• 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by DarthOrange (3866 posts) -

I know i have not been as active on this site as i used to be, which is because the site had become too negative and the staff didn't seem to like anything. I just checked some quicklooks of games of games i have played and enjoyed to see if things had changed. Nope. They shit on both lollipop chainsaw and lego batman 2. Both those games are pretty awesome if you give them a fair shake (and understand the mechanics). Lego batman 2 had brad saying several false statements about features not being in the game. They also often times do not review big games like twisted metal. David Jaffe shows up on their podcast every e3 and tweets about it and they can't even give him a review? With that being said, if you made a game would you send it to Giant Bomb? As you can probably guess, i would not, as they would probably just take a giant turd on it and make false statements about things not being present and complain about the controls for a game that they are just playing for the first time and then never play the game again. If it wasn't sent to them their is a chance they will never pick it up and sneeze on it (scaring away people who might have picked up and enjoyed it). Some people say no publicity is bad publicity, I say thats horse shit. Also, I appologise for any and all typos, this is being typed on a vita and i do not have access to the mobile site.

#2 Posted by Bell_End (1208 posts) -

id make them pay for the stamps. those things are pretty pricey these days and i don't see why that should be a cost i should suffer.

#3 Posted by Twinsun (481 posts) -

I do think they don't always give games a fair chance, but then again, we all have things that annoy us and make a game not fun to play.

#4 Posted by Korolev (1714 posts) -

Yeah, if I knew it was good or at least semi-decent. If I made a bad game, I'd try to hide it from them as much as possible.

#5 Edited by Fattony12000 (7518 posts) -

@DarthOrange: Super negative.

#6 Posted by Vinny_Says (5719 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

Both those games are pretty awesome if you give them a fair shake (and understand the mechanics).

That's the most overused excuse ever.

#7 Posted by _Chad (962 posts) -

About the not reviewing big games thing. I'm pretty sure Jeff has said something about not reviewing games made by people their friends with so it's not viewed as "they gave this game a good review because they're friends with him" or "I thought we were buddies how dare you give my game a shit review." They've talked about how it's happened before.

#8 Posted by Nentisys (896 posts) -

I have several times bought games they have seemed negative about after watching the quick look.

#9 Posted by andriv (257 posts) -

@Nentisys said:

I have several times bought games they have seemed negative about after watching the quick look.

I bought lollipop chainsaw and lego batman after watching the ql

#10 Posted by Yummylee (22041 posts) -

@ChadMasterFlash said:

About the not reviewing big games thing. I'm pretty sure Jeff has said something about not reviewing games made by people their friends with so it's not viewed as "they gave this game a good review because they're friends with him" or "I thought we were buddies how dare you give my game a shit review." They've talked about how it's happened before.

You're referring to the reason why they didn't review Bastion, and that was because of how closely they followed the development of the game. They've reviewed games that friends of the site have worked on before, like TRON (Johnny Vignocchi) which they even only gave 3 stars, and of course Trenched/Iron Brigade (Brad Muir).

The reason why they never reviewed Twisted Metal is most likely because none of the staff played a whole lot of it. They were courteous enough to of course give it a QL, like any other game, and even a TNT, but discussion surrounding the game pretty much hit a complete stop soon after.

#11 Edited by Humanity (9582 posts) -

@Yummylee: I take some issue with the phrasing "..were courteous enough to of course give it a QL" which makes it seem like the mighty GiantBomb overlords dole out their precious time to only the most deserving of subjects.

I'd be like HEY GUYS remember those subscription fee's well it's payback I want you to pay me $500 to Quick Look this game! Then they'd probably never respond to me and my game would fade into obscurity as it would probably be some third person drivel with time mechanics and a sci fi setting but it would look just like Gears so it would just get judged by face value.

#12 Edited by Yummylee (22041 posts) -

@Humanity: I was being sarcastic. I did add, ''like any other game'', afterwards. I should have... italicised it or something anywhoo, to have it appear more prominent. Mah bad.

#13 Posted by Tobiass (150 posts) -

Nope.

#14 Posted by matti00 (673 posts) -

I've bought many games before that have reviewed averagely, and managed to enjoy them. A 3 out of 5 score doesn't mean the game is bad.

Also, reviews are subjective, their opinions are not the be all and end all and they know it, stop whining.

#15 Posted by Humanity (9582 posts) -
@Yummylee It's not the first time I've fallen victim to not recognizing Internet sarcasm. This combined with my poor performance at reading faces in LA noire lead me to believe I'm a sociopath.
#16 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

Of course I would, the majority of the user base here are, I think, smart enough to think for themselves.

I'm fact, the GB crew count on that, which is why there is very little hand-holding and no telling you what you should think, unlike most other sites. You get honest opinions here from dudes being themselves, which I value far higher, even if that means the occasional moment of frustration in a QL.

#17 Posted by SuicidalSnowman (396 posts) -

I think there is some truth to the feeling of the general negativity, but you have to keep in mind, this isn't your average news website that also covers games. This is a niche, dedicated gaming website that serious gamers go to because it is written by people who are experts in the field. Readers who come here aren't looking for someone to take every game that comes out and say "Its pretty good, just give it a fair shake." No, we come here because we want to inform our purchasing decisions (and other reasons, but thats outside this topic).

I can watch the Lego Batman QL and decide if I want to play it, but I also want to know about the issues with it. I can look at it and say "Yeah, despite those issues, I still want to play a Batman game" and decide for myself. Imagine my disappointment, however, if the QL simply said "Yeah, I gave it a fair shake, its pretty decent." and then I discovered it had a major flaw in checkpointing that really turned me off. Now I start going to another site that gives me a fair answer.

The same happens with things like wine and food. Your college newspaper probably reviews all restaurants as 3 or 4 stars (or maybe just 5 because its a college paper and your editor is an idiot) because they are just looking for free meals and restaurants see the paper as an advertising vehicle. But when people pick up a Michelin guide, they already know that at Joe's Wing Shack there are 50 varieties and all you can eat mondays, what they really want to know is does the chef at the new, expensive restaurant really understand how foie gras pairs with romaine leaves?

I do agree there is an issue with negativity in video game journalism. There are a lot of "nerd hipsters" who have this disaffected malaise towards anything not indie. The "Angry Video Game Nerd" as a journalist is a bit of an epidemic. Take Alex Navarro, for instance. His reviews often overlook key subtleties because he would rather come up with outrageous metaphors to demonstrate that he has taste, and this game doesn't. Jeff sometimes does get into the whole "these kids don't know what games really are, with their fancy 3D and tutorials!" I took his Red Dead Redemption anger a few years back as such evidence, he decided that he didn't want another open world Grand Theft Auto game, and so refused to play RDR despite it otherwise being a quality game with top notch writing, atmosphere, and mission design. Ryan likes to pretend that he knows more about marketing than the Activision machine full of MBAs. Brad occasionally dumps on games simply because he needs to read an instruction manual before playing.

Sometimes, however, the true sign of knowing your craft is being able to pick out the bad with the good. This is why I like this site. Sure, Spec Ops was a generic FPS with standard mechanics, but the guys gave credit where credit was due for the writing. But Vinny also pointed out that sometimes the writing had technical hiccups where gameplay ran into cutscene. That's what I want from this site.

On the topic of "Would you send them a copy of your game free?" let me tell you if you were serious about a game you had made, yes, you would send it to them, and any other media outlet you could find, for free. A GiantBomb quick look, even if overwhelmingly negative, sells copies. I understand that you don't work in any consumer products industry, but if you did, you would understand. Getting your product in front of people is incredibly difficult, and also incredibly important. Especially when you are just starting out or small. Even a bad review can suddenly increase sales 100 fold.

#18 Posted by falling_fast (2243 posts) -

sure I would. I would also send it to rockpapershotgun. between them, these two sites have the best coverage of games on the internet.

and even if they were critical of my work, I hope I'd have enough of a thick skin to accept and learn from said criticism.

#19 Posted by DarthOrange (3866 posts) -

Thanks to everyone who responded (even those of you who completely ignored the question and went off on tangents).

@SuicidalSnowman:

Thanks to you for the super through response but I do want to discuss some things. First of all, you said:

This is a niche, dedicated gaming website that serious gamers go to because it is written by people who are experts in the field. Readers who come here aren't looking for someone to take every game that comes out and say "Its pretty good, just give it a fair shake." No, we come here because we want to inform our purchasing decisions (and other reasons, but thats outside this topic).

This website is dedicated to gaming, but only the games that they fell like covering, and even then only a select few of those get a review. It is dedicated to only covering games, but it only seems to do so when the crew feels like it. As far as serious gamers visiting the site, I have to disagree. I have seen the forums and I can tell you most of the people visiting the forums don't care about games and just want to discuss other shit. Also, I won't call any of them experts in the field except Patrick. The rest of the dudes are veterans of the field, but not experts. I agree that no one comes here looking for the crew to cover every game give it a fair shake and say it is all right to everything. They should however give the games they decide to cover a fair shake and then be able to give better detail as to what it is that is wrong and what is right, otherwise they are not making your decision to purchase any more informed.

I can watch the Lego Batman QL and decide if I want to play it, but I also want to know about the issues with it. I can look at it and say "Yeah, despite those issues, I still want to play a Batman game" and decide for myself. Imagine my disappointment, however, if the QL simply said "Yeah, I gave it a fair shake, its pretty decent." and then I discovered it had a major flaw in checkpointing that really turned me off. Now I start going to another site that gives me a fair answer.

I agree with what you said, but if you play that game you will see that they are talking about the game not having features that it clearly does have. For example, Brad claims that the game is not actually open world, but that you have to load into each area like the batcave or arkham asylum and then you enter a closed room. This is 100% false as you can in fact go anywhere on the map without any loading. Then he also claims the city is empty and simply an over glorified hub the same as the cantina in Lego Star Wars. Then he says he hasn't tried any of the side stuff. He is presenting false information about features he is claiming the game does not have, features that are clearly told to the the player through the tutorial at the beginning of the game. Then he tries to get to the batcave and does not notice that in the pause menu it clearly has the option to return to the batcave. These quicklooks are not informative and I dare say in some cases they are detrimental to ones opinion of the game.

The same happens with things like wine and food. Your college newspaper probably reviews all restaurants as 3 or 4 stars (or maybe just 5 because its a college paper and your editor is an idiot) because they are just looking for free meals and restaurants see the paper as an advertising vehicle. But when people pick up a Michelin guide, they already know that at Joe's Wing Shack there are 50 varieties and all you can eat mondays, what they really want to know is does the chef at the new, expensive restaurant really understand how foie gras pairs with romaine leaves?

Doesn't happen at my school but even if it did, I am more then aware that there are several blogs one can go to if they want to see some one suck the cum right out of a product and share it with you. I don't think any site should do that, but they should give the game a fair shake and understand how to play the damn thing before they say "I don't like it, Fuck this game."

I do agree there is an issue with negativity in video game journalism. There are a lot of "nerd hipsters" who have this disaffected malaise towards anything not indie. The "Angry Video Game Nerd" as a journalist is a bit of an epidemic. Take Alex Navarro, for instance. His reviews often overlook key subtleties because he would rather come up with outrageous metaphors to demonstrate that he has taste, and this game doesn't. Jeff sometimes does get into the whole "these kids don't know what games really are, with their fancy 3D and tutorials!" I took his Red Dead Redemption anger a few years back as such evidence, he decided that he didn't want another open world Grand Theft Auto game, and so refused to play RDR despite it otherwise being a quality game with top notch writing, atmosphere, and mission design. Ryan likes to pretend that he knows more about marketing than the Activision machine full of MBAs. Brad occasionally dumps on games simply because he needs to read an instruction manual before playing.

This would be you showing that you see where I am coming from before giving your counterpoint that:

Sometimes, however, the true sign of knowing your craft is being able to pick out the bad with the good. This is why I like this site. Sure, Spec Ops was a generic FPS with standard mechanics, but the guys gave credit where credit was due for the writing. But Vinny also pointed out that sometimes the writing had technical hiccups where gameplay ran into cutscene. That's what I want from this site.

Sometimes, but the majority of the time it seems like they don't give the game even half the attention they gave to Spec Ops.

On the topic of "Would you send them a copy of your game free?" let me tell you if you were serious about a game you had made, yes, you would send it to them, and any other media outlet you could find, for free. A GiantBomb quick look, even if overwhelmingly negative, sells copies. I understand that you don't work in any consumer products industry, but if you did, you would understand. Getting your product in front of people is incredibly difficult, and also incredibly important. Especially when you are just starting out or small. Even a bad review can suddenly increase sales 100 fold.

Even a bad review increases sales 100 fold. But what about no review at all? If you knew they were going to shit all over it and never try to figure out your mechanics. They simply make a video complaining and then never give a full review where they discuss all the points in detail, then I don't believe that has helped sales, especially not on a video game website like this where people will completely ignore the ads on the site and never click on them once. I think that whole "the more you see it the more you want it" mentality only works on the lowest common denominator (people who went to go watch Jack and Jill and thought it was hilarious). Of course, if you made the game you wouldn't be the one to decide who gets copies of the game so maybe this whole question was dumb to begin with. :)

#20 Posted by SexyToad (2760 posts) -

I would charge for the shipping. That's about it. If they're as picky as you say they are and a game of mine actually gets a good review then that's a really good thing.

#21 Posted by SamFo (1535 posts) -

I would send them a copy.

Don't you feel like YOU'RE being a tad negative?

#22 Posted by Hunter5024 (5806 posts) -

Of course I would, for the exposure and for the joy of seeing my game played by some reviewers I respect. I think if you don't have thick enough skin to see someone say something bad about your game than you probably shouldn't design one. Though I'm sure they get games all the time that don't get quick looked, so it's not like sending them something necessarily means that they will do something with it anyways. Especially if it's the kind of shit show "My first programming foray" indie game I'd be capable of making.

#23 Edited by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

If whoever reviewed it would give it a 5/5, sure, why not?

#24 Posted by EquitasInvictus (2035 posts) -

I'd give it to them even if it wasn't necessarily the best thing ever. If they end up criticizing it, that'd only help me make better games in the future! It is their job to provide critique for video games, anyway, and considering how long they've been at it there is definitely value to that.

#25 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Hey, . Did you ever do this?

#26 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Yes because anything I make would get praised like crazy.

#27 Posted by Guided_By_Tigers (8061 posts) -

You sound pretty salty.

#28 Posted by Demoskinos (15011 posts) -

I'd make them pay 775 million dollars.

#29 Edited by Milkman (17007 posts) -

Absolutely. The coverage that a Quick Look could give a game, even if it's negative, is huge.

#30 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2779 posts) -

No, I wouldn't send my game to them for free, or anybody for free for that matter.

You wanna use it, you damn well pay for it. I ain't gonna give you the white glove treatment just so you can stamp your "seal of approval or disapproval" rating at my expense.

Especially this day and age, I'm surprised game reviewers exist at all. Nowadays I watch the Bomb crew because they're funny and they do stupid shit, but I hardly care about their videogame reviews.

#31 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@DarthOrange: You bitch a lot. Just sayin' man. Lego Games have never really been stellar, and as for Lolipop, fuckin' open your eyes, they weren't being unfair they had honest and fairly common opinions of the game. They don't have to like everything duder, and they are into plenty of things. Not liking the stuff you like doesn't make them negative it just means they think differently from you.

#32 Posted by DeadVillager (77 posts) -

I was always under the impression you'd send out press copies for free regardless. At least, I've never heard of anything that would suggest otherwise.

Unless you're talking about not sending them a review copy and having them buy the game retail in order to review it, which they're equally as likely to quick look and potentially slam, so what's the trouble?

#33 Posted by smallmanoncampus (116 posts) -

@DarthOrange said:

They also often times do not review big games like twisted metal. David Jaffe shows up on their podcast every e3 and tweets about it and they can't even give him a review?

I think that's why they didn't review Twisted Metal, so as not to create a conflict of interest. You know, so that they don't give Twisted Metal 5 stars because they think Jaffe is TOTALLY FUCKING BOSS and a cool guy to them, rather than the quality of the game. It's the same situation with Bastion.

#34 Posted by Hunter5024 (5806 posts) -

In fact I would slip a twenty in the case if you guys catch my drift...

@Demoskinos said:

I'd make them pay 775 million dollars.

Whoa that's a great idea. You could make them fund the whole development of the game and then some! You should work for Activision.

#35 Edited by I_smell (3924 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:

Hey, @I_smell. Did you ever do this?

Yep. I don't do the distribution stuff for my games, but I'm pretty sure they go out to most sites, and would've definately landed here.
On this topic; my games are all comedy games, and I know that if Ryan or Patrick or maybe Jeff didn't already like it it'd be really easy for them to just step on all the parts I thought were good.
Or y'know- if they don't get the controls then it could be really embarrassing, and considering this is like my favourite site I'd feel like a real idiot. It might change the way I feel when I watch Quick Looks of other games, which would be sad. It kind of does bug me how much they just put the disc in n start recording, cos there's a lot of times where that's not fair.
My next game has a way stronger style though, and doesn't look like a flash game, so I actually think and HOPE they will Quick Look this one.
But y'know-... I've made games since I got here and still can't get a damn community spotlight, so I'd be real surprised!
 
Side-note: my last game NTTE is on sale for $3 next week, just sayin.
Side-side-note: First forum post in like 2 months dawg!
#36 Posted by DarthOrange (3866 posts) -

@I_smell: Which games you make? I'd love to check 'em out!

#37 Posted by The_Nubster (2258 posts) -

"I stopped visiting this site because it's negative and harsh and would you send them a game because I wouldn't because they're all negative about games and misrepresent everything and that would hurt the sales of my games because I know how these things work. So do you guys hate Giantbomb?"

#38 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

Well, you've clearly made up your mind about how you feel about this site and its staff, and dare I say, I think its colored your opinion of the content on the site a bit too much.

I'm fully capable of watching a quick look in which the game looks like crap, either because it is or because they don't demo it properly, and then making my own judgements. Lego Batman 2 for instance is a lot of fun, and they did demo that poorly because they weren't giving the game its due attention to know what was going on (Something Brad copped to on a following Bombcast). BUT, I, as a human being with the capability to make my own decisions, can decide for myself whether something looks good or whether it has been skewed by someone else's opinion (As I did when I picked up Lego Batman 2).

Any reviewer from any site might think a game is shitty and make it look bad as a result regardless of the nature of the actual game. It is up to consumers to know the difference between attempts at an objective opinion and a reviewer being unfairly idiosyncratic about a title. If consumers on the whole can't do that, well, that's not Giant Bomb's fault.

#39 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Humanity said:

@Yummylee: I take some issue with the phrasing "..were courteous enough to of course give it a QL" which makes it seem like the mighty GiantBomb overlords dole out their precious time to only the most deserving of subjects.

I'd be like HEY GUYS remember those subscription fee's well it's payback I want you to pay me $500 to Quick Look this game! Then they'd probably never respond to me and my game would fade into obscurity as it would probably be some third person drivel with time mechanics and a sci fi setting but it would look just like Gears so it would just get judged by face value.

Courtesy, only the Gods have it!

Nice Hyperbole, twat. Seriously, that first line pisses me off to no end. Do you not know what that word means? Are you convinced that only deities are capable of common decency? Or that suggesting that it was courteous to do something means you are throwing praise at them? It's actually more like saying "oh, that's nice." But you have to act like someone was being a fuckin fanboy. Go read the damn dictionary you hippy! Wait...

#40 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

Yeah I kind of agree and I kind of disagree. I really like what these guys do most of the time, and I think they always have the best of intentions. The problem is that they have literally been in their own box for so long I feel like it has kind of skewed their thoughts and journalistic integrity on some games. I really feel like it would benefit them to get another person with different perspectives and maybe even a different philosophy about game reviewing and game criticism. When you stay in your bubble for too long it's hard to know when you might be crossing the line, and it can also get stale. I have said for a while that they desperately need some fresh blood in the office.

#41 Posted by Humanity (9582 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos: Are you feeling ok I don't even know what to say..

#42 Posted by Jace (1094 posts) -

@DarthOrange: What a shame it was to have such a wonderful member of the community be inactive.

Seriously, why did you even make this post? It's such a piss poor disguise for you to whine about the staff.

#43 Posted by Yummylee (22041 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@Humanity said:

@Yummylee: I take some issue with the phrasing "..were courteous enough to of course give it a QL" which makes it seem like the mighty GiantBomb overlords dole out their precious time to only the most deserving of subjects.

I'd be like HEY GUYS remember those subscription fee's well it's payback I want you to pay me $500 to Quick Look this game! Then they'd probably never respond to me and my game would fade into obscurity as it would probably be some third person drivel with time mechanics and a sci fi setting but it would look just like Gears so it would just get judged by face value.

Courtesy, only the Gods have it!

Nice Hyperbole, twat. Seriously, that first line pisses me off to no end. Do you not know what that word means? Are you convinced that only deities are capable of common decency? Or that suggesting that it was courteous to do something means you are throwing praise at them? It's actually more like saying "oh, that's nice." But you have to act like someone was being a fuckin fanboy. Go read the damn dictionary you hippy! Wait...

What in God's name have I got myself into now.

#44 Posted by Humanity (9582 posts) -

@Anwar: My biggest issue was that they didn't preview what Phelps was going to ask when you chose each option which would have simplified it substantially.

@Yummylee: I just started walking away slowly

#45 Posted by TehFlan (1944 posts) -

Yeah. I'd like to think I could make a good game, so I'd send it in. You act like they shit all over every game they show, which they don't. They tend to point out both the good and the bad in a game, so even if they're being more negative, I can tell if it's a game I'd like.

#46 Posted by Scrawnto (2456 posts) -

If I ever make a real, proper, finished game? Yeah, I'd hook them up. Don't know how likely that is to happen though. All of my experiments thus far have been woefully unfinished. I've got a long way to go with my game-fu.

#47 Posted by Toxeia (730 posts) -

I imagine they get plenty of people asking them to review their shit and trying to send them review copies. If they take notice of the game and want to review it I'd give them a free code or mail them a copy for free, definitely. I wouldn't bother them about it otherwise though.

#48 Posted by IrrelevantJohn (1083 posts) -

@Vinny_Says said:

@DarthOrange said:

Both those games are pretty awesome if you give them a fair shake (and understand the mechanics).

That's the most overused excuse ever.

it's almost like saying you need to give the game another 5 hours before it gets to the good part.

#49 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -

No, because they hate the kind of games that I like. So if I was going to make one I doubt it would be something they would care for. If I heard one of them talking about it in some way that showed they had an interest in it I guess I would send them a digital copy on Steam.

#50 Posted by CornBREDX (5607 posts) -

I will take the plunge, and assume you're legitimately trying to be constructive (as your later responses indicate).

You are within your right to no longer like the way Giantbomb does things. Opinions right? My only problem is your assumption (as others have pointed out) that viewers assume because of what the commentary on the quick look is saying they immediately follow suit. Well, maybe some of the younger viewers, or if we want to generalize people more- the "fan boys"- might just for the sake of feeling validated. Or maybe people look at the game as a regular joe and go "Hey that is very similar to how I play and looks counter intuitive" or "Hey that's not how I play and you can clearly see the green goo is on top of a build pad- just wash it off."

I know this is not the common light to see them, but I have always seen quick looks as an extension of those days when I was a kid. This awesome new Nintendo game came out and I really enjoyed it so when I had a friend over I just had to show it to them. Or vice versa my friend was over, we had nothing to do so we played Nintendo and all I had was this crappy game. So we made the most of it and enjoyed it for what we had (mainly in those instances it was laughing at ourselves for playing this terrible game or how difficult the game was and totally destroying us).

Everyone's perspective is going to be different. Being that they are fore-fronting the game (the game is generally what you see, not them) and talking over it gives you a clear indication if they are right or wrong. They have never declared themselves gaming gods, and even mentioned on several occasions they can be terrible at games. What I enjoy is their feedback- I can tell from what the game is showing if I like it or not. I don't need them to like it too (and I even admit, sometimes when they're playing a game and don't seem to get it- that can be irritating- but I just take a step back from myself and realize this is how they see the game.)

If I had a finished game worth seeing, I'd definitely send it to them for free. I know what they have to say would be informative in some light, at least to me.

Those are my thoughts.

BTW I_smell made No time to explain . Mechanically it needs work, but I like what he was going for with it (which was why I bought it, I wasn't able to donate to the kickstarter- didn't have money at the time- but I got the game when he released it). I recommend reading his blogs =)