"On the Spot," Psychonauts on "On the Spot," and other gamer TV

[Simon]

I don't mind the show much. I've only watched the two Schafer episodes, admittedly, and he's entertaining enough to perhaps make the annoyances of the format less so.

Maybe the broadcast journalism skills are a bit sloppy, but they seemed to spend plenty of time with each developer and give them the opportunity to say some things of interest. Whilst the Psychonauts wrap party footage was fleeting and didn't tell us much new, it was there and cool to see. There's some effort and interest in the game involved.

They even spent some time discussing Scott Campbell, his Action Comics, his box art, and how he got hired. And whilst it wasn't in depth at all, I can't think of any show on TV here that would even mention a game's designer, let alone have him interviewed for 20 minutes and talking about his game's art director. So it's at least a breath of fresh air in that respect, and I'm not complaining.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

While I just made fun of the guys a couple posts ago, I feel obliged to point out, in some agreement with Jake, that this show is a Webcast. The only people watching it are going to be people already interested in gaming. Those with no knowledge of the gaming world aren't going to go through the trouble of loading the show's super-crappy-res video (they're not gamers, so they don't have the paying subscription, just as I don't) to watch a bunch of clowns trying to manage their amateurish TV show.

So while the show is painful to watch, i don't know how good we should expect a Webcast-only show with no commercial breaks to be. And how many quality shows would spend that much time talking to Tim?

So what if it's just a webcast? That's no excuse to slack off, especially when you're dealing with industry giants. And yeah, I am interested in gaming, but so what? I still expect a modicum of polish in an interview show, whether on t.v. or the web. What you're saying is merely insulting me more, it insinuates that I just take anything thrown at me while I wag my tail and drool all over the place.

[Jake]

Trep I think you should spend less time trying to be scandalized and further insulted by his post and more time considering what he's actually saying.

[SiN]

anyone by any chance watch Button Mashing on gamespot? it's their game-show based on gaming. Definitly worth watching for the hilarious (but well done) intro alone. And while the rest of the show can sometimes be a bit painful to watch, its great stuff ... fun to watch and all about gaming.

sure it isn't the most professional stuff out there, but i'm just glad somebody is doing this stuff. 'cos while i hate gamespot just as much as anyone, you have to respect them for trying to do something different.

and there's no doubt in my mind that things WILL get better. around a year ago, things like "On the spot" and "Button Mashing" were simply not possible at gamespot. Now they are. They've been getting better & better equipment. And hiring people to work gamespot live. Give it time, and it'll get better. For now, I think what gamespot needs is the support of it's users.

SiN

[nsps]

So what if it's just a webcast? That's no excuse to slack off, especially when you're dealing with industry giants. And yeah, I am interested in gaming, but so what? I still expect a modicum of polish in an interview show, whether on t.v. or the web. What you're saying is merely insulting me more, it insinuates that I just take anything thrown at me while I wag my tail and drool all over the place.

I don't think they're slacking off so much as nervous and inexperienced. They don't know what they're doing, but they do have some knowledge of games and actually want to discuss them with the designers. I have only watched the two episodes with Tim, and have skipped through all the unrelated stuff, so even I didn't "just take anything thrown at me while I wag my tail and drool all over the place." My only point is that it's a free Webcast, put on by people whose primary act clearly isn't producing a show. If you're paying for a Gamespot subscription, you might feel more ripped off. If you were paying for cable and had to watch it (or G4), you might feel more ripped off.

My main point is that I find it unlikely that the show will soil the reputation of gamers. Plenty of other things will do that. I didn't intend to insinuate that you should watch the show, as I said it was often "painful to watch" and I don't personally watch the show beyond special circumstances. I merely wanted to point out that while I stand by what I said earlier when making fun of the hosts, the show exists in a certain context. It costs a certain amount of money to make a quality weekly talk show. If more money could be made from something like "On the Spot" right now, I suspect that we'd have some higher quality competitors as alternatives (maybe we do and I don't know it).

[Thrik]

I have to say, I don't exactly dislike the show because of the interviewers. I genuine effort is being made to make a gaming programme which genuinely appeals to and delivers interesting information to gamers. Sure, the interviewers are a little hyperactive and amateurish, but can you all honestly say that you didn't actually enjoy the interview? You'd prefer to watch the mainstream-targetted trash that's presented by teen bad-boy posers on TV?

I just hope that more gaming programmes on TV start to step more in the direction of actual gamers, and air stuff that we actually want to see. Developed by gamers for gamers, so to speak. That's why so many people loved Gamesmaster in the 1990s -- it was presented by a real gamer who had some pretty amusing wit to boot, which made the show both informed and entertaining at the same time. GameSpot appear to have gotten the former point in check, but their actual entertainment is lacking a bit due to the presenters being fairly unfunny and interesting, instead relying on their interviewees to do the job for them.

Kind of went off on a tangent there.

[Jake]

I agree with soccerdude (... from page 1. how did i suddenly miss page 2 even though i'd already read it? sigh). Compared to what else is out there, On the Spot isn't too terrible. I think they could use a lot of constructive criticism, and I think their production quality will go up and up with time, but you guys aren't really offering any constructive criticism, and are instead sayign that the show made you barf, scarred your eyes, or actively insulted you through your computer monitor.

Also I split this discussion out from the Psychonauts thread, because it's not really about that anymore

[nsps]

I believe there has been some constructive criticism of the show, so maybe we should compile it all and send it to them:

1. Don't read a question sent in from a viewer if it has already been asked. Simply skip to the next one and screen for the best questions. (from me) On that same note, have it organized in advance which host will ask these questions.

2. Don't talk so damn fast. (from Netmonkey)

3. Don't ask what words you can say on your own show. [Was that the host, or the designer? Seems weird for the designer to say his own game is kickass.] (from Duncan)

4. Steer the interview (and show) in the best way to maintain smoothness and polish. (from Trep)

5. Practice some broadcast journalism skills [learn to be concise and enunciate, prepare more in advance.] (from amishler)

6. Don't have awkward Q&A sessions in which guests sit there while the hosts answer questions that the guests aren't qualified to answer. Answer those questions during a different part of the show. Alternatively, use close-up camera angles on the hosts while they answer questions that the designers aren't involved in. (from me)

7. Better production value (from Trep, I think)

8. Display more wit and charisma. (from Thrik)

9. It's great to speak at length with a designer about the creative process and their collaborators, as long as that designer is Tim Schafer. (from multiple people)

10. Put more time into planning and organizing the show.

Post any additions, and maybe some one can pass these along to the show.

[Jake]

I guess another problem here is that I don't mind that the damn thing is entirely off the cuff. If it gets streamlined too far it will be absolutely a wash. Do you really want On the Spot to turn into a Letterman type thing, where every question and answer in the interview segments is prepared in advance? That is basically what you're asking for. I wouldnt mind a few less mistakes and awkward moments, and maybe better lighting and camerawork, but on the whole I don't know if I want to ask for more than that.

Also, in regards to the questions being prepared ahead of time... they can't do that. The whole point of the show is that viewers send in questions while it airs. It's a call-in entertainment talk show, except online.

[nsps]

I don't think the suggestions came across correctly. I'm not asking for pre-scripted interviews.

I didn't mean to prepare the questions ahead of time, I meant to prepare the game descriptions, introductions, etc. I actually find stuff that has obviously been planned in advance very annoying (late night talk shows with nonsensical transitions on the questions—I prefer The Daily Show, which has no pre-interview).

On call-in shows, they have someone screening the calls to find out the questions in advance and avoid two people asking the same question. That's the other planning element I was getting at.

I doubt I'm ever going to watch this show again anyway, so I should probably stop worrying.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I don't WANT a shellac presentation (with canned applause and shit). I do, however, prefer a level of professionalism, good pacing, enough candidness to maintain freshness and spontaneity, and EXPERIENCED hosts who know how to ask questions, throw in a few comments here and there, articulate themselves generally well, and make the guests feel more at home. I noticed that Tim seemed to fidget here and there, and I'm guessing it's 'cause he thinks those two guys are a couple of dolts. I felt like I was watching a home movie with some famous person being interviewed.

[nsps]

Yes, yes, exactly. It doesn't have to be manufactured to be professional, and I don't think any of the suggestions, unless taken to extremes, would make it like that.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, that's all I need to say about it. I am glad, though, that I got to see Tim talk about his stuff. He's fat!! Too much of a good thing (games) will do that to ya....

[SiN]

i havent actually watched the interview for fear of spoilers/footage of the game. is there any footage while tim is talking, or is it possible to fast forward thru the footage and just watch his interview?

SiN

[Intrepid Homoludens]

No footage at all. The only thing you get to see is Tim in all his overweight glory. Oh, and he gives good smirk, too. For good reasons.

[nsps]

I skipped through a lot of the show the first time Tim was on, but no spoilers here. And if you want to skip the Area 51 stuff, go about halfway through.

[Chris]

I was telling Jake what I thought about On The Spot over AIM, and then I noticed there was a page 2 and that he in fact agrees and has already posted it in the thread. Whoops. So yeah I agree with Jake. I think the show is fine for what it is and certainly better than anything else of its kind at this point in time, and a lot better than any of GameSpot's other video content.

Also, at the risk of heresy ( ), speaking for the perspective of someone who knows: Tim is a fucking great speaker when he's talking about a topic of his own planning and when he's gone through his points beforehand, but honestly for the most part when he's put in the hotseat he just doesn't get into it. When you're just chatting him up he's great but on panels, in recorded things, whatever, he just never seems quite at ease. So I'm not sure it's fair to pin his performance on the host of that show. Either way I don't understand what the big deal is. They got him to come on, show the game, answer some questions, they clearly like and respect him, I mean who cares. It's just a friggin webcast, it's not in the running for an Emmy.

[lailoken]

yeah and as far as the production values are concerned, you gotta cut these guys some slack! They obviously were really nervous and still managed to do a decent job. In the end what they really lack is experience. I like the format and the idea that it's all about games and not about stupid off-topic "look what my dog did the other day" stuff.

I remember, a few years back, public television in germany made this attempt to do a games-show (one out of MANY...) and they had this real professional TV presenter who was dressed up to be really 1337 and was moving way too fast and trying all the time to be funny and whacky it made your head spin. He obviously didn't know anything about games and it felt like some weird summer-camp puppet-theater showing... so yeah it could be A LOT worse...

lil taste?

"wow! ok, that was a little sceen from the latest Command and Conquer which looks to be ultrafresh and I CAN'T WAIT TO GET MY HANDS ON THAT ONE!!!" (imagine that whole thing with one of those awfull telemarketing voices... and him moving around the frame about 200 times during that senctence, also he has hair styled to resemble a joystick...)

[amishler]

I suspect On The Spot and other similar programs will get better with time too. That show is, what, less than a year old?

I can't really speak to how far the show has come since it started, as that's the first episode I've watched, but I agree, and hope, that it will continue to get better as time goes on. I hope it does; I would love to watch a well-done show about new and upcoming games, and I find it promising that they're focusing on less high-profile original games like Psychonauts and (even though I'm not interested in it) Area 51, as opposed to just plugging the latest greatest sequels and franchises.

They still have a long way to go before it's something that I would watch on a regular basis, though. My previous posts were an attempt at constructive criticism, pointing out things they could do to make the show run more smoothly and make it more watchable. If it came across as a rant and nothing more, then that's my fault. I majored in journalism/communication, and I take these things too seriously sometimes.

But make no mistake about it, this is journalism. They're researching topics, interviewing people, and putting information on the public record. Granted, it's not on the same level as the Pope's death or the price of oil, but the basic principles are (or should be) the same. GameSpot, of all the large gaming sites, is the best place in my opinion for solid gaming print journalism. Therefore, I'm optimistic about their chances of putting together a solid video program as well. I just don't think they're there yet.

[Moosferatu]

Ok, to be honest, what bugged me the most about the show was the way the hosts talked. It just really grated on me for some reason. That Zach guy (I think that was his name) seemed to be quite a good spokes person and quite a knowledgable and interesting person as well. Granted he was answering the questions and not asking them, but I think the show might go a better if they had someone like him hosting it.

[MrHoatzin]

They need to have an editor figure out what questions need to be asked and give them to them one by one. Just have an oompaloompa run onto the set with index cards every once in a while.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

They also need a coach to train those two dolts.

Oh crap. I already said what I wanted to say.

[Chris]

Ok, to be honest, what bugged me the most about the show was the way the hosts talked. It just really grated on me for some reason. That Zach guy (I think that was his name) seemed to be quite a good spokes person and quite a knowledgable and interesting person as well. Granted he was answering the questions and not asking them, but I think the show might go a better if they had someone like him hosting it.

Yeah Jake said the same thing to me. I think I'm just desentisized to that manner of speech, hailing previously from Southern California...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I think I'm just desentisized to that manner of speech, hailing previously from Southern California...

That's no excuse!

[lailoken]

well you could call it an ineffectual explenation.

so southern california is the home of hyperbole?

I guess I always knew...