@GoranP said:
- The discussions and opinions presented through video, audio, and text are starting to not match the scores given to games. The most recent example of this is Halo 4. On one of the recent (if not the most recent) Bombcasts, they spend quite a big chunk of time talking about the negative aspects of the game, only to conclude that it's pretty good. This isn't the first time this has happened, and I find it baffling. Yeah, it's always easier to talk about the cons, but there should be a balance. That or give the game a lower score to reflect your opinions. What's even weirder is when the podcast discussions don't match the review text.
- This is more for 2012 than 11, but the amount of premium content has been rather poor. I'm a fan, on some level I want reasons to subscribe.
I would completely disagree in relation to the to the premium content. Even so far to say that 2012's premium context is better than 2011's. Jeff's Jartime videos, Breaking Brads, Random PC Game, Flight Club videos, Load Our Last Saves, Spooking with Scoops, The Olympic Games Olympiad, the talk radio videos with extended looks as to the changes being made to the site and early looks at it plus the fantastic look at Drew's trip to North Korea, the multiple lantern runs, and not only access to every TNT which people were always wanting but getting them up, as well as the majority of the other premium videos, within 24 hrs. And all of those were very funny and very entertain. Even intellectually stimulating in some cases.
As for the review scores to discussions point, personally I hate when people are offended when for lack of a better word critics, criticize something and then still give it a good score. That is there job. For example, Halo 4. Where do you think 30 mins of talk would be better suited on that topic: 15 min talking about its faults and 15 min talking about its pros, or 30 min where they are left to simply say what their main concerns about the game are? Especially with a game like Halo 4 where we all know the majority of the pros. I mean, do you need them to talk about something in a ratio to the score in order to validate it? Most conversations are best when talking about the cons because that is what leads to discussions. No conversation really goes anywhere simply off of "this was good. and that was good. and this was good." Instead it is much more beneficial to say "Yeah it is a good game but here is what would make it a great game." Plus consider the audience in relation to the topic at hand. 90% of the people here know why Halo is good. You don't need 30 min of Jeff or Ryan or whoever to tell you that. Instead, that time would be better spent hearing what changes could have been implemented. The focus on things of a critique or review of this nature is to facilitate a dialog, not bore you with facts regarding known quantities. Also, why would you ever think that podcast discussions have to match the review text? A review is a review, a podcast discussion is just that. A discussion.
Log in to comment