Feedback on the First Revival Podcast

[Oreo]

I am fairly sure that I am not the only viewer who noticed how unorganized this first revival podcast was. Of course, being it's first, it is obvious that things will not run perfectly smoothly, and will take more time/practice, and collective, constructive criticism to make it a more focused, well-prepared and informative show. Please post your questions and comments on the first Revival Podcast in this thread, since it is not a "Stranger's Wrath" thread, but a review of the show as a whole in content and material.

I don't have much time so I'll post my thoughts later, just wanted to get this out for feedback's sake. Just a quick comment, it definitely started out slowly and picked up the pace, but even 4pp sounded like they knew it was going a little rough at first. Let's hear what everyone things.

btw I loved it. I can't wait for the next one.

[Mordiford]

I think it was pretty unorganized but it worked out in the end, a lot of chatters seemed to be losing interest towards but then again chat is known to have the attention span of a cardboard box. I think the interview reading was a good closing and kept me interested again right as I was about to getting bored.

I do think it shouldn't go over 50-60 minutes which this one did. Stretching up to almost an hour and 45 minutes. I think that was due in part to the pizza break and a few other distractions including "glassinmyass" which I take partial responsibility for seeing as I sent Travis the link.

Most of these minor kinks should be resolved by the next podcast so I'm not really worried. I want to say once more than I really think the podcast should be made around 45 - 60 minutes. Also it seemed that everyone was a little unclear about whether spoilers were allowed at the start. In a podcast like this you can't not have spoilers so just roll with it and say what you want.

Overall, not a bad start. I'm expecting good things from this new podcast in the future.

[daikenjo]

well in the beginning they seemed to be unsure of what they -could- say, because it could be relevant to a later topic they would bring up on the list. if they made more specific guidelines to narrow down what they would talk about in each section, i think it could go more smoothly.

the introduction to the game was a little lacking imo. a concise segment explaining the overall feeling of the story and the world of the game in the very beginning would be more accessible to those who don't know about it. they did explain it in the podcast, but some information came in a little late which could confuse listeners who haven't a clue about it (though it is like a "book club" style podcast, where the target listeners are those who have played the game).

there was general disorganization but this stuff happens in live podcasts and they will be cleaned up when they release the mp3.

still, the first revival cast finally happened! i loved it :]

[rabbeseking]

Plan it out a bit more, try to maybe set up the game a bit more. A round table, give me your final opinions about the game, would probably give the RevCast a smoother end. I really enjoyed it, and look forward to the next one.

Also, I think 30-40 minutes would be good for this, depending on the game.

[school]

I think 30-40 minutes would be way too short to cover the game well enough. An hour to an hour thirty is a good length.

My only issue after the restart was the format. It felt like they wanted to go from positives and then negatives. (frequently asking if you should say something bad about the game now) That is just a weird way to format it. I think it would be best to go: introduce the game (year, developer, other games developed, atmosphere around time of release, why this game was picked), give a run down (break down what the core of the game is, game mechanics, small plot detail), then get a little bit more free form, maybe start with going over some of the first events in the game and gradually go towards the end with of course small tangents here and there and then overall thoughts/summary on the game. Then do any community thoughts or special segments like the interview. You could try to work those into the show, but that would require a great deal of planning.

They aren't the most organized group but who cares, they mesh together so well and that shows through.

[Oreo]

So I think an hour to an hour and a half is fine, espeically for 4 players to comment on many aspects of the game. I agree with School, I believe there needs to be a more organized format that will keep each person questioning whether or not they should talk about certain aspects now or later. Also, on the topic of spoilers, it is ridiculous to not tell them. They are important to the story and character development most of the time, so it would be incredibly difficult to give your full view on a game without mentioning spoilers. Spoilers should be a given, in my opinion.

My suggestions for organization is to categorize the most important things you want to talk about, just like with the top five. Pick a category, everyone give their thoughts, and then move on to the next one. Of course each game will vary a little in categories, but I think some good examples may be:

Best and worst aspects, Gameplay discussion, Storyline discussion, End of the game: Disappointment or Excitement?, Similarity or any other games?, Feedback to the company about how to make it better/worse, Final thoughts on the game as a whole in something like the 4player minute to wrap things up, or since you had an interview, that was a great way to close the show.

Just my thoughts, the podcast was still great once it started moving, I just hope next time it's a bit easier to follow exactly where in the conversation we are, so those listening, or coming in late, don't need to sit around too long before they know where the discussion is. You guys are great. =)

[zobocopy]

Honestly I'm afraid to listen to it as I have no played the game. Don't want to the game spoiled for me when i decide to play it. Almost wish there was a version with bleeped out spoilers so i can get the guys opinions without ruining the experience for myself. I know that's asking a lot, but just my opinion.

[BrainCleaner]

Feb 16, 2009 22:33:26 GMT -5 Oreo said:

My suggestions for organization is to categorize the most important things you want to talk about, just like with the top five. Pick a category, everyone give their thoughts, and then move on to the next one. Of course each game will vary a little in categories, but I think some good examples may be:

Best and worst aspects, Gameplay discussion, Storyline discussion, End of the game: Disappointment or Excitement?, Similarity or any other games?, Feedback to the company about how to make it better/worse, Final thoughts on the game as a whole in something like the 4player minute to wrap things up, or since you had an interview, that was a great way to close the show.

another couple of good things might be expectations and 1st impressions. least then you know how each of the guys felt going into the game.


how long is it untill the Splinter cell :DA podcast? thinking about grabbing it off steam and getting it done to.

[thecosmicfly]

A few conflicted ideas here. 30 minutes or an hour and a half? Having an organised template or letting them all express their impressions loosely? Might need to wait for the next Revival Podcast to see what works for the show.

I will say though that they shouldn't give a rat's ass about spoilers. It's a live podcast review of the game so it's harder to delicately conceal details in the plot or gameplay. Plus those spoilers could be highlights or important parts of the game which would be virtually impossible to give your opinion on beyond plain "It was good/bad" descriptions. Case in point, don't worry at all about spoilers.

[Setre]

Over all I thought it was a good first Revival Podcast if not a bit convoluted. I agree with Cosmic that they should forget about spoilers. If you’re listening to the Revival Podcast you should either have already played the game, watched one of the 4PP members play it on the feed, or be prepared for spoilers upon listening.

The only thing I’d like to see (or is it hear?) is more viewer opinions about the game. I don’t recall hearing any at all in the podcast. I can understand why there weren’t any on the first one but it’d be nice to hear some in future.

[exocel]

i agree, if its an old game they should not care about spoilers. overall i liked it, but there should be more discussion and debate about the subject matter. Just having one person speak for a bit, then another, then another, i mean sure it gets there views on the game across. but it needs more of the guys questioning each other about the little things that make a game stand out. like "did you notice this?" or "who else found the secret such and such.
Again that may go into spoiler territory but just a vibe i got.

[Xeronic]

I enjoyed the revival podcast quite a bit. Unlike reading normal game reviews, this gave a complete review of the game step by step mostly through each individual's perspective. Some parts were hard, some easy, some WTF. I enjoy listening to this stuff.

The interview section was quite awesome, although i was annoyed that it was sort of rushed. To me, a CEO of a game developer answering some questions for fans and gamers is pretty damn amazing.

I wouldn't mind a segment of each person summing up their experience of the game or something. Roundtable? that's cool.