(had to type "sux" because the title limit is so fucking unbelieveable)
Anyway, this is the first time i see an ad for a game on GB (i live in israel) not sure why these AC2 ad & layout came through, and i was watching Ryan's video review of AC2 and was wondering "say that a major game with ads and a layout all over the site, turned out to be the biggest disappointment of the decade.. would the GB staff member / reviewer actually go "And so, you guys, with a major shock i tell you do not buy this piece of trash" while the background is a massive ad/background of the game ? "
P.S. i emphasized on the game being huge because i learned that the staff dudes said they wouldnt advertise just ANY game.
i tend to think of stuff like that because we cant deny that ads or mini contests (like the ODST one) may contain relationships with developers and publishers (i understand GB and Atlus are friends now? things like that), so it all counts. Also, people change and bad days always come [and friendships usually end, etc... lolz] so what the staff says they believe in today, might change tomorrow.. its just how humans progress and it makes you think. most of you deny such solid facts about society and people because life cant be all cool and awesome if people do acknowledge the big possibility of things going bad.
Anyway, no troll included, i was actually wondering that and wanted to see what others think. I love giantbomb, its my favorite website and i got nothing against it. im not questioning jeff's editorial coverage so much as wondering if that would actually happen in those circumstances and with the relationships Giantbomb MIGHT have with that one particular publisher/dev .
P.S. If you're one of the pityful tools who put on their bloody debate uniform and fireback with anger and full seriousness, i beg of you to ignore my poll, because i, unlike you, dont tend to forget that im just a laid-back dude on the net with occasional thoughts and questions, some of which may be unwise or stupid, which dont always have to turn into a brutal deathmatch where one of us is RIGHT and the other is an IDIOT with INVALID POINTS and NO PROOFZ and all that.. the internet makes you forget that we're random flawed humans and makes you demand perfection all the time. i cant give you that and you shouldnt ask for it...
just relax and answer, thank you.
Would Jeff say a game sux while it has ads & layout all over GB ?
I think they said at the PAX conference that they have a lot more control over what ads go up on the site. So I doubt they are going to let something like GI Joe the game get plastered knowing in advance that the game was probably going to be trash. In the end, who cares? Its not like Jeff is going to fire himself for pissing off a sponsor.
" @Metal_Mills said:Well you'd know the answer to this poll if you did." You don't know how GB was made do you? "or DO i ? "
" @Ahmad_Metallic said:or WOULD i?" @Metal_Mills said:Well you'd know the answer to this poll if you did. "" You don't know how GB was made do you? "or DO i ? "
think about it.
I answered this on the IRC, but here it is again:
Giant Bomb has the same business model as Penny Arcade. They only advertise things they like and expect us to be interested in. That way they can't be held to ransom, and the ads are less annoying and more valuable. So this situation could never arise, and with the way Giant Bomb is set up, and its history, everyone on Editorial can be trusted to tell us their honest opinions.
" I think they said at the PAX conference that they have a lot more control over what ads go up on the site. So I doubt they are going to let something like GI Joe the game get plastered knowing in advance that the game was probably going to be trash. In the end, who cares? Its not like Jeff is going to fire himself for pissing off a sponsor. "1. if they actually play every game early on and make sure its great before any reviews or ad contracts, then ok. but if they cant always try it out fully before an ad contract, then it might disappoint them even if they did think its great.. which is something i pointed out. big games do disappoint sometimes dont they ?
2.im not asking "who's gonna fire whom?" im asking "would he piss of a sponsor and [OPTIONAL] a friend, in the first place ?"
Just to point something first, Giant Bomb's review is if Im not mistaken, the lowest this game has scored on sites with credibility. So, NO, I doubt it will inflict any pressure on him. Though I dont supposse that Eidos is gonna move around here anytime xD
" I think its more likely that they already knew what they would give the game before they signed up for a full-site ad. "
I agree chances are they aren't going to advertise for a game that is going to bust. But given the reason of creation of Giant Bomb I would have to say they are in it for us and would definitely give us a truthful review.
" I think they said at the PAX conference that they have a lot more control over what ads go up on the site. So I doubt they are going to let something like GI Joe the game get plastered knowing in advance that the game was probably going to be trash. In the end, who cares? Its not like Jeff is going to fire himself for pissing off a sponsor. "
/thread
no much "shity" games can affort that kind of publicity but if that kind of thing come up, they're actually selecting what ads they put.
ps: i use adblock plus plugin so the only ads i ever seen on GB was the Halo:Odst background image on the respective review, and the Dragon Age Origins logo on the XX eddition of QOTW.
" I think they pick good games on purpose. "this. If anything (and thats a big IF), it almost looks like they knock the game DOWN a tad if it has an ad, at least thats what it seemed to me in the AC2 review. Im not even going to compare with the majority of other sites's scores of AC2, but Ryan only says good things about it, with one of the few complaints is the repetition of some of the open world dialogue (like people shouting money money when you throw some cash on the floor). reading the review it just felt like a 5 star, not 4. Again, i said "if anything..."
" In a review YES but if he is doing a quick look he will say what he dislikes but will not give a divinative negative conclusion but he won't do that to any game... "yeah... he totally didnt say Jurassic The Hunted, or Darkest Days, or tons of others were shit...oh wait, he did.
Ok but it's easy with the bad games and those type of "bad games" will not be advertising anywhere, and even with out the commenting on those quick looks you could see that they are bad games." @THAfara0 said:
" In a review YES but if he is doing a quick look he will say what he dislikes but will not give a divinative negative conclusion but he won't do that to any game... "yeah... he totally didnt say Jurassic The Hunted, or Darkest Days, or tons of others were shit...oh wait, he did. "
AND with the Ride quick look there are more undertones or it more implied that it's a "bad game"
Because Whiskey Media and Jeff are, im guessing, much more closer and friendlier to each other than Gamespot and Jeff might've been. Whiskey is a smaller company and from what we've seen of the staff so far, all great folks. So it would probably be harder to bash on a game that just paid good cash to Whiskey.
I think they probably choose who advertise on giantbomb very wisely. Big budget, low risk games is easier to advertise.
" I answered this on the IRC, but here it is again: Giant Bomb has the same business model as Penny Arcade. They only advertise things they like and expect us to be interested in. That way they can't be held to ransom, and the ads are less annoying and more valuable. So this situation could never arise, and with the way Giant Bomb is set up, and its history, everyone on Editorial can be trusted to tell us their honest opinions. "Yep, this was answered by Jeff at an event, I can't remember the name now.
It's the inherent problem of having a 5 point scale is that 3/5 isn't terrible - it's average and 4/5 is great. However when throwing it up on Metacritic - it can look like GB is scoring low in comparison to sites that use a full 10 point or 100 point grading system.
I could be wrong but weren't there some Arkham Asylum ad's on the site? Published by Eidos, folks.
No one cares....the 5 out of 5 scale is completely fine, and theres no need for anything else. No one here, or staff at Giantbomb, give a flying fuck whatsoever about metacritic and what they do with the scoring. Not intended for that to come off really h arsh or anything, just stating.
Jeff said in the PAX panel that GB only advertises good games or something along those lines, so it's very unlikely.
" @Br3adfan said:True, but it would be a little different since Jeff kinda runs Giant Bomb." Why not? Just because a company advertises on the site does not guarantee themselves a good review for a bad game. "Are you kidding? The politics of the business/gaming world begs to differ. People get fired for rating a game low that has advertised on gaming websites. "
" @Br3adfan said:Pretty sure they can't get fired from their own website though..." Why not? Just because a company advertises on the site does not guarantee themselves a good review for a bad game. "Are you kidding? The politics of the business/gaming world begs to differ. People get fired for rating a game low that has advertised on gaming websites. "
" Jeff said in the PAX panel that GB only advertises good games or something along those lines, so it's very unlikely. "That's the impression I got. I think it must be a difficult line to tread, however impartial you want your reviews to be. I sensed that the ODST review earlier this year was carefully worded to avoid offense, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Well, let's be clear here, guys. Jeff doesn't own Giant Bomb, Whiskey Media does. But the Venture Capitalist who owns Whiskey Media gave Jeff the technology and the resources to build the website he wanted to build, and gave him free reign to fill it with his editorial content, because this is the value the venture capitalist is trying to cultivate from Jeff and the rest of the Giant Bomb crew: honest, but light-hearted discussion surrounding the world of video games, with a bunch of random and fun crap thrown into the mix. Whiskey Media would be undermining their own investment if they were to attempt to stifle Jeff or any other producer of editorial content on this site.
" Well yeah, this isn't GameSpot, plus he's his own boss, so it's not like he can fire himself. "he is not necessarily. GB is owned by Whiskey Media (check bottom left corner of this page) and there are probably some guys that have the authority to fire Jeff, but i highly doubt that would ever happen.
" @Emandudeguyperson said:I though they were powered by pancakes and booze? *sad face*" Well yeah, this isn't GameSpot, plus he's his own boss, so it's not like he can fire himself. "he is not necessarily. GB is owned by Whiskey Media (check bottom left corner of this page) and there are probably some guys that have the authority to fire Jeff, but i highly doubt that would ever happen. "
I think the Giantbomb staff know what they are advertising-the one that had the most chance of flopping was Dragon Age: Origins, and that turned out to be great. But its interesting how they didn't advertise Modern Warfare 2 (from what I know)-that was never going to be an awful game.
Maybe the advertisers sign some sort of contract that doesn't guarantee a dazzling review, even if their game is colored all over the website.
IDK, just a guess.
Take everything with a grain of salt and think for yourself. From my perspective I see the whole Jeff situation as a bit ironic because now he is in the shoes of having to generate revenue for the site and game publishers are the best takers. What makes this even tougher is that Giant Bomb is a small operation and the revenue is that much more critical to keeping his boat afloat. So losing advertisements because of a poor review could mean dire times. Granted his public intentions are a bit more honest about who he lets advertise on the site and why, so hopefully this situation won't rise too often. But it could happen. If Giant Bomb is taking the same approach as Penny Arcade for potential game advertisements and previewing games during their development cycles to ensure they are backing a good product, it's a step in the right direction. But it is hard to know how games are going to end up during the development cycle and sometimes games are made or broken in their final days of development (ie gta3).
The first thing I thought of when reading this question was the Lego Rock Band review. We all know that the GB crew and Alex Navaro are good friends, and that Alex is completely into Harmonix. If Jeff or any of them were really worried about ruining their friendship with Alex, I am sure they would have given it a higher score than a 3 out of 5, regardless of ads.
I'm pretty certain that if they're not worried about pissing off an actual good friend with their reviews, then they won't be too concerned about pissing off some sponsor.
I only say no because I don't think the team would approve of ads for games that they believe "suck." They say that they wont allow stuff that we wouldn't be interested in; something of good quality. So, it's not that i don't think jeff or ryan or whoever wouldn't give a game any star rating it deserves, its just they wont advertise it if it isn't any good.
Also, I qualify that 3 stars is a good rating, and that it doesn't seem unlikely to see a 3 star advertised game
" It's the inherent problem of having a 5 point scale is that 3/5 isn't terrible - it's average and 4/5 is great. However when throwing it up on Metacritic - it can look like GB is scoring low in comparison to sites that use a full 10 point or 100 point grading system. I could be wrong but weren't there some Arkham Asylum ad's on the site? Published by Eidos, folks. "I'd say that an inherent problem of Metacritic, not the scale. It can in a way help Giantbomb traffic on occasions where a game is given 5 stars, as it translates to a 100 score on Metacritic which lands it at the top of the pile.
" @C0V3RT said:" It's the inherent problem of having a 5 point scale is that 3/5 isn't terrible - it's average and 4/5 is great. However when throwing it up on Metacritic - it can look like GB is scoring low in comparison to sites that use a full 10 point or 100 point grading system. I could be wrong but weren't there some Arkham Asylum ad's on the site? Published by Eidos, folks. "I'd say that an inherent problem of Metacritic, not the scale. It can in a way help Giantbomb traffic on occasions where a game is given 5 stars, as it translates to a 100 score on Metacritic which lands it at the top of the pile. "
Yes, thats what I meant. It is the problem of metacritic trying to standardize different review systems.
No... not because I think he'd allow the advertising to influence his opinion, but because I think his opinion influences which ads he'll allow on the site; and he wouldn't let a site so closely related to him/his reputation advertise a game he didn't already have full confidence in.
Also I'm pretty sure the GB crew owns a majority of the site, so they pretty much don't have to worry about some moneyman higher up trying to influence or fire them.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment