Announcing a new segment appearing every week on TGH Podcast! The Game Heroes Roundtable! Or Knights of the Round, or some other punny title TBD in the future. Members of the crew will take part in a cut-throat debate to the death. It could be a one on one battle or a six person bedlam, it just depends on the topic.

What I need from you, our dear Sidekicks and Henchmen (but mostly henchmen becuase they're obviously superior), are ideas for topics to be discussed in this rhetorical battle royale. I'm obviously looking for controversial topics so that we get lots of varying opinions on the matter. So get to posting your ideas for this exciting new segment!

I really like Knights of the Round as the segments name!

How about for your first topic

"Is having huge franchises like Call of Duty release new games yearly over saturating the market?"

Assassins Creed already has a "huge" sequel coming next year, and there are plans for yearly Halo games too supposedly, so I'd like to hear the crews opinion on whether this is a good or bad thing for the market as a whole

The problem is most of the members of TGH seem to have similiar tastes and opinions. You are all going to be against motion controls. You are all going to agree that the new Sonic games aren't good. You are all going to be against more regulations on the sale of video games to minors. If you all agree 90% of the time, it will be downright boring to watch.

What you really need to make this a debate is assign different people to be for or against the topic no matter what their personal opinion on the matter is. Unless there is someone playing devil's advocate here, there will be no conflict. The goal is to win the debate by using facts and putting up a better arguement than the other person or team. This would keep things more informative rather than every topic being about how they feel.

Other than that it would be cool to have a 3rd party (person not debateing the topic) or the viewers to decide who put up a better arguement and won the debate. Also allow for guest stars to be brought in either as debaters, specialists, or judges for certain topics.

OH YEAH! CAN NOT WAIIIITTTTTT!!

Yeah, that's the idea. I realize that a debate in which the debaters are in agreement is not a debate at all. I'll be the master of ceremonies, at least initially, and crown the winner at the end of the debate. If people already disagree on something, and believe me, we don't agree on everything by any means, then we'll just let them duke it out, otherwise we will assign alignments to the debaters. It's just like the debate team in high school, except we'll be arguing about video games and such rather than things that are actually important. It should be fun for everyone involved so feed my hungry controversy belly with debatable topics please!

Digital v. Physical Distribution

Digital:

• Theoretically doesn't run out of units
• Revitalizes older games
• Relatively quick access
• Easily links over friend networks (e.g. Steam Friends)
• More money goes to developer

Physical

• Content cannot, theoretically, be taken away from you. You are in control of your physical copy.
• Easier to get general bargains at retailers
• Will exist long after the company who created it has gone under
• Can still integrate into digital distribution services, but also be independent
• Everyone who buys the retail copy has the same game. (No division between digital distribution services that do not cross pollinate)
• Ownership can be transfered.
• Physical novelty and amenities (case, slip, book, etc) = more 'bang' for your money.

There's other points, of course, I just wanted to point those out so that if this is ever discussed they aren't ignored. The discussion basically comes down to: access vs. independence. Is the convenience of digital distribution better than the independence of physical distributions?

While Digital is quick (for most people) to access and receive games ... a company still controls access to your content ... and in the case of cloud gaming, like with onlive ... your access to your games is based on your standing as a user!

It's a very thin line.

-What's the best final fantasy game in the series? (Limited to those in the main series. Final fantasy 1-14)

-Link vs. Simon Belmont ; who would win in a fight?

-Would old school games still hold up if released today and not way back when? (with upgraded graphics, of course, but the same story and presentation. I.e. A game like the Legend of Zelda, If it hadn't been released then, and was just getting put out now, with some tight ass HD graphics, but all you got was a 3 paragraph title scroll then bam, in the game.)

How young is too young to play videogames? Sub-topic, how young is too young to be on Xbox Live/PSN? Sub-Sub-topic, How young is too young to start playing War Games?

Should Nintendo work to make it's next console? If so, should it's focus be more innovation, or more graphically and controller based gameplay?

Quick note: every console manufacture is already working on the following generation console before the current generation is launched. So, it's likely that Nintendo has been working on the Wii successor since sometime around 2004 or 2005. It takes a long time to finalize that hardware and create everything the platform base needs as well as manufacture the thing for developmental use. The same thing could be said for any of the console manufacturers. (In the case of the PS3, Sony started working on that a couple years before the PS2 launched. It takes a long time)

Black Ops, gaming masterpiece or an overmarketed overhyped pile of meh?

Should there be a punishment for retailers who sell an M rated game to a minor?

Wii, do people still care about it?

What does a gamer look like?

I,Havokk will put to an end these burning questions you have.

1.play it
2.no
3.no




4.