DAT ASS: A Thoughtful Discussion...

Comments

dthcactuar

9 years ago

Dat thumbnail tho

ShilohCyan

9 years ago

Dat Hot Burnie Burn Bunz

ShilohCyan

9 years ago

Burnie on The Patch? It's like it's 2012 and no one told me.

Also, dem Tali'Zorah leggins tho Meg

agenerichero

9 years ago

I really like hearing The Patch Crew’s discussion about certain big issues in the video game community, but I really kind of wish that they brought in a few different viewpoints into the argument. Please don’t get me wrong, I really love hearing everyone’s point of view (I mean, that’s the entire point of watching these podcasts). However, after 10-15 minutes of everyone violently agreeing with each other with only the occasional devil’s advocate comment, I feel like The Patch could invite a slightly more critical and well-rounded debate on these sort of issues if they brought in other people from the company to speak on their opinions (especially if these other opinions differ from theirs), or even other people from the video game community.

Again, I’m not saying that I want The Patch to cater to a specific viewpoint other than their own—sharing their own viewpoints is the point of the podcast setting—but I really think that they could make the debates a bit more meaningful and deep if they introduced more opposing viewpoints from other people in the community to make the discussion go a little deeper. I just feel like whenever The Patch discusses some of these more controversial issues, I get a lot more out of the discussion if at least one person on set holds a different opinion from everyone else. When everyone agrees with each other, it just feels like the argument is presented in a very one-sided and kind of awkwardly redundant way.

Alex_English2015

9 years ago

I agree.

TheMeta88

9 years ago

I agree but...they really only discuss THEIR opinions on topics as they come up. Baring someone already on the Patch having a different opinion, none of them were going to argue the other side. Which would require someone in the studio audience, broadcast booth, or a predetermined devil's advocate being allocated to argue. Which would also require space on the set or some side cam for them to set up.

Basically a lot of work for not much payoff.

I see your point but you're asking a lot more production value for something that's supposed to be easy going and funny.

Disagreement is meant to be had in the comment sections when it is more open to discussion it seems.

agenerichero

9 years ago

I'm totally with you Meta88--I'm definitely not saying that they should have a resident devil's advocate standing by ready to jump in during every single debate they have. I just feel like when a debate/controversial topic is a main point of the podcast, it feels a little silly to listen to everyone aggressively agree with each other over and over again. As representatives of the video game community, it just feels natural from my (viewer) standpoint to represent the gaming community's voice as a whole, too--in other words, presenting many voices about the issue.

Again, totally see where you're coming from. It's a LOT of work, and I'm definitely not saying to do it for Every-Single-Debate (considering that they bring up a new debatable topic every fifteen minutes ;u;). But for "Big Topics" or "Big Points of Debate" that they know they're going to be talking about, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to arrange discussion to be a little more rounded. Again though, I am in NO way a producer and I have no idea the technicalities of arranging this, but with the number of people that just randomly leap onto other podcast sets to offer their random opinions on things, it didn't seem to unreasonable to suggest.

(And I won't lie--comment section isn't necessarily the most... in depth... place... to disagree with each other/debate. It uh, doesn't usually end well.)

BarrasGalago

9 years ago

finally burnie is back but seriously ashley needs to go

Matt317

9 years ago

I hope we get to see Burnie on the Patch again. :)

OnlyAverage

9 years ago

I think Wonderwoman took some hits, but I can't quite remember. Personally I loved how she looked like she was just enjoying the hell out of the fight.

atrocitus117

9 years ago

Oh look, a couples podcast.

TheMeta88

9 years ago

Meg: It looked like shit on film... Welcome to my PC cutscene the movie.

Ryan: PC custscenes are not bad.

Meg: No they're not bad but I get them on my PC.

OOOkay. What the fuck is this even supposed to mean? What the fuck is your point? I hear this from people a lot and its so fucking stupid.

If you want to say, as someone who has watched TV for years and movies for years at 24 frames that 48 frames looks weird to you then okay. I think you're wrong but okay.

But how can you say that high frame cutscenes on PC look good but on film look horrible? Are you implying that on PC its great but just looks to amazing in theaters? This just boggles my mind. I went out of my way to see The Hobbit in high frame rate and you know what, it looked amazing. Or at the very least you cannot deny that Smaug looked awesome. The greatest dragon ever depicted on screen.

AESTHETICALLY they did make errors. A lot of orcs were too perfect. Sometimes they used CG when practical should have been better. Little things added up to make people see the movie as a whole as flawed. This is not BAD CG and its not the fault of high frame rates. These are failures in the creative process, not technical flaws. And yet, its still honestly one of the most gorgeous films in the last decade.

And you know what, if you don't like how frame rate looks, fine. But be consistent. And word it correctly. If you did not like HFR in The Hobbit then say YOU don't like it. Don't say it looked like shit. And don't turn around and say it works in games but not in movies.

I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing people complain a movie looks too "good" and too "real". Come off it.

4k>1080p>720p>480p

120FPS>60FPS>48FPS>30FPS>24FPS

BLAAAAH!

Anyways, still <3 you Meg, Ryan, Ashley, Burnie, and ghost of Gus(RIP). Just critical with love.

P.S. In going out of my way to see it in HFR I realized NOT all showings, even Imax showings are actually HFR. The local Imax was not HFR. A closer, newer theater, WAS in HFR. And actually seemed to have a higher resolution as well because the image was less blurry.