Alex Navarro IS Back Reviewing Games!

#1 Edited by zonerover (580 posts) -

 

  
So don't get me wrong with this - Alex Navarro was a great game reviewer on Gamespot for all types of games. If I had to give him a score out of 1000, he would probably rate higher than this. And yet, this is what I remember him best for...
 
 
So giving him 0/10 points, or 010 points seems fitting to me.
 
Edit: I know Alex is not back full time, and I know he works on Screened. But since he is posting the occasional review and is appearing here and there on some Giant Bomb content, I would argue that he is back in a limted capacity.

The glory days of Gamespot were great, and with Alex's Risk: Factions review, we're once step closer to making Giant Bomb a site that can compete with the likes of the current Gamespot. 
  • In features, this site is stacks ahead of all of them.
  • In content Giant Bomb were a little behind, but with Brad and Matt posting quite a lot of articles, this is improving. Plus while there largely isn't that "professional" vibe in the video content (Today on the Spot), the team shows people how real games are played, and that seems hugely more beneficial to me.
  • This site now has more of the past Gamespot employees from the 'Glory Days'. Add in semi-annual guests like Rich Gallop and it does almost feel as if this is the old Gamespot, but better.
 
Edit: As to my personal reaction to Alex's return, this is what I wrote on the Risk: Factions review page...
 

When Alex came to Whiskey, I knew that even though he was being assigned to the movie site that just like the other Giant Bomb members he would probably be seen on other sites too. However, I certainly didn't expect reviews even though he is more than qualified! Yes for more Alex and Matt reviews here, although I also wouldn't mind Ryan formalising those TANG reviews on Screened as well. 


So how do you feel about Alex's return to videogame reviews (I know that some of this discussion has filled the review of Risk Factions already, but this seems like a better place to put it), and more importantly, what does this mean for Giant Bomb's future as a whole?
#2 Posted by Jayzilla (2571 posts) -

He works for Whiskey Media BUT on the site, "Tested" with Matt Rorie who also worked at GameSpot. He does the occasional game review as well. He isn't back bro. He is just a part of the extended Whiskey Media family.

#3 Edited by FluxWaveZ (19388 posts) -

Is he?
 
Oh, not really.

#4 Posted by Zajtalan (1163 posts) -

lol

#5 Posted by Allprox (565 posts) -

He reviewed Backbreaker a while ago too, I for one am all for him chipping in now and again.

Online
#6 Posted by Tactical_Kill (1695 posts) -

That is his second review on the site. He also reviewed Backbreaker.

#7 Posted by Crono11 (1651 posts) -
@Jayzilla said:
" He works for Whiskey Media BUT on the site, "Tested" with Matt Rorie who also worked at GameSpot. He does the occasional game review as well. He isn't back bro. He is just a part of the extended Whiskey Media family. "
He works for Screened. And he reviewed that football game that was all about physics. I think it was called Backbreaker but I'm not 100% sure.
#8 Posted by NekuSakuraba (7184 posts) -

When I heard the Xbox achievement sound I was like ''What the fuck?''

#9 Posted by DanielJW (4915 posts) -
@Jayzilla: Actually he works on Screened
#10 Posted by zonerover (580 posts) -
@Jayzilla said:
" He works for Whiskey Media BUT on the site, "Tested" with Matt Rorie who also worked at GameSpot. He does the occasional game review as well. He isn't back bro. He is just a part of the extended Whiskey Media family. "
@FluxWaveZ said:
" Is he?  Oh, not really. "
Sorry, I didn't mean back full time. But even if he did post the ocassional review, he is part of the family. Just like the Giant Bomb team's excursions onto the other Whiskey sites too, this cross pollination surely is beneficial for all of the sites. For some further clarification of what I meant, I think I better staple on my actual response to this news on the original post - I mostly just posed questions in that.
#11 Posted by JJWeatherman (14571 posts) -
@crono11 said:
" @Jayzilla said:
" He works for Whiskey Media BUT on the site, "Tested" with Matt Rorie who also worked at GameSpot. He does the occasional game review as well. He isn't back bro. He is just a part of the extended Whiskey Media family. "
He works for Screened. And he reviewed that football game that was all about physics. I think it was called Backbreaker but I'm not 100% sure. "
Yes, Screened. And indeed it was called Backbreaker.
#12 Posted by Tactical_Kill (1695 posts) -

Also that achievement unlocked thing is cool. I may have to use it sometime.

#13 Posted by zonerover (580 posts) -
@Tactical_Kill said:
"

That is his second review on the site. He also reviewed Backbreaker.

"
Well that is something I missed. That game looks pretty bad, but Alex did a good job in reviewing it (at least that's the way it looks like as I skim through it - I don't think I can read a full 'football' game review).
#14 Posted by JJWeatherman (14571 posts) -
@zonerover said:
" @Tactical_Kill said:
"

That is his second review on the site. He also reviewed Backbreaker.

"
Well that is something I missed. That game looks pretty bad, but Alex did a good job in reviewing it (at least that's the way it looks like as I skim through it - I don't think I can read a full 'football' game review). "
It's not very long.
#15 Edited by Faint (833 posts) -
@zonerover said:
  "we're once step closer to making Giant Bomb a site that can compete with the likes of the current Gamespot."
who cares if it can 'compete'? we all like giant bomb better as it is already

#16 Posted by zonerover (580 posts) -
@JJWeatherman said:
" @zonerover said:
Well that is something I missed. That game looks pretty bad, but Alex did a good job in reviewing it (at least that's the way it looks like as I skim through it - I don't think I can read a full 'football' game review). "
It's not very long. "
You mean the game or the review? The review seems pretty long to me, although I must stress I haven't actually read it yet.
#17 Posted by zonerover (580 posts) -
@Faint said:

" @zonerover said:

  "we're once step closer to making Giant Bomb a site that can compete with the likes of the current Gamespot."
who cares if it can 'compete'? we all like giant bomb better as it is already

"
I know that Giant Bomb is already great in its current form, but people were saying this before time that Brad Nicholas and Matt Kessler joined the news team, and before Alex and Matt became regular visitors in Giant Bomb content. I would argue that through growth, this site has gotten better. Does this site ever need to have the same number of staff members, or the same number of users to compete? I would argue no. 
 
What Giant Bomb does need to have is more content covering a greater array of videogames (there are some good ones the team neglect reviewing because there's effectively only three of them doing that regularly), as well as even more video content. That surely will keep the advertisers happy, as well as the increasing numbers of  users here.
#18 Posted by Faint (833 posts) -

i agree that it has experienced significant changes that have improved upon the amount of content the site offers. same number of staff numbers/ users etc not being important was the point of my message. i was on gamespot the other day looking at some of their e3 coverage and i didn't care for the members from what they were saying. they all seemed like 12 year olds (this coming from someone who has been a gamespot member since 2004 but now rarely uses) and so i wouldn't even want them to come here to ruin the cool member atmosphere that goes on. though im not trying to hog the site either! 
 
in terms of content sure they could cover more stuff, but they do cover what they are interested in and that's what gravitates people to the site whom have similar interests as jeff and the guys. i just don't want the site to turn out like all the other generic game sites, as i think being different is what giant bomb does very well.

#19 Posted by JJWeatherman (14571 posts) -
@zonerover said:
" @JJWeatherman said:
" @zonerover said:
Well that is something I missed. That game looks pretty bad, but Alex did a good job in reviewing it (at least that's the way it looks like as I skim through it - I don't think I can read a full 'football' game review). "
It's not very long. "
You mean the game or the review? The review seems pretty long to me, although I must stress I haven't actually read it yet. "
I was talking about the review because I remembered blowing through it pretty quickly. Looking at it again though, it does look pretty long.
#20 Posted by Red (5994 posts) -
@zonerover said:
" @Faint said:

" @zonerover said:

  "we're once step closer to making Giant Bomb a site that can compete with the likes of the current Gamespot."
who cares if it can 'compete'? we all like giant bomb better as it is already

"
I know that Giant Bomb is already great in its current form, but people were saying this before time that Brad Nicholas and Matt Kessler joined the news team, and before Alex and Matt became regular visitors in Giant Bomb content. I would argue that through growth, this site has gotten better. Does this site ever need to have the same number of staff members, or the same number of users to compete? I would argue no.   What Giant Bomb does need to have is more content covering a greater array of videogames (there are some good ones the team neglect reviewing because there's effectively only three of them doing that regularly), as well as even more video content. That surely will keep the advertisers happy, as well as the increasing numbers of  users here. "
Gamespot and GiantBomb are two very, very different sites, and I don't think any of the staff members are thinking that the natural progression of Giant Bomb is to slowly fill their site with more and more ads and content so they can become GameSpot 2.
#21 Edited by zonerover (580 posts) -
@Red said:

"Gamespot and GiantBomb are two very, very different sites, and I don't think any of the staff members are thinking that the natural progression of Giant Bomb is to slowly fill their site with more and more ads and content so they can become GameSpot 2. "

I agree completely with GB and GS being two different sites - obviously its never been Giant Bomb's attempt at copying anyone. They're simply doing their own thing. Sorry for bringing this point up for the million-th time now, but I still don't see how Whiskey is making money quite yet. By doing more creative advertising (Question of the Week sponsorships etc.) as well as increasing the traditional ad stuff though, I do think they will be able to make a profitable business if they haven't done so already. And who is complaining about more content? As long as it has some value to it and it just isn't a blanket attempt at pretending they have coverage of every game ever made, then I can only see this as a positive thing for the site.
 
You know, I change my mind when I said that Giant Bomb would be able to 'compete' with Gamespot - they never have been directly challenging with each other in the first place. What I really should have said that Giant Bomb was going to be able to be an alternative to Gamespot. In many aspects they already are. However, in genres like sports games in which there is believe it or not actual interest, they're currently pretty weak. Add more content to cover these kinds of areas, and then Giant Bomb is really going to be an alternative to the the legacy Gamespot days.
#22 Posted by CenturionCajun (1461 posts) -

One of the things I love about Giant Bomb is the laid back friendly nature of things. Listening to the Bombcast or watching Thursday Night Throwdown it just seems like a bunch of guys hanging out playing video games. They just happen to be broadcasting it for you to see. The downside to this laid back feeling is that they don't have the money or resources to go to every convention everywhere (Germany and Tokyo) and make slick television quality segments.
 
On the other hand a corporate owned site like Gamespot or IGN can have an army of freelancers covering every miniscule entertainment event (I didn't even realize that IGN had a comic and DVD section till recently) and produce incredibly slick weekly talk show segments. However, much of the soul is lost in this process. Every thing is incredibly processed and just comes across as stilted and rehearsed. Even when they're trying to be funny it comes off stiff.
 
So, both ends of things come with benefits and drawbacks. Personally I like Giant Bomb as it is. If in five years it balloons into a fourth pillar of video game journalism (IGN, Gamespot, and Game Informer being the others) then that's awesome. If it's just the original four and a group of dedicated people working around them then that's cool too.
 
Oh, and it's awesome to have Alex around full time. They really seem to be happy he's there.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.