• 70 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by IcyEyes (257 posts) -

I think getting the community more involved with UPF is great and all, but the current impromptu game voting process feels really broken to me. Currently it seems to go like this:

  1. Rorie asks for game suggestions from the chat.
  2. The chat sends Rorie a bunch of non/serious/trolling/random suggestions.
  3. Rorie picks what appears to be the most popular ones with usually no idea what they actually are.
  4. Then chat votes for the best/worst game, or picks at random from total ignorance.
  5. A member of the staff is then subjected to the "game".

There must be a better way to go about this! Would it not be possible to create some kind of community voting system in the forms? To allow for better vetting of suggestions and less random garbage? Don't get me wrong, "bad" games can be a lot of fun to watch, but not every "bad" game is! Anyone have their own ideas for how this might be improved?

#2 Posted by csl316 (8954 posts) -

They turn up to vote.

It's democracy.

#3 Posted by Malaccans101 (1 posts) -

Probably because the number of bad games (especially on Steam) way out number the amount of good, or even decent, games on there.

#4 Posted by cmpLtNOOb (196 posts) -

I like it simple, when the staff each picks something and plays it, even if it's a last minute choice.

It's usually either funny, nostalgic, or an impromptu episode of Encyclopedia Bombastica, all of which are fine with me.

#5 Edited by ThunderSlash (1823 posts) -

I'd rather the staff choose their own games. We usually get unexpected gold from that.

Blackbay Asylum was robbed this week! ROBBED! That game looks charming.

That gentleman game was pretty great though.

#7 Posted by FLStyle (4767 posts) -

Tonight's UPF was ass. I would hope the community isn't given the choice for games played again.

#8 Edited by BisonHero (6674 posts) -

I think Rorie needs to exercise veto power, instead of just including whatever dumb games the most people are mentioning. If he sees someone mention a game that's potentially interesting and isn't absolute garbage, even if only 1 or 2 people mention it, it should get considered and thrown into the poll. This does sort of require Rorie to have an encyclopedic knowledge of Steam games.

Polling the community is a sound idea, as long as the games in each poll are borderline good, or something with obvious entertainment value for how bad it is (old FMV games, etc.). But Rorie's selection process is where it all falls apart, because the chat monsters just suggest the trolliest games possible that are just depressing, and Rorie doesn't know any better and puts them in the poll, and then people vote for the game with the stupidest sound name.

On the other hand, it did make them play Long Live The Queen last time, which was kind of great.

#9 Posted by Gaff (1812 posts) -
#10 Posted by BradBrains (1062 posts) -

i havent seen it. was it really that bad? i remember the last time was ok.

If they only do it every once in a lon while im ok with it. il come back when i watch it and it is a total terrible trainwreck

#11 Posted by jArmAhead (341 posts) -

I miss when it was stuff they liked. It's not like this new thing is awful, just think it's a little too random. I think this could be a cool mid-week live show of it's own, but it's not really Unprofessional Fridays.

#12 Posted by ThunderSlash (1823 posts) -

@gaff: At first I found the game offputting, but the longer I watched that quick look the more endearing I found it to be. A game with only positive Steam Reviews can't be bad!

#13 Edited by ejiehi (123 posts) -

The only problem I had with the chats selections was that a lot of the games where already featured on the site. Also boo to anyone who didn't vote for Exodus from the Earth.

#14 Posted by TheBlue (395 posts) -

People tend to suggest games to see the reaction of the crew, and not games that would be fun to watch. Giving Rorie visual novels, Dark Souls, and crappy anime games just to see Jeff's reaction is not exactly fit to entertain for two and a half hours.

Maybe make these steam requests multiplayer only? At least everyone can be involved instead of everyone else being bored and talking about random other things while Jeff barely plays some joke game.

#15 Posted by TheBrokenPinion (113 posts) -

was there a UPF today ? I never saw it on the upcoming list ?

#16 Posted by Irvandus (2881 posts) -

@ejiehi: agreed. Or something we've seen a lot of already.

#17 Posted by Slag (4615 posts) -

Wisdom of the Crowds often isn't so Wise.

I don't watch UPF, but if I did I'd prefer mainly staff driven selections.

#18 Posted by Gaff (1812 posts) -

Some scattered thoughts:

  • Do the nominating (and polling) beforehand. Create a thread in which people can nominate stuff, show off a gameplay trailer, write a short description, whatever. Compile those in a poll, either in a separate thread or in chat, then let the people decide.
  • Institute an EJECT button. Some games are just plain bad. Either the guys or the chat vote for continuing on with the next game.
  • Don't nominate games that already have been featured in a Quicklook or Unfinished. Unfinisheds are harder to judge because developers can add new stuff that merit another look, but repeatedly looking at the same game runs the "joke" into the ground.

Maybe this much hassle is completely contrary to what UPF is about, but yeah. Maybe this should be broken out into a seperate thing?

#19 Posted by ejiehi (123 posts) -

@gaff: Maybe do something like this again and have the staff buzz out when they have seen enough http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/quick-look-xbox-live-indie-games/2300-1762/

#20 Posted by MEATBALL (3321 posts) -

Meh, the point of it is to play and see good stuff and terrible stuff and have some fun with it. Maybe don't take everything so seriously.

#21 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11909 posts) -

If given the choice between bad steam early access games picked by the staff and those picked by the community... we lose either way.

#22 Posted by mems1224 (259 posts) -

I liked the last time they did this on UPF but this time it was mostly unwatchable.

#23 Edited by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

i spent all day moving so i wanted something fun to watch, turned on UPF gave it ten minutes, closed it and went to netflix. Bummer.

#24 Posted by wonderva (92 posts) -

My thoughts:

My STEAM library is about 200 games and that's probably less than 1% of the whole STEAM catalog, and if I have a fair amount of games I don't deem fun in my library, I'm sure the catalog has way more not-fun or interesting games there, so it's tough to nominate 5 awesome ones each round.

Also, the games that are interesting on STEAM, indie or AAA, are usually featured first on this site as Unfinished or Quick Look (or they will be), and I'd hate for a chat pick UPF session to feature a game that has been already covered on the site beforehand.

I thought the purpose of this UPF (at least the last one) was to help duders decide if a game is worth their money and purchase (like the table top simulator bit today), and that probably comes with the consequence of featuring boring or unfun games. Yes, today had some stinkers though

#25 Posted by Yummylee (22041 posts) -

Eh, UPF is kinda semi-terrible in general anyway. Even when it's at its best it's usually one or two fun segments out of the full four or five.

#26 Edited by Itwastuesday (973 posts) -

funnier when they play terrible games imo and i enjoyed this weeks entry in "chat makes giant bomb play video game of questionable quality"

#27 Posted by BeachThunder (12087 posts) -

Sigh, I really wanted some McPixel, I genuinely think that would be a great game to show on UPF, and I think they'd have fun with it's all-out absurdity.

Also, I really didn't like how Rorie continually put Nuclear Throne in the poll =/

Regardless, I still enjoyed the UPF a lot - in fact, more than regular UPFs. I think it's much better to see them play through a lot of games, rather than stay on a game for 30-45 mins.

#28 Posted by development (2431 posts) -

This show was alright to me. I would have liked Jeff to play Kick-Ass 2 for an hour longer, though.

#29 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11909 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Eh, UPF is kinda semi-terrible in general anyway. Even when it's at its best it's usually one or two fun segments out of the full four or five.

What? Not a fan of randomly picked garbage Steam Early Access games picked 5 minutes before the show started?

For the record, I agree that UPF is pretty hit or miss.

#30 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Eh, UPF is kinda semi-terrible in general anyway. Even when it's at its best it's usually one or two fun segments out of the full four or five.

What? Not a fan of randomly picked garbage Steam Early Access games picked 5 minutes before the show started?

For the record, I agree that UPF is pretty hit or miss.

The quality of UPF is entirely dependent on the games the staff plays and their responses to them. If the show is being dictated by chuckleheads voting for terrible Steam game after terrible Steam game, it shouldn't be surprising if the show is a miss.

#31 Posted by Crembaw (443 posts) -

Why not take nominations and pollings throughout the week beforehand?

#32 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11909 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@arbitrarywater said:

@yummylee said:

Eh, UPF is kinda semi-terrible in general anyway. Even when it's at its best it's usually one or two fun segments out of the full four or five.

What? Not a fan of randomly picked garbage Steam Early Access games picked 5 minutes before the show started?

For the record, I agree that UPF is pretty hit or miss.

The quality of UPF is entirely dependent on the games the staff plays and their responses to them. If the show is being dictated by chuckleheads voting for terrible Steam game after terrible Steam game, it shouldn't be surprising if the show is a miss.

Oh, this week was pretty bad, but my snarky aside was more directed at UPF in general. Sometimes they're on fire, clearly picked stuff that is fun and good and sometimes... sometimes they play bad Day Z clones for 45 minutes with nothing but contempt or disinterest.

#33 Edited by Dawgs4Life (17 posts) -

I tend to agree with this. I just think the hoard mentality of the chat doesn't usually lead to great choices in the larger sense of it being enjoyable to watch. If they want members to at least have some say in the choice of games played, which I think overall is a pretty neat idea, I think they should try to implement some sort of week-long voting mechanism. Maybe the weekend is used for nominations, at which point the staff has the option to select 10 or so games they think would be good for the show. Then the rest of the week is the voting for the top three or four games that will be played on the show. Maybe they could just use this to let the community choose one game, because I do love the golden moments that come from seeing some random ass game I've never seen.

#34 Posted by TheHT (11513 posts) -

I had a good time.

Even if something I didn't want to see because they'd already covered it multiple times (ಠ益ಠ) won the vote, it's all in good fun.

#35 Posted by Ichi_ (6 posts) -

There is a lot of stuff out there on Steam, figuring out what they have and haven't seen before is nigh impossible. I like the idea of having a list of games the guys want to check out that they haven't played yet and then put the games up to a poll.

#36 Posted by Damodar (1425 posts) -

@crembaw said:

Why not take nominations and pollings throughout the week beforehand?

That sounds dangerously professional.

#37 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

@theht said:

I had a good time.

Even if something I didn't want to see because they'd already covered it multiple times (ಠ益ಠ) won the vote, it's all in good fun.

If youre talking about Nuclear Throne, it never actually won. In fact, they played it when it was third runner up.

The games were just badly picked. Instead of some quick pick up games that you can get right into that are also obscure and/or old, we got games that just came out and are featured on just about every game site. I enjoy Broforce, I think its cool, but holy hell that game is featured on so many sites I'm tired of watching it. People were getting really into SiN for the 30 seconds Jeff played it while the community chosen game was installing. I got excited because Brad wanted to checkout SiN Episodes as well (hopefully saved for another time) Hell, I would've taken another 2 hour Quake 3 session again.

#38 Posted by Glottery (1321 posts) -

Didn't really see anything particulary bad with this UPF. Bunch of more or less 'meh' games and a few fun ones, which often seems to be the case, community or staff picked.

#39 Edited by Brodehouse (10072 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Eh, UPF is kinda semi-terrible in general anyway. Even when it's at its best it's usually one or two fun segments out of the full four or five.

UPF is the Monday Night Raw of Giant Bomb content. It just exists to do a couple angles and get material for @turboman's Best Of packages.

The real question is what's our Wrestlemania; E3 or GOTY?

#40 Edited by Corevi (3944 posts) -

@yummylee said:

Eh, UPF is kinda semi-terrible in general anyway. Even when it's at its best it's usually one or two fun segments out of the full four or five.

UPF is the Monday Night Raw of Giant Bomb content. It just exists to do a couple angles and get material for @turboman's Best Of packages.

The real question is what's our Wrestlemania; E3 or GOTY?

E3 is Wrestlemania because that's when the business side of the company is squared away, GOTY is the Royal Rumble of GB because it's dumb, it's fun and there's a game that beat 29 others for a title shot at WM (a sequel).

#41 Posted by Dougtrio (7 posts) -

Taken from Jeff's blog

The whole point of us doing that show that way is to show off stuff like that, stuff we probably wouldn’t Quick Look. It’s a laid back “hey, maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about some new or obscure Steam games” sort of deal. So hopefully people know not to buy that thing, in case they were on the fence about it.

I think this is valid, and I think it's a good service, but it makes for a pretty lame UPF. I think this would be better served as content elsewhere in the site, and have the crew play stuff that they enjoy / is funny / good to keep UPF entertaining because this week was just "Jeff plays shitty steam games".

#42 Posted by chiablo (951 posts) -

At least the games were quick. If people were really trying to troll, we'd see stuff like Europa Universalis and Crusader Kings being played. I have a bunch of friends who are trying to convince me to pick up 100% Orange Juice... Now I don't have to, thanks to Jeff and the chat.

#43 Posted by mrcraggle (1954 posts) -

After Brad mentioning that he wanted to play Gunstar Heroes, they should've actually played some Gunstar Heroes. It's on Steam for a few bucks and the download would've been super quick. I'd much rather see them play something like that than 100% Orange Juice or Continue?9876543210. There were some good picks but not nearly enough to make it that interesting outside of a live show. The chat thinks it's being cute with awful game suggestions but at the end of the day, we only get bad content out of it as Jeff was quick to move on in a lot of cases. It was also a shame that Jeff was the only one playing games rather than the usual mix.

#44 Posted by scrappypixels (96 posts) -

I think one of the main reasons people chose games that you could inherently call 'bad' is due to the fact we are curious. We can't afford to buy every single game on steam and hope that it turns out to be a hidden gem. It's not cost effective and it is much easier to have the GB guys sample and wade through them while also providing comedic fun!

It's also due to the fact that a lot of the 'good' games that are put up to vote, people already own! A lot of us don't want to watch the same gameplay we've already seen perhaps numerous of times, we'd much rather a new experience. The GB crew are good at making bad games humorous so i don't really see this as much of an issue :)

#45 Posted by Winsord (1247 posts) -

I guess I'm the only one that enjoyed it. I do wish there was a little more veto power, like Wasteland 2 was never going to show well in a 5-10 minute chunk so I was glad they never got to it. The other thing would be that if something strikes them during the show they should hop to it, like watching them playing Gunstar Heroes would've been a great break. Dawgs4Life's nomination method would probably make this a lot better since they could pick things out that would actually work in a flash look, but I don't know how devoted they are to these community-selected UPFs (also that'd be pretty professional).

#46 Posted by Splodge (1761 posts) -

Jeff did make a good point during the show, in that he is playing the shitty games so that we don't have to. People still buy shitty games on impulse because they are on sale or whatever. I have done it myself. The buyers remorse is strong with this one.

I certainly will not be picking up 90% of the games on the show if they are ever on sale.

Very informative and useful, but if it makes for a fun show or not....I don't really think it does :(

#47 Posted by RonGalaxy (3221 posts) -

I think it's funny when jeff plays dumb games. Its one of those things that never gets old. And it's not like they do total steam request live, or whatever its called, every week. This is like the second one they've ever done and the last one was awhile ago.

#48 Posted by m4r71n2012 (51 posts) -

@dougtrio said:

I think this is valid, and I think it's a good service, but it makes for a pretty lame UPF. I think this would be better served as content elsewhere in the site, and have the crew play stuff that they enjoy / is funny / good to keep UPF entertaining because this week was just "Jeff plays shitty steam games".

They tried that with "new game Wednesday" or whatever that was called, people just complained about Gamespot staff and the crew didn't seem bothered since they only ever did 3 of them and even then there was no schedule. Shame as I thought that was a great idea for a show even if it was only every month or so

#49 Posted by BlackLagoon (1457 posts) -

@m4r71n2012 said:

They tried that with "new game Wednesday" or whatever that was called, people just complained about Gamespot staff and the crew didn't seem bothered since they only ever did 3 of them and even then there was no schedule. Shame as I thought that was a great idea for a show even if it was only every month or so

That was Professional Wednesdays, and they ended it because the whole premise of the show - that the Gamespot guys reviewed everything and could fill them in on the more obscure releases - turned out to be wrong since GS used a lot of freelancers. Which was a shame, because I thought it was a smart and worthwhile endeavor to expand the types of games Giant Bomb covers.

#50 Edited by mems1224 (259 posts) -

I think it's funny when jeff plays dumb games. Its one of those things that never gets old. And it's not like they do total steam request live, or whatever its called, every week. This is like the second one they've ever done and the last one was awhile ago.

Its funny when he plays dumb games but all the games yesterday were just trash games and not funny. The last time they did this was great because they showed off games that people might want to buy and dumb games.