-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Giant Bombcast - | 10-30-2012 |
- Thread starter vitaminwateryum
- Start date
If it were that easy, I guarantee we'd have done it by now. Not having QLs for an entire platform (even one as anemic as the Vita) really sucks a whole lot. Especially on weeks when we're scraping for new games to record and there's a whole library sitting there unusable.
I'm thinking more and more about getting one myself, but it's been long enough now that I wonder if the inevitable Vita-2000 and/or price drop is worth waiting a bit longer for.
HamPster PamPster
Member
Save that money for a Wii U Brad!
Anyway, I say just lump what ever the Vita has left into an Encyclopedia Bombastica special next year
No need to worry about the Vita when the eShop is picking up steam. Those Guild01 games are dropping, wheres my Liberation Maiden quicklook Chief Anime Editor?
Anyway, I say just lump what ever the Vita has left into an Encyclopedia Bombastica special next year
No need to worry about the Vita when the eShop is picking up steam. Those Guild01 games are dropping, wheres my Liberation Maiden quicklook Chief Anime Editor?
Infinite Justice
Member
"we don't need to watermark our videos, you know where the fuck that came from"
so much truth in this sentence.
so much truth in this sentence.
Messofanego
Banned
A lot of people have called out Giant Bomb in the Doritosgate thread over the Medal of Honor pizza, The Raid, how they're chummy with Harmonix and Double Fine.
HamPster PamPster
Member
All I could think during Jeff's story was "shit, he must have had a really crappy commute if he lived so far out there"
Infinite Justice
Member
And why there is no Dance Central 3 review
Really? The website that was created because of journalistic integrity is being questioned? Some people are idiots.
SmellyHands
Member
Obligatory:
Is the a Vinny isn't on the podcast go to gif?
pharmboy044
Member
I've asked a few people this but never got a straight answer but can you clarify why Sony doesn't provide you guys a capture kit? Piracy?
Nintendo has provided this unusually bulky but working kit to you guys, I'd assume Sony would do the same.
Is there a hashtag you could tweet to win a Vita?
Joking aside, I'm getting one next month for P4 Golden.
You should hold off, the 'Vita-2000' will hopefully be a little smaller, better speaker placement, cheaper, etc.
Rare? He does that all the time. Personally, I think Jeff is the best guy on the bombcast. I prefer him to Vinny.
Jeff on the bombcast:
Probably won't get a WiiU till next year sometime, I'm almost pathologically averse to early hardware adoption these days. Haven't bought a console on day one since the N64 -- I usually wait till there's a game I can't live without (radical policy, I know). There's nothing sadder than a shiny new console with no games you care to play.
EternalGamer
Banned
Just finished listening to the newest Bombcast here are some thoughts:
A lot of what these guys say sounds great and they do have the cred to back it up. And it is awesome that they have found a way to get out of the stupid PR as news and "exclusive" grind cycle. And it is also great that they are willing to mock and subvert a lot of the PR they try to get swindled into. In general, they have a very healthy attitude toward this stuff.
However, they are far too quick to dismiss the idea of the more indirect influences of marketing and PR. Not only do they literally paint the world where there are "good guy" journalist and "bums," but they also seem to portray it as either the influence is there or it isn't in a very binary fashion.
Let me take one example from their own content to demonstrate how this is problematic. They mention in this week's podcast that Brad wanted the giant 5 foot tall Skyrim statue from Bethesday. Of course Bethesda was happy to send one over and they videotaped the whole thing. You can find the video here: http://www.giantbomb.com/giant-bomb-...e=6&sort=first
Now, do I think that statue changed Giant Bomb's review of the game? No, probably not. However, as Safe Bet pointed out above, really big fancy PR items subconsciously make you think that a game is a really big deal. Nothing could possibly do that more than having a giant Skyrim statue in your office day in and day out.
So what happened when the Game of the Year discussioned happened on GiantBomb cast? It was a deadlock between Skyrim and Saints Row. And Brad was the hold out against Saints Row. His basic argument seemed to be that he just could not see giving it to Saints Row over Skyrim that it was just unfathomable despite all the arguments that came up about Skyrim's glitches and about it being a iteration on Oblivion. A lot of listeners commented at the time on the seemingly irrationality of Brad's arguments because most of the criticisms he leveled against SR3 were also true of Skyrim. But it seemed that Brad just was dead set on the idea that Skyrim was a "bigger deal" and Saints Row simply wasn't as much of a big deal.
This is the potential effect of fancy swag and expensive trips. It may not change your review scores (at least not overtly and not dramatically) but it sure as hell might plant the idea that a certain game, franchise, or companies products are a huge deal. That you should probably cover them more, talk about them more, and that they should be weighed heavier in your mind than other games that don't have that stuff.
As has been endlessly pointed out, Shawn Elliot's posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) do an excellent job of talking about the sublte impacts of PR and marketing on psychology. You guys are not above it's influences even when you think you are. Consider that, don't just dismiss it.
A lot of what these guys say sounds great and they do have the cred to back it up. And it is awesome that they have found a way to get out of the stupid PR as news and "exclusive" grind cycle. And it is also great that they are willing to mock and subvert a lot of the PR they try to get swindled into. In general, they have a very healthy attitude toward this stuff.
However, they are far too quick to dismiss the idea of the more indirect influences of marketing and PR. Not only do they literally paint the world where there are "good guy" journalist and "bums," but they also seem to portray it as either the influence is there or it isn't in a very binary fashion.
Let me take one example from their own content to demonstrate how this is problematic. They mention in this week's podcast that Brad wanted the giant 5 foot tall Skyrim statue from Bethesday. Of course Bethesda was happy to send one over and they videotaped the whole thing. You can find the video here: http://www.giantbomb.com/giant-bomb-...e=6&sort=first
Now, do I think that statue changed Giant Bomb's review of the game? No, probably not. However, as Safe Bet pointed out above, really big fancy PR items subconsciously make you think that a game is a really big deal. Nothing could possibly do that more than having a giant Skyrim statue in your office day in and day out.
So what happened when the Game of the Year discussioned happened on GiantBomb cast? It was a deadlock between Skyrim and Saints Row. And Brad was the hold out against Saints Row. His basic argument seemed to be that he just could not see giving it to Saints Row over Skyrim that it was just unfathomable despite all the arguments that came up about Skyrim's glitches and about it being a iteration on Oblivion. A lot of listeners commented at the time on the seemingly irrationality of Brad's arguments because most of the criticisms he leveled against SR3 were also true of Skyrim. But it seemed that Brad just was dead set on the idea that Skyrim was a "bigger deal" and Saints Row simply wasn't as much of a big deal.
This is the potential effect of fancy swag and expensive trips. It may not change your review scores (at least not overtly and not dramatically) but it sure as hell might plant the idea that a certain game, franchise, or companies products are a huge deal. That you should probably cover them more, talk about them more, and that they should be weighed heavier in your mind than other games that don't have that stuff.
As has been endlessly pointed out, Shawn Elliot's posts (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) do an excellent job of talking about the sublte impacts of PR and marketing on psychology. You guys are not above it's influences even when you think you are. Consider that, don't just dismiss it.
funkystudent
Member
If it is lets hope we never have to see it.
Get someone to play Elemental!
Takamura-San
Member
Is there a game you care to play on the vita?
On the podcast they talked about Virtues Last Reward and it sounded like they were thinking the Vita version. Of coarse they realized that would make their job way harder so they said they would try to find a 3ds copy.
I think the effect is more of how big and well regarded is Elder Scroll to any other franchise out there. Even though I didn't agree with Brad on itm, I can see where he came from. When you have two games that are head to head, you might as well go with the one that seems to be a ''bigger deal'' than the other, and Elder Scrolls have spawned 5 games that were all super games and great for people who love that sort of games.
nicoga3000
Saint Nic
I love listening to this while gaming. One thing I still don't get though is the attitude towards the Vita. They REALLY hate this thing...
Apathy and hate aren't the same thing.
RomanticHeroX
Member
You already have one - Mario Galaxy
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I laughed at "experienced mind expanders." Love Jeff's stories.
nicoga3000
Saint Nic
True, I guess it's just that they brush it off and won't give it a chance after the initial launch woes. There really are some fantastic titles available for it, but it appears that they have no interest in giving them a fair review.
You should get a Wii.
You don't want to have gone this whole cycle without playing the best game of the generation, right?
The Elder Scrolls series was a big deal before Bethesda made a statue for the game and sent it over. Come on now.
Yes, Brad was very stubborn during that podcast, but Skyrim was a big deal. If you are talking about things that alter your perception of the game, the cult around Skyrim, videos online, other reviews, sales, etc. I think are more likely to color it than a statue of the game inside your office.
I get the point you are making, but this is a bad example to make I think. I do wish however that studios would not send over crap like that, which has to be useless for sites covering the game.
Yes, Brad was very stubborn during that podcast, but Skyrim was a big deal. If you are talking about things that alter your perception of the game, the cult around Skyrim, videos online, other reviews, sales, etc. I think are more likely to color it than a statue of the game inside your office.
I get the point you are making, but this is a bad example to make I think. I do wish however that studios would not send over crap like that, which has to be useless for sites covering the game.
Obligatory:
Without a doubt the coolest gif ever. Well done.
EternalGamer
Banned
I am not trying to make a direct correlation by saying "Brad got Skyrim Statue therefore GOTY." I am simply saying stuff like that can and does influence your perception. That concept was far too easily dismissed in their conversation. They just assumed that if they weren't falling all over it or getting direct monetary influence than there is nothing further to be explored.
But let's take another angle: how does it look to the viewer. You got a giant Skyrim statue in your office sent to you from Bethesda and you expect the viewer to believe you are trying to be an impartial arbiter between these two games?
Now this is all silly. I am well aware they don't take their Game of the Year awards deathly serious (though the debate sometime seems that way). And in the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much in this particular case. My only point is that swag and fancy PR stunts can and do have influence even when you aren't falling all overself about them. Even when you think they are crap and that you are jaded or that you only like it "ironically."
PR departments and marketing departments aren't dumb. They know what they are doing even when you think you are above their influence. Nobody looks at a Pepsi commercial and goes "Well, I sure am going to drink a lot more Pepsi now," but it works.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
I think something that modern psychology has left pretty clear is that the subconscious is not a good rhetoric tool to justifiy the enterity of behaviors o stances.
Or so I heard.
Or so I heard.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
The point you & the others in the other thread are missing is that they are transparent on what they get , & therefore the viewer is free to choose whether to trust GB or not(as Jeff posted in that thread if you don't trust them stop visiting them).
My argument was that Skyrim is the most robustly successful execution to date of the Bethesda RPG formula, a formula that I think is currently the best thing going in games (and I'd be thrilled to see someone else come along and do it better, because lord knows Bethesda's implementation ain't perfect). Saints Row is kind of a trifle as open-world games go, and the humor missed for me as much as it hit. I really enjoyed it but in my mind it's not GOTY material just because of its (admittedly delightful) subversive qualities.
If you've been with the podcast from the beginning you can't have missed the Fallout 3 discussions that took place for months on end ad nauseam, so you know we all sincerely really like that kind of game. Please take this as evenly as possible, but the idea that a stupid statue entered into the thought process in any way, even subconsciously, is offensive.
The bolded part of your quote is the most distressing, though. If we aren't capable of deciding for ourselves which games are a "big deal" and how much coverage a game warrants, purely based on how much the audience cares about it and how much we're interested in it, we shouldn't be doing this job in the first place. I like to think the number of QLs and reviews we post for smaller downloadable and indie games is a good offset to coverage of big, hyped retail releases.
As has been pointed out in the other thread, you're creating a no-win scenario in which we either admit we're compromised, or it turns out we're compromised anyway and just don't know it. The only solution at that point is to decide whether you trust us enough to keep listening to what we have to say. I do hope our track records speak for themselves in that regard.
EternalGamer
Banned
Well they are transparent on some of what they get.
Anyway, this is not just a simple matter of trust. I like these guys. I have been a paid subscriber to their site for two years. I am not calling them phoney or saying that they are being decietful. Stop trying to characterize it that way. This is a matter of influence and I am simply trying to argue that that stuff can and does have influence so it shouldn't be dismissed from the conversation. Even if you think are above it, you really are not.
That and I think those of us who followed him and Ryan along with the Gerstmann-gate incident, arrow pointing down, we know what they went through to get GB where it is today and what a scary thing it was for them to leave, but had to to keep their ethics intact. They certainly don't get a free pass, but they've at least earned the benefit of the doubt.
I still don't trust patrick's hair though.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
And if they showed everything then people would (rightfully) complain about the free advertising. I am not trying to characterise your argument in any way, but my point is simple; GB has made it fairly explicit what their particular policies are, if you think they haven't lived up to that it is fair to ask why, but after a certain point it becomes a matter of personal taste (in the same way as a site such as Kotaku is free to post whatever twaddle they wish, I choose not to go there so it doesn't affect me).
@EternalGamer
I agree that how it looks to us is an entirely different matter, worthy of being taken into account and that is something they should consider and not dismiss. (Have not yet listened to that part of the podcast).
Also, I kinda understand how Brad is in that regard and that is why people have different reservations for GB stuff: you just have to be aware of their personalities. It was the same deal with Diablo 3 for example. Brad just likes to think those games are super huge, and come once in a long time, feel super tight and polished and his review does show that, when we all know D3 was a pretty disappointing game at launch for many, yet he scored it five stars.
Of course, I can't tell you for sure how and what mostly influences those guys, I think we are all after all susceptible to subconscious outside influence that can come in many shapes, but I can tell you I feel I have a good idea of why Brad likes those games and think they are big and worthy of such praise and frankly, I don't think it has anything to with swag. That is why they, after all these years of receiving it, might think it doesn't matter.
That said, I think the practice is pretty shady, and would probably be better if it didn't exist.
I agree that how it looks to us is an entirely different matter, worthy of being taken into account and that is something they should consider and not dismiss. (Have not yet listened to that part of the podcast).
Also, I kinda understand how Brad is in that regard and that is why people have different reservations for GB stuff: you just have to be aware of their personalities. It was the same deal with Diablo 3 for example. Brad just likes to think those games are super huge, and come once in a long time, feel super tight and polished and his review does show that, when we all know D3 was a pretty disappointing game at launch for many, yet he scored it five stars.
Of course, I can't tell you for sure how and what mostly influences those guys, I think we are all after all susceptible to subconscious outside influence that can come in many shapes, but I can tell you I feel I have a good idea of why Brad likes those games and think they are big and worthy of such praise and frankly, I don't think it has anything to with swag. That is why they, after all these years of receiving it, might think it doesn't matter.
That said, I think the practice is pretty shady, and would probably be better if it didn't exist.
EternalGamer
Banned
You guy do a pretty great job of covering smaller games, no doubt. Though I can't think of a time you guys did one of your "Live" hour or two long quicklook extravangzas on a smaller title the way you do for even mediocre big ones like Medal of Honor. Maybe indie devs should start sending over pizzas? (That was a joke.)
Anyway, that's a bit off topic. My only point was that it simply that I don't believe the argument that all that swag and the big PR circus put on by big publishers has no impact at all. It is isn't just simply a matter of trying to buy you off with shit. Whether or not you want or like the stuff they are doing is really beside the point if they can just get you to post one more preview or decide that you need to talk about their game for 5 minutes while you only spend a passby coverage of another title. In short, yes, I want you to simply admit that yes that stuff can have an influence because it is painfully obvious to me that it can and does just in the same way that it can and does effect all of us. As Shawn succinctly noted, just don't present yourself as some sort of "Randian ubermensch" above all influence and that really seems like what you guys were doing on the cast.
Did you read that study Elliot linked to about how people tend to give more money when they get small gifts from charities? They don't even know they are doing it. There are lots of studies that just getting something, even some small bauble of some sort, influences you subconsciously.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It does for most of us, I'd think.
EternalGamer
Banned
Nobody's track record should ever put them in a position where you think they are perfect or above influence or above criticism. Similarly on the opposite side, just because you question or criticize does not mean you totally lack trust and think someone is a shill.
Like I said, this whole discussion on the podcast worked too hard to make it a simplistic binary between the "good guy journalists" and the "bad guy shills."
We've never claimed we're anything other than human, susceptible to the same frailties and shortcomings as everyone else. But all of us have been doing this for a long, long time, and if we come off as dismissive about this I think it's because we all know for ourselves what a leathery, jaded hide we've all built up about the less palatable aspects of this business, a thick skin which hopefully girds us as much as possible from external influence. While we regard our own cynicism as self-evident because we work with it every day, I can understand how it may not be obvious to the average audience member who isn't privy to every aspect of our editorial practice.