Talk:Good Game (TV program)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Episodes Section[edit]

I was thinking maybe there should be a simplified section for the 'Episodes'. I don't think details on every episode is appropriate to the nature of a encyclopedia article. Maybe a section saying what an episode of Good Game involves in general instead? Any ideas? Rol335 11:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps simplifying it for the main article and moving the episode synopses to a separate page? DarkProdigy 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be a link to another page titled "List of Good Game episodes" Neuroxic (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished the list of episodes section for Good Game: Pocket Edition, since this contain all the titles reviewed in series 9 if an episodes section was to be started and built in some non-algorithmically way then this table could be copied and spawn point reviews deleted. Neuroxic (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any more series?[edit]

Just wondering if anyone out there know if there is going to be another series starting sooner or latter. Loved this show considering it was really the only gaming show there was on Austrtalian TV. --MattyC3350 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series 3 Starting in September[edit]

I just found an article on there forum that states that there program will be back on near the end of september. Should this be included in the article? Cheers --MattyC3350 22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to wait until an official annoucement is made, in order to correctly reference the statement. Stickeylabel 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this in there "About good game section" [1] saying Premiering on ABC2 and ABC Online on Tuesday 19 September at 8.30pm. I'm pritty sure that is related to this coming september. --MattyC3350 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That actually refers to the first season's premier episode, some parts of their website could use an update. :)
The series producer stated that it will return on the 25th of September on the show's forum but so far no information on the site proper. --Malicious Mallard 06:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that must of got a little excited about seeing reading on the forum that it was coming back. It's a shame that "Good Game" is the only show dedecated to gamming on Australian tv. --MattyC3350 22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have just updated the show's website confirming the 25th of September series return!! They have also mentioned a late night Friday timeslot for the main ABC channel! --Malicious Mallard 08:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is no metion of the q.t.rcircle.a. segment which is parodies of games .Richardson j 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Game: Game[edit]

I have been following the "Good Game: Game" through the show and there website. Was wondering if it would be worth putting up a bit more information about it on here. As to who they are running through, what was involved in the decision to make an "Office War's" game and so on. MattyC3350 (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larger Good Game logo image[edit]

I intend to upload a larger version of the Good Game logo within the next few days. --Daneel (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per Wikipedia's Non-free content policy (criteria 3b), low resolution rather than high resolution images should be used for non-free (eg. copyrighted) content. So if you do upload a larger version, I wouldn't go beyond a horizontal width of 500px. And if you are Dr. Daneel, you might also like to read WP:COI. Thanks - kollision (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Daneel, known on the show as Dr Daneel, yes. I had intended to upload a low resolution image of the central Good Game logo, without the complex background. Width is 640px, I can (and will) shrink it to below 500. I no longer work for the ABC, nor am I affiliated with it in any way, so hopefully this doesn't constitute as a COI. --Daneel (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junglist[edit]

The article is copping a series of emotive edits from fans disappointed with the replacement of one of the long terms hosts. The edits are neither accurate or informative and I have removed duplicated and emotive statements. 59.167.51.240 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on cleaning up, have put in a request for semi-protection. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is still some junk in the Controversy section overstating the reaction, and a comment about viewers not being included in the decision? I can't revise this while the protection is in place. 59.167.51.240 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are referring to:
The decision was met with mainly negative reaction from the Good Game community and other online Australian gaming communities, mainly Vooks, Gamespot AU and Aussie-Nintendo, with some stating the replacement to be 'sudden', and, 'unfair'. It is now confirmed that Junglist was forced to leave the job of host of Good Game to a job behind the scenes, which was not his decision. The Good Game community was also not consulted for input on the matter, which has angered many fans.
I've removed it for now, as it was unsourced and probably OR. If reliable soruces emerge I'd have no qualms about putting some audience reaction back. - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely removed the controversy section and put what little relevant information there is into Hex and Junglists sections. Hosts get replaced all the time and there is nothing particularly controversial about Junglists replacement (apart from the "suddenness" of it), by this time next month it will have all blown over. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur however your edit has been reverted with an unhelpful comment. 59.167.51.240 (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I fail to see how the edit was biased? I'll revert the revert as it did contain additional clean-ups, if others disagree with any biases they can change the bias rather than reverting everything - clean-ups, cites, tags, et al. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/30/2729132.htm ABC has written article on the issue and so has News.com http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,26280838-5014239,00.html These are both major news sources. 60.241.195.251 (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent emotive edits are far from encyclopedic. It's almost like some people think this article can be used to reinforce their views rather than state impartial facts. I for one am not thrilled about the host changes but life will go on and I look forward to a time when this can be distilled to a short sentence in the bio section rather than a full blown section. 59.167.51.240 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if we could rename the "controversy" section as it is questionably neutral? Could we perhaps change it to "Junglists' departure"? "Replacing Junglist"? or something similar? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section fails to mention the anger felt by most the Good Game community at Junglist's removal. A fact that is mentioned in the two news articles I linked to. 60.241.195.251 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand your point, I think that forum links and a petition cannot be used to represent "most of the Good Game community". --Taelus (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a resource mentioning the community's anger. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/good-game-presenter-claims-abc-gender-bias-after-axing-20091030-hoch.html I think it would be fair to mention that the core viewers of the show are angry at the removal of Junglist. The SMH is a real major newspaper and not a news blog; I believe it is a reliable resource. 123.243.133.44 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Just want to mention that I am 60.241.195.251 but I'm using another computer right now. 123.243.133.44 (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not denying that the fans are angry, but fans always get angry, no matter what the decision is. If they replaced Bajo with Hex then there would have been equivalent outrage, even if they replaced one of them and brought back Kapowski, or even replaced Junglist with Rei then there would still be outrage. Additionally the articles only mention the outrage on the official forums which As of 31 October 2009 has 9209 contibuters, 142 topics and 280,433 messages. 9209 people is not the entire fan base nor even the "core viewers" (your words not mine) of the show, Good Game would have hundreds of thousands of people tuning in every day (and many thousands more watching it on Video On Demand) so 9209 people still only represents less than 1% of the viewer-ship, even if you read the various "bring back junglist" threads there are still people who are apathetic to his replacing, people who are adopting a wait-and-see approach and people who never liked Junglist particularly much in the first place. Stating that all Good Game viewers are outraged is completely untrue, even saying that "core viewers" are outraged is also untrue and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Starting internet petitions and starting forum pots to express outrage is not a particularly WP:NOTABLE (or even effective) way of raising the issue and should be taken as a matter of course, once fans engage in more coordinated protest like others before them then we can report on it. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Kapowski was removed there wasn't a news article or anywhere near this much anger. First you demand proof that the fan base is angry and now that I give it to you; you discount it. Fans are angrier THAN BEFORE. This is a major event in the show. Just because not every viewer has posted on the forum doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a fair statement the core audience of the show is angry at the changes. I never said all Good Game viewers are angry just a majority of the core viewers. Even a news article mentioned it. A majority of the responses to the news articles have been negative. I suggest a compromise. The Wikipedia article mentions the majority of the forum's anger at the removal of the Junglist. I'm not saying all its viewers are angry; just quoting the SMH article that its core viewers are angry. You wanted a citation and I gave it to you. What proof do you want? I'm not trying to start a flame war and apologize if I sound rude but I'm getting frustrated. This is in my opinion a key event in the history of Good Game.

I would like to quote the SMH article " The removal of Ray has greatly angered the show's core base of loyal viewers who were used to having ownership of the show and being involved in decisions.

Some felt betrayed and thought that the show was selling out to reach a mass audience." It SAYS the core audience is angry. 60.241.195.251 (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I never demanded proof of the anger, I was aware of the anger, but my point is that there is nothing particularly special about the anger, it was simply bad handling on the part of the ABC.
  2. There is nothing stopping you from adding the anger, so long as it is appropriately in context. Something like this? Sanguis Sanies (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added how SOME of the fans believe the show has sold out to reach a more mainstream audience. Its from the same source (SMH) so I didn't add an extra source. I'm satisfied with the article now. 60.241.195.251 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those pro the inclusion of detailed controversy details are missing a key point: is the dissatisfaction with a decision by a commercial supplier (which the ABC is despite it's government umbrella) significant enough to expand the topic of this article in a meaningful way?

I suggest no and as an apparently minority core viewer I was surprised by the sudden absence of Junglist and noted that Hex had pretty much the same dialogue as before. I really don't know why this gossip deserves so much attention. 121.45.209.71 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest: it doesn't, but it's included by WP:CONSENSUS, give it till the end of the season and we'll integrate the section into the article proper. However for the moment we'll keep a tight-ish leash on it, ensuring it complies with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New quote box seems to exacerbate undue weight. One side of the story, in a section where the other side is only represented with one sentence. Perhaps include a para from current quote and a para from the rebuttal on the next page of its source? 110.175.246.103 (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Jeremy Ray?[edit]

Just suggesting, due to Jeremy Ray "Junglist" being a veteran of the show and now the whole controversy about his sacking, should we maybe create an article about him? --Victory93 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find sufficient reliable sources that should be okay. The only thing I would caution about would be that his article should not just be about him being fired, that's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:BLP1E, but also about his early life (raised in America, for instance) and pre-Good Game career. If someone starts it I'll certainly help out. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 09:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Sanguis Sanies, I'd be wary about making one based on material published recently - if there's stuff about him from prior to being fired, and there may well be, then it should be fine. - Bilby (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then suppose any of you could start an article? --Victory93 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New additions[edit]

I'm afraid I've had to remove a few new additions, but I'm bringing them here as it may be possible to source them, and clearly I wouldn't have the same concerns if they could be sourced. Specifically:

  • Although Bendixsen comes from a non-gaming background, she was able to secure the hosting position due to superior presenting skills. - I'm concerned because it is unreferenced, and as I recall she claimed an RPG/MUD background on her first appearance. While not hardcore gaming by any means, "non-gaming background" seems inaccurate, and the "superior presenting skills" seems like original research.
  • Widely considered to be the most popular host - Unsourced. Probably accurate, at least based on personal opinion, but I think these sorts of claims need support re WP:PEACOCK.
  • As of November 2009 it has been announced that some reviews would be sourced from freelance journalists to help meet deadlines, with neither host required to actually play the game. - as it provided a date, this is probably accurate, but would need a reference.
There's certainly a case for the show's writing being poorly researched. Practically everything 'historical' starts from 1990-- "..back in the good old days, when game background music started off, with the Gameboy and in games like Commander Keen, with their bleeps and bloops..." (paraphrased). As a Commodore 64 and Amiga owner, I had to ragequit at the hack writing, and haven't watched the show since. 203.14.156.27 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many long time viewers have announced they will be boycotting the show until greater transparency in the review process is adopted. - the use of "many" is problematic - it might be possible to source "some", or to find a reliable source that uses "many", but either way I think a reference is needed.

I see these all as good faith additions, it's just that there's some very strong claims that I feel need to be supported rather than added as they are. - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was being lazy - I feel that I have sources for all those items, and I will endeavour to add source links over the next few days. Truth31 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. If I can track down any I'll add them as well. - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the above comments - I read through the discussion under the heading Junglist and realise there is little point in me trying to improve the 'controvery' section when there are people trying to say there is no controversy and activly campaigning to remove it altogether. Truth31 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it if it is Well Sourced and Relevant, we are not campaigning to have it all removed, we are simply going to reintegrate it into the article proper, i.e: have it moved out of a section called "Controversy" (which is bad WP:NPOV and WP:MOS) and have it spread out into better sections (move the reaction about Junglist in the Junglist section, move info about the reviews into the review section, etc.). In fact if you wanted to you could add the information directly into the review section if you wished. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date[edit]

I've noticed this article isn't much up to date. Can we please try to? And also if possible any pics of the hosts or the segments? I mean I've noticed few were removed earlier, maybe bring them back with the need copyright thing needed so they stay. --Victory93 (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mesa Mod 10-10[edit]

SO this week the Half Life mod Black Mesa received 10 rubber chickens from both Bajo and Hex, does that warrant adding it to the list? I mean it's just a mod and not even a finished one at that but I feel like it warrants mention 60.241.211.70 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

It's actually much harder than you might think to get sources for this TV show... which is a shame because it is utterly brilliant and deserves an FA article. For that reason, I'm gathering together a bunch of usable sources for us to use in the article to make it awesome.--Coin945 (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Good game info[edit]

Firing controversy[edit]

Good Game SP[edit]

This article feels overdone.[edit]

This article seems to feel overdone. The page is filled with quotes that are unnecessary or could be summarised and some of the information feels absolutely needless. Another issue with me is the ridiculous amount of sections in the article. First of all, sections like Philosophy and Book feel as if they do not belong and could be removed to allow a more organised and spaced out page. Much of the articles sections aside from the aforementioned feels like it could be highly simplified into less sections that are quick to get to and don't take hours of reading. I'm not suggesting we turn the article back into the small one we once knew but we definitely need to make the article more spaced out, more simplified and get rid of a whole lot of needless quotes that dominate every section.

Sendator (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sendator: Well I was the one that did the major overhaul of this article, and I'll be the first to admit it has major problems. But at least all the possible sources that could be used *are* already in the article, so it's just a case of zooming through and copyediting it to get rid of all the quotes and useless trivia. Are you up for the job?--Coin945 (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Coin945: I've done the first edit and right now it isn't complete and looks terrible. I'll continue to edit it tomorrow so it looks better. It may take a few days to edit the information though.

Sendator (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t see a problem with reducing some of the quotes - I'm not generally big on them - and there does appear to be an overuse of non-free images. But I'm not inclined to delete content wholesale, unless there was a more serious problem such as a copyright violation. Perhaps we should look at each section individually and discuss the content? - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If no one has tried already, I would suggest emailing the publicity people and asking to release those fair use images under a free license czar ♔ 20:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I'd rather fix up the article first before bringing the GG staff's full attention to it. I'll be the first to admit it has major problems at the moment.--Coin945 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted a message to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games‎ requesting a copyedit. I hold that there is a great article hidden inside - all the info is already there and it's just a case of rearranging some stuff, removing some trivialitites, and replacing quotes with prose. Oh and fixing the images.--Coin945 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Good Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Good Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 November 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Good Game (TV program). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Good Game (television series) → Good Game (TV series) – As per WP:NCTV. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Oops I thought this was opened on Nov 13th, not 17th. I still think the result would have been the same per the emerging consensus but if anybody wished to oppose the move it would be fine to revert and relist. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Good Game (TV program). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Game_(TV_program)&oldid=1207320745"