Giant Bombcast 11-13-2012

@AlexanderSheen said:

Could anyone post the link to that Wonderbook video?

@ExplodeMode: Thank you, sir!

I hate the "Wah Wah's" in the NSMB games. Not just because they're being lazy with the music, but having the monsters dance along with it just underlines a lot of my problems with the Mario franchise lately; they simply aren't taking the franchise seriously enough.

There are other stories that can be told besides Princess Peach getting kidnapped by Bowser. I would go as far as to say, those two characters are completely unnecessary to make for a good Mario game. Majora's Mask is one of the best Zelda's from a narrative perspective, and it lacks both Zelda and Ganon entirely.

I just wish they'd take some more risks with these franchises again. It's hard to feel motivated to play them otherwise.

@Death_Burnout said:

@Nation764 said:

The Bombcast is no longer funny : (

Y'know, I was thinking that whilst listening to this. Even though there still are funny moments quite regularly, I've noticed the Bombcast has become quite serious lately, not to mention the negativity over the last year or so. The introductions and e-mails seem to be the best parts now, at least to me.

I still maintain the idea that they talk for far too long about what games they have been playing. I also maintain that five is too much for a podcast, the last three man show they did was one of the funniest Bombcasts ever.

The seriousness is directly related to the addition of a new member. The personalities and random discussions are what made the Bombcast fun, not the news.

I'm way into games and don't pay for Xbox Live Gold.

The plot GTA V will be based on is Sexy Beast.

@Marokai: Yeah. I was gonna say, this happens every holiday release season, I'm not surprised by it in any way and I would never expect that stuff to be contrived for my enjoyment either, obviously, buuuuut that didn't stop the end of year stuff in 08 and 09 from being great. I think it's reasonable for me to stand back and look at it now and go "wait, something's not quite right here"

It's less about how much there is to talk about and perhaps more about the dynamic between them, or perhaps things have changed in such a way that they have gotten fatigued doing this every week? I'm not sure.

Avenged Sevenfold sucks balls and dicks.

Man, I wonder if I sent in a dog shock collar if they would use it when Patrick said something completely stupid. I mean,fuck, I'm dont really care about spoilers in games. If the gameplay is fun and the story is good, its enough for me to play it even if something is "revealed" inadvertantly. But for fucks sake, when you say that something is a goddamn spoiler in a game as it relates to a brand new fucking movie, something you go to see based primarily on experiencing the goddamn story, it kinda is bullshit when said game scene is taken out of context. Only until some asshat says, "Oh, btw thats a spoiler, just in case you were wondering" Makes Patrick no better than some forum troll. And did I hear him let slip what Cortanas role in H4 is, or did I mishear something? Between that and the "some people just buy these Treyarch CoD games for the zombies, man" comment he drew directly out of his ass (Patrick, rememeber, youre the "horror" guy, you love all that stuff. as you remind us. at. every. single. opportunity.) I just really do not give a fuck about what he has to say on games. Let him wirte articles, do interviews. But for fucks sake the man is sop bland and what hes "into" is so fucikin forced its making the GB experience suffer, for me.

I'm sorry to report that I have a nephew who is mad into Call of Duty and loves Avenged Sevenfold. So that Black Ops II thing sounds right up his alley. So... yeah... He's not perfect.

@smcn said:

They glossed over Mario 64's reward for collecting 120 stars. There is essentially no reason for you to play the game anymore. What do you get? You see Yoshi for 10 seconds, and he gives you

100 fucking lives.

But, you also get a sweet-ass new triple jump.

Wait, what's the 007 Legends/Skyfall spoiler? I've seen the movie but don't know what the thing in the game is about, I just don't remember. If anyone knows, put it in spoiler tags so as to not ruin it for others. People seem to have a problem with what Patrick said but I just don't remember what happens in the game. EDIT: Already forgot what Patrick said, but I just looked it up managed to at least find out what bit of the game/movie he was talking about.

MECHASSAULT IS BULLSHIT

EDIT: THE NEEDLER WAS ALWAYS AWESOME NEEDLER NAYSAYERS ARE BULLSHIT

I"m a start a petition to end all Wah Wah's

@Marokai said:

Member of the gang plays a game different than Patrick; Patrick insists they play it more like him. Member of the gang doesn't like a game Patrick likes; Patrick insists they just don't get it, man. He seems like he's on some sort of mission in life to convert everyone around him to thinking and acting as he does because his way is objectively the right way. Patrick can be weirdly aggressive.

as a dude that loves to argue with the klepek haters into submission, i will say i do agree with this.

that the dude is very objective and has that "my way is the right way" attitude when hes ready, and he buts in every single time vinny tries to talk.

<Achievement Unlocked> Listened to all three hours of the podcast

To their comment about star wars, halo and mass effect about the story and bringing people back and enemies back like the covnent in halo there are rumors going around that they are bringing darth vader back for the new star wars movies.

@Nation764 said:

The Bombcast is no longer funny : (

Then leave.

Oh man, some people have had X-box Gold accounts for 10 years? Doesn't that cost 50+ dollars per year? Doesn't that mean their console cost them 800-900$? I thought X-box was the cheaper console?

I wonder if that will make anyone eye the next Microsoft console in a different light?

Depressing bootleg arcades are the worst. There's this really awful outlet mall/dollar theater/arcade/laser tag place (remember LASER TAG??) just a few miles from my house that has some of the saddest, most broke ass machines you can imagine. I only go there every few months expecting it to be shut down and empty or replaced with another store that only sells random Chinese knock-offs, but it's always still there and it's always somehow in worse shape than it was the last time.

The most recent "additions" being a smashed-in marque on an already barely functioning Tekken 3 machine, the 1P stick on Virtua Fighter 4 going from slightly busted to completely busted, and a huge flat screen and makeshift coin box rigged up to a 360 running MW3 shoved into what appears to be the shell of a stripped down original VF4 podium-style cabinet with the podium hacked off. MW3 will run you $5/hour.

The real centerpiece, though, is tucked away in a dark corner: an ancient 20" 4:3 flat screen monitor hooked up to what I think is a single cart MVS board running Metal Slug 3 in a rickety high school wood shop quality cabinet. It's the most depressing fucking excuse for an arcade machine I've ever seen.

Edit: Also, I want a Denis Dyack documentary.

@Draxyle said:

I hate the "Wah Wah's" in the NSMB games. Not just because they're being lazy with the music, but having the monsters dance along with it just underlines a lot of my problems with the Mario franchise lately; they simply aren't taking the franchise seriously enough.

There are other stories that can be told besides Princess Peach getting kidnapped by Bowser. I would go as far as to say, those two characters are completely unnecessary to make for a good Mario game. Majora's Mask is one of the best Zelda's from a narrative perspective, and it lacks both Zelda and Ganon entirely.

I just wish they'd take some more risks with these franchises again. It's hard to feel motivated to play them otherwise.

Are you seriously bummed about the STORY in Mario games??! I don´t think they need a story at all. No set up- nothing. In fact, that star child stuff in Mario Galaxy just delayed my progression through the game. Don´t care for it, don´t want it. Not every game has to have a strong "narrative" or a different one for that matter.

Now, gameplay is a different factor. Yeah, some different elements would be welcome and the dancing turtles are still kinda strange. I also think the new Soundtracks relie heavily on those Wah Wah effects. It could drive people crazy.. plus those Galaxy games had phenomenal soundtracks. Why not go into that direction?

I'm late to the party on this one, but Vinny's reaction to finding out who Steven Sinofsky was might just be my favourite Bombcast soundbite of 2012...

@ProfessorEss said:

Why does Patrick feel the need to point out the pointlessness of collecting every time Vinny brings it up?

I like Patrick's input, and maybe it's all in good fun, but it's driving me nuts that this has to come up almost EVERY WEEK when Vinny talks about what he's been playing. I absolutely love playing my games in the same way Vinny seems to. I find clearing maps and increasing percentages very satisfying and entertaining.

What makes it even more frustrating/confusing is the idea that Vinny is "ruining these games for himself" and if he would just play them like Patrick plays them he'd have a lot more fun - despite the fact that week after week Vinny seems to have played more and enjoyed more than any other member if the podcast.

This is so perfectly stated. Thank you

I really appreciate Michael Keaton playing Ed Harris in the new BLOPS. In my ideal future, Ed Harris will play Batman in the next re-boot, and Michael Keaton will play his nemesis...Ed Harris.

Whoo 3 hour Bombcast!

@Marokai: I cannot find a fault with your argument. I have been thinking the same thing for awhile. The way I have often thought about it is while the guys at GB would like to see the big franchises evolve more they end up still being pretty good games. Whether their personal opinions sound like they should give a game 2 stars or 4 stars is hard to tell. But listening to Jeff talk about MW3 I thought he would never give a Call of Duty game anything over 2 stars until they did something to shake things up.

The Skyfall thing is BARELY a spoiler, it's literally been shown in all advertisements for the movie and happens very early on.

@Dallas_Raines said:

The Skyfall thing is BARELY a spoiler, it's literally been shown in all advertisements for the movie and happens very early on.

The severity isnt the point. Its the fact that yo dont know it is till someone points it out. Just like when the guys were discussing MW2 and excoriating the people that were saying "YO DERE IS SPOILERS IN DA TRAILER OMG!" when taken out of context isnt that big of a deal, until some douche points it out. The fact that they chided those people and not their co worker for doing the same fuckin thing isn't right.

Ben Kingsely is "Sexy Beast".

Read the Halo books by Eric Nylund. Those are the good ones.

@MEATBALL said:

I hope Sunday's live stream isn't just hours of cynical Nintendo commentary.

I hope so. But judging by their expectations on this bombcast, I'm not sure. Well, either way can't wait. Kinda sucks that the UK have to wait a while longer.

@VoodooTatum said:

@Marokai: I cannot find a fault with your argument. I have been thinking the same thing for awhile. The way I have often thought about it is while the guys at GB would like to see the big franchises evolve more they end up still being pretty good games. Whether their personal opinions sound like they should give a game 2 stars or 4 stars is hard to tell. But listening to Jeff talk about MW3 I thought he would never give a Call of Duty game anything over 2 stars until they did something to shake things up.

They did do something to shake things up. Its just not drastic gameplay changes. Its drastic story changes. Which was the thing Jeff seemed most intrigued about about Blops2, so it makes perfect sense that he would give it a high rating. He always seemed really interested in the story of Black Ops 2. I must say, it was a pretty impressive story, they do a great job humanizing all the characters and giving the villian a solid human driving force. You understand the villians motivations a lot more than you have in any past COD game. It makes the game a *really* interesting shooter experience.

@Marokai said:

I feel like every year we hear the same almost defensive conversation about Call of Duty and different shooters along the way. Where they bluster about how creatively bankrupt the genre is or how lukewarm they are on specific series or their future, but then a game comes out and they have long conversations just retconning away their past statements. They talk a big game, but whenever presented with an actual new installment of a series (Crysis, CoD, Halo, etc) I feel like we get completely different personalities from everything we've heard up to that point.

I know this is the Bombcast and not the Giant Bomb Debate Club and all that; but like another commenter earlier on I'm also the type that listens to old bombcasts fairly frequently, and I remember endless conversations about how Brad, specifically, thought "just another good Halo campaign" would eventually "drive Halo into the ground." Or how, every year, Jeff is down on Call of Duty, until a new one comes out and he gives it four stars and a "Hey yeah it's the same game but it has this small little twist" as an excuse for it all. The countless negative conversations about the FPS genre ring a bit hollow when you keep scoring them highly in spite of the constant supposed dejection.

As human beings I recognize we are creatures of inconsistency, but for a site that banks its appeal on the familiarity loyal listeners have with their reviewers, how Giant Bomb aims to be different because "you know how Jeff feels, you get who he is, so you know where he's coming from", it's moments like these where I don't actually know how anyone here feels because the reviews and the Bombcast discussions feel completely segregated from each other to the point that it feels like two different people write certain reviews and then direct the accompanying Bombcast discussions, or how everything we hear from them throughout a year is completely disregarded when the chips are down. It's just kind of jarring and probably way more difficult to follow as a frequent follower of the site than otherwise.

I feel like the problem is actually lack of imagination more than anything else. It's hard to imagine "another one of those games" to be good or interesting, when it comes to franchises with many entries. But they often are! It's the 5th console Assassins Creed and Vinny loves it and he played all of them. Nobody would've believed that three years ago.

These two opinions you hear are those of somebody rating a finished product that people put alot of thought and effort into and someboy that is making up a future szenario in his head. Often forgetting the simple fact that two years later, you're in a completely different mindset and you've gone far enough to enjoy an old concept again, even if it isn't groundbreaking.

But I don't blame them for it, it's just what people do.

I @mnzy said:

@Marokai said:

I feel like every year we hear the same almost defensive conversation about Call of Duty and different shooters along the way. Where they bluster about how creatively bankrupt the genre is or how lukewarm they are on specific series or their future, but then a game comes out and they have long conversations just retconning away their past statements. They talk a big game, but whenever presented with an actual new installment of a series (Crysis, CoD, Halo, etc) I feel like we get completely different personalities from everything we've heard up to that point.

I know this is the Bombcast and not the Giant Bomb Debate Club and all that; but like another commenter earlier on I'm also the type that listens to old bombcasts fairly frequently, and I remember endless conversations about how Brad, specifically, thought "just another good Halo campaign" would eventually "drive Halo into the ground." Or how, every year, Jeff is down on Call of Duty, until a new one comes out and he gives it four stars and a "Hey yeah it's the same game but it has this small little twist" as an excuse for it all. The countless negative conversations about the FPS genre ring a bit hollow when you keep scoring them highly in spite of the constant supposed dejection.

As human beings I recognize we are creatures of inconsistency, but for a site that banks its appeal on the familiarity loyal listeners have with their reviewers, how Giant Bomb aims to be different because "you know how Jeff feels, you get who he is, so you know where he's coming from", it's moments like these where I don't actually know how anyone here feels because the reviews and the Bombcast discussions feel completely segregated from each other to the point that it feels like two different people write certain reviews and then direct the accompanying Bombcast discussions, or how everything we hear from them throughout a year is completely disregarded when the chips are down. It's just kind of jarring and probably way more difficult to follow as a frequent follower of the site than otherwise.

I feel like the problem is actually lack of imagination more than anything else. It's hard to imagine "another one of those games" to be good or interesting, when it comes to franchises with many entries. But they often are! It's the 5th console Assassins Creed and Vinny loves it and he played all of them. Nobody would've believed that three years ago.

These two opinions you hear are those of somebody rating a finished product that people put alot of thought and effort into and someboy that is making up a future szenario in his head. Often forgetting the simple fact that two years later, you're in a completely different mindset and you've gone far enough to enjoy an old concept again, even if it isn't groundbreaking.

But I don't blame them for it, it's just what people do.

Its partially that and that now there are divisions between series. Like Halo/sidestories and Modern Warfare/Black Ops. I think people unfairly judge Black Ops against MW. They are made in the same engine, and are both Modern style shooters. But Black Ops is a DRASTICALLY different game than MW. People just dont want to believe it. Sure, its "Shootin Dudes: The Game" but The story in Blops 2 is REALLY good. They handled their characters well(besides that cinge-worthy after credits bit), and made great strides in making you feel for the villian and understand his cause and driving forces.

When i hear Jeff talk about how boring COD games are, i usually relegate that statement to the mainline modern warfare games. Because Black Ops has always been about trying something different. They tried something VERY different for a COD game in BLOPS2, its actually a shame it gets tagged with the COD name. I think that tag alone scares a lot of people away.

EDIT: WRONG PODCAST

@Phished0ne: Black ops 2 did get it's story - mostly - right. It threw unexpected punches, was relentlessly grim, and it had some characters that you actually remembered (until they died). Black ops 1 was more muddled, however the psychological side of it's twists also had a little more impact on me.

In the end, the majority of time spent playing the game involved slightly more-open setpieces, with a few key areas that felt open.

So it did a few things slightly better, not innovative. Interesting. Sometimes all we need is something to have a heartbeat, and while black ops 2 won't change my world - small things add up.

For once, I am with jeff on this one. It's a 7 or 8 out of 10. Medal of honor was a 3/10, and MW3 was a 5/10. That's an approximation in numbers of where I stand.

Can someone send me a link to the video they talk about at the end? The careless whisper one?

Wii U R

GUYS GUYS GUYS THIS IS THE SECRET

@mnzy said:

@Marokai said:

I feel like every year we hear the same almost defensive conversation about Call of Duty and different shooters along the way. Where they bluster about how creatively bankrupt the genre is or how lukewarm they are on specific series or their future, but then a game comes out and they have long conversations just retconning away their past statements. They talk a big game, but whenever presented with an actual new installment of a series (Crysis, CoD, Halo, etc) I feel like we get completely different personalities from everything we've heard up to that point.

I know this is the Bombcast and not the Giant Bomb Debate Club and all that; but like another commenter earlier on I'm also the type that listens to old bombcasts fairly frequently, and I remember endless conversations about how Brad, specifically, thought "just another good Halo campaign" would eventually "drive Halo into the ground." Or how, every year, Jeff is down on Call of Duty, until a new one comes out and he gives it four stars and a "Hey yeah it's the same game but it has this small little twist" as an excuse for it all. The countless negative conversations about the FPS genre ring a bit hollow when you keep scoring them highly in spite of the constant supposed dejection.

As human beings I recognize we are creatures of inconsistency, but for a site that banks its appeal on the familiarity loyal listeners have with their reviewers, how Giant Bomb aims to be different because "you know how Jeff feels, you get who he is, so you know where he's coming from", it's moments like these where I don't actually know how anyone here feels because the reviews and the Bombcast discussions feel completely segregated from each other to the point that it feels like two different people write certain reviews and then direct the accompanying Bombcast discussions, or how everything we hear from them throughout a year is completely disregarded when the chips are down. It's just kind of jarring and probably way more difficult to follow as a frequent follower of the site than otherwise.

I feel like the problem is actually lack of imagination more than anything else. It's hard to imagine "another one of those games" to be good or interesting, when it comes to franchises with many entries. But they often are! It's the 5th console Assassins Creed and Vinny loves it and he played all of them. Nobody would've believed that three years ago.

These two opinions you hear are those of somebody rating a finished product that people put alot of thought and effort into and someboy that is making up a future szenario in his head. Often forgetting the simple fact that two years later, you're in a completely different mindset and you've gone far enough to enjoy an old concept again, even if it isn't groundbreaking.

But I don't blame them for it, it's just what people do.

Yup, just like how people's opinions on food changes depending on how hungry they are.

What's the deal with the guys bashing GTA4 and getting so many facts wrong after giving it game of the year? I'm particularily ticked off that Ryan insists that Niko wanted out of the crime game because he morally objected, this is just factually wrong, Niko was always blase about his job (which he was very good at), and only wanted out because of his and his families safety and because he had all the answers (and money) he needed. Brad's assertion that the prize for killing PlayBoy was a fucking jacket is also a travesty, the "prize" was actually PlayBoy's mansion, which is not the prize for killing Dwayne, because why the fuck would Playboy X relinquish his home as a gift? WTF. I'm annoyed because these guys are bashing a masterpiece that they heralded as GOTY for reasons that are just false, its out of character and its contradictory to what they all said during the GOTY podcasts. I hope its just their memory and Patricks looming opinion on the game, because I thought Jeff would have defended it.

(I realised that I sound angry even though I'm not, I love what these guys do, and I love the podcast)

@lord_python said:

Dude CALM DOWN. Put the knife down already!

</sarcasm>

@Levio said:

@mnzy said:

@Marokai said:

I feel like every year we hear the same almost defensive conversation about Call of Duty and different shooters along the way. Where they bluster about how creatively bankrupt the genre is or how lukewarm they are on specific series or their future, but then a game comes out and they have long conversations just retconning away their past statements. They talk a big game, but whenever presented with an actual new installment of a series (Crysis, CoD, Halo, etc) I feel like we get completely different personalities from everything we've heard up to that point.

I know this is the Bombcast and not the Giant Bomb Debate Club and all that; but like another commenter earlier on I'm also the type that listens to old bombcasts fairly frequently, and I remember endless conversations about how Brad, specifically, thought "just another good Halo campaign" would eventually "drive Halo into the ground." Or how, every year, Jeff is down on Call of Duty, until a new one comes out and he gives it four stars and a "Hey yeah it's the same game but it has this small little twist" as an excuse for it all. The countless negative conversations about the FPS genre ring a bit hollow when you keep scoring them highly in spite of the constant supposed dejection.

As human beings I recognize we are creatures of inconsistency, but for a site that banks its appeal on the familiarity loyal listeners have with their reviewers, how Giant Bomb aims to be different because "you know how Jeff feels, you get who he is, so you know where he's coming from", it's moments like these where I don't actually know how anyone here feels because the reviews and the Bombcast discussions feel completely segregated from each other to the point that it feels like two different people write certain reviews and then direct the accompanying Bombcast discussions, or how everything we hear from them throughout a year is completely disregarded when the chips are down. It's just kind of jarring and probably way more difficult to follow as a frequent follower of the site than otherwise.

I feel like the problem is actually lack of imagination more than anything else. It's hard to imagine "another one of those games" to be good or interesting, when it comes to franchises with many entries. But they often are! It's the 5th console Assassins Creed and Vinny loves it and he played all of them. Nobody would've believed that three years ago.

These two opinions you hear are those of somebody rating a finished product that people put alot of thought and effort into and someboy that is making up a future szenario in his head. Often forgetting the simple fact that two years later, you're in a completely different mindset and you've gone far enough to enjoy an old concept again, even if it isn't groundbreaking.

But I don't blame them for it, it's just what people do.

Yup, just like how people's opinions on food changes depending on how hungry they are.

You guys are still missing the point. There is a difference between how they feel about a game and how it's reviewed. As identical to other COD games as it is, Black Ops2 is reviewed on its own merit and deserve a 4 out of 5 according to Jeff. If he suffers from genre/franchise exhaustion that's on him, but it does not justify rating it a 2 or 3. It is technically and objectively a game worth buying, this is where what YOU value come into play. We don't share the same values, don't ask them to decide for all of us, decide for yourself.

Their job is not to tell you Black Ops 2 is a 2 out of 5 because its Black Ops or Modern Warfare with a different paint on it. Their job as reviewers is to inform us. Don't mix the professional aspect of being a game reviewer and what they value as individuals. Notice that a game with a shallow or no story at all doesn't lose points for it, but a game that tries to tell a story and fail might, it's not about whether or not you value story, but how well the game attempt to do those things.

As long as a game is not broken, there is no reason to rate it as a bad game, anyone doing that would lose credibility.

You guys are still missing the point. There is a difference between how they feel about a game and how it's reviewed. As identical to other COD games as it is, Black Ops2 is reviewed on its own merit and deserve a 4 out of 5 according to Jeff. If he suffers from genre/franchise exhaustion that's on him, but it does not justify rating it a 2 or 3. It is technically and objectively a game worth buying, this is where what YOU value come into play. We don't share the same values, don't ask them to decide for all of us, decide for yourself.

Their job is not to tell you Black Ops 2 is a 2 out of 5 because its Black Ops or Modern Warfare with a different paint on it. Their job as reviewers is to inform us. Don't mix the professional aspect of being a game reviewer and what they value as individuals. Notice that a game with a shallow or no story at all doesn't lose points for it, but a game that tries to tell a story and fail might, it's not about whether or not you value story, but how well the game attempt to do those things.

As long as a game is not broken, there is no reason to rate it as a bad game, anyone doing that would lose credibility.

@lord_python said:

What's the deal with the guys bashing GTA4 and getting so many facts wrong after giving it game of the year? I'm particularily ticked off that Ryan insists that Niko wanted out of the crime game because he morally objected, this is just factually wrong, Niko was always blase about his job (which he was very good at), and only wanted out because of his and his families safety and because he had all the answers (and money) he needed. Brad's assertion that the prize for killing PlayBoy was a fucking jacket is also a travesty, the "prize" was actually PlayBoy's mansion, which is not the prize for killing Dwayne, because why the fuck would Playboy X relinquish his home as a gift? WTF. I'm annoyed because these guys are bashing a masterpiece that they heralded as GOTY for reasons that are just false, its out of character and its contradictory to what they all said during the GOTY podcasts. I hope its just their memory and Patricks looming opinion on the game, because I thought Jeff would have defended it.

(I realised that I sound angry even though I'm not, I love what these guys do, and I love the podcast)

Because it came out four years ago and memories fade. There.

@Marokai said:

@chose said:

You guys are still missing the point. There is a difference between how they feel about a game and how it's reviewed. As identical to other COD games as it is, Black Ops2 is reviewed on its own merit and deserve a 4 out of 5 according to Jeff. If he suffers from genre/franchise exhaustion that's on him, but it does not justify rating it a 2 or 3. It is technically and objectively a game worth buying, this is where what YOU value come into play. We don't share the same values, don't ask them to decide for all of us, decide for yourself.

Their job is not to tell you Black Ops 2 is a 2 out of 5 because its Black Ops or Modern Warfare with a different paint on it. Their job as reviewers is to inform us. Don't mix the professional aspect of being a game reviewer and what they value as individuals. Notice that a game with a shallow or no story at all doesn't lose points for it, but a game that tries to tell a story and fail might, it's not about whether or not you value story, but how well the game attempt to do those things.

As long as a game is not broken, there is no reason to rate it as a bad game, anyone doing that would lose credibility.

You've just bit into the issue of contention here. Giant Bomb's MO is all about doing things differently. It aims to be, whether it seems to recognize this a lot of the time or not, a new evolution in games coverage and reviewing. Jeff constantly talks and talks about how this site, and the way it does things, is different precisely because of the personal aspect, about how you "know" the guys in charge and the way they feel. But at the same time it wants the same traditional, archaic, old-school methods of traditional print-style reviews and coverage.

Just that part is contradictory to what Jeff says regarding reviews. It is a technical assessment of the game, like car reviews. They do it as objectively as objectivity can go. If Jeff could not stand motion controls and non 8bit music should he score every game that do not meet those criteria negatively and give them a 0 or 1? No.

I haven't read the rest of your way too long reply.

can it be toosday already x___x

Isn't it though?

@chose@Marokai

A review at its core is there to recommend whether or not you should buy a game. That's it! So when Jeff gives Black Ops 2 a favorable four-star review, he's saying that if you're at all interested in that kind of game, you should definitely check it out and consider buying it. Were it a five star review, he'd be saying it's super amazing and you should buy it regardless of your feelings on past CoD games. Three stars would show some hesitance and still be a mild recommendation, but below that would be a recommendation to avoid the game. I don't get what's so controversial about that. It's not archaic. It's fresh, it gets to the point, and it makes sense.

Reviews aren't the final word or "truth" but they're an honest analysis of whether the reviewer thinks you should invest your time and money into the game or not. That's it!