Giant Bombcast 10-30-2012

The only persons who's opinion I actually care about when it comes to games is my own. The stuff you guys cover in the grand scheme of things is incredibly trivial so I really don't care about your credibility. I come here to be entertained and nothing more.

Just wanted to say thanks a lot for this podcast, this was definitely the best discussion you guys have had in a long while.

I don't know why, but I actually thought that someone from EA put those patch notes in the pizza as a joke.

Sometimes I think things that are dumb.

Putting it out there: All versions of Strider are busted. It was never a good game. Even with that ridiculous sword and him doing flips every time you jump.

Edit: Also, I'd rather be at the other Chris' party than yours, Jeff. You redneck piece of shit. ;D

Very great discussion about the journalism stuff, no wonder it ran for so long.

I really have a problem with most sites that aren't Giantbomb because it often feels like there's an impenetrable wall between us and the people who run them. They're never allowed to be open and explicit about their inner dealings, which makes them seem all the more suspicious.

Gametrailers especially. I remember them announcing "zombie week" with no rhyme or reason on their podcast thing (the only thing I watched from them really); until I discovered later on that it most assuredly had something to do with Black Ops releasing. I don't doubt their journalistic integrity, it just feels dirty that they aren't up front and honest with how they deal with overt corporate sponsorship. I rarely ever see their reviewers in a natural and un-edited setting, which makes it impossible to know how they really are.

@EricSmith said:

Man, Ryan has really overblown how bad AC: Rev is. I didn't play it until a month or so back, and it was fucking fantastic. It isn't as good as Brotherhood or 2, but comparing a game to one that is top grade, it will rarely stack up. It being the worst one in the series isn't even saying much.

The Animus Fragment sections suuucccckkkeed. So I fucking skipped them, same with the tower defense. However, the ending, and the drama that builds between the three playable characters throughout the game is fantastic. It isn't just a Youtube viewing, either. You need that build up. Ryan just seems way to adamant that the game is bad. I don't get it.

I have to agree with all of this. The game additions to AC: Revelations; bombs, tower defense, incomprehensible block puzzles; pretty terrible. But that stuff is all mostly avoidable and everything else you want out of AC is still there. I honestly felt that a lot of the story bits were a lot more satisfactory than all its predecessors. The game is still very much worth playing if you are a fan of the franchise.

There is nothing better in this world then when the Bombcast somehow veers off into Jeff's house/home-life stories. I laugh my ass off every single time.

I've been listening to the Bombcast for the past two years, and this one is definitely one of my favorites. Thanks for keeping things great, Giant Bomb.

@paulunga said:

Putting it out there: All versions of Strider are busted. It was never a good game. Even with that ridiculous sword and him doing flips every time you jump.

*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING* *SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING* *SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*SHING*

@arch4non said:

I really dislike when people call a game easy then go and admit they use backup saves because they made poor choices and killed all their guys in XCOM.

This drives me nuts as well. Does a game being "hard" now just mean that it's frustrating (e.g. no checkpointing)?

Medal of Honor... Doorfighter?

@FierceDeity: I think games can be objectively hard (or harsh), but frustration is subjective. What is the game trying to do, and how well is it doing it? Friday the 13th. Milon's Secret Castle. Batman. Battletoads. I've arranged those 4 very hard NES games in my order of Worst-Best designed, and Most-Least frustrating, because I want to be better at Battletoads it doesn't frustrate me.

Anything Jeff can say about the controls in Dark/Demon Souls games, I can say about the controls in Tekken. They are precise and unforgiving, and if you're not any good, it's frustrating. Skill level and concentration is a direct function of how well you will do.

awesome bombcast, lots of fun, thanks guys

Yeah screw game SE crap

Now for the Cards Against Humanity SE contents

-Includes two figures that you don't have any room on your desk for.

I agree with Vinny on Dishonored. The game is heavily trying to influence you to not kill- I think that's probably a development mistake they can fix in later games though. I don't feel it was intentional.  
 
It does affect the ending you get and some very minute in game stuff but over all it doesn't actually matter and I feel it was a mistake they had so much emphasis on trying to not kill (or at least constantly inferring that doing so is "bad"). Although if you're interested in the story (like me) you'll probably wanna finish it with low chaos. 
 
I just finished and I'm interested now to go back and just kill dudes to see how that plays out. The ending is fine but not as grand as you might want after everything that happens. Much like going low chaos, it kind of ends with a whisper in a way. 
 
It's weird how I can still play through the entirety of a stealth game but most every other game I stop playing at some point. I am not sure why that is, but what I am trying to say is Dishonored is a great game.

Jeff's a NARC too!

For an editor-in-chief of a website, Jeff sure knows a bunch of scumbags.

I think Patrick talks over people too much who want to get a word in, specifically around 2:15　but even still, great podcast

What's the timestamp for the journalism stuff? I haven't time to listen to it all this week.

AWESOME AWESOME BOMBCAST!!!

I thoroughly enjoyed all the candid discussions

Thank you!

Really enjoyed this weeks Bombcast.

Mad respect, Jeff. Everyone else, too. Great episode.

Damn, this was a fantastic Bombcast. Like, one of the very best I've listened to, and I've been listening a long time. And for the record, I, and I think most users here, totally trust you guys and acknowledge your credibility. There's a reason GB's my most visited site.

Patrick, I think you'll enjoy The Walking Dead (the show, not the game) much more if you let go of the belief that the show is supposed to be scary. The Walking Dead's primary intent isn't to scare anybody. It is a character study first and foremost. If it also happens to scare you along the way, hey, great. If not, that's totally fine.

I agree with the "You don't know you're being influenced" line, facetious as it might have been. Those companies spend that money for a reason.

Still, you guys are the site that I trust and I think that you all being able to look at it from other perspectives and clearly see how stupid the whole thing is goes a long way. I think it's the lack of ego that I really appreciate from all of you.

I honestly can't think of a time in the past ten or so years that a review has meant anything to me. I used to care about them back when I was in high school, getting EGMs with 3 reviewers per game, but then I got the internet. There's maybe ten or so people in the gaming press whose opinions I give a fuck about and podcasts convey those opinions well enough.

If Saints Row the Third had gotten 5 stars on this site, I still would have skipped a gangster themed open world game. I haven't liked a GTA game. But I own two copies of SR3 thanks to the podcasts.

@BaconGames said:

At no point will I support an endeavor for GB to stop doing reviews. There have been multiple instances of the QL for a variety of reasons not truly conveying what the product was really about and how it all worked out in the end. Personally I got burned twice when a QL was positive and the game turned out tepid, or the other way around. The staff on very rare occasion have even vocalized this and I think that, while I welcome a new way to review games, the current QL format as it stands is just not set up to give you what reviews can give so I don't consider stopping and focusing on QL's to be the answer.

The fact that their personalities and reputations are so out there and well known is precisely the reason why reviews are crucial because I'm not equipped or knowledgeable about any other websites' stuff to accurately use reviews other than as secondary back-up. So if GB stops doing reviews, I will need to start putting in that much more time to figure out who it is I should refer to and how to interpret this person or that.

I haven't listened to the show yet but if at any point Jeff or other staff voices a desire to stop doing reviews, I will happily voice my stance that reviews from this site matter a whole hell of a lot to me and is a central pillar of the site's editorial voice.

Or you know, you could use your own brain to figure out whether a game is for you or not, instead of relying entirely on the staff of GB to tell you what's good for you. There is an endless amount of media for any game out there that you can use to help you along, I recommend websites such as www.google.com and www.youtube.com.

GB has got this far because it's essentially an entertainment website, that's what sets them apart from the other million video game related sites, it's the sole reason why they survived and thrived in this business. And for each pointless review they put up each week that means there will be one less entertaining piece of content. The sooner they realise this and fully embrace what they are actually good at, the better it will be for everyone.

Patrick couldn't be more wrong about the HD DVD player.

@NTM: Core story sure, but I spent 30 hours in both AC2 and Brotherhood before finishing them because there's so much time to be spent exploring and doing side stuff in that world.

@Dethfish: I feel like Jeff's feelings on Dance Central 3 should be enough to confirm this is not the case.

And if people are still worried, they can just ignore those particular reviews. Personally I trust these guys, or I'd have gone elsewhere by now.

@Y2Ken: Yeah, that's true. I did as well. I heard that this games story was 30 hours though. I'm not saying it is, I'm just stating what I heard. I think I typed that when Patrick or Ryan said that the games campaigns have been lengthy, and 12 hours is a fine length, but not to the length they made it seem. Or did they say it was short and I had something to say on that? Now I don't remember.

Incredible show! This podcast has been going very, very strong far the entirety of its run anyway but now there's even less competition out there I listen to at the moment. And this particular episode was outstanding throughout, really fascinating talk.

Great bombcast as usual (also good to see you guys on OctoberKast). Kind of felt that Jeff was a little harsh on freelancers tbh (easy to do when you're not in that particular wheel house). I know a few and fundamentally they're all passionate about games at the end of the day because the money really isn't that great. Also afaik Wainwright herself didn't tweet the hashtag (though plenty of others did), but she just didn't quite get why it was a big deal. The fact the Patrick assumed she did, highlights the problem with writing an accusatory article like that and naming people. People make the wrong associations ( Walter Sobchak style) and jump to false conclusions. Certainly the writer had a point, but he could of worded it a lot better and it wouldn't of perhaps blown up into the clusterfuck it did. A big deals been made out of his stepping down from writing for Eurogamer as well (contrary to popular opinion he wasn't fired..he just objected to the edit), however it should be noted that games writing is a sideline to his main business of being a comedian (he has a TV series) so it's not like he's embracing unemployment as many believe.

Great Podcast!

Really enjoyed the part about Journalism. :)

Funny how a conversation about what GB is exemplifies what GB is.

best podcast in a while, great mix of stupid amazing stories, and raw dog seriousness

@FierceDeity said:

@arch4non said:

I really dislike when people call a game easy then go and admit they use backup saves because they made poor choices and killed all their guys in XCOM.

This drives me nuts as well. Does a game being "hard" now just mean that it's frustrating (e.g. no checkpointing)?

i think the game being difficult and the fact that they're loading a previous save to circumvent a botched mission are mutually exclusive...

What was this Applebees thing?

@ripelivejam said:

@FierceDeity said:

@arch4non said:

I really dislike when people call a game easy then go and admit they use backup saves because they made poor choices and killed all their guys in XCOM.

This drives me nuts as well. Does a game being "hard" now just mean that it's frustrating (e.g. no checkpointing)?

i think the game being difficult and the fact that they're loading a previous save to circumvent a botched mission are mutually exclusive...

In a game focused on tactics the difficulty lies is minimizing potential risk while leveraging your resources against the enemy for a strong offense. By rolling back to previous saves you are sidestepping the difficult choices you're supposed to be making, removing the difficulty engrained in this type of game. With the difficulty removed it is apparent why someone would call the game easy.

5 hour episodes of The Walking Dead, Ryan Davis? What? Its like 2-3 each.

@arch4non said:

@ripelivejam said:

@FierceDeity said:

@arch4non said:

I really dislike when people call a game easy then go and admit they use backup saves because they made poor choices and killed all their guys in XCOM.

This drives me nuts as well. Does a game being "hard" now just mean that it's frustrating (e.g. no checkpointing)?

i think the game being difficult and the fact that they're loading a previous save to circumvent a botched mission are mutually exclusive...

In a game focused on tactics the difficulty lies is minimizing potential risk while leveraging your resources against the enemy for a strong offense. By rolling back to previous saves you are sidestepping the difficult choices you're supposed to be making, removing the difficulty engrained in this type of game. With the difficulty removed it is apparent why someone would call the game easy.

i misinterpreted what you said initially, my apologies. thought you were maybe calling the bombcrew out on saying the game was difficult when it really wasn't dues to utilizing save games (as patrick stated he did for the final mission), so yeah reading comprehension 101.

i think it's kinda dark souls syndrome too. some people will distort their reality in any way to feel superior. it's ok to man up and admit a game is pretty grueling or difficult, and that you may have had to grind/cheat a little to make it manageable...

Thank you so much for the Eurogamer/Wainwright discussion guys. The original article did seem to stink of bitterness and/or elitism (naming people then immediately after saying he's above naming people), but these questions need to be asked. In any walk of life I wonder about anybody who likes something unconditionally, from video games to political parties. You should always be questioning and wondering. I don't like the witchhunt tone that this thing is taking, but as a public figure Lauren needs to expect these questions to be asked of her.

I never had any trust problems with GB. I think there is enough content of them just saying what they feel, be it the E3 podcasts, the jar time videos, or just them talking ont he bombcast, we hear so much of their opinion, they are open about what is going on. Whenever a big site thing happens, they are always up front and open to take questions, and just seeing them do things that other website don't do. I like the transparency, not so much so I can trust them, it's because I am honestly interested in that side of the game media.

@DexterKid said:

@BaconGames said:

At no point will I support an endeavor for GB to stop doing reviews. There have been multiple instances of the QL for a variety of reasons not truly conveying what the product was really about and how it all worked out in the end. Personally I got burned twice when a QL was positive and the game turned out tepid, or the other way around. The staff on very rare occasion have even vocalized this and I think that, while I welcome a new way to review games, the current QL format as it stands is just not set up to give you what reviews can give so I don't consider stopping and focusing on QL's to be the answer.

The fact that their personalities and reputations are so out there and well known is precisely the reason why reviews are crucial because I'm not equipped or knowledgeable about any other websites' stuff to accurately use reviews other than as secondary back-up. So if GB stops doing reviews, I will need to start putting in that much more time to figure out who it is I should refer to and how to interpret this person or that.

I haven't listened to the show yet but if at any point Jeff or other staff voices a desire to stop doing reviews, I will happily voice my stance that reviews from this site matter a whole hell of a lot to me and is a central pillar of the site's editorial voice.

Or you know, you could use your own brain to figure out whether a game is for you or not, instead of relying entirely on the staff of GB to tell you what's good for you. There is an endless amount of media for any game out there that you can use to help you along, I recommend websites such as www.google.com and www.youtube.com.

GB has got this far because it's essentially an entertainment website, that's what sets them apart from the other million video game related sites, it's the sole reason why they survived and thrived in this business. And for each pointless review they put up each week that means there will be one less entertaining piece of content. The sooner they realise this and fully embrace what they are actually good at, the better it will be for everyone.

I'm just starting the podcast, but I thought I'd chime in on this subject and echo BaconGames' sentiment. They are an entertainment website, it is what sets them apart, but I consider the information I get on this website as vital to informing my gaming decisions. I do use my own mind to figure out whether a game is for me or not, but the crews' tastes are so clear cut, their editorial voices strong, their integrity proven, and I put faith in what they say when they publish a review of a product. There are plenty of other resources for me to utilize, but I don't want to. It's part of what got me to stick around here, and I don't feel like getting familiar with another site.

I come to Giantbomb for random craziness not informed games coverage but I love the podcast

@xxizzypop said:

@DexterKid said:

@BaconGames said:

At no point will I support an endeavor for GB to stop doing reviews. There have been multiple instances of the QL for a variety of reasons not truly conveying what the product was really about and how it all worked out in the end. Personally I got burned twice when a QL was positive and the game turned out tepid, or the other way around. The staff on very rare occasion have even vocalized this and I think that, while I welcome a new way to review games, the current QL format as it stands is just not set up to give you what reviews can give so I don't consider stopping and focusing on QL's to be the answer.

The fact that their personalities and reputations are so out there and well known is precisely the reason why reviews are crucial because I'm not equipped or knowledgeable about any other websites' stuff to accurately use reviews other than as secondary back-up. So if GB stops doing reviews, I will need to start putting in that much more time to figure out who it is I should refer to and how to interpret this person or that.

I haven't listened to the show yet but if at any point Jeff or other staff voices a desire to stop doing reviews, I will happily voice my stance that reviews from this site matter a whole hell of a lot to me and is a central pillar of the site's editorial voice.

Or you know, you could use your own brain to figure out whether a game is for you or not, instead of relying entirely on the staff of GB to tell you what's good for you. There is an endless amount of media for any game out there that you can use to help you along, I recommend websites such as www.google.com and www.youtube.com.

GB has got this far because it's essentially an entertainment website, that's what sets them apart from the other million video game related sites, it's the sole reason why they survived and thrived in this business. And for each pointless review they put up each week that means there will be one less entertaining piece of content. The sooner they realise this and fully embrace what they are actually good at, the better it will be for everyone.

I'm just starting the podcast, but I thought I'd chime in on this subject and echo BaconGames' sentiment. They are an entertainment website, it is what sets them apart, but I consider the information I get on this website as vital to informing my gaming decisions. I do use my own mind to figure out whether a game is for me or not, but the crews' tastes are so clear cut, their editorial voices strong, their integrity proven, and I put faith in what they say when they publish a review of a product. There are plenty of other resources for me to utilize, but I don't want to. It's part of what got me to stick around here, and I don't feel like getting familiar with another site.

What are you talking about? So they are loud, opinionated and don't seem to be shady, so I might as well let them do my thinking for me? Is that your logic?

It's not about whether you use these reviews or some others site's reviews, the point is that you don't need to use reviews period. If you are old enough (i.e older than 14 or something) to know what you like and be confident in your own opinions, and you care enough about games to pay some attention to gaming media as a whole (i.e trailers, gameplay videos, podcasts, wikis, forums, demos, etc) then you don't really need Jeff Gertsmann telling you whether he thinks Halo 4 is a 5/5 or 4/5 before deciding if you want to play it or not.

There are scientists figuring out how to put robots on Mars; something like figuring out whether a game is for you, in this day and age, shouldn't be a difficult thing for an able-minded human being to accomplish.

Best Bombcast in ages! Not saying that they've been bad recently, this one was just really great. From the tale of Chris with the White Car to the extended (and genuinely thought provoking) games journalism discussion at the end, top quality all the way through.

With regard to AC Revelations, I was one of the ones who was swayed by the initial lukewarm response, and didn't pick it up. With time fast running out before AC3's release, I looked up Rev's ending on youtube and thought it was really quite good. It kinda made me sad I didn't play through the entire game to get to that point. I may yet play through it anyway.

If you really want closure on Ezio's story, seek out the animated "AC Embers" short. It's a surprisingly touching CG animation that brings Ezio's story to a close with a poignancy I was not expecting.

I would say Giant Bomb is the only major video game website I trust. Any other reviewer or personality in the industry I'll listen to tends to be smaller Youtube people like TotalBiscuit or Angry Joe or something.

where the FUCK are the emails

Jeez all this talk about video game ethics. Gag me with a spune.

I'd like to see the Dishonored video Patrick was talking about with the guy playing all action-y, if anyone knows where to find it. :D

@DexterKid: You're coming off condescending as hell about this.

I use a review in lieu of having to watch scads of promotional material, which frankly, I find boring and don't give much merit in the first place. I keep track of the releases I'm interested in, maybe watch a video or two, read an article, and have a malleable opinion which is then influenced by the reviews. If it's positive, I'll give a game a rent, perhaps a buy. If it's negative, I'll look further in to it and see why people don't like it. It's not a matter of needing them to give a game a score assessment, but the actual review itself is informative, because it is thought it, it is structured, and generally written post-completion, offering you a the view of a person who has seen all of the necessary parts of a game.

I put faith in the words of the reviews here because, yes, if you want to trivialize it, they're loud, they're opinionated, and they don't seem to be shady. I know what I like, and because they are vocal, I know what they like. If our tastes align then 90% of the time, I feel the same way about a game as whoever reviews it.

As an able-minded human being, I opt to use the resources that I prefer to inform whether or not I will purchase a game. Their experience is their own, and while it may help to shape my opinion, it does not create it.

Perhaps you're right though in one respect: I don't think I do care about gaming media as a whole. I've become incredibly casual about it, though I still enjoy them. So having something in front of me that says either

• 'Hey, this game is good, and here is why, some stuff is messed up but it's still really great and you should get it,'
• 'Hey, this game is alright, there's some neat concepts but there's a few critical things wrong with it, maybe give it a try,'
• or 'Hey, this game is ass, if it looked interesting to you then I'm sorry, here are all the things wrong with it, you probably shouldn't buy this.'

is something I appreciate. It's no different to me than reading a review of a product ordered through Amazon.