@TheKing said:
@wmaustin55 said:
The only person in the games journalist industry who is obnoxiously pretentious is Arthur GiesAgreed, that guy is the WORST.
Remember when there were rumors that he is coming to Giantbomb?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
He's entertaining enough but I don't really regard Klepek as an expert and I have very different tastes so I find it fairly easy to look past his opinion on most games.
I kinda cringe at stupid posts complaining about GB staff at regular intervals. Every member of the GB staff brings something cool to the table.
He's got an opinion, you don't like it, I understand. I don't agree with it, but I understand, however when you say all he writes about is only MollyJam, that's just wrong. You should check out his "Worth Reading" stuff, it's interesting.
@Zirilius said:
@kevtheasian said:
I can't wait for the next Game of the Year podcast deliberations so these same complainers can whine about Brad being so stubborn.Brad is serious about his GotY deliberations.
Oh man 2011 was just painful to listen to yet I couldn't stop. I thought Jeff was gonna just walk out at one point when they were arguing about Skyrim.
@JaredA said:
Patrick Klepek fucking rules
@freewilly5 said:
Patrick's awesome, you all suck.
Word. Double word.
I don't really see the purpose of making hate threads railing against a specific Bombcast member. Considering that they spend all this time bringing you this content, it seems pretty whiny to make a "I hate" thread on the website (self-entitled much?). That's not to say you can't disagree with any of the members, or argue against any of their points; in fact, it would be far more productive if someone wrote an intelligent post on why a particular bombcast member was wrong on a specific subject. That, at least, we get the entire community talking about something purposeful, rather than it turning into a flame thread.
All this recent, public judging of the Bombers reminds me of something you would find on The View or some tabloid nonsense. It's kind of amusing.
Patrick brings and honest and earnest effort to the site and that's all that matters. If he were intentionally bringing down the quality of the site I would sympathize, but he's not. It's okay to offer constructive criticism, but stop being an ass about it.
I don't think it's pretentious to be the only person on the site who really writes about indie games. I'm glad that the Bombcast has someone like that, because without Patrick there would be very little content about stuff like that. I am so on the Pro-Klepek team.
I find all threads talking personally about the staff on the site weird. Am I alone? I seriously cringe every time I see one of the Bomb Squad's names in a thread title.
EDIT: For clarity I'm not talking about constructive criticism of their work but just the creepy comments and the way most people seem to forget they will probably read the thread.
Seriously?I find all threads talking personally about the staff on the site weird. Am I alone? I seriously cringe every time I see one of the Bomb Squad's names in a thread title.
@theguy: I feel the exact same way. They're just some dudes on this website that you follow. Perhaps you pay for premium content in which case you have every right to voice an opinion on how you think the content could be better. The problem is that it needs to be constructive. Instead of saying "PATRICK NO ME LIKE. STUPID" say "I find Patrick's contributions to Giant Bomb less enjoyable then Jeff's because of X" where X is a more concise and thought out idea. By the way I find Patrick's contributions to the site fine. I love his Worth Reading.
I will admit that I am totally jealous of his ability to break into such a competitive field like he did. He probably had the heart, drive, and attention span to follow through with a goal and execute it. Where as I am sitting here one year younger than him writing a post on a forum on the internet and just graduated college. I have nothing to show for the first 1/3 of the life that I will lead.
Also, I feel that Photoshop threads are creepy.
I dont like patrick and have tried not to say much in the forums about it as i feel its not very nice to do that to him.
But he is annoying and i dont see any more or better news on the site than before ? infact i see stupid things about guys playing fighting games calling each other names.
Yeah I don't really line up with your sentiments but I don't particularly find anything he says all the interesting. He has a tendency to repeat what someone just said, twist it a bit so it sounds different, and ultimately waste time. I just remember this sticking out on a podcast recently when someone said something about a game that was more of a technical show-piece. Someone said something to the effect of "yeah, it was kinda cool but not really a game", then the conversation was about to move on but Patrick stuttered back in and said "Yes. I feel that... as a game, it wasn't very good... but from aaaaaa... technical standpoint, I thought it was really interesting." So basically what was just said. Not much on its own but he does that a lot. Wordiness for the sake of wordiness if I was to put a phrase to it.
@believer258 said:
I believe that Patrick is the resident "obscure games coming out" expert that none of the others are. If that's his job, then pretension might be one of the prerequisites.
I always thought he looked like a bit of a hipster.
Anyway, Patrick has never and still doesn't get on my nerves. I don't really see any truth in what you're talking about, and I never quite got why a lot of people disliked him so much.
While on the subject of Patrick, I've got a side question: How old is he? I thought he was the youngest on the GB crew by a number of years - like in his 20's - but he was talking about being at E3 several times over the past decade, if memory serves.
Someone probably answerd this already but i believe he was quite young at his first E3, so young in fact that he needed to bring a parent or guardian, think he mentioned this on a bombcast after joining the site.
@OllyOxenFree said:
@theguy said:Seriously?I find all threads talking personally about the staff on the site weird. Am I alone? I seriously cringe every time I see one of the Bomb Squad's names in a thread title.
You're telling me some of the posts in this thread aren't cringe worthy?
I think it is relevent to talk about patrick's on-air personality, or any members, and discuss liking or not liking. But I think it should be said not that you dislike him, just him as a performer.
After all, when you listen to bombcast or quick look or anything that personality is as much the content as the game being shown.
Personally I think his articles are interesting but I actively avoid quick looks that he is in. Patrick doesn't make me laugh and he is always going to try to make a judgement call about whatever is happening, probably referencing other games. It just isn't fun and goofy to watch. In the very talented group of griant bomb presenters he is the least humorous, the least improv friendly and the most likely to go for the more predictable jokes.
Vinny is probably the polar opposite in having his infectious optimism and a unique sense of humor. He spends hours in a game that crashes constantly and forces browsing servers all the time and that is entertaining because of him.
@burnttoast said:
I think it is relevent to talk about patrick's on-air personality, or any members, and discuss liking or not liking. But I think it should be said not that you dislike him, just him as a performer.
After all, when you listen to bombcast or quick look or anything that personality is as much the content as the game being shown.
Personally I think his articles are interesting but I actively avoid quick looks that he is in. Patrick doesn't make me laugh and he is always going to try to make a judgement call about whatever is happening, probably referencing other games. It just isn't fun and goofy to watch. In the very talented group of griant bomb presenters he is the least humorous, the least improv friendly and the most likely to go for the more predictable jokes.
Vinny is probably the polar opposite in having his infectious optimism and a unique sense of humor. He spends hours in a game that crashes constantly and forces browsing servers all the time and that is entertaining because of him.
It isn't relevant, because any criticism you make is not going to create a change. Unless you think that Patrick's going to read this and go, 'Oh wow, I didn't realise I wasn't funny, I'll start being funny now'. Nobody can choose to be funny, or entertaining, or liked by you personally. So what change are you trying to generate? Make Patrick leave? Make him improve his 'performance' by not being himself? Screw that.
This complaint is old and no longer relevant. Yes, every staff member has their flaws, including Vinny, and every member their opinion. Does it need to be brought up for the thousandth time in a public way? No. There's an epithet for 'complaining for the sake of complaining'. It ain't a pretty one, nor should it be.
Everyone's different. I think the diversity of the voices on the Bombcast is part of the reason I enjoy it so much.
@PassiveKaerenai said:
It isn't relevant, because any criticism you make is not going to create a change. Unless you think that Patrick's going to read this and go, 'Oh wow, I didn't realise I wasn't funny, I'll start being funny now'. Nobody can choose to be funny, or entertaining, or liked by you personally. So what change are you trying to generate? Make Patrick leave? Make him improve his 'performance' by not being himself? Screw that.
This complaint is old and no longer relevant. Yes, every staff member has their flaws, including Vinny, and every member their opinion. Does it need to be brought up for the thousandth time in a public way? No. There's an epithet for 'complaining for the sake of complaining'. It ain't a pretty one, nor should it be.
I am not under the illusion that any specific opinion I post will change the content of the site in even a minor way. I do think that in aggregate opinions made on the forums have influenced the content and I do think that the staff pays attention to video viewing counts and other metrics of interest. So I think it is valid and meaningful to express strong interest in a feature that is enjoyed (perhaps to ask for more time travel cartoon shows) or to express disinterest in a feature that is not liked (say if people don't like quick look with devs nearly as much as normal).
Your point is then not that complaints aren't valid but that complaining about personalities are a special case. That complaining about personalities is complaining about something that, unlike the rest, can't change. Perhaps that it becomes more petty and hurtful as well. I strongly disagree with this. I do not think it is a special case, and petty and character attacks are a danger but not intrinsically a part of those discussions.
Right now there is a golden man competition or some such going on. This is essentially a ranking of which guest do people like the most, which personality is the most entertaining. It is the very same thing we are talking about except that it is about guests not core members. I think that the bracketed compitition has been pretty well received. It would be cool if at the end the site admins see which people are the most enjoyed as guests and they can come on more. That would be producing valuable content that a lot of people would enjoy.
So maybe your point is not that it shouldn't be discussed which personality is the best, just that it shouldn't be about the core guys. Again, I think it is completely valid and not mean, to say I do not find Patrick's personality entertaining. He is on a site which has entertaining personalities, you could see game coverage on any site, I'ld imagine the reason you come here is a lot about the personalities. I think that expressing which people are enjoyed the most is as valid feedback as anything could be. I think, also, in aggregate, any feedback can have meaningful effects.
Ha, I don't mean that to sound like I want him out. But I think the site would benefit from Patrick taking a smaller role as an on-screen personality and a greater responsibility in game coverage/molyjam/ other stuff he likes.
@burnttoast said:
Ha, I don't mean that to sound like I want him out. But I think the site would benefit from Patrick taking a smaller role as an on-screen personality and a greater responsibility in game coverage/molyjam/ other stuff he likes.
Pretty much this. I don't mind him writing news, but I really can't stand him in the Bombcast and Quick Looks.
@burnttoast said:
@PassiveKaerenai said:
It isn't relevant, because any criticism you make is not going to create a change. Unless you think that Patrick's going to read this and go, 'Oh wow, I didn't realise I wasn't funny, I'll start being funny now'. Nobody can choose to be funny, or entertaining, or liked by you personally. So what change are you trying to generate? Make Patrick leave? Make him improve his 'performance' by not being himself? Screw that.
This complaint is old and no longer relevant. Yes, every staff member has their flaws, including Vinny, and every member their opinion. Does it need to be brought up for the thousandth time in a public way? No. There's an epithet for 'complaining for the sake of complaining'. It ain't a pretty one, nor should it be.
I am not under the illusion that any specific opinion I post will change the content of the site in even a minor way. I do think that in aggregate opinions made on the forums have influenced the content and I do think that the staff pays attention to video viewing counts and other metrics of interest. So I think it is valid and meaningful to express strong interest in a feature that is enjoyed (perhaps to ask for more time travel cartoon shows) or to express disinterest in a feature that is not liked (say if people don't like quick look with devs nearly as much as normal).
Your point is then not that complaints aren't valid but that complaining about personalities are a special case. That complaining about personalities is complaining about something that, unlike the rest, can't change. Perhaps that it becomes more petty and hurtful as well. I strongly disagree with this. I do not think it is a special case, and petty and character attacks are a danger but not intrinsically a part of those discussions.
Right now there is a golden man competition or some such going on. This is essentially a ranking of which guest do people like the most, which personality is the most entertaining. It is the very same thing we are talking about except that it is about guests not core members. I think that the bracketed compitition has been pretty well received. It would be cool if at the end the site admins see which people are the most enjoyed as guests and they can come on more. That would be producing valuable content that a lot of people would enjoy.
So maybe your point is not that it shouldn't be discussed which personality is the best, just that it shouldn't be about the core guys. Again, I think it is completely valid and not mean, to say I do not find Patrick's personality entertaining. He is on a site which has entertaining personalities, you could see game coverage on any site, I'ld imagine the reason you come here is a lot about the personalities. I think that expressing which people are enjoyed the most is as valid feedback as anything could be. I think, also, in aggregate, any feedback can have meaningful effects.
Ha, I don't mean that to sound like I want him out. But I think the site would benefit from Patrick taking a smaller role as an on-screen personality and a greater responsibility in game coverage/molyjam/ other stuff he likes.
First of all, the Golden Duder thing is a community project. The community is free to discuss its perceptions, but the staff isn't going to give these people more air-time based on that. They are well aware of the 'Patrick-hate' thing happening - how could anyone avoid it, the hate-cabal plagues everything QL the guy does - and they are equally aware of the 'Brad sucks' meme (see Breaking Brad). But Patrick still gets air-time, and Brad still does QLs. They have shown that this is the line they're taking, and haven't budged since.
Another note: the Golden Duder thing is positive promotion. What's happening here is negative, and if you saw any competition of 'Worst Duder', you can bet it'd get pulled by the mods. This is a positive site. GB is not, and I hope will never be, the cynical kind of place that considers its own staff-members as 'performers', and rates them accordingly. The site's charm is that everybody's themselves, nobody's trying too hard, and nobody's going to get kicked off a QL or podcast because the community's complaining. That's what keeps it relaxed, non-businessy, and genuinely funny.
One last thing: I've been here longer than my profile has. Over time, I've definitely noticed that as the number of complaints, ad hominems and one-liners increase in the forums and comments, the staff has started to pay less and less attention to the community. These complaints are making the site a negative place, they have not and will not generate change, and are pushing the team and the community apart. So please, however good your intentions, observe their results, and stop.
Patrick is fine, he can just be a bit of a "hipster". But he still seems like cool guy. He just thinks differently about things than I do.
@Oscar__Explosion said:
@believer258I believe he mention that he's around 27 or 28. Can't remember which.I believe that Patrick is the resident "obscure games coming out" expert that none of the others are. If that's his job, then pretension might be one of the prerequisites.
I always thought he looked like a bit of a hipster.
Anyway, Patrick has never and still doesn't get on my nerves. I don't really see any truth in what you're talking about, and I never quite got why a lot of people disliked him so much.
While on the subject of Patrick, I've got a side question: How old is he? I thought he was the youngest on the GB crew by a number of years - like in his 20's - but he was talking about being at E3 several times over the past decade, if memory serves.
He's only just turned 27. I know this because he has the same birthday as my beloved Irish Great-Grandmother who died when I was young, except 1985 instead of 1896. Also, I agree with Ryan.You shouldn't mention your age on a podcast unless you're straight up asked. Anyway, to answer believer's question, he is a good 5 to 10 years younger than the other Bombcast members (which leaves him out of a lot of conversation's about older videogames and old times). However, Patrick has been going to E3 since he was a child mostly under the supervision of his father.Remember, It's very easy to get into E3 if you really want too (Excluding, E3 2007 and E3 2008).
@JasonR86 said:
@ Deadmeat said:
Did I not notice this before? It just seems if it's not a weird game from Japan or doing something different its "stupid and dumb". I kinda cringe when he talks on the bombcast or quicklooks now...
Is this a new thing or has he always been things way? I admit I don't read his stuff since well... they are always about something like kickstarter or molyjamwhich I could care less about.
Just when I got used to ignoring Ryan's "I know everything" statements...
Brad + Jeff + Vinny + Whitta would be the best bombcast group.
He enjoyed Skyrim, Skyward Sword (granted, from Japan but it isn't weird), Rayman Origins was one of his favorite games of last year. In fact...
Only three of his top 10 games of last year were Japanese. Only two of those were kinda weird. So I guess what I'm saying is is that you're objectively wrong. Subjectively, you sound like a dick.
BOOM! Jason bringin the science! Logic an shit!
@PassiveKaerenai said:
First of all, the Golden Duder thing is a community project. The community is free to discuss its perceptions, but the staff isn't going to give these people more air-time based on that. They are well aware of the 'Patrick-hate' thing happening - how could anyone avoid it, the hate-cabal plagues everything QL the guy does - and they are equally aware of the 'Brad sucks' meme (see Breaking Brad). But Patrick still gets air-time, and Brad still does QLs. They have shown that this is the line they're taking, and haven't budged since.
Another note: the Golden Duder thing is positive promotion. What's happening here is negative, and if you saw any competition of 'Worst Duder', you can bet it'd get pulled by the mods. This is a positive site. GB is not, and I hope will never be, the cynical kind of place that considers its own staff-members as 'performers', and rates them accordingly. The site's charm is that everybody's themselves, nobody's trying too hard, and nobody's going to get kicked off a QL or podcast because the community's complaining. That's what keeps it relaxed, non-businessy, and genuinely funny.
One last thing: I've been here longer than my profile has. Over time, I've definitely noticed that as the number of complaints, ad hominems and one-liners increase in the forums and comments, the staff has started to pay less and less attention to the community. These complaints are making the site a negative place, they have not and will not generate change, and are pushing the team and the community apart. So please, however good your intentions, observe their results, and stop.
I think you are probably right with much of that. It is unfortunate that the dynamic became the giant bomb staff banding together against comments that probably seem unnecessarily rude and personal. So that I will probably buy that, that Patrick is going to always be an on air personality because of the line in the sand drawn ages ago.
That said, Alex is a very behind the scenes guy. I think the choice was probably made he wasn't going to be on air a lot. That doesn't mean he is bad in anyway, just that isn't his talent. Jeff, Ryan, Vinny, Dave are absolutely amazing just casually talking and I would suck being in a room with them as would 99% of people. If Alex suddenly became a major on air person I think the community would object to that, again that is not a bad thing. It is too bad that for Patrick the choice was made to have him be an on-air pillar, and that how well he was received became irrelevant. I say too bad because I honestly believe this opinion of not enjoying him is fairly common, that it is not wrong or mean to feel that way, and that a greater presence of others on-air would make the site stronger.
I don't think viewing the guys as 'entertainers' is cynical and I don't believe paying attention to how videos are received equates with being commercial or not relaxed.
When did pretentious start meaning 'anything that i don't like conveyed with any amount of sincerity'?
I'm not going to pretend I like Patrick in everything, but he has added a different dynamic to the editorial opinions discussed on the site and I think his articles are, for the most part, interesting and well written (His lengthy discussion with that one guy where the basic conclusion about the Mass Effect 3 ending is "Gamers are entitled brats" struck a nerve, as did the one that portrayed Asperger's Syndrome as some sort of horrendously crippling affliction).
As a personality however, he has the tendency to talk out of turn and state his opinion about stuff he isn't very informed about. It's not a problem exclusive to him (indeed, the entire Giant Bomb editorial staff can be considered guilty of talking about the games I like with pure, unadulterated boldfaced ignorance), but it seems more prevalent with him... mostly because he talks too much. I also don't really care for his constant tangents about whatever flavor of the week indie game has caught his eye, but I also don't care much for Jeff talking about whatever flavor of the week generic action game that I am never going to play either.
So in conclusion, this thread is stupid.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment