If I am not invested in the GB, then why am I subscribing?

Let me begin by saying, there is a dilemma for me:

- Every time I watch Giant Bomb trying to do something not obviously in their wheelhouse, I inevitably want to help them to do better.

- But every time I think of doing so, I think of people who will inevitably sneer at comments trying to help as "taking it too seriously".

So here is my problem:

- IF I am not invested in the "meta", then why am I subscribing from day 1 and now all the way to Y2019?

- IF I am invested, then why should I take those kind of sneers silently? Isn't it just human nature to help?

What does GB team prefer?

- Does it want constructive help, or no help at all?

- IF GB team want constructive help, then should we do something about those sneers?

My personal view:

- This whole video-game-journalism business is based a lot on emotions and personality.

- If I should feel ashamed for getting angry looking at a badly played game (while happy to see the dynamics), then why should I be subscribing?

Peace.

You're overthinking this duder. GB puts out the content it wants to put out and you get to decide if you want to pay for that or not. If you feel the need to subscribe, then comment away and turn off your notifications. You do you.

@darth_navster said:

You are right.

But it's hard to read through sneer comments, even if they are not directed at me.

The gist of my thinking is:

- The reason I am angry is because I am invested. "Invested viewers" are exactly what GB want, right?

- So the more I pay, the more I want to make suggestions, as a royal fan, you know?

I am not asking for refund or stop subscribing or anything. But I think the sneers are toxic as they just scold off good guys, but keep the bad ones arguing...

You said it yourself. "Constructive criticism ". If you're not a jerk the staff will take your comments into consideration. Of course we don't live in a world where things like this are "black and white" but if you're not a jerk, respect should follow. The GB crew and community are really cool about that.

Couldn't what you consider "sneers" simply be statements of disagreement with your position? There are plenty of paying subscribers (myself included) who either don't mind or are entertained by so-called "bad gameplay".

In any case, if you do find the sneers so bad why bother with the comments section? Tweet, Tumblr, or e-mail the staff with your feedback. The crew hears your comments and you don't have to worry about being harassed.

@coldblood said:

I am arguing: The community (not crews) is not cool about people taking a game seriously, or downright sneer at them for asking crews to at least prepare a bit.

I am not going to quote comments because if you look around you can plainly see them.

Of course, I can also stop reading comments (just like I do on Youtube). And that's the ultimate solution, right?

Hey folks, being dismissive and sneering in a thread about someone not being cool with dismissive and sneering comments isn't cool. Please either respond seriously or don't respond.

There's nothing wrong with being invested, you're right about that. Those are the fans that GB (or anybody) wants. And you're right that sneery commenters being shitty when you're trying to give criticism are not cool.

I think the breakdown in your logic is -- when you give notes, it's frustrating when the person you're giving them to doesn't take them. Even if you know that it's realistically unlikely that they'll see your comment and change their playstyle, that's still in your mind when you're giving notes, so that's naturally going to lead to some annoyance. And on some level you're assuming that they would want to do things differently than they're currently doing them. It's natural when you see somebody playing a game "wrong" to assume that they'd rather play it "right," but that's probably not the case here.

This is how they like their videos to be. It's kinda on you to either accept that or not.

I think this comes up with any fandom like in bands.

There will exist a divide in which one group will essentially accept whatever the content creator puts out and they can do no wrong (or the margin of error is so low such that it's basically negligible). Or if there is a conflict between what they like and what the content is then they will simply not watch it to solve the problem that way and will suggest that you do the same.

The other group takes a more serious/passionate/critical (however you wanna look at it) stance and wants the product/content to be as good as it can be. Whether it's because they see the content as more of an art that can and should be criticized or they feel personally invested that they feel an onus to chime in on how they think the content can be improved (usually the former for band fandoms as it's more reasonable to critique the music than think that the band members will take feedback), either way, the conflict for this group galvanizes them to speak up and that's how they like to solve the problem.

I think it's more of a preference because at the end of the day, everyone is spending their x dollars so there's no right or wrong or good or bad guys.

@df: "- But every time I think of doing so, I think of people who will inevitably sneer at comments trying to help as "taking it too seriously".

Don't let that stop you, because A. you spent your money too and B. don't waste your energy worrying about how people will react to your comment cause 1. you're thinking more about yourself than others are, 2. who gives a shit about them and 3. it's a fool's errand to try to please everyone anyways.

Sorry, didn't mean to lump the gb crew in with what you were saying. But to make my point more clearly, being respectful is always the way to go. Loud angry people are not the majority here even though it may seem that way sometimes and if the majority (the more respectful, non-jerks) fill out the comments sections, than maybe we can help silence all the sneer. That being said, the internet, and world at large is filled with all types of people and it is tricky on how all of us can "get along." Sorry if this post seems a little disjointed, but these are my thoughts at the moment.

my 2 cents is: @[the staff member] and frame it as, "hey jeff- got a hot tip for ya- don't stand in the fire."

if you frame your criticism as if it is friendly advice (and frankly, it should be)- i don't think anyone is going to jump down your throat- staff or otherwise. but if it's yet another "OMG YER DOIN IT WRONG" no one will listen to that.

it's cliche, but what they say about "you catch more flies with honey..." is especially true in comments section. if you keep it positive, others will vibe with that.

Public figures on the internet get advice on every thing they do, no matter what, whether they want it or not. Some of the staff here has openly lamented how much advice they get. Any of the full-playthrough series (the MGS series is a perfect example) are completely overflowing with comments from viewers metaphorically screaming in all-caps for them to use a different weapon, or notice a different upgrade path, or please for the love of fucking god go talk to that merchant. Sometimes, it's even known upfront that the videos have all already been recorded, and that therefore this 'advice' will go unheeded. Why someone who knows their advice will never reach its intended audience feels compelled to give it in the first place is a very good, relevant question - one which speaks specifically to why people give unsolicited advice in the first place. It's, more often than not, for their own edification.

I understand that you want to see them play better because you would enjoy the videos more. Fine. If, however, you feel that you've paid for the right to give advice on how to produce 'better' content, I think you're mistaken on exactly what the goal of the content is in the first place. Outside of specific series in which a staff member is trying to beat a game, rarely if ever is the goal to play the games 'well'. It's just to play the games.

As for whether or not the GB crew want help at all: surely they are interested in feedback in general, but as a longtime viewer and listener, some staff members have made it perfectly clear that they get more corrections and advice on just about every public action they take than they know what to do with. I don't really think it's always our place to give advice on playing games better.

In the end, I think advice gets 'sneers' because nobody asked for it, it's entirely possible that the intended audience will never read it, there's so, so much of it, and those giving it are often flat-out offended by someone's play style.

Let me just take a concrete example of this.

In Kingdom Heartache episode 2 , we saw a lot of people dislike the bit where Ben managed to gather all the items, and was finally going to trigger the cutscene. The payoff to an hour of searching. As he did this he turned to Jeff and went like 'so uhh tell me your top 3 historic subjects in school. or top 1 , whatever.' And that came across like the bit of hating the game was more important than whatever Jeff would answer and was more of an excuse for them to not look at the screen.

So naturally, people complained about it. A lot. And Ben did notice that. Which meant that during episode 4, we saw him say to Jason ' Ssshhh.. Don't talk, there's a cutscene! We can't talk' . Which is a sneer to the audience. But at the end of the day, the feedback has been heard and now it's a series where they still shoot the shit, but are less hamming up the bit that they're not supposed to like anything about the game.

In the end, being honest about the product can lead to them picking up the feedback and improving the product. But even when that's not the case, you might still give a better view to the audience by explaining stuff. During the Shenmue playthrough, there were 2-3 Shenmue lovers that would post these elaborate posts about japanese culture and what the crew could have done in the game, and all kinds of secret stuff. Even if they never get to read that, some viewers will. I find that more valuable than the numerous comments that simply laugh it off as a bad game.

Hell, i thought the whole Kingdom Hearts series turned into hot garbage,and wasn't worth playing. But someone posted this KH lecture, and i heard about the weird stuff that happens in later games. Now i have at least a morbid curiosity to see how the writers manage to tell this story coherently to their audience. Especially since it felt like Kingdom Hearts 1 was designed to be light on text reading as a game marketed to kids / teens.

Frankly the reason I watch these guys play games is because it's mostly a comedy of errors.

If I wanted to see them play "better" I could watch 1,000 other videos on YouTube.

I think there's a bit of a stigma going all the way back to their Persona 4 Endurance Run. That was kind of the ur-example of people going hardcore on Jeff and Vinny about "playing the right way" and etc, and they would make jokes about those people and even outright state how aggravating it was years later.

The thing that a lot of people don't think about when it comes to criticism, is that when you're being critical you too are opening yourself up to criticism. So if you want to say something about what's happening in a video, then say it. You will have some people disagree and some other people agree. Also you should understand, that if you're feeling strongly about something that you find annoying, there is more than likely someone that feels the opposite.

Most responses aren't going to be too combative, unless you're being overly harsh, or saying something inflammatory. So just post how you feel, but don't be awful about it.

Listen if what you want to offer is genuine advice then go for it, nobody willing to shout that down is particularly worth engaging with anyway.

Just..try your best not to be like 'You're doing this wrong, do the way that I would instead'.

I am not quite following your logic. Being a Giant Bomb Premium member only entitles you to premium videos and podcasts, no ads, and occasional perks like joining multiplayer games. Subscribing doesn't mean the GB staff will read and apply every piece of advice or criticism thrown their way. Yeah, constructive criticism would help anyone, but you shouldn't take it personally if someone on the GB crew doesn't heed it. Maybe they've found their own groove and enjoy playing games their way. Or maybe they like learning and discovering things on their own. The GB staff still reads comments from subscribers and non-subscribers alike, so you shouldn't feel like you need a badge next to your name for them to read your feedback. If you became a premium member thinking everyone at GB will read and apply everything you've said to them, then you had misguided expectations.

Also, I don't see how subscribing makes you immune to the parts of the GB community that you don't like, or don't agree with your thoughts. If watching games played badly makes you angry, then I suggest you not watch videos of people playing games differently from how you play them. And if you assumed that investing money would guarantee that GB plays games how you would want them to be played, then I'm sorry, that's not what being a premium member entitles you to do.

I would not pay for a community drive site/product. I have zero interest in providing feedback on a creative product for which I pay. I pay for their expertise/judgment regarding entertaining/informative content.

In other words, I pay so that I do not need to engage.

Give feedback in a mature and respectful way. The crew is not entitled to listen to it because you are a subscriber, but they might.

I comment feedback a lot, and sometimes if it is specific enough, I'll PM the relevant person on staff. Often there isn't a direct response or clear change in content, which is to be expected (I am one voice in a sea of comments) but I'm fine with that because I don't expect it. However, it is clear that they do pay attention because: I've seen them make changes based on feedback before, respond to me personally (which I always appreciate and try not to waste their time) and they've said they do multiple times (including on appearances like the 1099 podcast - in Vinny's interview he even mentions calling people to chat with them). Just try not get swept up into stressing yourself over expecting a response. It's an easy thing to do; I'm not immune to it but it's a lot less daunting if you don't expect any return when you send feedback. Plus, when they do respond, its a nice surprise.

As for other users, honestly I've found that the sneering comments tend to be general and not @ing me directly. I certainly get replies, but most people who go to the point of replying are respectful and inquisitive. Try not to be bothered by the general ones who see feedback as some sort of antithesis to Giant Bomb. The staff are smart people, they're perfectly capable of choosing themselves which comments to listen to and which to ignore. As long as you're being respectful, it should be fine.

So what if people don't like you pointing out things they're missing/getting wrong? Do it anyway.

Dan's Quick Look of Metro Redux wasn't helpful to anybody. Wasn't really entertaining either.

We absolutely welcome and encourage constructive criticism. We also absolutely welcome and encourage people who disagree with your constructive criticism and any discourse that might be generated as a result.

If you're voicing reasonable concerns in a valid and civil manner, and other people are responding with "calm down" or "it's just a website about videogames", feel free to flag those comments - inane or dismissive comments (in the context of a mature discussion at least) are not welcome here, regardless of whether they're aimed at the staff or defending them. Ultimately we want to encourage meaningful discussion, not belittle it.

- If I should feel ashamed for getting angry looking at a badly played game (while happy to see the dynamics), then why should I be subscribing?

The difficulty here is that a lot of people don't understand what constructive criticism is. "You need to be better at videogames and I'm annoyed because you're bad" isn't constructive. At some point you'll have to come to terms with the fact that the staff aren't professional eSports players and that they have their own way of enjoying videogames - you're either on board with that or you're not, and if you're not then you're not obligated to watch. For example I don't watch the Murder Island series because, as someone who has spent so long actively trying to improve my understanding of Battlegrounds, it's very frustrating watching someone play who is not actively taking the same interest. But I'm also happy to watch everyone goof around in X-Com 2. That's just personal preference, and getting upset about it is a waste of time.

I will just add a quick footnote here:

- I am OK with crews not taking advices from comment section, that's their decisions to make.

- I am NOT OK seeing people sneer at other people for being serious about a game, that's toxic.

People are going to give advice because they are invested:

- IF you think someone is attacking crews, call them out, don't generalise by saying "part of the GB community are crazy".

- IF you don't like people giving concrete advices, call them out and give your reasons, don't generalise by saying "people are taking this too seriously".

That's all I am asking for.

It's simple. Don't offer help to people who don't ask for it.

I totally understand getting irked at bad play when it's a game you really care about. I have the same feelings, but I make an effort (and not always a successful effort) to avoid posting that kind of criticism these days.

Ultimately, I pay $50 a year because I like the crew and like to hear their take on games and other nonsense. I would not pay actual money to watch drones with no personality being really good at video games.

That quick look kinda made me renew my sub. It was about to expire about a month after this and I wasn't sure about the new hires at that time. This hysterical video solidified my enjoyment of Dan.

Just like criticism can be nonconstructive, so can the reaction to criticism and it's not just exclusive to this site but any fandom. So really the only thing to do is contact the mods when things get out of hand and let them sort it out, you're not going to change everybody or control how they react to things but when things get out of hand the threads can get closed and bans/warnings handed out.

And I think constructive criticism is/should always welcome just don't start personally attacking people or only talking about how much you dislike one person or another, that's not constructive

We need to stop saying "meta".

My biggest issue is that they play games the way they do for a reason. They don’t play games poorly because they are negligent. The point of stuff like Quick Looks isn’t to be a clear guide through the game’s features: it’s a first play to show what the game is like to jump into. At least usually. If they choose to invest more time up front, it’s because they feel that would be more valuable. For example in an annual franchise they tend to put more prep time in playing he games and stuff because they want to show how the game has progressed. Another example would be a game they discovered or put more value into as individuals or as a crew and so they put time into it.

I understand your perspective to an extent, but Giant Bomb is not here to play everything well and dive in deep and certainly not to be the end all be all coverage source on any given game. Even games that they invest a lot of the site to like PUBG aren’t taken as seriously as a marketing campaign for that game or a fan base for a game might take it.

Ultimately it is valid to say “boy I wish they did x and y” but you have to recognize that they are doing their best to deliver their brand of coverage out there, not a crowd sourced identity. It is the Giant Bomb experience. Where constructive criticism or suggestions would likely be better placed would be how to better deliver that experience, not how to change it.

Some of my favorite content on the site has been the guys butchering some of my favorite stuff in the industry. See any content covering ArmA. When I want a different experience from coverage of titles like that I go elsewhere. I don’t pay the sub fee because of that sort of content.

I kinda equate it to going to see a stand up comedian or something. People will yell out with things they think are funny that the comedian will riff off of. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, so,etimes it is annoying to a comedian and may be considered heckling. Then there are people like me who usually get annoyed that someone is trying to participate in the show. It's not quite the same since comment sections aren't interrupting the enjoyment of the show, but if you're watching someone play a game that you already know about you're sort of ruining their experience by trying to direct them. You as someone giving advice on a game were not solicited for advice and you most likely didn't get advice when you discovered the game.

One could argue that people who stream publicly probably give up the liberty of being able to play a game criticism free given that they are doing so publicly, and I'd probably agree. But the way I view it is you're either along for the ride or your not. Back seat driving comes across more as someone trying to direct the experience to their play style rather than just experiencing how someone on the crew is playing the game.

Say what you want to say about the site and about how it can be better. Don't worry about people coming after you for voicing your opinion, you are just trying to help. And if you feel that the site isn't improving, there is no shame in unsubscribing.

I don't come to GiantBomb for up to date video game analysis or really news on the games industry. It is my main source for this stuff, but I will go to other sources for more in depth stuff. For me, GB is personality driven and that's what I'm here for and what I have been here for since day one. There is a lot of content - A LOT - that I have missed either due to limitations of time, or because they haven't interested me.

I'm an unapologetic Dan 'fan' and love what he has added to the site. For me, the site would be far less without his involvement and enthusiasm.

That being said, I think it is pretty reasonable to be able to offer constructive criticism where you want to - provided that you keep in mind that this won't always be taken on board. In Beast in the East for example, Dan was spamming through the text pretty quickly (pretty much like I do when I play games), but this made for poor viewing. They took this feedback on board and mostly amended it following this.

I think that's because this criticism was well phrased and offered rather than; "I hate Dan, he's a selfish and arrogant dick". Ben's style kind of grates with me - I don't really enjoy what he is doing that much. However he's also new to the site, so I'll let him settle in. If it continues clashing with what I like, I don't find it so frustrating that it 'ruins' content for me. If it does 'ruin' any content, I'll watch some of the million other things that GB produce. However, if I think there is a distinct area in which GB can improve, I'll offer up my two cents - maybe in a forum, or in a tweet or email to the Bomb/Beast Cast. If they ignore me though, that's cool too. It's actually still kind of weird being able to contact 'content creators' (ugh) directly.

Lately on the site though I am sensing a bit of a shift in tone in the community. There seem to be a large number of new members, or rather, new to subscription or to the forums who are wavering between making interesting contributions but also are starting a million threads on various inane topics or having a million threads about the same game. Then there's also the 'established' community who've been here a long time, who are sometimes quite reasonable but are also sometimes pretty set in their ways.

The issue becomes that there are many, many, MANY types of criticism. You see it in that Metro video posted above: people losing their minds because the duders aren't "playing the game right," and that's gone ALL the way back to the Persona 4 Endurance Run. I was wading into those comments from Day 1, and they were/are INSUFFERABLE (especially since they were getting through the game just fine withOUT all the hottest, most esoteric strats they'd have needed a walkthrough for).

Then there are the handholders, and they get in with the kind of comments I mentioned before: the people who, for some reason, come to this site for the hottest of play and get infuriated when someone does something against their beautiful, pure, min/maxed view. Check out any Souls comments for these in abundance.

And then there are the genuinely helpful comments, like so many in Yakuza 0.

And of course there are reductionist fucks on both sides: those that take what I've listed and just get mean about it, and those that take any criticism, valid or otherwise, against their boys (and girl) as a personal attack because they've attached their ego to a thing they enjoy.

My advice? Stay on forums and out of comments.

@undeadpool: and never, EVER, look at the comments on the YouTube page (good advice generally)

You want your advice to be heard and validated but you don't want to consider anyone else's advice to you. Try not taking it so seriously. Don't just brush that recommendation off as sneer. Try it. There's content on here I've found too grating or boring and I choose to just not watch that stuff.

I don't know how the team make decisions about features, but from what I've gathered from "Jar Time", podcasts and other content, is that how they decide what to create comes from a number of places.

In TV, for example a channel would look at ratings and say "this show failed to get the 3 million viewers we expected, so we won't be commissioning a second series." I think GB, do look at how many views a video has, but I think they also make videos because they want to make them for various reasons. And because it's not all about the ratings, I think they are more open to criticism and advice. That being said, I don't think they want to be told how to play a game. I watched an early Kerbal video yesterday and Vinny basically said that he didn't mind comments that told him how to work out how much fuel he needed, but he didn't want to be told how to build the rocket because he wanted to learn how to do it himself. He just wanted to have fun with his friends a learn how to get a Kerbal to the moon and back. And that's what I like about GB. If I wanted to see a really professional Kerbal run, there are other places to go, rather than trying to make this that place.

However, I think there are times when the team need feedback. Take the new X-Com feature for example. I feel that three of the four people involved want to play well, and one is playing "in character" and is in danger of spoiling it for the others. There are quite a few mean comments on the latest video about it and while Dan has done things to annoy me right back to his Game Informer days, that is what he does (and he knows a lot of people do like his shtick) and nobody has to watch. There are 100s of other videos to watch on GB so all the people who are moaning in that thread could give constructive criticism or just go and watch something else, which is what I did. But if you are going to offer constructive criticism, it does have to be constructive, not just "Abby should kill Dan next episode". And if you offer proper criticism and an "Abby needs to kill Dan next episode" person responds to you, does it matter? They weren't your intended audience.

In short, if you don't like a video, you don't have to watch it. If you don't like another users response to your constructive criticism of a video, do you really care?

Also, this whole post is probably a rambling mess due to sleep deprivation. Never let your husband go away for a night when you have a new born...

Maybe you should invest the money you give these people on GiantBomb, who are on a CBS-payroll for years now, into the actual industry instead. The GiantBombers do not really care about their fanbase, most of them don't even read their own forums and instead go on twitter rants or whatever. Therefore it does not really matter whether you give constructive feedback or not, they can't bothered to read it. Pump out another half-baked Thursday Night Throwdown clone or whatever and call it a day, is their new modus operandi now.

And yeah, maybe it's not really that important to get invested into celebrities or websites like these. Occasionally they manage to produce good quick looks and sometimes Jeff shows up at the weekly podcast. If half the time they can't be bothered to look of the price of a game they're covering or the platform availability, you should not bother with feedback either.

@thephantompear: You're making some real wild assumptions there.
Also they have gotten much better at announcing the price and platform in Quick Looks because of the constructive feedback from fans. And just yesterday they started the bombcast post-show where they were taking calls and answering questions in chat. So claiming that they don't care at all about their fans is crazy.

When it comes to your GB subscription and level of investment, I think you need to assign your own value to it and make your mind up from there. For example, I only watch GBWest content. I don't like GBEast so I don't watch their videos, which cuts the amount of videos I watch by half. Do I feel short-changed? No, because the GBWest content is worth the subscription for me. No one can tell you why you are subscribing, you have your own reasons, and that's fine.

Oooooooooh yeah. Across ALL channels.

I can think of two reasons why people would do exactly what you are complaining about:

A) They actually like what/how they are doing it and don't want things to change.

B) They don't like how you have voiced your concern, people here are invested to some degree and can take it personally when they perceive their "crew" is being attacked.

As long as bother sides keep it civil I think it's fine and it certainly wouldn't bother me.

I hear ya, lately I've been struggling with whether or not I want to continue my sub as well.

On one hand, I love the team and I want to support them but other than UPF I'm just not at all interested in ANY of their current premium content.
I could give a damn about:
Mario Sunshine
PUBG
Kingdom Hearts
DoTA
XCOM
Megaman (I like this series but watching Alex go hit for hit with every enemy is getting old)

If Jeff did a weekly Old Games Show, or Vinny dove back into something weird in his wonderful way maybe I'd be more interested but the current slate of content is terrible IMHO. I miss being introduced to strange new things on this site, Patrick basically single handedly got me into the Indie scene and Austin's table top gaming was fun and different, Drew's interest in the strange world of simulators and Russian war tech always left me wanting more.

I'm not trying to look on the past with rose tinted glasses, I'm just trying to illustrate how varied the content used to be. All I'm seeing right now is the same 6 games (listed above)played in a different order every week. As much as I love the crew and want to support them, I don't feel great about paying for a bunch of content I wont watch.

It's pretty annoying if someone says they should pay more attention to the game they're playing and gets replies of "If you want a pro LP (or something along those lines) don't watch giant bomb" as if paying attention to a game you're playing isn't something people should expect from a feature specifically about a game.

A lot of good advice in this thread but to answer you directly this was said before but I'll reiterate it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion/advice/criticism just as I am entitled to my opinion/advice/criticism about your opinion/advice/criticism. If you think someone is being overly harsh, unfair or "sneery" flag the comment and let the mods take it from there.

Other than that I don't know. Do you boo.

As long as you come from a place of respect and understanding you will get no sneering out of me.

No. That doesn't apply for a paid service that you are trying to improve. The GB staff are paid employees of CBS but for that they have to thank their audience, if we make suggestions it should be the first thing they look at. Of course, they should discard anything but civil suggestions though.