TV Execs' Attempts To Lure Gamers Not Always Best 52
Thanks to MSNBC for its article discussing the mixed fortunes of TV bosses trying to get videogamers to watch shows about games. The piece starts with the question: "Golf players watch golf, but will video game players watch games?", and points out the failures (UPN's previously mentioned CG sitcom Game Over, an "esoteric take on gaming culture [which] didn't last long. Amid dismal ratings, UPN yanked the show off the air earlier this month.") alongside more long-running shows such as TechTV's X-Play (the writer notes "...enough inside jokes to please the hardcore gamers, but listen closely enough and you may detect an almost mocking tone.")
UPN? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:UPN? (Score:3, Interesting)
The result was basically a generic family sitcom with a few game-related background jokes.
It just wasn't a good show.
Re:UPN? (Score:2)
Re:UPN? (Score:2)
G4 TV (Score:4, Interesting)
They recently did the top ten Star Wars games. The number one game, in my mind, is the best reason to own an XBox - Knights of the Old Republic. By the way, if you have this game, and XBox Live, they made new content available about a month ago - 3 new light sabre crystals and a space station.
bhj
Re:G4 TV (Score:4, Insightful)
I was kinda pissed off for a second when I noticed the extra stuff for xbox live until I realised that it was the space station that was on pc version from day 1.
as to the tv shows.. just put 1 or 2 hot chicks in it to speak out the reviews done by competent people and you're set.
Re:G4 TV (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that if you're on a channel dedicated to catering to gamers and you haven't seen Star Wars, you might want to. It just makes me wonder about anything that comes out of either of the women on that show [since I don't remember which one hadn't seen Star Wars]. I mean, you don't wonder about wheather Bob Vila has ever installed a toilet, right?
I've got the same reservations about listening to Morgan Webb. First off, she's awkward in front of the camera. Yes, she is attractive but her ability to read cue cards naturally is rather poor. These networks should focus on hiring people who actually play video games regularly and have some training in the television industry as on-air talent. That may be a tall order but part of the reason I think G4 and TechTV don't do as well as they could is because they've got either non-techs working and thus driving people away because they don't know what they're talking about OR they've got people who don't know anything about broadcasting and drive people away with an inability to convey information. TechTV's Screensavers program was once somewhat enjoyable. Leo Laporte has a background in broadcasting and, while not the most technically proficient person, got the job done. Now they've got all these 20-something interns that are designed to put a young face on the network but they do their job like shit. They're really awkward in front of the camera and they don't know a thing about technology.
I guess that's the end of my rant in reply to your one sentence about G4. ;-)
Re:G4 TV (Score:2, Insightful)
The production values are nonexistant, which I guess is acceptable since they need to get an audience to put more into the production, but the content is scarce as well. Unfunny machinima, redundant top ten lists, a show called Cheat! that features pract
OT: Re:G4 TV (Score:2)
It depends on the gamer (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want me to watch a show, you're going to have to give it to me free on the internet, and support it with ads or something. Stick commercials in the middle of the stream which must be played, and tell your advertisers I'm watching them (I'll probably be playing a bit of tetris at the time, but they don't need to know that.) It's not like I pay attention to the average commercial anyway.
Television is going to be with us for a long time, but eventually it'll be eclipsed by video on demand, delivered over the internet, or by your ISP in the case of the cable companies. Video-enabled set top boxes with built in DOCSIS cable modems are being developed left and right...
Comcast customer? (Score:5, Informative)
Helpful tip: They actually have a special sub-basic Cable TV plan. They don't advertise it, but it covers the basic broadcast and local access channels.
The price? $13 a month.
Does it qualify you for the $15 discount on your Comcast Internet connection? Yes.
So, for $2 less per month, you could get a few local cable channels. Hey, it's always handy to have at least that.
And if you're lucky (like me) they'll forget to put on the right filter and you'll get full basic cable.
Re:Comcast customer? (Score:2)
Re:Comcast customer? (Score:1)
An unsurprising result (Score:5, Interesting)
I would assert the success of a TV show about an activity is inversely propotional to the ease of engaging in that activity at a moment's notice.
Consider travel shows - I can hardly travel 600 miles to visit San Antonio at the drop of a hat. So if there is a show on about what there is to do in San Antonio, I may watch it to see what I might do when I have the time to go there.
Consider fishing shows - going fishing takes a degree of prep time and travel time. I might not have the time to go fishing today, but I might have the time to watch a show about it to fix my Jones'in for fishing.
Consider golf shows - if I am a golfer and I come across a golf show, I might look out the window and say "I'll bet I could get a quick nine in before dinner", but then again, I might not.
Now, in light of those examples, consider a video game show. I am ALREADY in front of the TV - you know, where I would have to be to play a video game. Now, which am I more likely to do if I am a hard-core gamer - watch a TV show about gaming, or switch on my console AND ACTUALLY PLAY A GAME?
In short, who is likely to watch a show about video game play? Just how lazy do you have to be to watch (passively) a show about an activity that is itself fairly passive?
And as far as watching to pick up tips and tricks - there is a better solution for that for most gamers. I'll give you a hint - you're soaking in it!
Re:An unsurprising result (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd add one other note to your concept, and that's if there is a REALLY good show about gaming (I consider X-Play passable), it's going to be most effective at making me want to play a video game. Thus, there's even less chance that I'm actually going to sit through the show and its commercials. Talk about defeating one's own purpose...
Re:An unsurprising result (Score:2)
Video games are themselves "active" experiences. The player is engaged and doing things in order to meet an objective. Television is a "passive" experience. Someone else is pulling the strings and you are merely observing the end result.
This is not only why video game-based shows generally don't work well. It's also why video game-based movies tend to fail just the same. Truth is, turning an "active" experience into a "passive" one ends up being boring.
Passive vsw. active (Score:1)
Is Game Over the best they could do? (Score:5, Interesting)
of course there is a missing element (Score:4, Interesting)
The videogame review shows have their place. They have the advantage over magazines and websites becaseu they can actually show the game being played while they talk about it.
Also, I think that interviews with creators and other behind the scenes type of material work very well for television. So there is a place for it, but it needs that element of quality and to offer something you can't get as well from a magazine or a web site.
My thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
X-Play is much better. It succeeds where other review shows (including Extended Play, its previous life): It's actually entertaining. Most of the other review shows I've seen have nothing but review after review with the occaisonal joke thrown in - it's like watching a gadget show review printer after printer. X-Play has sketches and stuff, usually at least one per episode, along with segments like "Uncomfortable Moments in Gaming" ("The Horror of Song," a piece on awful videogame music, holds a special place in my heart ^_^). It's much more fun to watch then any other video game show I've seen (I don't have G4 though).
Agreed. Sort of. (Score:1)
I enjoyed Extended Play the most when it was Adam Sessler and Kate Botello. I don't want to sound like one of those guys who treat their games as if they are punk rock (you know the type...the ones hanging on misc. messageboards/IRC channels posting "These guys aren't real gamers, they probably don't even know about (fill in obscure title here)")...but...well...Botello felt genuinely interested and into the medium where Morgan well...yeah...looks nice.
Personally, I love how Judgment Day approaches their r
Poor attempt trend (Score:4, Insightful)
The Simpsons works because it's smart. Reboot (rest in peace) worked because it was innocent and forthright.
Game Over didn't know what it was, and figured that "computer generated" and "shocking" was enough.
It's not. Good riddance.
Why not borrow existing talent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gamesmaster (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gamesmaster (Score:1)
How about the cartoon with that dude and all the characters from the popular NES games? IIRC, Megaman, Samus, and Simon Belmont were there... I wonder if you'd see all those publishers c
Re:Gamesmaster (Score:2)
Other kooky game-related shows over the years:
The UK scene is just as bad (Score:2)
Problem with argument (Score:1, Interesting)
Um, I know a several people who play golf and none of them actually watch golf on tv. The two people that I do know watch golf, don't play. This makes me really question the validity of the argument. Perhaps instead of looking at games as a single genre of television, we should look at the content of the games and make shows based on interesting game content, not just lame cliches.
Re:Problem with argument (Score:2)
And drop the patronizing crap, while they're at it. Comment on your target audience with their pale skin that hasn't seen natural sunlight since the invention of Atari and their inability to secure dates without doing their homework for them and guess what? Your target audience just left.
Re:Problem with argument (Score:1)
It's a weak argument to begin with, and most of the "gamer" tv shows (like X-Play) are geared towards the moronic console user and moronic FPS addict with broadband and no firewall.
I Love X-Play (Score:3, Interesting)
At first I wasn't in love with X-Play. But as the times has gone on I've come to really like it. A lot of the jokes are good (some lame) but they do know videogames. X-Play is my number one source of video game reviews (I still read magazines, but my TiVo picks up every episode).
Their reviews are a few minutes long, and usually more indepth than many magazine reviews. The fact that the whole thing is VIDEO and not screenshots is great, because you can see how great a game really looks as opposed to just a few stills. You get a much better "feel" for the game. I really enjoy the show and the reviews and segments that they do. I really hope they survive the TechTV/G4 merger that may happen.
PS: As for "Game Over", it wasn't bad, but only the first episode had any real videogame references in it (like Crash Bandicoot, Abe from Oddworld, etc). If they had kept those up well, they'd have done better.
PPS: As to G4 TV, I don't get the channel so I can't comment.
Arena (Score:1)
So to answer the question: Yes, yes we will.
Here's the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the problem though: there aren't any games that are interesting to watch. I've seen some really awesome Q3 players play, and it's just that they have better accuracy, dodging, etc. It's not like a game of chess where you see a move and you realize that he's been planning that for six moves, now. If games evolve to the point where it's possible to be an absolute master, playing the game with such skill that it's impressive to watch, then I'm sure we'll see television coverage...until then, it's just a pipe dream.
The other option, creating drama, just won't work. The interesting people in computing are so tied to idealism and teenage angst that it just wouldn't be very watchable. Sure, I agree with RMS' viewpoints almost entirely, but watching that man on television regularly would kill me. Real-life hackers? They're so angsty any movie would have to be either totally unrealistic or totally annoying.
Emerson once observed that everything, even the railroads and the urban sprawl, would eventually become poetic...it's just that these things haven't been around long enough to get integrated into our common aesthetic. It's really the same thing with the hackers...they're pretty new to the scene, so society doesn't know how to deal with them yet; they become nothing more than an oddity, a cariacture. Perhaps as our culture becomes more and more dependent on technology these new stereotypes will become fleshed out to the point that there are interesting things to say about them in the context of news or drama, but we're just not there yet.
Ugh, anyone remember Video Power? (Score:4, Interesting)
In its second incarnation the show turned into a gameshow, ala Starcade with one-fourth part Double Dare. Improved it greatly, well for what it was, but still forgettable.
But what about Captain N, and the various Super Mario Bros. shows? And Saturday Supercade, and the Saturday Morning Dragon's Lair and Pole Position cartoons, you ask?
I respond, you don't want to know. You know not of which you ask! Greater men than I have cracked under the pressure! You can't handle the truth!
Re:Ugh, anyone remember Video Power? (Score:1)
South Korea has it done right (Score:4, Informative)
They manage to cut the footage and hop between players well enough to keep things interesting enough to watch.
honestly, I think that most gaming shows focus too much on adding stuff to making it interesting instead of just making the footage quality enough for it to be interesting on its own merit.
Hey what about Electric Playground? (Score:2)
Its being shown over here. And from the few episodes Ive seen of it, its basically one big fucking half an hour ad for whatever games they are pimping. I even saw them praise Lucasarts for that turkey Red Shit RTX (I forget the name of the game which shows how bad it is).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If they want to make a good TV show based on ga (Score:2)
Intelligent Commentary (Score:3, Insightful)
Take, for example, Football or Iron Chef.
There's constant running commentary and they have teams, TEAMS of people running around digging up statistical data and constantly trying to predict strategies and explain tactics. Tell me why the Chiefs needed to go for it on the 4th down. Tell me how this team was able to fake the pass, hand off the ball to a lineman, then have the lineman lateral the ball to an open man on the other side of the field BECAUSE the man was actually a quarterback for a division one college.
Do you think Iron Chef would be as interesting if it was just two guys cooking it out and then a panel of judges just say "it's tasty." No! You need Doctor Hattori telling you play by play what the chef is planning, what kinds of dishes he's making, what the difference is between Matsuba Crab and Watari crab, why they don't want to overcook the abalone, where this style of recipe originated from, etc.
The problem with these shows like G4's Arena is they're being produced by people that play less video games than the people that are watching the show. They know less and they're less capable. All they can do is Oooh and Ahh into the microphone dumbfounded then tell you "how bad Team Iron Ass Kicking schooled DemiDemon Dojo."
If (competitive) video game TV wants to take off they need an infrastructure of journalists, not unlike sports writers and commentators, to decompose the gameplay and present it to the audience so it is more than just "watching some guy play a video game."
For those you who haven't seen Game Over (Score:3, Informative)
Clicky clicky [suprnova.org]
The TV Execs would get better ratings if... (Score:2)
Dolemite
_______________
Machinima TV Series (Score:2, Informative)
One is Rogue Farm [strangecompany.org] and the other is GAME [gameisnotagame.com]. Apparently GAME is both for broadcast and console delivery. You can interact with each episode somehow.