Meet the Game Dogs - Chet and Roger

[Landslide]

It means that if that content genuinely IS crap, then the reaction is the same as if the content is a really genuinely good idea.

That's true only with the realm of The Forums. I mean. This is the Internet, not Television. It's really very simple to gauge the success-level of anything we publish. I was being funny when I said we track everything - but we track enough. You don't get your badges because we have legions of interns somehow watching you while you poke around the site. We know, because we track what everyone watches. That's how we know what content you guys like. It's not a complicated process.

So, people could bloat this to a 45 page thread full of nothing but piss and vinegar. But at the end of the day, if a piece of content has a gazillion viewers every week - well, the proof is in the pudding. And don't imagine that the reverse isn't also true. We've had beautifully crafted content on here that was and is critically acclaimed - but almost no one watched it. We give it a home, but we know it's not a direction to travel in the future.

Heck, we could get the most abusive, insulting, over-the-top angry game reviewer on here who does nothing but insult games, the industry and our readers every week. And if he gets enough of a following then... ... Oh, wait. Right.

The point is that these forums are a good way to get input and criticism, but they are not at all an accurate method of measuring how popular anything is. That information resides in the logs - safe from subjectivity.

 

[BonsaiK]

It means that if that content genuinely IS crap, then the reaction is the same as if the content is a really genuinely good idea.

That's true only with the realm of The Forums. I mean. This is the Internet, not Television. It's really very simple to gauge the success-level of anything we publish. I was being funny when I said we track everything - but we track enough. You don't get your badges because we have legions of interns somehow watching you while you poke around the site. We know, because we track what everyone watches. That's how we know what content you guys like. It's not a complicated process.

So, people could bloat this to a 45 page thread full of nothing but piss and vinegar. But at the end of the day, if a piece of content has a gazillion viewers every week - well, the proof is in the pudding. And don't imagine that the reverse isn't also true. We've had beautifully crafted content on here that was and is critically acclaimed - but almost no one watched it. We give it a home, but we know it's not a direction to travel in the future.

Heck, we could get the most abusive, insulting, over-the-top angry game reviewer on here who does nothing but insult games, the industry and our readers every week. And if he gets enough of a following then... ... Oh, wait. Right.

The point is that these forums are a good way to get input and criticism, but they are not at all an accurate method of measuring how popular anything is. That information resides in the logs - safe from subjectivity.

Yeah... that's a good point. It's also quite reassuring. I suppose some people will watch because of other reasons, they might not think it's good quality. I watch Rebecca Mayes every week now but I wouldn't say I actually like it, or at least, not in the sense that she intends. But then maybe that distinction doesn't matter as long as people watch? I'm probably a little bit strange and in the minority anyway. But point taken.

 

[Magnatek]

Also, I can't believe I just made that post.

God damn the internets.

"Damn you all to hell!" /ChuckHestononthebeachattheendofPlanetoftheApes

I've never seen someone do that on the internet, until now. (type it out, I mean)

OT: Seeing as how I'm not too much of a fan of Apocalypse Lane, I'm not entirely sure what to expect of this new series. Naturally, it'll take a couple of episodes before I can truly decide, but my opinion is still in the air until then.

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

I'm truly hoping that whoever created that clip just neglected to bring their A-Game, maybe for fear of blowing someone's mind. They needn't have feared such as most of the people on this site can handle it...those who actually have minds to be blown, anyway.

Why are so many people acting like jackasses over the characters being dogs(or dog people),anyway? That's as fool-headed as not watching cowboy movies because of Brokeback Mountain, abstaining from Star Trek over Slash Fiction or declaring Vampire lore dead on account of women putting them in erotic fiction. Those works are entirely separate entities from both the originals and from your precious(man)childhood memories.

That having been said, I'm not a fan of a gimmicky premise or the whole 'aniverse' concept. Without humans in the story to define them as 'dogs' they might as well be human(or Code Monkeys). Now, if it were a team of dogs breaking in to a human-dominated field to bring their unique canine outlook to videogaming, you might have something.

 

[WILLTHEALMIGHTY]

It's not that they're furries. It's that the trailer sucks.

 

[MR T3D]

well, um... can't say it's my cup of tea, but GODDAMIT PLEASE GEET RID OF THAT ADD OVER THERE
<<<<<<<<
there, maybe look up a bit too.


that's what forced me (subconsciously) and then i look at the amusing topics delving to a topic on furries!

It's funny because this generation should be used to non-human characters being the main species in cartoons. Seriously think back to the 80's and 90's and there were a ton of anthropomorphic cartoon series like Care Bears and such.

they are the reason many of us feel disgusted by it today, in the agre of the internet essentially making them think the worst of their characters
DAMN YOU 34!

 

[gremily]

I'll watch it. Kind of reminds me of Code Monkeys.

 

[gremily]

I'll watch it. Kind of reminds me of Code Monkeys.

Changing topics for a sec from Game Dogs. Did they even release the second season DVD of Code Monkeys?

Uhh not sure. The only time I was able to watch it was when it was on G4, and that's gone now. I would say maybe not, because I don't think it did well enough on ratings. I'm often wrong though.

 

[gremily]

well, um... can't say it's my cup of tea, but GODDAMIT PLEASE GEET RID OF THAT ADD OVER THERE
<<<<<<<<

Dude I totally agree! I'll watch the show because I think it looks interesting, but I can only be starred at by a still image for so long until I feel uncomfortable.

 

[Littlee300]

"Sorry guys, but you lost me at "two dogs on a mission to make a career out of making games".

Same here,
but people are judging the a short trailer a little to harsh, this better be very entertaining to make up for the the whole dogs looking for a mission to make games. Also I hope they have good ideas for this series, with the characters they could make some easily thought up humor.

And still Zero Punctuation remains the only thing worth watching here.

edit- wait wait wait, sorry and moviebob.

It was a 40 second trailer....

 

[Glutnix]

Fact: Anthropomorphic cartoon characters ARE NOT furries. Furries are people. People who have a thing for anthropomorphic cartoon characters and other similar such things, sexual or non-sexual.

but then I guess people assume that:

anthropmorphic cartoon characters + INTERNET == FURRYSEX Y1FF EWWWWbarf! 0MGWTFDIAF!!!!!!1

This is of course, incorrect, as this series is bound to reveal. I guess this thread's reaction is an expectable side effect of Rule 34: furries are one of the few subcultures left on this planet that it's popularly acceptable to hate. Fascinating when you look at it this way.

...Maybe the characters in Game Dogs will riff on 'humanies' to great hilarity, lol.

Also:

Scott Ramsoomair of VGCats @vgc_scott: http://twitter.com/vgc_scott/status/7655081946

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97319-Meet-the-Game-Dogs-Chet-and-Roger *MEGA FACEPALM*

heh.

 

[Internet Kraken]

well, um... can't say it's my cup of tea, but GODDAMIT PLEASE GEET RID OF THAT ADD OVER THERE
<<<<<<<<

Dude I totally agree! I'll watch the show because I think it looks interesting, but I can only be starred at by a still image for so long until I feel uncomfortable.

I agree. Did they have to make them stare directly at you? It's a bit creepy....

 

[remmus]

Oh god... please dont let this bring furries to the escapist.

there are most likely already countless furry users (like me :3) on the homepage but since this place is about games not furries we don´t mention it (well consider the web of lies and misunderstanding the people has woven)

anyway OT: meh, I´ll give it a shot but if they don´t play on the dog aspect then I have to join the others and ask why dogs?

 

[Littlee300]

I guess there considered furry because, well that Roger guy is wearing clothes and glasses and it is just disturbing me!!!! On the other hand, that Chet guy looks more like a normal cartoon ( I am referring to the ad mostly)

 

[SD-Fiend]

uh what?

 

[Senrab]

The fuck is this furry shit?

 

[Sexy Street]

Fact: Anthropomorphic cartoon characters ARE NOT furries. Furries are people. People who have a thing for anthropomorphic cartoon characters and other similar such things, sexual or non-sexual.

but then I guess people assume that:

anthropmorphic cartoon characters + INTERNET == FURRYSEX Y1FF EWWWWbarf! 0MGWTFDIAF!!!!!!1

This is of course, incorrect, as this series is bound to reveal. I guess this thread's reaction is an expectable side effect of Rule 34: furries are one of the few subcultures left on this planet that it's popularly acceptable to hate. Fascinating when you look at it this way.

...Maybe the characters in Game Dogs will riff on 'humanies' to great hilarity, lol.

Also:

Scott Ramsoomair of VGCats @vgc_scott: http://twitter.com/vgc_scott/status/7655081946

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97319-Meet-the-Game-Dogs-Chet-and-Roger *MEGA FACEPALM*

heh.

Welcome to the escapist. At least its better than 4chan.