I think avoiding spoilers has hindered the bombcast.

So as of the last few years it has become very taboo for the GB guys to talk about things that might even be considered spoilers on the bombcast when it comes to big releases. So much so that when a new big game comes out, they tip toe around the discussion and only mention things they feel are safe to say. They'll get to a point in the conversation where they have to give an inkling as to where they are in the game or want to talk about something cool that happens but they can't say specifics because it would spoil it for others.

Now obviously, there is good reason for them to avoid spoilers, but when you are coming from the perspective of someone who has played the game and even finished it, I can't help but feel frustrated by them not actually discussing it. I want to hear what they thought about certain things in detail and not have them tease their way around the topic without any satisfying revelations. I think it's kind of crazy that the majority of what is talked about now is speculation and news about upcoming big games but when they actually come out, all they can really talk about are the broad mechanics and whether they liked it or not. Very often they can't say why they liked it if that's story related or if it surrounds a thing that could be spoiled. So as a result they can only talk about things that can't be spoiled. It leads to them talking about clash royale more than say Dark Souls 3 as an example.

I used to love the game of the year podcasts so much. It was a time of the year where they could be frank about everything they felt and delve deep into just talking about games. But even that has even faded a bit over time. They aren't as heavy handed with spoilers as they used to be.

I realise there isn't a great solution for this. I wish they did more spoiler casts I guess, even if they were short little snippets for about 20 minutes. But I just wanted to "complain" I suppose... I see so many people giving out about spoilers but I think there are valid reasons to call for more in some cases. I recall the bombcast of old being a little more liberal in their discussion of details and I just kind of miss it.

What do you guys think?

I would legitimately stop listening to the Bombcast if they started spoiling games, which is probably exactly the situation they are trying to avoid.

EDIT: Also, saying SPOILERS AREN'T BAD SO STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM, YOU CAN STILL ENJOY SOMETHING EVEN IF IT'S BEEN SPOILED, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM SO NEITHER SHOULD YOU is directly analogous to SOMETHING'S ONLY OFFENSIVE IF I FIND IT OFFENSIVE, GROW UP AND STOP TRYING TO CENSOR ME, so perhaps it's best to take three seconds to take a step back and unpack that before you start throwing insults at people who might have a different perspective or preference than you.

I get both perspectives, but as someone who doesn't have the time to play through the big releases on launch, I do appreciate them erring on the side of tiptoeing around spoilers. Even now, I find myself scrambling to find the pause button when they start to get into details about last year's big hits that I'm still working through. That said, when I *have* beaten a game, I'm the exact same - I want to hear their thoughts about *this* big twist or *that* cool scene or whatever. I think more frequent spoiler casts are a good middle ground but I don't know how much time they can dedicate to doing that from a production standpoint.

EDIT: I'd add that spoiler casts make it easier to find and go back to hear their thoughts once I *have* caught up on the big releases.

I think they're right to not outright spoil big plot points or moments in games on the Bombcast, but "spoilers" for shit like Dark Souls 3 can cover a stupid-wide margin for some people. For stuff like that, timestamps, timestamps, timestamps.

Or yeah, just have more separate spoiler casts. Actually watched the BioShock Infinite spoiler show last night again. The Modern Warfare 2 one always stands out in my mind too. The sorts of discussions there you don't really get anywhere else on the site, even when they're spoilers-free during GOTY podcasts.

Yeh i think they are a big silly whith the spoilers but they know there are people like me and they know there are people that wants even less spoliers and they try to walk some middleground that really dont exist. I dont see how they can ever solve this to make everyone happy.

I agree, game discussion where you can't actually discuss the games is absolutely frustrating.

People should realize mentioning random stuff that happens during the game is not spoiling it, talking about twists and turns of the plot or a big mechanical surprise is a spoiler.

I think the worst part of this is when they don't spoil anything but still talks about the game in a really vauge way and just throw around "non spoilery" hints to what they are talking about. That will make the whole conversation totally pointless, the people who have played the game and know what they are talking about doesn't get a discussion about the topic and people who haven't get annoying hints without getting anything interesting out of it.

The SpoilerCast solution would probably be something that could work.

The only thing that bums me out in this regard is how often they say "We'll have to sit down and discuss this on a separate podcast." and it never happens. Rarely, they actually do a spoiler cast, but overall I wish it was something that happened more.

I absolutely disagree. I have still have the "best moments" podcast from game of the year left over because I never listened to it. When I'm driving and they say skip ahead 2 minutes, I just mute the volume immediately and usually don't go back to it.

There's a place for spoilers, but the Bombcast is not it.

I'm poor. Have been for a long time and recently became even poorer. Not saying it's the wrong call but I would have a hell of a time listening to a podcast that expected me to buy every game I wanted within weeks of release lest I have it spoiled.

My hobby thrives on steam sales and other discounted software. Older games are an enormous boon for me.

Maybe they should record themselves talking about spoilers when they have something they want to talk about, and then compile it into a Spoilercast every few months. That way we can get some discussion about spoilers, without having it be in the Bombcast.

It could also be a good idea doing it like that, since most games doesn't warrant a full Spoilercast. Also recording it when it is fresh is probably better than them waiting to record it all at once.

Past a certain time, you just have to accept that stuff will be spoiled and that you can still enjoy it even once you know it. My breaking point was when someone chewed me out for spoiling a game that was out for over a year. We have become petulant children, whining over every perceived spoiler as if they snapped our discs over their knee and ruined our games forever. It is utterly frustrating to try and self-censor all my discussions on games, for fear of someone pointing a finger at me and screaming, "Spoilers! SPOILERS! YOU'VE RUINED IT FOR ME NOW!"

No, I haven't. Stop being a selfish prick and chewing out people for some perceived ruination of your game enjoyment. It doesn't matter nearly as much as you think it does.

It just makes me look forward to the GOTY podcasts more. And by that time I may have forgotten some stuff so it's nice to be reminded.

This.

It would be better to hold back even more than they do now when discussing a game than spoiling it. They're in the same office. If they really, really wanted to tell each other about some aspect of a game, they can do it outside of the podcast. They don't need an audience for every discussion. Now if they wanted to do a spoilercast on specific games in addition to the Bombcast, that wouldn't be a problem, since they'd be easy to avoid.

I think @csl316 said it best:

GOTY podcasts and "spoilercasts" are a much better venue than the Bombcast/Beastcast for spoilers, in my opinion. I don't think people come to either of the "general" podcasts for in-depth spoiler-filled discussion of big releases.

I really think the net result of being much more spoiler heavy in the Bombcast would be a loss of listeners and not a gain, but that's just my own feeling on the matter.

I have never listened to an entire GOTY podcast because of spoilers, even if i never play a game i want to have that option in the future without knowing any spoilers.

I am very spoiler sensitive and frankly the Bombcast is TOO Spoilery for my liking. Like many others I don't have the time to play every 'hot new release' on the week it comes out, let alone finish a game that comes out on Tuesday in time for that evening's Bombcast.

That being said there are two possible relatively easy solutions that would not require additional podcasts.

1) Mark spoilers in the podcast description and just give a little warning like "Check the description and skip ahead if you don't want X spoiled for you." Then they could talk freely. This would require some intern checking time codes, but would be easy.

2) Move spoiler discussion to the end of the Bombcast. Have either a post-letters section or through the magic of audio editing just move spoilery discussions there. Other podcasts do this, it's not hard. You could even add an additional commercial for the non-premium version of the podcast.

It's 2016. It's not hard to cordon off spoilers and keep both the people who like them and those who want to avoid them happy.

I would have zero problems with spoilers if they just clearly said they were gonna spoil something and to refer to timestamps. They just need to use a system like that to help the audience. What i really hate is casually spoiling things without giving a chance to avoid the spoilers to listeners like a certain member of the bombcast is known to do :(

Some people are too sensitive with spoilers. For example, saying that they're looking for a treasure in an Uncharted game isn't a spoiler. Some people are super weird about that stuff. I had someone get mad at me for saying that I liked how the jeep handles in UC4, like it hasn't been common knowledge for years that said thing is in the game. That being said, I like that they avoid talking about some things. Many people don't have time to complete a new release in a week. I think anything more than a couple years old is fair game if it adds to the discussion in a way that's not otherwise possible. For example, how many people would be upset if they talked about how Mass Effect 3 ended? Probably not many at this point, but at the same time I wouldn't want them to give specifics if there wasn't some bigger discussion or point to be made. After a certain point, I have to be like "you didn't care enough about the ending to have played it in the past 3 years". But new releases? Absolutely avoid spoilers. Stuff like "you're going to get this weapon in this chapter" I don't care about, and that falls into the "people are overly sensitive" side of things. Sometimes it is annoying to hear a bunch of "this thing... err.. I shouldn't mention it, is cool until... well.... let's just say it's good". They shouldn't have to tip-toe around as much as they do. I'd be fine with shorter discussions on new releases. Nobody is asking for the specifics that they're fumbling around trying to avoid. I'm sure I don't see the angry emails when something slips, and i'm sure it's not as easy as it seems to ride the line. Trying to please everyone is difficult. I think what they consider spoilers right now is fine (a bit more caution than I personally require, but not enough to disrupt my enjoyment of their discussion).

TL;DR - I think anything outside of story or boss specifics are generally fine.

It's what the game of the year podcasts are for. Honestly I would love more spoiler casts but they always talk themselves out of it. Brad really wanted to do one for the witness but by the next week they had talked enough at the office that they didn't need to anymore...but we wanted to hear that discussion...very annoying that they always do that.

I totally agree. Well, I think the ideal is they do short spoilercasts to just talk about a game without whoever can but they just so rarely will actually do that. I don't get why.

I just have noticed no depth on games in that kind of discussion and often I will hear Brad in particular say something like "Well this isn't the place for that talk" as if there is ANY place. And no, GOTY is not that place. There is so little nuance and so many dumb arguments and agendas in GOTY that it isn't a good place for that at all. Many times the games aren't even fresh in their minds.

Between this and the, mostly GBEAST thing, of "Lets stop talking about this subject because we spent more than 2 minutes on it and that's too long" I think the website is being robbed of good in depth discussion.

Not everyone can buy a game or play it as soon as it is released and different people have different levels of sensibility towards spoilers. I think they're doing well the way they do it now, it's not that common or problematic.

Talking spoilers and giving timestamps is a good approach, but it's also a cumbersome to a lot of listeners that check the Bombcast while doing other stuff. Moving them to the end, after emails, is a good trick as well but it would ruin a bit of the flow because they would be talking about a game and stop it to come back to it later. The current approach is, so far, the best. Maybe they should just do more separated spoilercasts.

I know that they are really strapped for time nowadays, but I really wish that they would start doing a dedicated spoilercast. I've beaten so many games that I really wanted to hear their opinions on, and all I got was a couple of vague allusions. I really enjoyed the features they did on certain games with big story twists like MW2, Bioshock Infinite, and Phantom Pain, but I would like some more general discussion on things like interesting final boss fights, late game sequences, or just general retrospectives on a series.

Just spoil everything until we can culturally get past crying about spoilers. It's gotten ridiculous.

I really enjoyed the discussion they had on The Division too, but most of the time Vinny is hurrying everything along. Most of what they talk about anyway is news; I wish they talked about the actual games that are out and we can play.

When a game is driven by a narrative, it's far from ridiculous.

If the game is Doom or Need for Speed where the story is some side thing? Fine. When it's Uncharted or Mass Effect, not so fine. Discovering the story in those games is a large part of the experience.

Knowing how a story plays out can be interesting, which can make second playthroughs full of "oh wow, didn't even notice that" moments. But they can drastically change how a game impacts you and there's certainly validity to avoiding a spoiler thread. This week is a good example: Doom, I'll read anything about it or watch late game videos. Uncharted, the story is a huge part of the game so I'm avoiding what I can.

Some stuff seems silly to me, like names of a Bloodborne boss when no one even knew what anything in that world was. But it's important to some people and I won't go around spoiling things for them. Laughing off people that want to get through a game as the developer intended is asinine. I know some people play games differently, skipping cut scenes and such, but others play games largely for the narrative (which I used to do exclusively). And there's no reason to ruin their experience. In the case of the Bombcast, they'd be walking a fine line. And hell, sometimes they don't want to ruin surprises for each other.

I totally agree. It's funny the guys talk about and get caught up in the zeitgeist of games but then we don't get good in depth discussion really most times. I think it's a huge thing lacking on the site most times. It's too bad.

You're right about news, and also both podcasts spend a lot of time on e-mails and I don't find that worthwhile all the time.

I think the guys going through the plot of games and the gameplay sequences specifically is a worthwhile thing.

There was a bit in this week's Bombcast where Jeff was trying to communicate that he was in the Scotland part of Uncharted 4 but they just talked around the subject. In the Beascast, Vinny just came right out and said "I'm past the bit in Scotland". I appreciated that.

So yeah, the Bombcast should ease up a bit, so should everyone else on the internet.

Sometimes I feel they dance around topics a little too much that aren't actually spoilery. That Uncharted 4 conversation that @ewansuttie mentioned is a perfect example. Anyone so sensitive to Uncharted spoilers that they don't want to know locations that are in the early parts of the game really shouldn't be listening to a podcast in which they discuss the game. There were also moments in recent Dark Souls 3 discussions where they didn't want to name characters or levels, which seems to be going just a little bit too far.

That being said, it is a balancing act, and it's probably best that they err on the side of caution. I'm sure very few people would want a bombcast were they openly talk about major spoilers in games that haven't been released yet (or have only just been released). So I can totally understand them being overly cautious about that kind of stuff.

When people get upset after telling them I don't want something spoiled I get the sense they don't understand what it means to me. I get a lot of "come on! the game isn't ruined because you heard something so minor. You're being unreasonable!". I think it's important to stress that it's rarely a matter of ruining the game. Art can be complicated and I value every little piece that artists use to set a mood or create an effect. Hearing a spoiler doesn't have to ruin a game for me in order to minimize the effect it has while I play it.

You only get one chance to discover something and games work hard to make that moment of discovery meaningful. For every moment I don't get to have the experience becomes that much less affecting.

I'd rather there be a time set out in the description saying: "X game discussed between Y and Z time. Some spoilers"

I'm not super sensitive to spoilers, but I've started avoiding more lead up coverage on games I might be spoiled on. As such, theres been a couple of moments in games lately that have genuinely struck me

Brad can never help himself anyway, so why not give him license to do it

While I don't like hearing about big story spoilers either, I can't say I'm in the club who seems to get angry when someone reveals that Dark Souls 3 is actually a video game and has NPC characters in it, plus monsters you have to fight against.

I just wish they did more spoilercasts. Even if it's only 15 minutes that'd be fun content. Something you could put on whenever you finish a game.

I'd hate for them to start doing spoilers in the main bombcast though, unless they start doing timestamps, and even then it'd be pretty annoying.

No spoilers on the bombcast. People have gotten very touchy about spoilers because in our new interconnected digital age it's extremely easy to spoil things for people. Gone are the days of people yelling Harry Potter spoilers at kids lining up at Barnes & Noble. Now it just happens instantly in twitter or news stories that put the spoiler right in the title of the headline with a picture of said spoiler.

People who think spoilers don't matter have clearly never had anything spoiled for them. If you think spoilers don't matter then make sure to read/watch a full review of every movie you plan to see with a full plot breakdown. The same goes for any show you watch. Read all the reviews and watch all the highlights before you watch your shows. See if your enjoyment doesn't get tarnished with that knowledge.

I remember them saying a while ago that there is a huge audience for the Bombcast. A lot of that audience don't even visit the site. That statement was a few years ago, but I imagine that to still be the case. I agree with the general sentiment of them kinda needing to spoil games, but there is a large audience of people who do not follow games as closely as all of us here on this site. I imagine those people listen to just the Bombcast to catch a glimpse of these games. So if the Bomb dudes say something is interesting, revealing plot details may lessen the impact of the story in a certain way. Once again, I agree with the sentiment of discussing a game in full, but if the bomb guys felt that was necessary, they would do a spoilercast, like they have done so often in the past for big games. We can't have it all, I'm afraid.

I think they already do a good job of talk about games without mentioning specific events. If anything it forces them to talk about the game as a whole rather than relying on talking about 'wow moments'.

They could be spoiling things and I don't think the audience would really learn much from it.

Another part of it is not wanting to spoil things for other people in the room. The staff often start games at different times.

Also people seriously complaining about people not wanting things spoiled must be immune to the joy of discovery or surprises.

Given they are in the unique position of being able to play games to completion before release, I think it would be completely insane if they started openly discussing game spoilers on the Bombcast the week of a game's release. If you feel like you are disappointed they aren't talking about things you have already played then you must have a hell of a lot more free time than me.

Spoiling games outright would be a terrible move but the Bombcast (and the internet at large) has gone way off the deep end when it comes to what's even considered spoilers these days. When they are afraid of even naming general AREAS you visit in Uncharted or even naming a random boss or description from Dark Souls 3 as if someone playing it right now would somehow get his experience destroyed if he knew he's going to fight a certain "Lord Wolnir" at some point then you've just gone too far.

I mean I hate spoilers, dear god do I hate them, but I think actual spoilers are only secret things like plot twists, hidden mechanics and secrets.

The simple reason why they tip toe around spoilers is that they don't want 5000 angry e-mails about how they ruined the game for people every week. I think GOTY podcasts is the safe place here, don't go into them if you're avert to spoilers, but for those who don't care or who have played the game, this is when the guys can let loose and really discuss a game.

Wish they would just timestamp the bombcast and acknowledge when they're gonna spoil things. I don't care about spoilers but so many people are so sensitive about that crap. So instead of talking about what makes the witness great we get an hour of them vaguely describing the game and walking on eggshells. None of the discussions of the witness in the 2-3 bombcasts told me anything about the game or showed me why I needed to play it. That spoiler video they did with Blow sold me on that game though.

I get what you mean. During release discussions, The Bombcast in particular has become just this weird grey blur in my mind because every discussion is the same tip-toeing around details. It gets really dull.

People are way too sensitive about spoilers these days, like even considering boss names to be spoilers.

Its silly, and those people probably shouldn't listen to podcasts.

Boy after reading this thread am I glad that I don't give two fucks about spoilers. I actually thought I'd give Dark Souls 3 the blackout treatment to see if it improved my first time through experience. I think that was possibly the wrong game to do it as everything was predictable as can be. To me the value in games is engaging with their mechanics, working out how to master the systems and getting really involved that way. Mostly everything else is icing on the cake and if I'm told about it before hand it has the exact same effect on me as if I saw it in the game first.

So I definitely understand where you're coming from, but at the same time I often find that I can discern quite easily what the crew think of a game based on what they say within the podcast. As long as video game talk doesn't start being overshadowed by long stretches of wrestling talk I'm all good.

@atwa: Boss names can totally be spoilers. For example, in DS2 a boss you fight is queen nashandra. Depending on where you are at in DS2, knowing that you fight that person can be a very serious spoiler for the game's story.

The surprising thing to me about this thread is when people seem to limit spoilers to story or secrets (and btw I think learning about secrets through hearsay can be a great part of the experience depending on what it is). If back years ago with Dark Souls you started talking about how the O+S fight works and how to beat it that would take a substantial part of the experience away.

Now that's not saying that spoiling a game ruins it at all; I'd have never even considered playing The Fall if it wasn't spoiled for me in GOTY. But the difference is I went into GOTY being prepared to be spoiled, if that happened on a random Bombcast or Beastcast while that might still be true for The Fall, that definitely wouldn't be true for a number of games.

In past years they seemed to mostly start talking about minor spoilers for a game a year or more after release, which worked fine for me because a year after release a game either didn't matter much to me so I didn't play it by that point, or like The Fall the spoiler ended up getting me a push to get the game because the game ended up sounding a lot better than I'd initially thought.

@belegorm: Nashandra is the last damn boss of the game, obviously that's going to be a spoiler and it's also considered to be sort of a story twist. So yeah names can be spoilers but not every name or even most of them. What does it matter that I know there is some boss called Wolnir or the Ruin Sentinels? Hell I haven't played Bloodborne yet and I read a bunch of bossnames already but why would any of that be a spoiler as long as I don't see any actual gameplay?

My problem isn't necessarily them trying to avoid spoilers, my problem is that I'm thinking more and more their game coverage on the podcasts is pretty trash and part of the reason is how much they have to tip toe about being as unspecific as possible. They can't even cite any early game happenings and actually talk about exactly how a specific fight went even when they want to use it to make a broader point about a game. Instead it's all left in unbelievably vague terms that tell me absolutely nothing if regardless of me having played the game or not.

Problem is you've got different types of players here. You've got those who buy new releases and finish them over a weekend and those who have lives and take months/years to finish a game. Most of the time though the bombcast covers games that aren't even out yet. I reckon they should be careful with story related spoilers only.

@bouken: That kinda stuff can trigger cases where I hear a name and then fear I'll have something spoiled once I play a bit of the game and learn more context. Silly paranoia most of the time, I know, but it happens. In the case of the bombcast I would trust them not to have revealed anything game breaking but as we've seen here less important grey areas exist. Diff'rent Strokes.

Regardless, I don't really get angry in these "non-plot twist" tier spoilers, I just REALLY prefer not to have them.