Game Theory with Scott Steinberg Goes Live

August 3, 2010 -

Game Industry TV has launched a new video game show and online magazine, "Game Theory with Scott Steinberg." New episodes and articles are now available at www.gametheoryonline.com. The site and show promise to provide game developers, executives and journalists with an "enlightened forum" to publicly discuss and debate the industry's most pressing issues and offer readers "more informed industry analysis in a language that all can understand."

The first season opens with a multi-part documentary exploring the evolution of the games business, from social games and motion controls to cloud computing and 3D gaming. Hosted by Scott Steinberg, the features appearances by industry leaders including Will Wright, Sid Meier, Trip Hawkins, Peter Molyneux, Cliff Bleszinski and others. The website will offer a blend of commentary, features and analysis with editorials from the likes of hi5 president Alex St. John, futurist Jane McGonigal, ECA president Hal Halpin and others.

For more information on the show and website, visit www.gameindustrytv.com.

[Disclaimer: Game Politics is owned by the ECA.]

Posted in

Comments

Re: Game Theory with Scott Steinberg Goes Live

I'm glad someone is going to be addressing the deeper themes at play in the industry, instead of being just another voice screaming "Omigod omigod omigod, this game is so KEWL!" But...

I just tuned in to watch 'Game Theory', and I have to say I find it almost impossible to watch. I can't stand the freaky pseudo-interference transitions. Whatever happened to the idea that cuts should be simple and clean. If I wanted the image to flicker and go fuzzy every five seconds I'd be watching it on a freaking 1950s TV that I'd spilled coffee on. This is 2010 - we don't need edgy glitch graphics whenever the scene changes from one talking head to the next.

Jeez, I thought we were over this nonsense after all those complaints about shaky cameras making them sick in movies like Cloverfield.

Honestly, I don't mind a few edgy transitions during a show, but when I'm watching a guy talk for just fifteen seconds, and the image flickers three separate times without the camera position changing, that's just too much. I mean, since I started typing this, I sat through the whole show, and I swear I must have seen 50 glitches. It's ridiculous. I can see people getting epileptic seizures from this nonsense.

Re: Game Theory with Scott Steinberg Goes Live

Agreed. Aminute into the show I was starting to get a headache. The post-production crew should be shot.

And honestly? I feel that that is more of an "interview highlights" type of show than an "enlightened forum".

Re: Game Theory with Scott Steinberg Goes Live

I actually watched it again and counted all the glitches. My estimate was only one glitch off - there were 49 of them in a ten minute show. That's one glitch every 12 seconds - and that's not counting the weird transitions that were NOT based on some weird pre-1980s style TV signal interference.

 Maybe they're thinking is that the kids will like this edgy glitchy crap, but this is billed as an in-depth serious look at the industry. If they're aiming that at kids, I fear they're targeting the wrong audience. My daughter's cousins (ages 17, 13 and 10) were visiting just last week, and I can tell that they would probably eat that glitchy nonsense up, but a bunch of industry talking heads would send them to sleep within a minute.

As for me, I'm 48 and a hard in-depth look at the industry is exactly my 'bag', but if each episode comes with a free epileptic seizure I'm just not sure I'm into that. I have enough physical ailments - I don't need one more.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@EZK - I think you're attributing too much there. I think the reality is actually, if 15 news sites didn't alll write coincidentally 'gamers are dead' articles, in response to a very small number of harassment cases, we wouldn't be here.10/02/2014 - 9:10am
E. Zachary KnightSo what you are saying is that gamergate is a reflexive and defensive reaction to jerks and douchebags being told off?10/02/2014 - 9:06am
Sleaker@prh99 - the ZQ stuff was a catalyst, but GG didn't explode until the Gamers are dead articles popped up everywhere, see article 3 in the link I posted.10/02/2014 - 9:04am
prh99The articles by Leigh Alexander and others were in response to what happened to Anita and Quinn and this toxic subset of gamers. 10/02/2014 - 9:02am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My timeline puts events in the order that prh99 just laid out. Had Quinn's ex-boyfriend not been an incredible douchebag, we might not be where we are.10/02/2014 - 9:00am
prh99The blog post by Quinn's exboyfriend suggesting she slept with journalists to get favorable reviews was the impetus for #gamergate.10/02/2014 - 8:54am
SleakerTechRaptor seems to do a decent job of breaking down things in it's currently 6-part series: http://techraptor.net/2014/09/23/good-morning-orthodoxy-1/ - and why atleast for him, the whole Media-thing is offensive.10/02/2014 - 8:53am
SleakerSo from all of the articles I've read that give timelines and show tag trends, there's nothing to support GG being about AS or Quinn. These were a minority of people harassing.. The large portion of GG started when the 'Gamers are dead' articles started.10/02/2014 - 8:45am
prh99Btw apparently they've gone as far as creating a GitHub for this Operation Disrespectful Nod. http://bit.ly/1qsbWcq10/02/2014 - 8:44am
Sleakerthey don't consider the issue. This is the consumeristic nature of a market.10/02/2014 - 8:41am
prh99Attacking their integrity and now getting advertisers to pull their ads from those sites.10/02/2014 - 8:40am
Sleaker@EZK - Telling a company you disagree with the nature of a news sites methodology and feel it negatively impacts the ad-running company as a supporter of said articles is not censorship. It's voicing your opinion that you will vote with your wallet if10/02/2014 - 8:38am
prh99I don't think they have any interested in debate. They scared Anita and Quinn with threats of violence, now they are going to try and damage organizations who called them their behavior.10/02/2014 - 8:36am
E. Zachary KnightWhat I can't understand is why gamergate supporters feel the need to silence their critics. Why can't they simply fight free speech with free speech.10/02/2014 - 8:23am
E. Zachary KnightSo what I am saying is that since gamergate failed to force Gamasutra to retract their editorial directly, they are now going the starvation route.10/02/2014 - 8:22am
E. Zachary KnightAs an illustration, you can kill someone by shooting them in the head, or you can starve them to death. The means don't matter, just the ends.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I can't speak for James, but trying to silence a critic by blocking its financial supporters is a censorious activity. It may not be the same as direct censoring, but its ends are the same.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary KnightMecha, I found neither the title nor the content of Gamasutra's Gamers are Dead article inflammatory. But I guess that just means I was the target audience for it.10/02/2014 - 8:16am
prh99@james_fudge Agreed, but then again this group doesn't exactly have high ethical standards or even a grasp of hypocrisy. They do pretty much anything to damage their targets.10/02/2014 - 8:14am
MechaTama31Are... Are you guys suggesting that the content of the "Gamers are over" article is *less* inflammatory than the title?10/02/2014 - 7:58am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician