Giant Bombcast 10-30-2012

It would be really great if Patrick could stop talking over people when they are trying to make a point, he does it continually in this podcast. I have held my tongue before, I like Patrick, but it's gone too far and it is noticeably lessening the quality, and my personal enjoyment, of the bombcast. 
 
ONE DOES NOT SIMPLY TALK OVER JEFF GURSTMANN!

@xxizzypop: You are right, I am being condescending. I'm sorry but I find your position on this whole thing to be downright laughable. Like I said, if you are quite young and/or new to games then I can understand feeling the need to just take someone else's word on the standards and trends of the medium until you can feel confident enough to decide for yourself. But otherwise, it boggles my mind that people who regularly visit a niche gaming site like this still haven't reached a point in their lives where they can easily figure out whether a game is for them or not just from the constant exposure of media on any game that comes out in this day and age.

And no I wasn't just talking about promotional material, I was talking about all media, including websites dedicated to housing tons of information and/or video footage of games, such as the very site that we are posting on right now; as well as countless others. I don't fundamentally have an issue with a body of text that informs the reader of facts about a product, my problem is with the ridiculous notion of 'objectivity' when talking about games. If Jeff writes a review about a shooting game and decides that he is going to give it a low score because the basic shooting mechanic didn't feel right to him, the assumption is that all people who play this game are also going to feel the same way about the shooting. And therefore that 2/5, or whatever, is a warning to everyone that the shooting in this game is off so the whole thing isn't worth your time on the count of it being a shooting game. But what if I happen to give that game a try by chance, and realise that I in fact find the shooting to be really fun and therefore end up loving the game. In that case I would have felt pretty fucking stupid if I had decided to ignore the game just by taking Jeff's word about the feel of the shooting.

A good example is Red Dead Redemption, which is a game I absolutely love and think it's one of the greatest games I have ever played. But I remember that at some point Jeff came out and said he hated everything about the way that game played. Now they ended up not reviewing that game for whatever reason. But imagine if Jeff had reviewed it and given it a low score cause he didn't enjoy it, and I had avoided that game based on his word instead of going with my own instinct that was telling me I should play this game since it looks like something I would like. That would be pretty damn tragic wouldn't it?

Or look at it another way. Ryan gave Assassin's Creed Revelations a rather positive review and a score of 4/5, which is supposedly like saying that it's a great game and you should play it. Now if you didn't know that and had instead listened to Ryan talk about this game on the various bombcasts since that review, you would think that he had given it a 2/5 at most. Why is this? Is it because for whatever reason his opinion changed on the game in retrospect? Maybe. Or was it that he never really like it to begin with, and that 4/5 came from him taking an 'objective' view on the game and ignoring his own personal feelings on it? Another example is Max Payne 3, also a 4/5 by Ryan, but yet again the discussions that followed were far more negative in comparison, and had Ryan again backtracking on his initial opinion. So what is the point of the review here? Is it to try and guess the perceived quality of a game in the eyes of the majority, or is it meant to be the personal opinion of the writer? And also how can you take a reviewers word as gospel, when he is just human and his feelings can be just as malleable as yours?

These reviewers are just like you and I, people who like games and like talking about them, and just because they get paid to project from a large platform, it doesn't mean that their views and feelings on games are any more valid than ours.

If the issue is the fear of wasting money, then you just have to not feel the need to spend full price on a newly released game each month. Like you said it yourself, you can always take a chance on a game that you rent. Or if possible play a demo first. Or if you are anything like me, then you are so overwhelmed by the number of games that you want to play, that by the time you get around to wanting to play any given game, then it's already available at a deep discount. So I don't feel this pressure of ''Oh I don't want to make this day one, big investment on a game that I might not like, so I need someone to tell me this game is good so I feel better about my purchase''

Very interesting bombcast, i trust GB with this stuff.

XD

A few parts of the prequels were perfectly fine. Obi going to Kamino in Ep. 2, I still think is fucking awesome. Best planet in SW.

I also think people forget how utterly generic and poorly acted the original trilogy was, and place it on some sort of nostalgia pedestal. Whenever I watch Star Wars, I don't really have a problem watching all six.

@chaosnovaxz said:

XD

A few parts of the prequels were perfectly fine. Obi going to Kamino in Ep. 2, I still think is fucking awesome. Best planet in SW.

I also think people forget how utterly generic and poorly acted the original trilogy was, and place it on some sort of nostalgia pedestal. Whenever I watch Star Wars, I don't really have a problem watching all six.

ehh the acting isn't the problem in 1-3 it is the dialogue that is cringe worthy

@DexterKid said:

@xxizzypop: You are right, I am being condescending. I'm sorry but I find your position on this whole thing to be downright laughable. Like I said, if you are quite young and/or new to games then I can understand feeling the need to just take someone else's word on the standards and trends of the medium until you can feel confident enough to decide for yourself. But otherwise, it boggles my mind that people who regularly visit a niche gaming site like this still haven't reached a point in their lives where they can easily figure out whether a game is for them or not just from the constant exposure of media on any game that comes out in this day and age...

What an asshole, elitist thing to say. I still use the site's reviews especially when it's this time of year. You don't need to be young to trust someone else's opinion, especially someone who you can trust. If you're coming to this site for an objective opinion of a game, you're also doing it wrong. You come here for an honest opinion with guys on here that also have certain types of games they like and dislike.

Not everyone wants to research every individual release, have to go through multiple website, and read other-people-they-don't-know's opinion on the game. They would much rather get someone else's opinion, they can trust.

I think it was you who told me in another post where you said, "Not everyone is like you." Well, not everyone is like you either, and some people like to use other people's opinion, because of what I said above.

Assassin's Creed 3-- Just for the record the Iroquoian languages aren't dead. Just pretty close to being.

@DexterKid: But what you're really overlooking here is that I don't take a review as gospel. That's an assumption on your part. I cannot drive home the point more clearly when I say I use a review simply to inform my own decision to buy a game. I'll confess, I'm a long time and virtually religious listener to the podcast, so I suppose this conversation could be pointless. But I stand by what I'm saying here. I find reviews relevant, and I find them relevant on this website. I look for a review on the release date of any given game and hope that is has makes it in to the podcast so that I can hear them expand further on particular points while having a discussion about the game in general with others.

I also feel I need to address this level of deity you seem to think I'm assigning them. I don't expect them to be above me, you're right. They are people, just the same as you and me. But in a sense, the reviews function much in the same way talking to a friend about a game would. I have a few people in my life that will break down a game they've been playing a lot of, should we start discussing it, and give a verbal review that is similar in ways to things posted here. I hold what they say with some regard, sometimes it sways me, sometimes it doesn't. The reviews on this site are no different.

With regards to opinions changing, especially when relative to score, that happens with virtually every game to be released ever. The score is often reflective of 'How good is this game at this moment in time?' You listed several offenders and I'll list another: L.A. Noire. Brad gave it 5/5. And yet, everyone's reaction in retrospect is fairly tepid to the game because the mechanics are just not all that great. But at the time, it seemed like the greatest thing ever. The aesthetic was unique and stylish, it was technically fascinating and innovative, and mechanically, well, playable. But the beauty of that review is that his tastes have been clearly defined by years and years of doing this kind of work. You generally know how each of the crew members here will feel about a game, and know if you will side with them on the matter or not.

This is starting to feel a bit disjointed of a response, so I'll just say it one last time. Reviews are just another way to become informed of a game. While you clearly find them irrelevant, I find them to be incredibly helpful as far as information goes. And that is all. Those who ascribe infallible truth to them are delusional, but I think the sort of person who takes a review as scripture has become a rare minority.

lol at both Patrick and Brad.

How could they have played a ton of Final Fantasy VIII and NOT touched the card game? It's only the franchise's greatest and was so good/popular that when FFXI came out, you could play it on its PlayOnline service exclusively.

Since I built a really good PC a year back, I cannot play anything on my 360 if it's also available, or will at some point be available, on PC. I just can't. The last major release I played on my 360 was Skyrim (oops), and seeing that on PC with the settings jacked up, and even tweaked to look better than the maximum, I knew the "hardware generation" problem was over for me. I've preempted it.

Everything is just leaps and bounds better looking, and the power one has... Game doesn't look the way I want it? SweetFX, or some other tool to inject anti aliasing, or HDR, or SSAO, or sharper textures, or high res textures or or or.

And then there's just the sheer number of games, and a variety that dwarfs what you can get on console. I'm a latecomer to PC gaming, but I'm a total convert.

The console hasn't been on in months, and that was for one of the very rare Arcade games that doesn't come on PC.

In other words, I'll wait for AC3 on pc. :)

Like a couple of other people in the comments here, I've been listening to Bombcasts for a long-ass time, and have listened to over 90% of them (some just escape me or are interviews I don't care about, a guest I don't like here and there, etc), and I hate it when people pop in to every new bombcast each week saying "Omg. You guys. Best bombcast in forever." It cheapens when the discussion is as good and well meaning as it was this week. This really was the best Bombcast in quite awhile, not just for the discussion on game journalism ethics at the end, but for the sober and informative discussion on multiple games, and Jeff finally relenting on his trivial holdout objection to playing The Walking Dead.  
 
I will say, though, that while I'm glad part of the merit out of that discussion at the end was "hey guys, feel free to ask us those questions if you have those worries!", questions come up kind of a lot, and the response ends up "well, I guess you should go somewhere else." It's nice to hear what you think about shady practices, but your attitude toward the supposedly self-regulating nature of Giant Bomb is contradictory. You want the questions and you want the outsiders here in the community to keep you grounded, but the response to those (even by your own admission) legitimate concerns is often contemptuous, to say the least.  
 
There is a sizable chunk of people on this site that routinely have had questions in the last 7 months, for instance, about where the hell time has been spent behind the scenes and how working at CBSi has impacted the traditional GB work process, and while it's good to hear Jeff express his self disappointment over the lack of proper time management and his frustration with the frequency of corporate meetings he's roped into, it should not have taken so long to state this so publicly. I would like for the moral of that end discussion to be "hey, if you're worried, just make it known and be reasonable" but Ryan's characterization of the skeptics toward the integrity of game journalism then veers in the other direction immediately.  
 
You want to be a different animal, to be transparent and to make sure your followers understand your integrity, but if that's the case then the response to any community concern or question can't be so schizophrenic. Patrick saying "If people question what we're doing, then I guess that means we're doing something wrong" was great. But that opinion didn't seem to be very shared outside of Jeff, and Jeff only seems to subscribe to that thought depending on the week.  
 
I really respect that discussion at the end, and wish we heard more of that sort of thing, but it seemed very divided and begrudging. If the intent was to express again how much you believe Giant Bomb is more respectful of its readership's concerns and more dedicated to its journalistic integrity then other places, the next time you find yourself in the midst of a controversy or a threadnaught is full of genuine freakout worries about something you're doing, I hope you would think back to this moment and actually put that mentality into action.

@mrpandaman said:

@DexterKid said:

@xxizzypop: You are right, I am being condescending. I'm sorry but I find your position on this whole thing to be downright laughable. Like I said, if you are quite young and/or new to games then I can understand feeling the need to just take someone else's word on the standards and trends of the medium until you can feel confident enough to decide for yourself. But otherwise, it boggles my mind that people who regularly visit a niche gaming site like this still haven't reached a point in their lives where they can easily figure out whether a game is for them or not just from the constant exposure of media on any game that comes out in this day and age...

What an asshole, elitist thing to say. I still use the site's reviews especially when it's this time of year. You don't need to be young to trust someone else's opinion, especially someone who you can trust. If you're coming to this site for an objective opinion of a game, you're also doing it wrong. You come here for an honest opinion with guys on here that also have certain types of games they like and dislike.

Not everyone wants to research every individual release, have to go through multiple website, and read other-people-they-don't-know's opinion on the game. They would much rather get someone else's opinion, they can trust.

I think it was you who told me in another post where you said, "Not everyone is like you." Well, not everyone is like you either, and some people like to use other people's opinion, because of what I said above.

lol what, elitist? Did you seriously just say that? Me saying 'you can you use your head to figure out if you like a game' is elitist now? I think that says more about you than me, bud.

And way to completely miss the point and make an irrelevant argument. Firstly: there is no such thing as an 'objective opinion', cause that's an oxymoron. Secondly: I was mocking people who want reviews to be objective, if you had actually read my post properly. Thirdly: At no point did I say anything about researching, my point was that people who visit a site like this are most likely already immersed in games media and informed enough to be able to make a decision for themselves.

And finally: At no point was I talking about trust. You can like, trust or respect someone as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact their opinion is theirs and your opinion is yours. And just because they feel a certain way about a game and are 100% adamant that it's good/bad, you can still experience that game and end up having the complete opposite reaction to it.

If you want to live your life vicariously through the opinions of a reviewer then go ahead. But remember that you are most likely not always coincidentally agreeing with their opinions, but rather you are massaging your own opinions to fit theirs because you just want to be part of the club.

@Brad When is the Neverdead Quick Look coming?

Wait a minute. The hippies peacefully doing hallucinogens out back and silently growing weed is considered worse than a house full of drunken rowdy college age 'kids' and older?

Black was an awesome game! I want Black 2!

Oh, thank god the power is back, finally I can listen to this! 

Damn Disney!!!

What stopped me from playing Dust wasn't the art style, though that did put me off slightly. No, it was when that creepy floating orange thing opened its mouth. Jesus, it's like they hired scientists to work out what the single most grating annoying sound is to the human ear, with some embarrasment thrown in if anyone else hears you playing it, and made that the voice of the most talkative character.

Christ that voice sucked. Made it absolutely certain I wouldn't buy at the demo's end.

Did anyone else get the feeling that Patrick was the only one who really understands what that whole games journalism thing was *really* about, and didn't say everything here that he thought? The supposed "witch hunt" whether it exists or not, is entirely beside the point. Nobody intelligent is saying that the problem is coverage and scores being out and out bought. It's more subconscious and thus more insidious.

Coke and Pepsi spend billions on ads, yet the great majority of people will claim ads don't affect them. Either two of the biggest companies ever just throw away billions year after year to no purpose, or we're more susceptible to subconscious pressures than we admit or even realize. Thus, journalists being so close to the entities they're covering, even in the vast majority of cases where nothing untoward is going on, is worth thinking about as a possible problem.

They explained it here rather poorly for people who haven't been following, through no fault of their own, of course, talking about it on a podcast being a hard way to explain something this convoluted.

People ought to read it from the beginning. Try John Walker's site (he of RockPaperShotgun, who Rab also writes for). Start here: http://botherer.org/2012/10/24/games-journalists-and-the-perception-of-corruption/

I didn't get that feeling at all. Patrick has by far the least amount of experience in game journalism (that's not his fault mind you; he's just much younger than everybody else). The others have seen a lot more shades of gray.

Great podcast. Just saying.

I love every bombcast you guys put out but man you guys sure like talking about people who talk about video games. I know you're trying to inform us but that discussion lasted like a full hour or so in this recording. It's a fascinating topic but the fact is that I really don't crap a damn about it because I only deal with one gaming website at my leisure. I think you guys are awesome so try not to take your weird job too seriously. Some of us have to settle with being ground into dust as wage slaves so grinding your gears about being enthusiast press kind of gets on my nerves after a while. Thanks for everything you guys do and keep up the great work.

@thebigJ_A: Advertising is far more effective on a sub-conscious level. People who claim to be unaffected by advertising are actually the most likely to be the MOST affected by it and not even realize, which is why I always find it funny that 10/10 times people who claim that also tend to be the most smug as they sip their Coke.

Edit: To be totally clear: I was not referring to the editors with this. I think advertising that is so targeted that you are literally receiving it in the mail and so blatantly IS extremely ineffective in the ways they describe (particularly because it's graduated to full-on annoyance with them).

Very nice, as always. No other podcast can even compare.

@Undeadpool said:

@thebigJ_A: Advertising is far more effective on a sub-conscious level. People who claim to be unaffected by advertising are actually the most likely to be the MOST affected by it and not even realize, which is why I always find it funny that 10/10 times people who claim that also tend to be the most smug as they sip their Coke.

Absolutely. Well paid (talking hundreds of millions for some of them) MBAs have elected as a group to fritter away sizeable fractions of their company's income to fund their vanity sideprojects like...oh all of television or every major sporting league. Advertising probably works.

It took me a few days to listen to the whole thing, but I have to say this was one of the best podcasts I've heard. From Jeff's story to the long discussion about game journalism. I didn't feel this podcast was too long which I think most of the time, they are.

I listened to it a few days ago, but just wanted to come in and comment real quick; I thought this was one of the best podcast episodes in a while. The frank discussion of game journalism ethics was intriguing and interesting to listen to (especially the whole "mock review" process - I didn't even realize that was a thing, it's so fucking crazy!), and Jeff's stories about the old place he lived at continue to be insane.

Ah man, do we really need to talk about the "integrity of video game journalism" in such depth AGAIN? (AND NO EMAILS!?!?!? WHY YOU GOT TO HURT BRAD'S FEELINGS LIKE THAT?)

Don't get me wrong it should be covered for sure, and it was awesome hearing how self conscious Jeff is about their close relationship to developers and where the boundaries should be; but CMON anyone who has followed this industry for any lengthy amount of time knows about this shadiness. I am already as jaded as you can be about this stuff. There is a reason why I decided to pretty much just solely follow GB after years of scourging the internet for video game coverage, its not perfect and for sure its not the end all be all of video game coverage, but at least I kind of trust these guys and for most parts they know what they are talking about (and what more could you ask for?)

Besides I don't have time to get all inside baseball with this stuff anymore, I care about games and GB crew seem to cover it the way I like it without much BS.

Moral of the story, there is a BIG difference between Jeff Gerstmann and some random ass blogger or some shady ass freelancer when it comes to to knowledge, experience and legitimacy about video games. Also, I don't hate on anyone trying to make a living and hustling, in the long run reputation matters a lot more than money but sometimes you just need some god damn cash to support your loved ones.

@jake52 said:

Very nice, as always. No other podcast can even compare.

not even neil degrasse tyson's? for shame!

(i haven't listened to it yet :D oh if only carl sagan were still around and had the initiative to do a podcast :( )

Just watched The Fugitive on the 360's HD-DVD Player. I'm glad the rumors of its removal were mistaken... now I don't need to rebuy Blade Runner!

@Fattony12000 said:

That made my day.

I can't believe you guys don't know Rab(Robert Florence) from the incredible Consolevania and Video Gaiden.

@ScORCHo001: I know, it's so sad to hear the crew and fellow duders round here just not know who he is and what he did. The stuff that him and Ryan put out is still pretty much the greatest video content about/sort of about video games that there has ever been produced in all of human history. And I say that as the biggest fan of Giant Bomb, the greatest source of video game video hijinks in the known universe.

http://www.rllmukforum.com/ FOR LIFE.

Power still out. Walked three towns over to listen.

I suspect Chris with the white car was into more serious shit than this:

"You should wait for the PC version (of ACIII) as the 360 version is rough and has scripting issues." - Patrick

Right...because the PC version will fix all of that.

I really enjoyed the frankness of the discussion about journalistic integrity in this Bombcast. Allow me to be equally as frank at the risk of sounding overly cynical...

I don't mean disrespect and I know it's not their fault but sorry, all professional videogame journalists are on the take in some degree, one way or another. Whether the take is review copies of games, access to information or invitations to events the publishers control the things that videogame writers require to do their job and they make certain decisions based on this.

How many reviewers out there have said "We don't like scores but we need to have them to continue to gain access to information to provide you with top-notch coverage"? That's a take right there. You are doing something you don't agree with because you need something from the publishers. If you don't believe in scores but you give games scores because it's the standard then, like it or not, that's an integrity hit. I'm not saying they lack integrity or can't be trusted, I'm saying they are not being 100% genuine.

And I'm sorry but no matter how much sites like Giant Bomb and others try to explain that Stars are not numbers it's still nonsense. Math is math and will always be. Math is universal, it is absolute, it was here long before us and will be here long after us and no matter what subjective descriptions an individual wants to give it, 4 out of 5 of anything will always be 4/5 or 80% or 80/100 or 12/15 or 16,000/20,000.

Again, I don't blame the journalists and I don't have the answer. This industry is a crazy, fast-moving, zig-zagging beast loaded with subjectivity and conflicts of interest and until someone can figure out how to fix things I'll at least give them credit just for being able to hold on.

I thought Most Wanted ran really fast and smooth on my PC.

@Max_Cherry said:

I didn't get that feeling at all. Patrick has by far the least amount of experience in game journalism (that's not his fault mind you; he's just much younger than everybody else). The others have seen a lot more shades of gray.

Patricks been around for a long time in various places. :/