and right now with a bunch of facts coming out everyday, every rumor and conspiracy theory going around about the gaming media seems plausible or was proved true.

If I was a honest member of the gaming media I would be pissed because some rotten apples were making a complete mockery of my profession. Instead, what we saw was complete silence and some people trying to not make a big deal about this, some even implying it's only jealously or "the kids on the internet making noise again".

Maybe gaming media members really believe they got older but their audience remains the 10-23 year old demographic from 15 years ago, but unfortunately you can't continue to try saying us to eat this shit saying it's foie gras believing you know better because we are kids. When someone remains silent or tries to dismiss something so obvious, we have to wonder what are they hiding/protecting, especially after Tom Bramwell revealed that he was "screamed" at by colleagues because he published a story that dared to interrupt the lovely romance between PR and the gaming media.

Garnett now it's the time to make a decision. I understand friendships complicate things but you can't be that oblivious to what was happening on your goddamn show for months. It's shocking when James Stevenson behaves less like a PR than Andrea. Retweeting that contest for a t-shirt is not bad in a vacuum, but doing this when this shitstorm is still going it only shows that: a) she doesn't have a choice but to retweet that, b) she doesn't care about what is happening, when it was exactly the same thing that caused this mess to begin with.

Either way, it feels bad because a) she is on Ubisoft's pocket or b) doesn't care about your profession. While I don't agree that you have to remove Andrea from the show, the decision also reflects on you too. You are the person making the decision (or at least I hope so), so if you agree to have someone that acts like her, you are basically saying you agree with that kind of behavior.
 
Andrea is a glorified PR cheerleader, not an objective games critic. That's not why I listen to the podcast.
Exactly, I want honest opinions and I'm still gonna continue listen to WC because I have a whole lot of respect for Garnett and the Jeffs (even when I disagree with them). Also, WC is my lawnmowing background noise during the summer. Can't do it without it (it takes two hours).

I'm sure Andrea is a nice person and all but she always sounded a little "influenced" when she overly praised certain games. She sounded more like a PR shill than many developers guesting on the show. And I could swear it even made Garnett a little uncomfortable at times. ;)
 
I'm sure Andrea is a nice person and all but she always sounded a little "influenced" when she overly praised certain games. She sounded more like a PR shill than many developers guesting on the show. And I could swear it even made Garnett a little uncomfortable at times. ;)
Totally, I bet Andrea is a really nice and interesting person in real life (which led Garnett to get her on the show), but she serves no real functional purpose on the show. I mean, I wish she did, because I don't have anything against her personally.

As it is I only listen to Weekend Confirmed anymore because of Garnett and Jeff "Two N's, One T".
 
Yes. I have been negative about Andrea but it's nothing personal. I have nothing against her as a person and I really really really wish she could contribute more to the show. I need more female representation in the "boys club" that is video games (which is one reason I loved Ariel on the show).

I wish Andrea was more but... she's just bad for the show. Of course that can change and she could become something more. But right now things just look really really really bad. It's a bad situation. I'm sure this is tough on Garnett too. I assume she was on because they're friends and she's probably a really fun and cool person outside of all this.

I hate to see (and be part of) such a vocal outcry against a person but... I don't know. It's just really bad. It's really unfortunate things came to this.

I'm totally fine with James Stevenson. I know what he is and he never tries to hide it. I can listen to (and really enjoy) his contributions to discussions on the podcast. I'm even subscribed to the (dormant) Full Moon Show.
Maybe all this is unfair to Andrea and she truly has nothing shady going on. If that's the case, I hope this will make her a better guest by having her explain her thoughts more and contribute in better ways than sounding like she's trying to sell me a video game.

The issue for me here is honesty. Maybe Andrea can explain things but she doesn't appear to be very honest at this time. And that's a really really really big strike against her for me.
 
Yes. I have been negative about Andrea but it's nothing personal. I have nothing against her as a person and I really really really wish she could contribute more to the show. I need more female representation in the "boys club" that is video games (which is one reason I loved Ariel on the show).

I wish Andrea was more but... she's just bad for the show. Of course that can change and she could become something more. But right now things just look really really really bad. It's a bad situation. I'm sure this is tough on Garnett too. I assume she was on because they're friends and she's probably a really fun and cool person outside of all this.
Ya, your post and mine are practically the same.

I like Ariel, too.
 
Yes. I have been negative about Andrea but it's nothing personal. I have nothing against her as a person and I really really really wish she could contribute more to the show. I need more female representation in the "boys club" that is video games (which is one reason I loved Ariel on the show).
I agree. I should clarify it is the show members' contributions to the show that I am commenting on, too.
 
I'm totally fine with James Stevenson. I know what he is and he never tries to hide it. I can listen to (and really enjoy) his contributions to discussions on the podcast. I'm even subscribed to the (dormant) Full Moon Show.

Stevenson is excellent. He doesn't hide what he is or what side he's coming from. I also highly doubt he'd LoL it up on his twitter if he was accused of being a shady liar.

Something that Andrea is doing.

From 6 hours ago...

Rene said:
Oh @garnettlee the comments are on FIRE from last week's @WeekendConfirmd lol!
One of two things with this situation.

1 - She has NO idea whatsoever.

2 - She's completely ignorant.
 
Another perspective is that many people, like myself, don't give a crap about all this silly "journalism" flack. We know that when it comes to gaming there is no journalism being done. It's just a bunch of gaming enthusiasts. We know that when we see an "exclusive" early review that the score is bought and paid for - well, the review score range is. The notion that only the companies themselves should do unboxings etc is so stupid. I want as many of them as possible. It's what enthusiasts are good for. I'm smart enough to discern for myself which reviewers have interests that sort of align with my own. And I'm smart enough to know when someone is talking out their ass. Like on WC when they review the first hour or two of a game and declare it great. That's worthless to me, but I appreciate the input. Useless as it might be.

As for the most recent episode, I was embarrassed for everyone involved in that UI discussion. Hooboy. No one came away from that looking good. Especially Jeff. Ouch.

Consider this a vote to have Andrea back. She's annoying, insightful, right and wrong. A lot. Just like everyone else.
 
Been listening to Garnett's show since early 2008. I dropped it from my subscription list today. It wasn't this whole Machinima thing, that was just the final nail. I've been less and less entertained or informed by what gets discussed over the past year or so. The show's become patronizing and full of fragmented conversations. Thanks for the memories, though.
 
Yeah, I bet Garnett is not exactly "lol"ing right now. The man obviously cares about integrity and he's not in the PR mouthpiece business.
For his podcasts and the work that I've read over time I feel he cares about the product he produces and wants to give honest criticism and praise. I'll be looking forward to this Friday's podcast, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on however he chooses to handle this on his show.

Plus I can't wait to hear his talking about the cowboys, especially after they came a dez bryant fingertip away from pulling off a victory.
 
Yeah, I bet Garnett is not exactly "lol"ing right now. The man obviously cares about integrity and he's not in the PR mouthpiece business.
It's great how he gets to deal with the bullshit while she yuks it up on her twitter talking about how awesome AC 3 is. All while not understanding that everything she says could very well appear to be nothing more than an advertisement and actually...you know...genuine.



We should take bets to see if she's on the show again. I really don't know how Garnett will handle this. I know what I'd like him to do, but I'm not sure he will.

I will eat my hat if she's off the show.

Very few people on the press side of things seem to be "getting it".
 
Garnett has pretty consistently for years said that games don't need scores. I'll trust his integrity and his decisions to put on HIS show anyone he wants to. He's had people on the show that always sounded like company shills (Luke, Shane), but it never detracted from the show (for me). The only time Andrea has bothered me is when everyone let her talk about Sleeping Dogs, when she made it immediately clear that she didnt like it and didnt play it enough to speak intelligently about it.
 
I've only ever heard Andrea range from a filler voice to someone who completely derails the podcast. At best, her opinions are exactly what you'd expect to hear from a random 12 year old in Gamestop. At worst, she's like someone wrenching on the emergency brake of the show.
 

lowrider007

Licorice-flavoured booze?
..At best, her opinions are exactly what you'd expect to hear from a random 12 year old in Gamestop.
I'm far from Andrea's biggest fan but that's really not fare tbh, she's not that bad.

I still don't get why this all has to be so serious, and for what it's worth I don't think Andrea is intentionality trying to deceive anyone.
 
Another perspective is that many people, like myself, don't give a crap about all this silly "journalism" flack. We know that when it comes to gaming there is no journalism being done. It's just a bunch of gaming enthusiasts. We know that when we see an "exclusive" early review that the score is bought and paid for - well, the review score range is. The notion that only the companies themselves should do unboxings etc is so stupid. I want as many of them as possible. It's what enthusiasts are good for. I'm smart enough to discern for myself which reviewers have interests that sort of align with my own. And I'm smart enough to know when someone is talking out their ass. Like on WC when they review the first hour or two of a game and declare it great. That's worthless to me, but I appreciate the input. Useless as it might be.

As for the most recent episode, I was embarrassed for everyone involved in that UI discussion. Hooboy. No one came away from that looking good. Especially Jeff. Ouch.

Consider this a vote to have Andrea back. She's annoying, insightful, right and wrong. A lot. Just like everyone else.
Most of us expect better. If you have such low standards why do you even care?


Garnett has pretty consistently for years said that games don't need scores. I'll trust his integrity and his decisions to put on HIS show anyone he wants to. He's had people on the show that always sounded like company shills (Luke, Shane), but it never detracted from the show (for me). The only time Andrea has bothered me is when everyone let her talk about Sleeping Dogs, when she made it immediately clear that she didnt like it and didnt play it enough to speak intelligently about it.
And now you've compared Andrea to Luke and Shane?