The end of this article seems to stray from the regular guidelines of objectivity. mostly there seems to be an overall sense of "sympathy" towards Webb and Sessler about view mail, the messageboards, etc. This mostly appears at the end of the article but can be seen throughout. --Snikch13 12:32, 04 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted information in order to keep this article at a neutral point of view, but it looked like there weas some information that could be salvaged. The edit in question needs to be NPOV'd before it is added back in. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure if there's a whole lot to be saved from that edit - it's just a bunch of bias. --Oreckel 22:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dose anybody have any idea what the ratings are for this show are viewership or the demographics of its viewers? If so, I think that info would be good for the page.

It's spelled "Von Webb." In German, the W is pronounced like the English V. There's even a screenshot in the article that clearly shows it spelled "Von Webb." Please, don't change it back to Vebb. Elwood00 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is near the "Sensitive Sess" subsection, and I'm wondering if it is just clutter or if it should be there normally... and if someone more versed in the Wiki's inner workings could elaborate?

Okay, this phrase seems to have lived for years on this page, but I really have no idea what this was supposed to mean:

"The humor on the show is inconsistent, but tends to skew lowbrow."

Would this suggest it takes lowbrow humour and ... dunno, warps it? Variations on it? Otherwise, I can't find a suitable definition of "skew" except "to look suspiciously upon", which suggests the opposite (avoid). I suggested the latter in an edit, but reverted it because reading the article suggested the humour really wasn't all that intellectual (highbrow).

I also found it silly that "lowbrow" linked to "highbrow"... looks like an ancient attempt to avoid a redirect. But linking a word to its antonym is just wrong. (The fact that Wikipedia's "lowbrow" is an art style rather than an antonym of "highbrow" is another matter entirely. I'll bring that up on the appropriate pages.)

Bottom line is, I'm probably making a mountain out of a molehill here, but there's only so much I can do to help Wikipedia here, having never actually seen an episode of this show. I want to fix it, I just don't know how. :) If someone could just rephrase this entirely (perhaps avoiding the "lowbrow" term altogether), it'd be solved once and for all. -- 64.26.156.49 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I think it means skew as in skew to the left or right in a statistical distribution. In other words, if you draw a line with lowbrow at one end and highbrow at the other end, more of the show's jokes tend to fall near the lowbrow end as opposed to distributing normally.

That being said, it might be POVish and worth removal on those grounds.

(sorry for not signing, I'm new to Wiki.)

I think skewing low-brow means skirting the edge of it, crossing a fine line between low-brow and high-brow. (though alot of their jokes are low-brow!)71.96.11.37 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for Morgan Webb's dismay at the show's lowbrow humor? Has she actually said that in public, or is this a reference to the writing, which frequently has her character embarrassed by Adam's jokes? Either way, can this be clarified? Elwood00 ^{T | C} 20:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well last time I checked they did their own writing but also used to be able to ware their own wardrobe. It is just an act they have to put on to differentiate them from the other game review show. Though it is in the theme of show at the moment. DyslexicDan 14:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source for this, no. At no time that I can discern has Webb ever said anything of the kind about the show. It's somewhat in character as far as her behavior on the show itself, but the wording makes it seem like the host herself disagrees with the presentation of the show, which does not appear to have any basis in fact.

I have added another second describing the two major formats the show has used. The show’s format has been large part of show especially in the earlier years which this article unfortunately seems to consist little information about.

The two points I tried to cover were locations the show was filmed at and how it was filmed. There is plenty of room for these subjects to be expanded on. DyslexicDan 16:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The show’s format section has exploded over the past few days with relevant information. Those who expanded this section need to be given cookies or something. DyslexicDan 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned that Sessler and Webb (as does Kevin Periera), seem to be quite hateful towards Christians/Jews. As of what I heard, many Jews seem to be outraged by their somewhat rash jokes. (though Sessler and Webb seem to target Christians the most) I have found many instances of Christian/Judeo bashing, but have found no jokes aimed at Buhdism, Islam, or any other religions. Should somebody address this topic?71.96.11.37 23:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not, since it's really not relevant to the article unless one wishes to use the article to further an agenda. The show rips on everything, yes, including Democrats, Islam, Buddhism, and just about anything it can find. The whole point of the show is that nothing is sacred, and they simply walk the walk.

Good point. I guess I haven't seen enough episodes to know what Adam and Morgan believe.

P.S. Agenda? This was just an observation of mine, for I never said that they actually are hateful towards Christians/Jews, I simply stated that it seems that way.71.96.11.37 15:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had never noticed anything... Do you have anyexamples you could point to? SteelyDave 15:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here are a few: 1. On the review of "Zoo Tycoon" they took shots at Christianity/creationism, with Webb saying something like, "it is a asburd to think that man was created", and "creationism like psychology, is a pseudo-science". Also, they took a shot at Kirk Cameron (a notable Christian) for trying to teach creationism.

2. One episode (revolving around communism), they made insulting comments about Christians/Jews. (One of them being, "Christians can't play video games because they are "too evil" for them.)

3. The infamous, "Passion of the Christ 2: Judgement Day"

4. One of the viewer mail had a Christian message (also asking when the Nintendo Revolution would come out). After reading it, Adam and Morgan pretended to be sad/shocked, then Adam answered the guy's question about the Revolution sarcastically, "hopefully before the rapture".

5. On the Christmas special, there were many instances.

This has nothing to do with my agenda, nor was I offended by these silly comments. This is simply a harmless observation! I have seen them bash Scientology from time to time, and they have made one joke about Islam. I know that's just their opinions, but do they need to be so vocal? Are they fair to all beliefs? I'll let ya'll decide. 71.96.11.37 16:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did they really trademark the announcer's voice?SteelyDave 15:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the old announcer left because he did not like how X-Play is going?

Are you serious? I was wondering why he would leave.(65.115.123.226 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I heard that something like he didnt like the approach of the show or something...65.115.123.226 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really enough information for it to have its own article, so I propose that all that information get moved to the recurring characters section on this article. Amalas =^_^= 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If anyone finds other articles about recurring characters floating around, they should be merged too. I doubt any of them would warrant a seperate article. BryanG 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the gigantic list of recurring and not-so-recurring characters on the show to its own article to prevent reader fatigue. It also gave me an excuse to give the show its own category. ~ Hibana 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not against having a criticisms section in this article, but some references for them would be nice, especially since they were all added by one user. They may all be valid points, but I'm always concerned when articles have one of these sections without any source to back their points up - it starts to look more like personal opinion of the editors and less like an encyclopedia. BryanG^(talk) 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to find a place where I can watch little .gif images of Adam Sessler and Morgan Webb burning in the pits of Hell for all eternity. That's not wrong, not at all. Valid complaints against both of them not knowing a good game from the holes in each other's heads, the 'humor' of the show barely rising above retarded, and what I swear to God in Heaven are game scores that have been sold to the highest bidder all over the place.. *sigh* techtv. damn techtv. PratzStrike 09:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why this paragraph, ominously quoted by Morgan Webb, has been removed? I think it should have been polished instead of completely removed, as it has some accurate observations about the wide range of humor employed in the show. Also, I was wondering what you guys though of mentioning that the skit is done during the Point Blank review? Anyway. --Stux 23:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because they were kinda embarassed to have it mentioned.--Mreddy1

what would be a good idea is have all the games listed and what they scored-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 11:31, August 13, 2006 (talk • contribs) 68.190.32.255 (UTC)

That's not really what wikipedia is about, u could find a fan site that lists that. THe sheer number of game reviews means that there would be way to many numbers here. I would have to say no.-Giant89 18:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you want a full list of game reveiws, go to g4tv.com. it's got every game they've ever reviewed. and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a list. User:dino-amie 06:31 23 september 2006 (UTC)o

Does anyone think that a list compiled of games to receive a 5/5 rating on X-play might added to the article?

i dont. Stublu 06:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)o[reply]

yer read the question. Stublu 07:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone have a list of 5/5 games? Stublu 07:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said its at g4tv.com. now stop asking Wikipedia about reviews!!dino-amie 07:40, 24 September 2006

As I write this, an annoymous user has added this address to the links:

http://www.iheartmorganwebb.com/?file=gameratings

Now while I am against having links from the wiki unless they serve a purpose and certainly not merely because a user has added it.

However it seems to cover the requirements we have asked for above. The site apparently uses X-Play Game Ratings and has a vast amount of games on it. You can search by rating, etc, etc.

So I am for leaving it, unless we get a better link to replace it with...

(Just visited, am an RC-Patroller really)

Thanks

Philipwhiuk 12:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this section out of the page at least three times now. It presents the events show as being real, when they clearly are not. In my view, this is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards. King Zeal 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the physical abuse seen on the show are scripted and does not hold any real value Highway 19:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the TVRage link to the main page. The website has an actual episode guide that has been constructed better than the one on X-Play's official website. Not to mention they keep track of their info better, tracking guest starts, game reviews, and other material G4 won't print. If you take it down, then you better take down the links above it, because it offers more episode wise than any other the other sites you have posted. JohnQ.Public 10:17, 16 October 2006

The 1st link is to the official site of G4, the 2nd link is to the official book released by the show and the 3rd link has been discussed previous and noted that it offers game rating information to the vast number of games reviewed by the show. Highway 14:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st link, if you search their episode guide, has incomplete information from the first two years. G4 has done a poor job of keeping ANY of their episode guides in order and up-to-date. Don't believe me, compare TVRage's to theirs. 2nd link is a listing on Amazon.com. I'd give you credit if it were the book published online, but it's not. And if you don't take it down, I'll report it for being an obvious ad. The 3rd is an inaccurate and incomplete list, that's been haphazzardly copied from the original source that G4 got rid of because of its bugs, and pasted onto a Morgan Webb obsession site. If this is the best you got, you might as well delete #2 and #3 now, and put TVRage back as a creditable source for an episode guide. JohnQ.Public 14:49, 16 October 2006