Fundamental changes needed for Giant Bomb

I have been following GB since inception and have always thought that the website, while already a jewel in the vast gaming landscape, could carve out a real niche to differentiate itself. PERSONALITIES. The people have always been the draw to this site: Jeff, Brad, the late Ryan, etc. This site needs be the "RogerEbert.com" of video game review/quicklook gaming sites. The awesome GB personalities and individual opinions should be THE MAIN FOCUS and be right out front and accessible. There should be a clear and up front way to select "reviews by: Jeff, Brad etc" and see star ratings with the blurb synopsis.

GB should not be afraid to embrace what makes it so great: the individuals who bring us their opinions.

PS: Jeff, I have considered you personally the Roger Ebert of game criticism for a long time.

oh, one of these.

also- new tagline, "Giantbomb.com - the "RogerEbert.com" of video game review/quicklook gaming sites."

edit: sorry for the snark- but what exactly do you think is lacking? Their editorial voice is loud and clear over EVERYTHING they do!

Is it ok if i consider drew the leonard maltin of game criticism?

I thought Jeff was Phil Jackson and Drew was Michael Jordan?

bigger question is who is andy rooney.

It would be nice to have some sorting options of this type, but splitting every one up by content would make them feel like less of a group.

@mellotronrules: I think I spelled it out quite clearly: The structure of the website should lend itself to finding individual opinions easily. EASILY. This is not the case. Up front we should be able to select the individual's writing/videos BY INDIVIDUAL. This site's physical structure needs to change to embrace that.

Jeff is an entertainer(Like Ryan used to describe themselves), along with the other guys. They aren't critics or journalists.(For most of the year, anyway)

Gamespot was a consumer guide, Giant Bomb is a dumb thing about video games. Real game criticism is still in it's infancy.

Can't wait to read this...

Edit: They have since the beginning framed what they do as being about personality. I've always took it that Jeff and Ryan's experiences during the stagnation of traditional games writing outlets and the overemphasis of reviews and scores to be why they founded the site based around video and podcasts to let their personalities and interactions largely do the talking.

I think what you're looking for is this

@slang_n_bang: It is not a ridiculous comparison. How about you read reviews that each have written and reply here. I didnt say Jeff deserves a Pulitzer. However, they approach reviews in very similar ways. Jeff, calling himself an entertainer does not remove himself from the capacity of a critic, which he is. And again, this site should embrace their critics as individuals up front, structurally.

have a look at @funkys suggestion.

also- i get what you're saying, but the overwhelming majority of the work on this site is collaborative. i haven't seen a regular one-man opinion piece since patrick left or the guns of navarro, one-offs by jeff notwithstanding.

i would imagine Giantbomb doesn't emphasize individual opinions because they don't see it as particularly relevant to their work. They'd probably tell you to go to twitter or tumblr to get that.

@funkys: That link is fantastic, should include reviews, and be integrated in some capacity with Giantbomb.com on the front page. Jeff and friends should be marketed as individuals and collectively. I can tell a friend "Jeff G thinks XYZ," direct them to this site, and they should be able to EASILY filter every criticism he has written.

Mello, I used to visit GB daily. If they arent producing individual content any more then it is a shame. The collaborative stuff was always fantastic but that is only half of what they should be doing.

If you're looking for reviews, I have some bad news. They aren't even doing many reviews these days and that seems to be a permanent change. Not their main focus. Writing in general either, but we will see if they hire an editor to focus on that.

Specific stuff like having second-opinion reviews has come up before. I think that's a neat idea that's better suited to coming out in podcast discussions or the like, as opposed to separate reviews. Besides, it's not like reviews are dropping like hotcakes in the first place.

I'm not sure what they could do to really amp up the editorialising beyond just having more of it. More opinion pieces, more discussion videos/podcasts, that sort of non-revolutionary stuff. Building in staff-specific reviews or sections on the site might be a bit hokey to be honest. I think this site was always fundamentally a more personal one, but never artificially so.

Podcasts and live video already do this. No, its not "needed". They are also moving away from reviews, so that's a pretty moot point.

I have opinions but I wanna wait for GBeast studio to gets finished before.

Why did Jeff trade Carmelo. ;)

This I completely agree with, but once you know the link it's easy enough to use.

I don't know why people think being around since the launch of the site gives their argument any more weight than someone who's only been using the site for a month. Everyone's opinions are just as valid. But anyway:

The site is already completely personality driven; Jeff said in a podcast not long ago "Everything we do has an opinion attached to it" - and I don't think being able to filter out the staff you prefer or dislike is really a priority for the engineers.

Giant Bomb doesn't need to be RogerEbert.com because we're already the citizenKane.com of videogame websites.

Not to mention that Jeff has been very explicit about this being the case since the site started. Jeff has always been very clear that actually showing big chunks of a game, and then having group discussions about it on the podcast is much more informative than any written review could be.

I'd imagine, the OP being a real OG duder, would know this already.

Also, considering his condescending and dismissive attitudes towards this medium, calling anyone "The Roger Ebert of video games" kind of sounds like an insult.

Giant Bomb is a YouTube channel and a podcast that has a wiki attached to it. The community wiki, news, reviews and written content in general is vestigial from what they were trying to do with Whiskey. Now they're doing what Youtubers do, while talking a mad mess of shit about Youtubers.

As a consumer of an entertainment product, there's little difference in the Giant Bomb pitch and something like Best Friends Play. It's personality driven entertainment that shows video games. There remains a mainstream need for industry news, promotion of new products and product guides, but Giant Bomb chose to target a niche.

Now, as someone mentioned earlier, Jeff hates both the mainstream gaming audience and the niche gaming audience, but he does alright with the Gen-X crime movies audience and maybe that's a future direction for Giant Bomb. The most in-depth analysis of Juice.

... Dan is Gene Shalit in this scenario, right?

Is esoteric becoming the hipster of this year?

I haven't listened to a bunch of the recent Bombcasts, so their attitudes may have changed, but at least in multiple Jar Times over the years, Jeff has spoken with trepidatious respect about game related YouTube channels. Saying basically that for his generation, playing and discussion games on camera was a skill developed over years of broadcast experience, but now it's become an almost innate ability that kids have.

I'm unclear on what you actually want them to do...

BRING BACK VIDEO REVIEWS

@sweep: I've been around since 1987, let me tell all your kids born in 1993 something!

lol "giantbomb - the VOICE of the GAMING GENERATION"

Give me a break....

Needed? You mean things that you want. Do not try to pass off your suggestions as something the site needs because not everyone is going to agree with you.

Welp we gave it a chance but, predictably, there isn't much meaningful discussion to be had here so we're going to close it up.

Complaints to MB, please.