To GfW Radio: It's not you, it's me

I, for one, would be thrilled at an all Sean/Shawn podcast, as I think Shawn Elliot is an entertaining and intelligent guy, and could have some very interesting conversations with the GWJ Shawns (hell, get Sean Malloy from GFW to fill in the fourth seat; while he isn't nearly as vocal as Shawn Elliot he often has some interesting insights to add when he does speak up).

And the GWJ crew could keep him in line.

zeroKFE wrote:

I, for one, would be thrilled at an all Sean/Shawn podcast, as I think Shawn Elliot is an entertaining and intelligent guy, and could have some very interesting conversations with the GWJ Shawns (hell, get Sean Malloy from GFW to fill in the fourth seat; while he isn't nearly as vocal as Shawn Elliot he often has some interesting insights to add when he does speak up).

My head would explode with that many Sean/Shawns on one show. It would probably be a podcast record though.

My only complaint about any podcast is that I can't listen to them in the car with my kids. The random f-bomb (or any other bomb) getting dropped makes them definitely not kid friendly.

[quote=sheared]

zeroKFE wrote:

My only complaint about any podcast is that I can't listen to them in the car with my kids. The random f-bomb (or any other bomb) getting dropped makes them definitely not kid friendly.

On the other hand, that's precisely what I appreciate about these podcasts. It seems like a lot of people (and I should be absolutely clear that I'm not directing this at Sheared) push really hard for everything to be "kid friendly" and I'm getting a little sick of it.

I want a podcast with adults, occasionally using the rougher language common to everyday speech, talking in an adult fashion about games aimed at adults. There's a widespread misconception that games are for children and we need get rid of that impression, being as it is the source of a great deal of pro-censorship arguments. Gaming has grown up, and I personally have absolutely no problem with heated arguments on gaming podcasts having some adult language.

Eh, there's a difference between a podcast "for adults" and a podcast that randomly curses. But I also feel like heated discussions on any podcast should be tempered by knowledge that they're in a public setting and not just jawing with friends.

Edit: I'd also like to mention that cursing, to me, doesn't help video games throw off the "for kids" rating, it just makes people think the kids are all twelve years old and just discovered the power of bad language.

About swearing, tangents, prank talk, etc.: I look at each podcast as it's own discourse community. Swearing might be permissible in one but not another, and that's not a problem. Everyone negotiates multiple discourse communities (school, work, friends, family, religious settings, and so on). It's not like someone who swears in the company of male friends has no ability to refrain from swearing (or pranking, punning, etc.) when in another context. I think this is a frustrating side effect of taping podcasts. People seem to assume you're precisely the same person in every context imaginable (or in my case that I spend more time griefing games than playing by the "rules", which isn't true at all). If instead of GFW Radio, people knew me only from recordings of me speaking in an academic setting, they'd likely draw very different conclusions.

boogle wrote:

Do I foresee a Shawn Elliot guest appearance on GWJ?
It is an interesting prospect.

Or maybe a GWJ poster appearance on GFW as a "hero of the web"

As those who met me at Gencon could attest, you'd probably never guess from my inebriated podcasting that I'm actually a 4 foot tall Norwegian crossdresser with a lisp and a love of blueberries..

Podcasting is indeed a very strange beast.

rabbit wrote:

As those who met me at Gencon could attest, you'd probably never guess from my inebriated podcasting that I'm actually a 4 foot tall Norwegian crossdresser with a lisp and a love of blueberries..

My God! The other night when I shot up heroin and broke out my painting kit, you're the one I saw on the canvas when I regained consciousness! I regret to inform you that you were drowning in a vat of blueberries, with your head held under the surface by an irate speech instructor!

ShawnElliott wrote:

About swearing, tangents, prank talk, etc.: I look at each podcast as it's own discourse community. Swearing might be permissible in one but not another, and that's not a problem. Everyone negotiates multiple discourse communities (school, work, friends, family, religious settings, and so on). It's not like someone who swears in the company of male friends has no ability to refrain from swearing (or pranking, punning, etc.) when in another context. I think this is a frustrating side effect of taping podcasts. People seem to assume you're precisely the same person in every context imaginable (or in my case that I spend more time griefing games than playing by the "rules", which isn't true at all). If instead of GFW Radio, people knew me only from recordings of me speaking in an academic setting, they'd likely draw very different conclusions.

Firstly Shawn, welcome to the GWJ boards. I listen to a wide selection of podcasts in the car while I'm working on the road throughout the week and GFW Radio is the first one in the rotation and still one I really look forward to. I think you're right in that a lot of people probably have "podcast personalities" that may differ from their real life ones and your writing in the magazine demonstrates that. I suspect Shane's 1UP Yours/EGM Live persona doesn't reflect his professional one either. Like I said in my earlier post (don't know if you had time to read the whole thread), I often like it when you guys stray off-topic from games and into other random stuff. It just seems like sometimes when the conversation eventually does get back to PC games, you've only got a few minutes left before getting booted out of the studio. That can make segments like Jeff's The Witcher review seem rushed when it's undoubtedly something many would like to hear in detail. I also think that while you probably don't spend most of your online time griefing, the amount you talk about your experiences doing so might give the wrong impression. At any rate, I think a lot of people still enjoy the show and compared to many out there which are just forced and generally dumb (*cough*TheHotSpot*cough*), I still prefer the ones that are really just some guys sitting in a room and chatting.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

Like I said in my earlier post (don't know if you had time to read the whole thread), I often like it when you guys stray off-topic from games and into other random stuff. It just seems like sometimes when the conversation eventually does get back to PC games, you've only got a few minutes left before getting booted out of the studio. That can make segments like Jeff's The Witcher review seem rushed when it's undoubtedly something many would like to hear in detail.

This is always an issue and not just for Jeff. Not to excuse myself but to offer a little more insight into what happens I'll point out that I was unable to discuss the ending of Crysis because of time and because others on the show hadn't played it. In the latter case, it may be weeks and weeks before we've all played it. Or we may never all play it and that discussion will never happen. Similarly, I haven't been able to talk about my current favorite, Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts. Because I know that I'll end up monologuing on a game no one else in the room has played nor will ever play, I continually put it off until the end of the show. The end of the session arrives and I find out that there's no time to talk about it afterall.

If I'm telling a story, on the other hand, the rest of the group often has something to contribute. And many times, I'm clearly entertaining them, whereas the game talk tends to induce yawning or silence. In addition, the tangential storytelling and extemporizing tend to generate very positive feedback (outside of GWJ). I also deliberately use these for pacing purposes, no matter how spur of the moment they seem. In general, I'm very self-aware--and, to me at least, the "detours" share more with Sterne (Tristram Shandy) than sheer verbal incontinence--even if a particular anecdote involves literal diarrhea. : )

And believe it or not, when we do have predetermined topics (such as all of those on the show that goes up tomorrow) it's often because I've prepared or suggested them (which seems at odds with my reputation as a derailer of discussion rather than a facilitator).

More on air stabbings, please!

ShawnElliott wrote:

I think this is a frustrating side effect of taping podcasts. People seem to assume you're precisely the same person in every context imaginable (or in my case that I spend more time griefing games than playing by the "rules", which isn't true at all). If instead of GFW Radio, people knew me only from recordings of me speaking in an academic setting, they'd likely draw very different conclusions.

That is certainly true, but you also have to accept that it's natural to make those assumptions. Regardless of how someone is in different aspects of their life, that doesn't change the fact that some people will only be able to see one aspect of your personality and will make their judgements based on that. I have no idea whether the man with the agressive behaviour on the bus one evening just had a stressful day and is actually someone I can relate to. All I can judge them on is that one encounter I experienced. First impressions and all that. Likewise, how you present yourself on the podcast is under your control, and while I wouldn't ever feel inclined to tell you how to behave, you're also going to have to accept that some people will find that particular persona to be distasteful, and may steer clear of it in the future. It may not be fair, but it's still understandable.

Personally, that's where I stand. Shawn Elliott, as presented to me on the podcast, is obnoxious, rude, and at least some of the time, unfunny. Maybe that would change if I knew you in person, but since that is unlikely to happen, I'm stuck with that portrait of you for the time being. Luckily, my strokes aren't too broad, as I still find Shawn Elliott, as presented to me in the magazine, to be one of the best professional video game writers around. Speaking of which, I hope you continue progressing on your review style, as I found the one for Crysis to be the best one yet, even though I disagree with you on the ending. I think much of the outrage surrounding it goes to prove that as much as the hardcore sector complain about how mainstream game reviews all read like they were in the latest issue of Consumer Reports, secretly that's all most of them ever want. You're probably my favourite individual writer out there, and one of the main reasons why GFW, along with Edge, are the only game publications I really pay much attention to.

Very interesting insight Shawn. It certainly gives me a different point of view to consider when listening to your show. And like I and others have said, your writing in the magazine is excellent and it among others, has twitched more than a thought or two in my head at trying it for kicks myself. It's currently the only print magazine of any kind I subscribe to. I guess what it really comes down to is that if you guys enjoy what you're doing and you've still got enough listeners to convince Ziff-Davis to keep it running, more power to ya'. I hope you won't be a stranger around here.

Great, I make a joke about Shawns to poke fun of our Shawn, and the other one shows up to see me calling all Shawns assholes.

Ironically, I liked the Cash Call prank phone call. Yes, prank calls are immature, but that's what makes it fun as a (very short-term) gag. Not a constant gag, but a let-your-hair-down once in a while gag is fun.

I can't say that I've listened to a GFW podcast and said "god I wish this Shawn guy would go away". I'm generally happy with everyone on the show, though Ryan Scott playing a PC game would still be nice.

Yellow5 wrote:
boogle wrote:

Do I foresee a Shawn Elliot guest appearance on GWJ?
It is an interesting prospect.

Or maybe a GWJ poster appearance on GFW as a "hero of the web" :P

That's harsh. If I get to be hero of the web it should be for any of my other idiotic shenanigans. Go ahead and try to make me hero of the web. I'll just be proud that I beat out all the other idiotic, crass hosers that populate this fetid cesspool we call the internet.
And you just earned sig status my friend.

Yeah Shawn just realize that, much like you're not just the guy you play on the podcast, some of the folks who criticize you in this thread aren't close to 100% critical of you all the time either. Some of us like the show actually and still listen and aren't demanding refunds yet anyway.

I know Mr. Green asked you a few tough questions on Crysis regarding you being so close to the game before it's release. You need more of that to challenge some of your opinions and thoughts.

Also note of all the gaming podcasts you're probably the best at monologuing.

Sometimes though I wish you'd get the point. Some of that is because I've listened a long time and have become more familiar with your train of thought. Also in general I think it's pretty hard to listen to any one person week in and week out talk for long periods of time.

boogle wrote:

Do I foresee a Shawn Elliot guest appearance on GWJ?
It is an interesting prospect.

SQUEE!!

.. I mean yes.. That would be pleasurable

Shawn,
While I appreciate the fact that you care enough about your listeners to venture even here to respond to our feedback, I think that it's more important to stick with a style that works for you and that you and your fellow podcasters find entertaining. Making adjustments based on feedback is good...but try to hard to please everybody and you'll please nobody. I personally think that GFW has established a very strong podcasting identity, which isn't necessarily going to make everybody happy, but so be it. Please don't tone it down too much and become just another run-of-the-mill, boring podcast *CoughPCGamerPodcastCough*, or become too obsessed with not going off topic that you become overly pedantic and formulaic.

Looking forward to tomorrow's Ep.

Dysplastic wrote:

Shawn,
While I appreciate the fact that you care enough about your listeners to venture even here to respond to our feedback, I think that it's more important to stick with a style that works for you and that you and your fellow podcasters find entertaining. Making adjustments based on feedback is good...but try to hard to please everybody and you'll please nobody. I personally think that GFW has established a very strong podcasting identity, which isn't necessarily going to make everybody happy, but so be it. Please don't tone it down too much and become just another run-of-the-mill, boring podcast *CoughPCGamerPodcastCough*, or become too obsessed with not going off topic that you become overly pedantic and formulaic.

Looking forward to tomorrow's Ep.

Absolutely. In fact, here's something I posted on GAF a month ago on the same subject:

There's real danger in attempting to please everybody all of time, in reading a few message board posts and immediately trying to repurpose your plans for the sake of a few poster's approval. (The Simpsons told a hilarious cautionary tale on more or less the same subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brot... ).

I also think that podcasting is another animal altogether from writing print/web stories. Podcasts are very much about personality, and no one personality is ever universally loved. Look at what happens when you meet people on the first day of a college course, at a party, at work, or wherever. I think we all tend to size people up fairly quickly. Sure, the assessments should be provisional"”how much can you ever know about someone with limited exposure?--but sometimes you just know, almost right away, that you'll never have a meaningful friendship with someone. They're laughing at sh*t that makes you groan. Every other thing they're interested in seems pathetic or just plain tasteless to you. Their "insight" strikes you as idiotic"”whatever the case is. You just don't fit, and the feeling is frequently mutual. You can just tell.

Whenever this is the case, the dumbest thing you can do is try to be who you're not in order to convince yourself and the other person otherwise. Only this never happens because you could care less. If I learn that someone cries while watching anime, hangs wall scrolls in his bedroom, and reads only manga (or Cliffs Notes to Nietzsche when the manga tells him to), entertaining that person is the last thing on my mind. I'm not saying that I assume you fit the bill, just using an exaggerated example to make my point. So reverse it and say that you think I'm X, Y, and Z"”a f*cker or whatever. In life, I'd be able to say, "Wait this is a person who I respect and who I want to respect me. What am I doing wrong and how can I fix it?" Conversely, I could say, "This fool is foolish. Why do I care what he thinks? It's clear we'll never have some meaningful friendship." Note that I'm now talking about non-professional relationships. Obviously the line of reasoning doesn't apply to classmates and such.

*end paste*

I think I could put up with 3 hours of Shawn Elliot anecdotes back to back.
Its the kind of stories me and my drinking buddies tell each other during a long night.

Definitely Shawn, go on and do what you're good at. It's clear listening to the show that you guys are having a good time, and that's part of what makes the whole thing so nice to listen to. Of course you can't please everybody, but as you said one shouldn't even try, especially when it's a bunch of slackers on a forum
Hardly anybody will like the show 100%, and some will stop listening. I will keep on, wishing you's just shut up sometimes but mostly trying not to laugh too loud (my colleagues would think I'm crazy...). I do suspect you're not my kind of guy in "real" life (judging from this very partial image I have of you), but I still think you're a funny and intelligent person (as you're proving here. But that's also a partial image... I guess I'll never know...)

This thread got a lot less critical all of a sudden. I can't quite put a finger on exactly which post did it though...

bnpederson wrote:

This thread got a lot less critical all of a sudden. I can't quite put a finger on exactly which post did it though...

yeah, I noticed the same thing... funny how that happened!

Coldstream wrote:
sheared wrote:

My only complaint about any podcast is that I can't listen to them in the car with my kids. The random f-bomb (or any other bomb) getting dropped makes them definitely not kid friendly.

On the other hand, that's precisely what I appreciate about these podcasts. It seems like a lot of people (and I should be absolutely clear that I'm not directing this at Sheared) push really hard for everything to be "kid friendly" and I'm getting a little sick of it.

I want a podcast with adults, occasionally using the rougher language common to everyday speech, talking in an adult fashion about games aimed at adults. There's a widespread misconception that games are for children and we need get rid of that impression, being as it is the source of a great deal of pro-censorship arguments. Gaming has grown up, and I personally have absolutely no problem with heated arguments on gaming podcasts having some adult language.

I am not taking your comments personally, but I guess I've missed a whole segment of podcasting. Other than something like Twit or MyExtraLife Radio (or other Scott Johnson shows), I've not seen any podcast push to be kid friendly (if you could name a couple, maybe I'll check those out). Personally, the thought of my son at age 10 to 15 listening to some of the podcasts that I listen too makes me sad. I know at that age, I would have loved these particular podcast discussions, but I also know that if my parents had heard them, I'd not have been listening to them any more, and my household was not immune to cursing, but my parents did play a large roll in the media I could see at the time. Some may consider that overbearing, I think of it as good parenting, and what is missing in most of today's gaming culture with the Democrats/Republicans/Whoever-needs-a-hot-button-topic-for-getting-elected trying to control who gets to play what instead of the parents doing it.

Gaming certainly has grown up, and if the mainstream podcasts are any indication, it'd just assume to leave a certain segment behind. I do find it humorous that gaming is such a "serious" subject that that kind of language is required to discuss it. What does that really do in the end? Does it thrust it full force into the adult mainstream community, or is it a reaction to try and seem grown up, but still being edgy enough to keep the mainstream out? Mostly the language I hear reminds me of a group of teenagers in a mall using language around me and my family that makes me want to punch them. It does not reflect a typical conversation I have with my peers of 30-somethings. Maybe I just know a bunch of stiff shirts, though. That is entirely possible.

GwJ has certainly gotten better, but I still won't listen when I'm driving with my 4 year old. GFW... that is hit or miss. 1up Yours? Forget it. I guess PC Gamer is probably the cleanest one of all, but I rarely listen to it, but I do not believe that is a function of the language.

sheared wrote:

It does not reflect a typical conversation I have with my peers of 30-somethings. Maybe I just know a bunch of stiff shirts, though. That is entirely possible.

GwJ has certainly gotten better, but I still won't listen when I'm driving with my 4 year old. GFW... that is hit or miss. 1up Yours? Forget it. I guess PC Gamer is probably the cleanest one of all, but I rarely listen to it, but I do not believe that is a function of the language.

Why do you keep putting your own comments in a quote box?

In any event, speaking as a 20-something I have to say for my generation you probably do know a bunch of stiff shirts. Sure I have one friend who actually tries to say "sugar" instead of sh*t but we all mock him mercilessly for it and the rest of us, when together, curse to hell and back. We also make fun of one another incessantly and thrive off of the give-and-take that comes from this, so my social circle is undoubtedly different than your social circle. It's very easy to be out with friends and forget that you're in a public setting where that kind of language is inappropriate, so I can certainly see where podcasts that consist of a bunch of guys taking jabs at one another would get that way.

So I'm of two minds on this. I don't feel that it helps gaming gain maturity or any such thing but it is consistent with how my peer group acts so it adds something to the authenticity of a gaming podcast; if there was an FCC-like group was watching for any bad language that would undoubtedly stifle the camaraderie inherent in most of the good to great gaming podcasts.

On the other hand I do agree there is a place for intelligent discourse over video games without cursing. Of course I think it would lead to rather dry, if informative, podcasts without that Rat Pack feel that Gamers with Jobs (and others) manage so well. Maybe we could get podcasts to institute a voluntary ratings system?

And thinking on it, would you really listen to many video game podcasts with your kids even if they got rid of the cursing? Thinking back on it there have been a few instances in multiple gaming podcasts where the main topic was a female character's bust size or generally skimpy outfit. Doesn't seem like the best thing to be listening to with a child, clean language or no. A "kid friendly" podcast would really have to censor itself in a lot more than just language.

bnpederson wrote:

On the other hand I do agree there is a place for intelligent discourse over video games without cursing. Of course I think it would lead to rather dry, if informative, podcasts without that Rat Pack feel that Gamers with Jobs (and others) manage so well. Maybe we could get podcasts to institute a voluntary ratings system? ;)

first off, there is a ratings system for podcasts-- on iTunes anyway. Tag your show EXPLICIT or CLEAN, and people will know what to expect even on an episode by episode basis.

As much as I'm against everything being forced into "kid friendly" territory, I think it's pretty weak sauce to say that you can't have a good discussion about something without having to swear. Frank, Dino and Sammy had more class than that

Well I don't download from iTunes, so there you go. Problem solved!

On the other issue, I feel that self-censorship is all about thinking twice on what you're going to say while improvisation is all about going with what works straight out of the gate. The two just don't mix well; there's a reason the American version of Whose Line is it Anyway? sucked, and it isn't just Drew Carey.

I love that the GWJ guys aren't afraid to swear, even if Certis sounds uncomfortable about it when he does so.

bnpederson wrote:

On the other issue, I feel that self-censorship is all about thinking twice on what you're going to say while improvisation is all about going with what works straight out of the gate. The two just don't mix well; there's a reason the American version of Whose Line is it Anyway? sucked, and it isn't just Drew Carey.

I think there needs to be a balance, however. While I really don't care if someone swears or not, some people use it as a crutch when they could be better explaining their feelings on the matter. Likewise, I remember being in an drama group in high school, which was Catholic, and while the imposed censorship pretty much butchered any of the plays or musicals we were allowed to perform, it actually enhanced the creativity of our improv group. As restrictions sometimes do to creativity, we came up with far more interesting and funny stuff when we couldn't resort to the easy laughs like obvious sexual innuendo.