I'd rather they bought a Vita dev kit!
You don't think we actually can buy a Vita dev kit, right?
...right?
I'd rather they bought a Vita dev kit!
You don't think we actually can buy a Vita dev kit, right?
...right?
Anything can be bought, Brad.
But no, that was a joke and a sigh.
lol Vinny @ the white house press conferences.... yeah, actually that's exactly how it works. They don't write scathing articles and they don't ask tough questions, and if they do then they're phased out.
edit: man what a weird hour. it's like they're justifying themselves when no one has called them out and basically saying..nothing
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.
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.
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.
Obligatory:
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?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.
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.
You should hold off, the 'Vita-2000' will hopefully be a little smaller, better speaker placement, cheaper, etc.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.
It's obviously been said but I'll reiterate it anyway. Jeff was super on the ball this week in both humor/story as well as being articulate and serious. A rare occasion since I feel we mostly get one or the other, and it's really cool to see.
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?
Is the a Vinny isn't on the podcast go to gif?
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.
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.
Is there a game you care to play on the vita?
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.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 do that stuff.
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...
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.
Apathy and hate aren't the same thing.
You should get a Wii.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.
Obligatory:
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.
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 quality?
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."
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. 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 do that stuff.
As has been endlessly pointed out, Shawn Elliot's links 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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
It does for most of us, I'd think.
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.