Support NeoGAF

[patapuf]

This has all been discussed at length in the Games Journalism thread with lots and lots of industry insiders giving their opinions in that thread. The OP has been constantly updated with highlighted links to posts by prominent people in the industry. I highly suggest checking it out. I think it is one of the best threads I have ever seen from this community. For now, I am just going to give a quote from o e of Jeff Green's posts because I think he does a great job addressing this particular point. I will refrain from bolding the whole thing:

but the quote you are showing is exactly what they are doing: klepec did it in his column, jeff did it in the thread you highlighted, they said it on the podcast and brad said it here.

they are aware that they are bombarded by PR and they are aware that they are human. which is why there are gray zones and there always will be. Either we trust the GB guys to handle those gray zones to our benefit or we don't.

There is no site where we see more about the review process and hear more about the thoughts of the reviewers who write them. They have been very transparent about this stuff for years and openly mocked poor attemtps at PR that most video sites simply ignored. They've also been more open about their relationships with PR people than any other site i know. I value that a lot more than a piece of paper with ethical guidelines as reaction from sudden internet outrage.

Polygon had that too, we saw how much water these hold. Actions are better than words in this case and GB has been a lot better at handling these issues since their inception than most other sites imo.

 

[rudds]

The Star Wars movies are going to be like the new Star Trek movies - they're just going to become safe, PG(13), summer films that try to please everyone and offend no one. Hell, just like The Avengers, to be honest.

That's fine and it makes perfect sense for Disney to do Star Wars. I'm just not interested any more. The only thing that would amuse me is if they decided to throw out the entire EU and basically do their own thing - if only because it would piss off so many Star Wars nerds. lol

That's exactly my take on it as well. The JJ Abrams Star Trek was a lot of fun, but it wasn't Star Trek. Then again, neither were the Next Generation movies, really.

At any rate, if the best thing that comes out of this whole deal is the original Star Wars trilogy gets released unmolested on Blu-Ray, I'll be happy enough.

 

[obonicus]

I'm not talking about GB in particular, but the idea that people will always find a way to justify their own behaviour to themselves.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that you're pointing to actual wrong-doing (or even criminal behavior) as an example for situations where the impropriety isn't so clear. In fact, people have had to resort to pseudo-psychological babble to try and pin down why swag is so wrong.

Like, remember when that guy went on Oprah with a book about his life but it turned out that he made all that shit up? He must have known that he was going to get caught eventually, but he still went on Oprah anyway. Why would a rational human being do that? Because they don't have a rational perspective on their own lives.

Granted, but the dude actually knew that he was doing something wrong. He didn't accidentally create a book about lies. I don't think it applies here, since we're arguing the opposite, that you can be doing something wrong even without realizing due to the insidious nature of advertising and PR.

Whether game journalists or youtube reviewers or whatever are compromised in the same way, I don't know. But to think it's impossible is fairly naive.

Personally, I think it's unlikely. I think people are crazy enough to genuinely be obsessed about gaming products without having to receive a cent for it. Just visit a GAF OT.

 

[obonicus]

Questioning whether or not the gaming media should be accepting mountains of swag or have personal relationships with PR is not a loaded question because they openly admit to doing these things.

Yup, they do! And that's a positive. The loaded question is: 'have you stopped letting swag secretly influence you?'

 

[EternalGamer]

but the quote you are showing is exactly what they are doing.

No. It is not.

Yup, they do! And that's a positive.'

Huh?

 

[see5harp]

I will no longer stand for promotional materials and swag. My faith in Giant Bomb will not be restored until they publicly state the subconscious value of every piece of swag they have every received from a publisher. They can add a little box under the title for each review where they itemize and post pictures of the swag. I appreciate Brad Shoemaker posting that he acknowledged that swag was a part of the PR process but without real measure of subconscious thoughts before and after the review process, it's hard to for me to look at Giant Bomb as having real integrity. At the end of the day, I'll never really know whether that Final Fantasy energy drink resulted in a somewhat positive paragraph in a review and that saddens me.

 

[firehawk12]

That's exactly my take on it as well. The JJ Abrams Star Trek was a lot of fun, but it wasn't Star Trek. Then again, neither were the Next Generation movies, really.

At any rate, if the best thing that comes out of this whole deal is the original Star Wars trilogy gets released unmolested on Blu-Ray, I'll be happy enough.

But Brad, every single print of the original Star Wars trilogy has been lost or destroyed! You're asking for the impossible!

Spoiler

Personally, I think it's unlikely. I think people are crazy enough to genuinely be obsessed about gaming products without having to receive a cent for it. Just visit a GAF OT.

So I still have no idea if this is true, but someone made an accusation that said that Konami paid or gave some benefits to the guy who made the MGS4 OT years ago. I have no idea if that's true or not, but even on GAF, I wouldn't be surprised if some weird shit is happening.

Hell, remember when OTs were like 5 posts of giant ass gifs with nothing but screen shots and plot summaries and shit? I never thought anything of it at the time, since I always skip the first page of OTs, but I wouldn't be surprised if some behind the scenes shit was really going on in some of those instances.

 

[patapuf]

No. It is not.

Way to ignore the rest of my post.

Do you disagree that GB is transparent about their review process and the PR stuff they encounter? what more than that do you want?

Who do you trust more, Kotaku and other sites promising that they will do better from now on even though they didn't care at all in the past or GB who have been pretty good about this stuff for years?

 

[noobasuar]

Seriously died laughing at Jeffs story about the girl stealing change from his closet.

 

[inner-G]

Ryan got a Vita? Niiiiiiice

Good time to jump in, get dat NFSMW, son.

 

[kai3345]

That's exactly my take on it as well. The JJ Abrams Star Trek was a lot of fun, but it wasn't Star Trek. Then again, neither were the Next Generation movies, really.

At any rate, if the best thing that comes out of this whole deal is the original Star Wars trilogy gets released unmolested on Blu-Ray, I'll be happy enough.

Wrong. The best thing that could happen is a Day of the Tentacle animated feature.

 

[EternalGamer]

Way to ignore the rest of my post.

Ok, fine. I was hoping I wouldn't have to do this but I will spam the quote again, this time with bolding:

But the press certainly has some choice, in some matters. You do NOT have to accept free shit. You do not have to tweet with the hashtags the companies tell you to. You do not have to take even one free drink or travel on their dime. You can play ball without compromising your own personal integrity. But you ALSO have to acknowledge that, to some extent, you ARE playing ball, and that it is not always going to look particularly noble or brave. That's why you have to try extra hard not to do dumb shit, not to LOOK like the shill you're desperately trying not to be. Because everyone else thinks you are. Including some of the companies you're covering. THEY see you as part of their marketing plan.

Do you disagree that GB is transparent about their review process and the PR stuff they encounter? what more than that do you want?

They are transparent about some things, yes. More than most, probably. But transparency isn't some magical panacea to this problem.

Who do you trust more, Kotaku and other sites promising that they will do better from now on even though they didn't care at all in the past or GB who have been pretty good about this stuff for years?

This is a lame argument. It is akin to "Nuh uh, he is worse" finger pointing. Giant Bomb is one of the better ones, but no site is perfect. I am talking specifically about their outright dismissal of the idea that maybe there is some areas they could improve simply on the basis that we should trust them because they are cynical.

 

[funkystudent]

This thread has me hyped to listen to this on my commute tomorrow.


3 hours + is great as well because its 1:30 each way.

 

[Majine]

I think this might be one of my favorite Bombcast ep ever.

 

[f0rk]

I am talking specifically about their outright dismissal of the idea that maybe there is some areas they could improve simply on the basis that we should trust them because they are cynical.

How is anyone supposed to respond to this?

 

[EternalGamer]

How is anyone supposed to respond to this?

By giving a better argument for why they should accept free shit and have personal relationships with PR? Or perhaps maybe just by considering adjusting their policy and not doing those some of those things.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

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.

I honestly do get your point, but when you go around and tell people "Hey, you're being influenced subconsciously by this thing, I don't care what you say or do, you're compromised." you get really REALLY close to thought-crime territory and basically saying that all people are out of control all the time due to myriad and many subtle subconscious influences.

Furthermore, Shawn Elliot may be a voice of reason when compared to 99% of "games journalists" but he is not a neuroscientist or behavioral psychologist, no matter how many pop-science books he reads or how much he likes to play either or both on the internet.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I am talking specifically about their outright dismissal of the idea that maybe there is some areas they could improve simply on the basis that we should trust them because they are cynical.

I think most Giant Bomb fans, the people who go to their site for their opinions and thus whose opinions matter most here, would argue that this is enough for them and a lot of the dumb stuff that they get to do/record because of PR "bribery" etc is worth it for the entertainment value, safe in the knowledge that it's not influencing their scores.

We DO trust them because they ARE cynical about a lot of this stuff, as well as being very transparent. You can try and have a philosophical debate all day long about why this might not be the perfect way to be for some arbitrary reasons, but the truth is it works for them and their fans, so who cares.

If they were pretentious twats like the guys over at the Verge I'd be with you, but they're the most honest and open guys in the industry this side of the ex-1UPers. I don't see why this bothers you so much.

 

[kai3345]

Just got to Jeff's stories about the cops.

HOLY SHIT.

Best Bombcast story ever probably. I want a series of podcasts dedicated to Jeff telling stories from his past. Please.

If they made this a premium feature i would subscribe in an instant.

I'm not joking.

 

[EternalGamer]

I honestly do get your point, but when you go around and tell people "Hey, you're being influenced subconsciously by this thing, I don't care what you say or do, you're compromised." you get really REALLY close to thought-crime territory and basically saying that all people are out of control all the time due to myriad and many subtle subconscious influences.

That is not thought crime territory. It is a slight exaggeration of what I am saying, though.

Furthermore, Shawn Elliot may be a voice of reason when compared to 99% of "games journalists" he is not a neuroscientist or behavioral psychologist, no matter how many pop-science books he reads or how much he likes to play one on the internet.

I wasn't citing Shawn's posts because he is an expert, I was linking to them because they do a good job of succinctly communicating some of the problems with people that think they are above the influence. But if you think his argument is flawed, feel free to point out where the problems lie. It would be an interesting contribution to the conversation. Just implying that his argument isn't credible without giving a single reason why doesn't really contribute anything.

 

[neoemonk]

I think I like this podcast more for the ancillary discussion than the games. I learned about Longmont Potion Castle and that goddamn buzzer/numbers stations from these guys.

 

[patapuf]

They are transparent about some things, yes. But transparency isn't some magical panacea to this problem.

You see, the PR is unavoidable, the media you show is controlled, wheter you accept the free shit or not, Nintendo will still walk into your office with an armada of cute girls so to speak.

If i know about it, i know when to be vary. I don't need anyone else to do my critical thinking for me.

This is a lame argument. It is akin to "Nuh uh, he is worse" finger pointing. Giant Bomb is one of the better ones, but no site is perfect. I am talking specifically about their outright dismissal of the idea that maybe there is some areas they could improve simply on the basis that we should trust them because they are cynical.

You see what i heard was: "we are doing our best to be on top of this stuff". Considering why giant bomb was founded in the first place and how they have handled these issues in the past i'm inclined to believe that they do.

Wheter what they are doing is enough is up to the individual viewer of course (and this is where transparency is important, i feel i can acutally judge if what they are doing is genuine or if they are BSing us).

I undersand your disapointment in their slightly dismissive statements but let's not loose perspective just because they don't say exactly what we want to hear. Trust is earned over time, them saying "we are going to evaluate the PR stuff extra hard from now on" wouldn't change anything, just like it doesn't change anything from the sites that are promising it now. Their actions in the future will show wheter they deserve it or not. A PR statement from GB (irony?) doesn't interest me.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I think I like this podcast more for the ancillary discussion than the games. I learned about Longmont Potion Castle and that goddamn buzzer/numbers stations from these guys.

The off-topic sections of the Bombcast are nearly always the best. The same was true for GFW Radio.

Backs up how good their personalities are outside of being games journalists™

 

[Antiwhippy]

By giving a better argument for why they should accept free shit and have personal relationships with PR? Or perhaps maybe just by considering adjusting their policy and not doing those some of those things.

I can see your swag argument, but not your PR personal relationship argument. Why can't you accept that people can separate relationships to personal and business? Also transperancy in this case is the perfect way of keeping their views separate from the PR views. They clearly show when it's just them letting the publisher express their sales pitch and when it is their opinion.

Also PR relationships are what allows the audience to get the content they want. The starcraft trip for example, which is a fantastic content because they have a PR relationship. The same goes for many interviews, and pre-release game coverage, because the fact is that companies control the release of that content, and having a PR relationship is essential to getting that content. It's only when you can't distinguish your own editorial voice with the PR pitch that it becomes a problem. This is how it is for the enthusiast press.

 

[Majine]

Was it true that the new Xbox dashboard blocked the HDDVD add-on? Sounds fucked up.

 

[ThusZarathustra]

That is not thought crime territory.

I don't mean thought-crime in the traditional Orwellian sense ya pedant, I meant in that you genuinely posit that you know the inner workings or someones head better than they do and that if they disagree with your assessment they must be in the wrong.

It is a slight exaggeration of what I am saying, though.

It is not a slight exaggeration, it is the logical endpoint of your argument. A logical endpoint you have chosen to to not address for some reason that I cannot fathom.

I wasn't citing Shawn's posts because he is an expert, I was linking to them because they do a good job of succinctly communicating some of the problems with people that think they are above the influence. But if you think his argument is flawed, feel free to point out where the problems lie. It would be an interesting contribution to the conversation. Just implying that his argument isn't credible without giving a single reason why doesn't really contribute anything.

I didn't say there was any problems with what Shawn said, in fact, if you look at what I actually posted, I called him a voice of reason. My point in addressing his pop-science qualifications is to simply say that he has NOT studied the issue extensively and objectively. Which isn't to say that he's wrong. Just that his assessment of the situation is colorful and personal and tinted with his own time spent in the trenches of the enthusiast press.

He does not hold in his hands some kind clinical study of the situation or anything, he's just a well articulated voice of reason. That's it.

 

[EternalGamer]

I think most Giant Bomb fans, the people who go to their site for their opinions and thus whose opinions matter most here, would argue that this is enough for them and a lot of the dumb stuff that they get to do/record because of PR "bribery" etc is worth it for the entertainment value, safe in the knowledge that it's not influencing their scores.

We DO trust them because they ARE cynical about a lot of this stuff, as well as being very transparent. You can try and have a philosophical debate all day long about why this might not be the perfect way to be for some arbitrary reasons, but the truth is it works for them and their fans, so who cares.

If they were pretentious twats like the guys over at the Verge I'd be with you, but they're the most honest and open guys in the industry this side of the ex-1UPers. I don't see why this bothers you so much.

Actually it didn't initially bother me that much. In fact, if you look back over that Games Journalism thread you will see that I talked quite a few times about how I thought alot of this stuff we were talking about made me appreciate Giant Bomb more and more. For the record, I am a paid subscriber to their site and I have been for several years (same username, feel free to check).

But then the way they handled it on the podcast kind of bothered me at first. And then the more I thought about it the more it did. I don't like the fact that their way of dealing with this entire thing is to completely portray themselves as above any significant influence and not use it as an opportunity to reflect on how they could do things better. Again, that strikes me as both defensive and complacent. I already elaborated as to why in regards to stuff like Vinny's defense of PR relationships and their discussion of the mountain of swag they get, so I won't go into it again.

What I was looking for in their discussion was some honest self reflection, hard questioning, re-evaluations, and maybe even some conversation about how they could improve. What I got instead was defensiveness, dismissal, and what I think is a pretty weak argument that we should trust them just because they are cynical. This conversation has already had it's impact in a lot of ways. Polygon got criticized for a story they put up and then they pulled it because they said they realized the readers were right that it didn't live up to their standards. Kotaku wasn't going to post a story about it but they changed their minds because of conversation in the Journalism thread. There are a number of other examples of sites that have either made new changes in their policy or published pretty inspiring editorials about the whole incident.

I guess it is exactly because I respect Giant Bomb so much that I expected more out of them than this type of complacency.

 

[Curufinwe]

Was it true that the new Xbox dashboard blocked the HDDVD add-on? Sounds fucked up.

No, Patrick said on twitter he got that wrong on the Bombcast.

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

If they made this a premium feature i would subscribe in an instant.

I'm not joking.

Monster Dunk WHERE ARE YOU.

 

[Majine]

No, Patrick said on twitter he got that wrong on the Bombcast.

Oh good. I know a friend that still has that thing around. Would've felt bad since I talked to him about the new dashboard.

 

[Jake Tower]

How my mind's eye pictured characters from this week's Bombcast:

Chris with a White Car

Dr. Space-o (Sbaitso)

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Actually it didn't initially bother me that much. In fact, if you look back over that Games Journalism thread you will see that I talked quite a few times about how I thought alot of this stuff we were talking about made me appreciate Giant Bomb more and more. For the record, I am a paid subscriber to their site and I have been for several years (same username, feel free to check).

But then the way they handled it on the podcast kind of bothered me at first. And then the more I thought about it the more it did. I don't like the fact that their way of dealing with this entire thing is to completely portray themselves as above any significant influence and not use it as an opportunity to reflect on how they could do things better. Again, that strikes me as both defensive and complacent. I already elaborated as to why in regards to stuff like Vinny's defense of PR relationships and their discussion of the mountain of swag they get, so I won't go into it again.

What I was looking for in their discussion was some honest self reflection, hard questioning, re-evaluations, and maybe even some conversation about how they could improve. What I got instead was defensiveness, dismissal, and what I think is a pretty weak argument that we should trust them just because they are cynical. This conversation has already had it's impact in a lot of ways. Polygon got criticized for a story they put up and then they pulled it because they said they realized the readers were right that it didn't live up to their standards. Kotaku wasn't going to post a story about it but they changed their minds because of conversation in the Journalism thread. There are a number of other examples of sites that have either made new changes in their policy or published pretty inspiring editorials about the whole incident.

I guess it is exactly because I respect Giant Bomb so much that I expected more out of them than this type of complacency.

The difference is, as far as I can see, you're the only one thinking GB needs to change to improve. We're all perfectly happy with the way things are, for the most part.

If you want a valid fight, try to get them to improve TNT or have more Vinny, Dave and Drew in their content.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

By giving a better argument for why they should accept free shit and have personal relationships with PR? Or perhaps maybe just by considering adjusting their policy and not doing those some of those things.

Are you really suggesting that they should give up personal friendships with people that happen to work at a video game company? If so, that's kind of absurd.

Some of the best content from Giant Bomb comes from their interactions with people who work at video game companies. For example, having Dave Lang or some of the Double Fine dudes over can make for some really entertaining videos or podcasts. They are transparent about this, though, so you can form your own opinion about any of their coverage of video games from companies those people may work for.

 

[Nizz]

That's exactly my take on it as well. The JJ Abrams Star Trek was a lot of fun, but it wasn't Star Trek. Then again, neither were the Next Generation movies, really.

At any rate, if the best thing that comes out of this whole deal is the original Star Wars trilogy gets released unmolested on Blu-Ray, I'll be happy enough.

Yeah, about that...

https://twitter.com/gregalor/status/263382748755030016

 

[f0rk]

Actually it didn't initially bother me that much. In fact, if you look back over that Games Journalism thread you will see that I talked quite a few times about how I thought alot of this stuff we were talking about made me appreciate Giant Bomb more and more. For the record, I am a paid subscriber to their site and I have been for several years (same username, feel free to check).

But then the way they handled it on the podcast kind of bothered me at first. And then the more I thought about it the more it did. I don't like the fact that their way of dealing with this entire thing is to completely portray themselves as above any significant influence and not use it as an opportunity to reflect on how they could do things better. Again, that strikes me as both defensive and complacent. I already elaborated as to why in regards to stuff like Vinny's defense of PR relationships and their discussion of the mountain of swag they get, so I won't go into it again.

What I was looking for in their discussion was some honest self reflection, hard questioning, re-evaluations, and maybe even some conversation about how they could improve. What I got instead was defensiveness, dismissal, and what I think is a pretty weak argument that we should trust them just because they are cynical. This conversation has already had it's impact in a lot of ways. Polygon got criticized for a story they put up and then they pulled it because they said they realized the readers were right that it didn't live up to their standards. Kotaku wasn't going to post a story about it but they changed their minds because of conversation in the Journalism thread. There are a number of other examples of sites that have either made new changes in their policy or published pretty inspiring editorials about the whole incident.

I guess it is exactly because I respect Giant Bomb so much that I expected more out of them than this type of complacency.

What were they doing wrong that these huge "revelations" (imo anyone who thinks it's at all new is incredible naive) will make them look at and change? Who's to say they haven't already looked at themselves, just not on this podcast? Jeff mentioned in the big thread he has changed his mind about a big project that was in the planning stages because of the reaction to Keighley's sponsorship mess. I don't see what else they could do except invent some way of mapping subliminal thoughts to prove to you they aren't affected by the PR stuff.

I'm not a big fan of either Kotaku or Polygon, but honestly I think you guys are barking up the wrong tree anyway. In my opinion all of the big sites have got a pretty good handle on the swag and PR stuff. The problem is with the easily swayed such as the shitty blogs with no readership, the freelancers and the more general writers in the mainstream press. Jeff has brought this up more than once, if someone can only publish one article some dumb ass straight jacket or whatever might swing the decision. But I find it hard to care as I can just ignore stuff coming from those people. It's the way all media works really not just in games 'journalism'.

 

[Deyleone]

If you want a valid fight, try to get them to improve TNT or have more Vinny, Dave and Drew in their content.

Yes please.

 

[The Bookerman]

Yeah, about that...

https://twitter.com/gregalor/status/263382748755030016

Since when does LucasArts need a restoration artist?

 

[Owensboro]

At any rate, if the best thing that comes out of this whole deal is the original Star Wars trilogy gets released unmolested on Blu-Ray, I'll be happy enough.

Have you looked into the Harmy releases of the "despecalized" movies in Blu-Ray quality? They just released a special "2.0" version (<--Tested Link) that makes me very jealous considering I already have the burned "1.0" editions in Blu-Ray cases with printed out labels. I'm no HD-snob or even an audiophile, but I've watched the Despecialized versions multiple times and really, really like them.

But the news of Disney buying Lucasfilm with the announcement of Episode 7 has been the most I've been excited for Star Wars in a looong time.

You know what man, me too. After years of watching the original movies, playing the pen and paper RPG, playing with action figures, and reading random books in the series I really loved it. Then, the prequel movies came out and pretty much murdered any enthusiasm I had for the series. Maybe it was just me growing up, but god I used to like Star Wars so much!

 

[Nizz]

Since when does LucasArts need a restoration artist?

Maybe a typo? Someone dug that tweet up in one of the Star Wars threads when someone mentioned how maybe it was possible to get the unaltered versions of the original trilogy on Blu-ray.

I mean, if the originals are somehow put on Blu-ray it would be good news for many. I'm either way with it, although I hate some of the changes Lucas made in the Blu-ray set.

But the news of Disney buying Lucasfilm with the announcement of Episode 7 has been the most I've been excited for Star Wars in a looong time.

 

[Hot Coldman]

That might be a contender for my favourite episode of the Bombcast ever. The story about Jeff's weird former life in the shadiest fucking neighbourhood ever and the extremely satisfying discussion about This Week's Noise (tm) was fantastic.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

...with Brad "Beardfather" Shoemaker!

EDIT: @Tricky about Dust: Welcome to JRPG fan woes.

 

[Hot Coldman]

jeff's story was so great.

they also made nfs sound a bit crummy for single player racing fans. bah, better go for forza instead.

What the fuck am I supposed to do, though? I'm on PS3, so Forza is out for me too.

And AC3 is sounding less appealing now that bargo is busted. Bah. Time to finally stop fucking around and get Sleepy Dawgz and Mario 3D Land.

 

[YuriLowell]

Assassins Creed 3 was a victim of its own marketing campaign.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Actually it didn't initially bother me that much. In fact, if you look back over that Games Journalism thread you will see that I talked quite a few times about how I thought alot of this stuff we were talking about made me appreciate Giant Bomb more and more. For the record, I am a paid subscriber to their site and I have been for several years (same username, feel free to check).

But then the way they handled it on the podcast kind of bothered me at first. And then the more I thought about it the more it did. I don't like the fact that their way of dealing with this entire thing is to completely portray themselves as above any significant influence and not use it as an opportunity to reflect on how they could do things better. Again, that strikes me as both defensive and complacent. I already elaborated as to why in regards to stuff like Vinny's defense of PR relationships and their discussion of the mountain of swag they get, so I won't go into it again.

What I was looking for in their discussion was some honest self reflection, hard questioning, re-evaluations, and maybe even some conversation about how they could improve. What I got instead was defensiveness, dismissal, and what I think is a pretty weak argument that we should trust them just because they are cynical. This conversation has already had it's impact in a lot of ways. Polygon got criticized for a story they put up and then they pulled it because they said they realized the readers were right that it didn't live up to their standards. Kotaku wasn't going to post a story about it but they changed their minds because of conversation in the Journalism thread. There are a number of other examples of sites that have either made new changes in their policy or published pretty inspiring editorials about the whole incident.

I guess it is exactly because I respect Giant Bomb so much that I expected more out of them than this type of complacency.

It really seems that you're hanging onto two things.
1. The promotional stuff they receive
2. Having a relationship with PR

Now, apparently you're upset with the "complacency" that they addressed those two things.

First, when it comes to promotional materials after some time you just become immune to the amount of crap that gets thrown around. Hats, shirts, pencils, pens, little bouncy balls that light up when they hit the floor. Hell, even my company has a boat load of that stuff that we hand out to our clients. The first time you experience it, it's kinda cool. Now it's like, "What the hell am I going to do with this?" These guys have been doing this for a very long time. I can't even imagine the amount of stuff that has crossed their desks over their careers.

Now about the PR. If you work in a particular field for long enough, you will eventually develop a relationship with them. At the same time, you have your job and they have theirs. Shit, I know for a fact that our sales guys have a great rapport with certain companies, but we still can't get that elusive contract because at the end of the day, they don't think we fill their needs as well as one of our competitors. No amount of wining and dining will ever change that. All we can do is make our name be remembered when it comes to being on that list to be invited to bid on a contract. Sometimes we don't even get on that short list regardless.

Now look at GB. I honestly think getting a quick look from them is a lucrative thing. Hell I bought Hotline Miami because of it. I honestly think that's something that they can leverage and I would love to hear if they are. The "Quick Look" of the Sleeping Dogs they did today was hilariously amazing.

Now it was asked how to get it so these companies can't lean on these websites. It's actually pretty simple. You make it so that they are extremely desperate to have their content on GB's site.

But here's the catch... During GB's transition to their new digs, I saw people bitching about the lack of content on their site. "I'm not going to subscribe if they don't increase their output." "Why aren't you covering this game!" "You hate the Vita even though I should know they have no way of actually being able to do a QL with any sort of quality other than placing a camera over their shoulder!" "Why are you shooting that Vita launch over their shoulder! The quality is terrible!"

 

[Htown]

Assassins Creed 3 was a victim of its own marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, I'd say Assassin's Creed 3 was a victim of the annualization of the series.

 

[StuBurns]

I was surprised how down they were on the concept of hiring people who'd done mock reviews. I don't see the conflict of interest unless it's directly the same product. I know Shawn Elliot did it, and he was certainly amongst one of the most interesting writers in the game's press at the time to me.

I feel like all the press who've commented on this story are completely missing the point. It's just people lining up to say they're above being influenced and would never do it. It's the worst manipulation in the world if you're aware of it. The idea of curving behavior is to do it without the person being aware it was done. It's arrogant to believe none of the context of the people in your life are altering your impression of the game. GiantBomb even know this, they didn't review Bastion because they know it's inappropriate in that extreme situation. Everything is tainted, just to differing degrees. It's nothing to do with giving a 7/10 a 10/10 because you get hammered with some PR girl, it's giving it a 7.1/10 because you get hammered with some PR girl, and 7.2/10 because of having dinner with the director, and 7.3/10 for whatever else, and all without you actually being aware of it.

The story Jeff told about a friend being in PR and bitching Jeff had shit on some game is really sad.

 

[eznark]

Patrick dismissing Alex's thoughts on Liberation because he "isn't really an Assassins Creed fan" was bizarre.

 

[mujun]

I was surprised how down they were on the concept of hiring people who'd done mock reviews. I don't see the conflict of interest unless it's directly the same product. I know Shawn Elliot did it, and he was certainly amongst one of the most interesting writers in the game's press at the time to me.

I feel like all the press who've commented on this story are completely missing the point. It's just people lining up to say they're above being influenced and would never do it. It's the worst manipulation in the world if you're aware of it. The idea of curving behavior is to do it without the person being aware it was done. It's arrogant to believe none of the context of the people in your life are altering your impression of the game. GiantBomb even know this, they didn't review Bastion because they know it's inappropriate in that extreme situation. Everything is tainted, just to differing degrees. It's nothing to do with giving a 7/10 a 10/10 because you get hammered with some PR girl, it's giving it a 7.1/10 because you get hammered with some PR girl, and 7.2/10 because of having dinner with the director, and 7.3/10 for whatever else, and all without you actually being aware of it.

The story Jeff told about a friend being in PR and bitching Jeff had shit on some game is really sad.

I agree. Seems like the most realistic and reasonable approach to me (unlike a lot of the high falutin discussion going on in this thread for example).

To try to avoid being influenced as much as possible is achievable but to actually do it is impossible.

I would hate to think that there are people in the press out there actually listening to their audience and believing that that is an achievable state. I think the way the GB guys do it is more than enough, striving to be above influence.

Maybe the problem is that people use incorrect ways to describe how well they do or don't do something? I find the advertising discussion that pops up in threads every now and then to be similar. Someone will complain about too many ads on, say, the XBL dash and others will say that they don't even see them. I might be guilty of that myself. Truth is, when I sit down to think about it that they only influence me when I let them and I do so willingly. I've never bought something, subconsciously convinced by advertising, only to wonder what made me buy it in the first place.

Surely approaching every piece of PR with the thought, "I need to make sure that I don't let this influence my opinion" kept in mind is more than enough guarantee that someone in this business is doing enough to be objective.

 

[StuBurns]

Patrick dismissing Alex's thoughts on Liberation because he "isn't really an Assassins Creed fan" was bizarre.

I might be wrong, but I took it to me Alex doesn't like the controls of Liberation, but he doesn't like the control of the others, so his perspective on the controls aren't relevant to fans of the series.

 

[EternalGamer]

I was surprised how down they were on the concept of hiring people who'd done mock reviews. I don't see the conflict of interest unless it's directly the same product. I know Shawn Elliot did it, and he was certainly amongst one of the most interesting writers in the game's press at the time to me.

I feel like all the press who've commented on this story are completely missing the point. It's just people lining up to say they're above being influenced and would never do it. It's the worst manipulation in the world if you're aware of it. The idea of curving behavior is to do it without the person being aware it was done. It's arrogant to believe none of the context of the people in your life are altering your impression of the game. GiantBomb even know this, they didn't review Bastion because they know it's inappropriate in that extreme situation. Everything is tainted, just to differing degrees. It's nothing to do with giving a 7/10 a 10/10 because you get hammered with some PR girl, it's giving it a 7.1/10 because you get hammered with some PR girl, and 7.2/10 because of having dinner with the director, and 7.3/10 for whatever else, and all without you actually being aware of it.

The story Jeff told about a friend being in PR and bitching Jeff had shit on some game is really sad.

I agree, actually. As long as they are not currently doing jobs for those companies, I do not see a problem. But it is easy to make that line call when you have not done it. It is much harder to say "no swag." I am not convinced that doing mock reviews compromises you more than your exceptance of swag or your PR relationships. It is just a convenient stance since nobody at GB has actually done mock reviews.