Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Geekenstein; November 8, 2014. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
The recovered historical coverage
The November 8, 2014 In The Lab introduction describes David and returning guest Eric Elzy trying Tabletop Simulator, then sitting down to a game of Pokémon Master Quest. The page credited Geekenstein rather than naming an individual writer.
Its written introduction praised the digital tabletop and its Steam Workshop community. It also mentioned a Space Jam VHS object, reflecting the playful examples featured in this period of coverage. Those mentions establish the episode’s announced setting; they do not reveal particular moves, scores or dialogue from the recording.
The retained page used a Springboard video player. The episode video itself has not been recovered, so this record contains no substitute session or imagined play report. Christian Mincks’ separately recovered written preview is available, along with a present-day guide to setting up a session using authorized materials.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20170820230647. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Jake Petersen; September 12, 2013. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
The recovered historical coverage
Jake Petersen’s September 12, 2013 introduction records an interview with Wizards of the Coast brand director Mark Purvis at PAX Prime 2013. The announced subjects were the upcoming Duels 2014 expansion and Magic more generally.
The retained introduction is brief and contains no interview answers. The recording has not been recovered. This page therefore preserves the event, participant, credit and stated subject, rather than presenting a reconstructed conversation.
Geekenstein’s written expansion preview and later expansion review are separately preserved. A KLXCards retrospective places those reports alongside the digital game’s deck structure and surviving coverage. These are useful companion sources, but neither is represented as Purvis’s missing interview.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20170820093836. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: David Rhinehart; publication date unverified. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
The recovered historical coverage
David Rhinehart’s introduction identified Simone Kesterton as an artist behind the Deponia series. It announced a conversation about her artistic process and the balance of humor and darkness in the artwork, including the design of Rufus’s expression.
The retained historical HTML names an MP3 hosted by Random Assault. Its HTTPS address currently fails hostname certificate verification, so there is no working player or download button here. The original file name establishes a lead for restoration; it does not provide a transcript of the conversation.
The separately preserved Chaos on Deponia review documents Geekenstein’s assessment of the game. It is a different source with a different purpose, and no review opinion is attributed to Kesterton as an interview answer.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20131212221550. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Willy Fretschl; June 7, 2013. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
The recovered historical coverage
Willy Fretschl’s June 7, 2013 introduction encouraged convention visitors to spend time with independent developers. He presented Disco Pixel president Trevor Stricker as an example of a developer willing to have a conversation even when the interviewer was ill and struggling with his voice.
The introduction named three subjects for the conversation: Jungle Rumble, making games in Massachusetts and Stricker’s earlier work around Sega’s Dreamcast era. It did not provide a written question-and-answer transcript.
The separately preserved Jungle Rumble review offers a later assessment of the game. It cannot stand in for Stricker’s own words from this interview. This archive record keeps the two kinds of coverage distinct and retains Fretschl’s original credit.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20170820094452. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Jake Petersen; September 19, 2013. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
The recovered historical coverage
Jake Petersen’s September 19, 2013 introduction described seeing AirMech at PAX and interviewing Carbon Games game director James Green. He identified the discussion’s scope as the game’s strengths and the broader free-to-play market.
Petersen characterized AirMech as a combination of MOBA and real-time strategy ideas. From one match, he felt there was substantial depth for players willing to invest time in improving. That is the limit of his retained hands-on account; it is not evidence of a long-term balance study.
The article’s invitation to try the game on Steam belonged to its 2013 context. This archive record does not revive an old platform or pricing promise. The original introduction establishes the interview’s subject, but the conversation’s questions and Green’s answers are not present in the recovered capture.
Historical source and restoration status
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20170820230422. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: David Rhinehart; May 27, 2013. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
David Rhinehart’s May 27, 2013 introduction launched the In The Lab audio interview series with FarSight’s Bobby King. Its central topic was the work involved in translating physical pinball machines into The Pinball Arcade.
Rhinehart contrasted his affection for actual tables remembered from arcades, pizza restaurants and bowling alleys with other digital pinball experiences. His discussion focused on the costs and obstacles of reproducing those machines, including why individual digital tables had their own prices. His personal preference is preserved as a historical opinion, not a new comparison test.
The introduction singled out Black Hole as a table he was enjoying again. It also mentioned a then-current PlayStation Plus offer and more pinball coverage to come. That promotion is historical and is not recreated as a current free-game offer.
The written introduction does not contain King’s actual answers. An original recording or faithful transcript is still needed to restore the interview in full. This record identifies the conversation’s subject and the writer’s reasons for featuring it, without filling the missing discussion with a different interview.
Explore the physical-to-digital design question
Editorial follow-up · Geekenstein Editorial · October 4, 2026
The recovered introduction raises a question that applies beyond pinball: what needs to survive when a physical game becomes a software experience? A visual resemblance is only one part of the comparison. The controls, rules, feedback and shared understanding at the table can each change.
Use these questions when comparing a physical game with a digital version:
Rules: which actions does the program enforce, and which decisions or checks remain with the player?
Feedback: can you tell what happened and why, or are you relying on an animation without understanding the result?
Setup: can everyone read the components, use the controls and recover from an accidental move?
A digital tabletop provides a practical place to examine those distinctions. KLXCards’ Tabletop Simulator setup guide covers object handling, private and public card areas, manual rules and a short session check. It concerns card and board games, not a recreation of The Pinball Arcade or Bobby King’s missing answers.
For a separate historical perspective on social play in that software, read Christian Mincks’ preserved 2014 Tabletop Simulator preview. Compare its written observations with your own setup notes rather than treating either article as the missing pinball interview.
Historical source and restoration status
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20170821024432. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Craig Kandiko; March 26, 2013. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
Craig Kandiko’s March 26, 2013 gallery celebrated people who stopped for photographs at PAX East. His introduction emphasized the craft and enthusiasm of fans making costumes, alongside the smaller number of professional appearances on the show floor.
The text specifically mentioned costumes associated with Assassin’s Creed, BioShock, Borderlands and comic-book characters. Kandiko thanked the people who posed and invited attendees to identify themselves and share more of their costume work. This edition preserves that context without guessing the identity of anyone in an unrecovered photograph.
Toyark’s March 27, 2013 Off The Shelf cosplay feature credits Geekenstein among several photo sources and still provides a convention image collection. Readers can view that collection at its original publisher through the link below. Because it combines several sources, not every photograph there can be attributed to Kandiko or matched to the missing Geekenstein gallery.
The local archive contains the original introduction and historical attachment references, but not the full-size photographs themselves. This is a gallery archive record with an external viewing route, not a claim that all original photographs have been restored here.
From cosplay inspiration to a collecting checklist
Editorial follow-up · Geekenstein Editorial · October 4, 2026
Toyark framed its convention feature around the connection between game characters, costumes and collectible figures. A useful next step is to separate the character you recognise from the particular object you want to collect. A costume, a display figure and a figure that unlocks game content can represent the same fictional world while serving different purposes.
Before turning convention inspiration into a collecting plan, write down three things:
The subject: identify the character and the source of that identification. Keep the photographer’s credit and the costumer’s identity separate; an unlabelled photo is not enough to infer either.
The object: decide whether you want handmade costume work, a display collectible or a component used in a game. A resemblance between them does not establish the same manufacturer or edition.
The purpose: record whether it is for display or play. For play, check the required software, platform and accessories before treating a familiar character as a complete setup.
For a concrete example of figures that also function as game components, use KLXCards’ Disney Infinity compatibility and collecting guide. It separates figures, Play Sets, Power Discs and bases and explains what to check in a used bundle. This is a related collecting exercise; it does not identify the missing PAX photographs.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20150903064826. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Craig Kandiko; publication date unverified. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
Craig Kandiko’s historical feature imagined the Grand Theft Auto cover-art format applied to other fictional worlds while readers awaited the next game. The article introduced Geekenstein’s own concept-box-art exercise and invited suggestions from its community.
The retained text names nine themes in its original order: Adventure Time, Back to the Future, Batman, NBC’s Community, Fraggle Rock, My Little Pony, SpongeBob SquarePants, Star Wars and Transformers. The gallery’s attachment links separately identify those same themes. They are parody concepts, not announced Grand Theft Auto products.
Kandiko credited suggestions from Willy Fretschl, Smikey Ftg and Daniel Plmnjedi Schwiesow. This edition preserves those credits and the catalogue, without inventing what an unrecovered image looked like.
The original cover images have not been recovered for this site. A separately maintained Know Your Meme entry documents the wider cover-parody format and cites this historical Geekenstein feature; its examples are a wider collection, not a reconstruction of these nine images.
Editorial follow-up · Geekenstein Editorial · October 4, 2026
A familiar logo or a convincing box-art layout can make an imagined crossover look like a product announcement. The nine concepts above are a fan exercise. Reading the image’s subject separately from its publication status helps you discuss the idea without turning it into a claim that a game was released.
Credit the concept: record who made or suggested it and where that credit comes from. Do not assign an unidentified image to the historical contributors.
Check the product claim: distinguish a fan concept from an identified publisher’s announcement, rulebook or product listing.
Compare the adaptation: ask whether the proposal changes how a game plays or mainly changes its setting and presentation.
For a comparison with actual video-game adaptations, KLXCards’ XCOM and Zelda Monopoly guide examines a cooperative system and a themed board-game edition. It also separates edition contents from play readiness, including the unresolved check for a usable XCOM companion app. Those products are comparison examples, not replacements for the nine lost Geekenstein covers.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20131205134522. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: Mitch Rozetar; June 8, 2013. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
Mitch Rozetar’s June 8, 2013 introduction presented Giant Spacekat’s Revolution 60 as an episodic action game planned for iOS. Its point of interest was the combination of story decisions and timed actions rather than a simple description of one genre.
Rozetar compared its branching dialogue and moral choices with Mass Effect, and its quick-time events with Heavy Rain. For combat, he described opponents moving across grids and compared that arrangement with MegaMan Battle Network. He also identified follow-up attacks using timed inputs, drawing a comparison with the Mario RPG games.
Those comparisons are Rozetar’s historical framing. They are not claims that the games share a developer or license, and they do not establish how the eventual release performed. The introduction anticipated the latter part of 2013; that forecast remains a dated expectation.
The historical route names an interview with Brianna Wu. The retained capture contains the written introduction but no recoverable original interview recording. This edition preserves that introduction’s design observations without attributing new statements to Wu.
A design exercise: decisions and timed inputs
Editorial follow-up · Geekenstein Editorial · October 4, 2026
The surviving Revolution 60 introduction describes branching choices, movement on a grid and timed follow-up attacks. Those descriptions give a reader three distinct questions to carry into another game. They do not supply Brianna Wu’s unrecovered interview answers.
Choice: what information does the player have before making a decision, and what changes because of that decision?
Execution: does success depend on planning, the timing of an input, or both? Describe the action rather than treating every on-screen prompt as the same kind of challenge.
Feedback: does the interface make the consequence understandable enough for the player to learn from it?
For a different digital-design example from the same broad era, read KLXCards’ Hearthstone launch and Grand Tournament design history. Its sections on automatic rules resolution, Inspire and Joust provide concrete questions about interface clarity, sequencing and deck decisions. This comparison is new editorial reading guidance; it is not a statement by Wu or a claim that the games share a developer or design lineage.
A second archive exercise is Christian Mincks’ Octodad review: consider how unusual controls affect a player’s experience of characters and routine actions.
Historical source and restoration status
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20170728190236. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.
Preservation edition · October 3, 2026 · Geekenstein Editorial
Historical source: David Rhinehart; publication date unverified. The following is a newly written account of the recovered text, with opinions attributed to the original writer. It is not a new firsthand review or a full-text reproduction.
The recovered historical coverage
David Rhinehart’s retained preview described the first Octodad as funny because its deliberately awkward controls made ordinary movement difficult. He welcomed the announcement of Dadliest Catch as an opportunity to expand that small original game into a fuller sequel.
His hands-on account emphasized a specific change: movement had become easier to manage, including with a controller, while retaining the physical comedy of bumping into things. He did not describe the controls as perfectly precise. The appeal depended on reducing the effort of moving without removing the ridiculous situations.
The preview also looked beyond the house. Going outdoors and concealing Octodad’s nature from more people offered additional comic possibilities. Rhinehart’s enthusiasm belonged to this pre-release encounter; it is distinct from Christian Mincks’ later review of the finished game.
The historical page also carried an interview recording associated with Seth Parker and Young Horses. Its original YouTube identifier is known, but that upload is unavailable. The recovered prose supports the preview above; it does not reveal Parker’s missing answers.
Common Crawl retained the historical article container at capture 20131206145245. This edition preserves the available written intent and identifies missing material explicitly. It does not infer interview answers from unrelated sources.