-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Giant Bombcast - | 10-30-2012 |
- Thread starter vitaminwateryum
- Start date
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
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."
Of course not. However, the Giant Bomb dudes have consistently shown that they are *real* and not bullshitting their audience.
Even if you don't base your purchase decisions off of their reviews, their videos are amazingly helpful for getting a good idea about what a game is like.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
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.
HOLY SHIT.
Best Bombcast story ever probably. I want a series of podcasts dedicated to Jeff telling stories from his past. Please.
If I thought episode 2 of Walking Dead was predictable, lame and completely generic is there any point in playing episodes 3 and 4?
three is a lot more surprising i think and feels part of a greater hopeless journey instead of a self-contained goofy horror setup. haven't played four yet.
EternalGamer
Banned
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.
Being cynical is not enough. As Elliot noted "we are all blind to our own blindnesses." Your best way to know where and how you are being influenced by your environment is to look to those outside of it.
One of the immediate things that comes to my mind in this regard is the much, much bigger discussion about AAA reviews and the community backlash (much of which I think was totally justified) that has occured again and again recently (DA 2, ME3, Diablo 3 etc.). This is the only industry I really know of where the critics continually argue that the larger audience is too hard on big blockbuster media. Pay attention to those kinds of disparities. I am not saying "the audience is always right." I am saying, be conscientious enough to question the influences of the PR-media environment you guys live in day in and day out.
In the end, that willingess to question and be introspective about it is probably a lot more powerful than even the healthiest dose of cynicism.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Just get Aram Jabbari to give you a Vita dev kit.
I am nearly positive that nobody at SCEA would notice if they all went missing one day.
I am nearly positive that nobody at SCEA would notice if they all went missing one day.
If I thought episode 2 of Walking Dead was predictable, lame and completely generic is there any point in playing episodes 3 and 4?
Depending on your choices, I think you'd hate episode 3 if that was your opinion of ep2.
HamPster PamPster
Member
The more praise The Walking Dead gets the more pissed off at Jurassic Park I become. I will never play it (or any other Telltale game ever again) out of spite
Nothing is better than Vinny on the plane with is kid. Nothing!
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING ARGUGHH
Vinny, Max fell asleep 10 minutes ago...
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.
Nothing is better than Vinny on the plane with is kid. Nothing!
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING ARGUGHH
Vinny, Max fell asleep 10 minutes ago...
Being cynical is not enough. As Elliot noted "we are all blind to our own blindnesses." Your best way to know where and how you are being influenced by your environment is to look to those outside of it.
One of the immediate things that comes to my mind in this regard is the much, much bigger discussion about AAA reviews and the community backlash (much of which I think was totally justified) that has occured again and again recently (DA 2, ME3, Diablo 3 etc.). This is the only industry I really know of where the critics continually argue that the larger audience is too hard on big blockbuster media. Pay attention to those kinds of disparities. I am not saying "the audience is always right." I am saying, be conscientious enough to question the influences of the PR-media environment you guys live in day in and day out.
In the end, that willingess to question and be introspective about it is probably a lot more powerful than even the healthiest dose of cynicism.
What is your point in this? they should say what the audience wants? That's exactly the same as being influenced by PR, you just get influenced by a different scource. I can guarantee that ME3 and Diablo are not nearly as hated as forum communities make them out to be. Following the hyperbole on forums will not lead to better games coverage. I think they've explained at length (and during the podcast) that they are aware of PR and do think about it's influences.
People have to stop treating reviews as an exact science, some people will like a game more/less than you do. And i don't see the bias for AAA games as a whole on giantbomb. If you listen to the podcast, watch the quicklooks, read the reviews (and ignore the scores) there's few games that gather unanimous praise.
people talk more about AAA reviews because more people play those games. there's no controversy if a small game gets a bad review (overly positive or negative) because few play those.games.
So, is the thing about HD-DVDs no longer working with the new dashboard update true? If so, that's really messed up.
I just got to that part and immediately had the same WHAT THE FUCK reaction Jeff had, and since mine is always plugged in, tossed in a disc.
Totally works.
Under TV & Movies -> My Video Apps
Arlecchino
Member
So, listening to the mock review part of the "doth protest too much" section on the podcast, I'm perfectly able to accept it as scummy and move on. But I don't think I could explain it back to anyone if prompted. Maybe I'm overcomplicating the situation and the obvious point went way over my head, but I'm sort of stumped as to what the big issue there is.
Is it simply that the now reviewer (again) is advising consumers on games that could possibly be from someone whom they were on the payroll for? Perhaps I'm being completely naive, but I'd like to believe one could easily separate those two jobs as well, separate.
Also, Giant Bomb is the open source software of video game websites.
Is it simply that the now reviewer (again) is advising consumers on games that could possibly be from someone whom they were on the payroll for? Perhaps I'm being completely naive, but I'd like to believe one could easily separate those two jobs as well, separate.
Also, Giant Bomb is the open source software of video game websites.
I only listen to the Bombcast in .ogg format
WickedCobra03
Member
I am 22 minutes in and I cannot wait for Jeff's story. I love story time. It seems their lives are soooo much cooler than a regular persons life.
Anyway, onto the Journalism thing. I do trust Giantbomb, I have been following the 4 guys plus Alex for years, but they should be always looking at these situations and constantly thinking about how they affect their coverage.
Anyway, onto the Journalism thing. I do trust Giantbomb, I have been following the 4 guys plus Alex for years, but they should be always looking at these situations and constantly thinking about how they affect their coverage.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Nothing is better than Vinny on the plane with is kid. Nothing!
I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING ARGUGHH
Vinny, Max fell asleep 10 minutes ago...
Vinny's my brah, but Jeff pips him with the stories. Easily.
I can tell I'll be re-listening to that segment quite a lot over the next few weeks. Not only a great story, but perfectly told.
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.
While I agree with the bolded and think that these things can and probably often do have some kind of effect, I think the effect of a press kit is a pebble dropping in a pond compared to the boulders of E3, carefully-metered preview time (which is unavoidable if you want to cover a game pre-release), and even reading the fucking NeoGAF hype train.
I'm not saying it's a non-issue, but it's a really, really small piece of the puzzle. All-expenses-paid trips and the like are bigger issues, but AAA releases come with them AAA marketing onslaughts from all angles that affect everyone who is paying attention.
Arlecchino
Member
Marketing doesn't always have to be about the cynical "used to pay off reviewers", it can simply just have an effect of market awareness. So while I don't believe that a fucking statue had any effect on the results of a review, or a GOTY contest, it's hard to believe that seeing that statue every day when you walk in didn't remind you about it. (This examples fall apart a bit considering that Skyrim was fucking huge. But I think you could definitely apply it to the non-bomb guys like Will and Norm
that probably thought more about Skyrim because of it)
i miss you guys
It was merely an example, you could apply it to anything. It's all just a matter of degrees.I think Eternal Gamer is trying to express basic and fundamental human problems than actually the influence of a Giant Viking Statue in a score of a video game.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
I think Eternal Gamer is trying to express basic and fundamental human problems than actually the influence of a Giant Viking Statue in a score of a video game.
Marketing doesn't always have to be about the cynical "used to pay off reviewers", it can simply just have an effect of market awareness. So while I don't believe that a fucking statue had any effect on the results of a review, or a GOTY contest, it's hard to believe that seeing that statue every day when you walk in didn't remind you about it. (This examples fall apart a bit considering that Skyrim was fucking huge. But I think you could definitely apply it to the non-bomb guys like Will and Normthat probably thought more about Skyrim because of it)i miss you guys
It was merely an example, you could apply it to anything. It's all just a matter of degrees.
What most people seem to forget is that the people most affected by marketing creating market awarness are not necessarily the journalists but the consumers: aka the poeple that visit the site, demand coverage and discuss it at length (and rage if the coverage is deemed too positive/negative).
While not universally true the games with the biggest marketing budgets also get the most attention on GAF and other forums. I dunno, i just think the GB guys (and other reviewers) are a bit better at dealing with that kind of pressure than the average person, since they see the mechanism behind the scenes much more clearly and on a everyday basis. However everybody is bound to be hyped about a game at some point. It's why we like to play them after all.
Being cynical is not enough. As Elliot noted "we are all blind to our own blindnesses." Your best way to know where and how you are being influenced by your environment is to look to those outside of it.
With apologies, it's a stupid argument. It's both entirely obvious (we're products of our environment? who'da thunkit?) and a loaded question fallacy. The way people have latched onto the notion makes it seem like we're living in a world that's one or two steps from They Live (and maybe we are -- but at that point the situation's so hopeless we should just enjoy the Dew(tm)).
Another thing I think of as self-evident that nevertheless might need to be stated: Gigantic tentpole marketing-driven releases like Skyrim or Black Ops or Assassin's Creed warrant a significant amount of coverage because so many people are aware of them and likely to buy them. With a game that could potentially sell five or eight million copies it's all the more crucial that we attempt to get the word out about whether it's worth a shit or not, since the most people stand to benefit from hearing about it one way or the other. It would be irresponsible for us not to render a verdict on games that are going to touch that many people.
My own personal satisfaction with my professional output wouldn't suffer by a single degree if we completely stopped covering the annual modern-military refresh, for example, since I've had it up to here with games of that ilk. But we still have a responsibility to our readership to provide that information. Our jobs exist as a service to our audience above all else.
Medal of Honor was the rare situation where the game was intentionally withheld from press until release day, which makes us immediately suspicious of the game's quality. So it was all the more important we get as much of the game in front of the audience as quickly as possible. If we'd gotten it the week prior as with most games, it would have rated the standard QL and review treatment at best, but circumstances do affect coverage plans in situations like that.
My own personal satisfaction with my professional output wouldn't suffer by a single degree if we completely stopped covering the annual modern-military refresh, for example, since I've had it up to here with games of that ilk. But we still have a responsibility to our readership to provide that information. Our jobs exist as a service to our audience above all else.
Medal of Honor was the rare situation where the game was intentionally withheld from press until release day, which makes us immediately suspicious of the game's quality. So it was all the more important we get as much of the game in front of the audience as quickly as possible. If we'd gotten it the week prior as with most games, it would have rated the standard QL and review treatment at best, but circumstances do affect coverage plans in situations like that.
Medal of Honor was the rare situation where the game was intentionally withheld from press until release day, which makes us immediately suspicious of the game's quality. So it was all the more important we get as much of the game in front of the audience as quickly as possible. If we'd gotten it the week prior as with most games, it would have rated the standard QL and review treatment at best, but circumstances do affect coverage plans in situations like that.
Admit it, you just wanted the greasy patch notes!
PS: What do you think about Disney's Star Wars?
Admit it, you just wanted the greasy patch notes!
PS: What do you think about Disney's Star Wars?
greasy patch notes changed the review score from a 2 to a 3.
RomanticHeroX
Member
Oh man, burning that Assassin's Creed flag would've been the best video.
Another thing I think of as self-evident that nevertheless might need to be stated: Gigantic tentpole marketing-driven releases like Skyrim or Black Ops or Assassin's Creed warrant a significant amount of coverage because so many people are aware of them and likely to buy them. With a game that could potentially sell five or eight million copies it's all the more crucial that we attempt to get the word out about whether it's worth a shit or not, since the most people stand to benefit from hearing about it one way or the other. It would be irresponsible for us not to render a verdict on games that are going to touch that many people.
I think this is a crucial point; people seem to hung up on the minute ways in which this or that swag may have made you regard Skyrim as a big deal while at the same time you were making Skyrim out to be a big deal on your front page. Games on GB generally don't get pre-release Greg Kasavin marathons. Note that I'm not accusing you of impropriety: you're trying to attract attention because that's your business -- and you do it in ways that I, at least, find enjoyable.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Just got the journalism talk.
No idea how anyone who has any idea who these guys are could think they're anything other than 100% honest with the users of the site, especially after that discussion. It's why GB is the only gaming site I use, other than GAF.
No idea how anyone who has any idea who these guys are could think they're anything other than 100% honest with the users of the site, especially after that discussion. It's why GB is the only gaming site I use, other than GAF.
Admit it, you just wanted the greasy patch notes!
PS: What do you think about Disney's Star Wars?
I wish we'd had more time to talk about that on the podcast, but I have very mixed feelings about it, having loved the old movies more than anything at one point in my life.
A George Lucas unconstrained by creative checks and balances was clearly the worst possible steward for Star Wars over the last 20 years (to the point that I considered the whole property destroyed almost beyond repair), but at the same time there's a purity to the notion of the whole of a creative work essentially flowing from one person. Just talking about the movies here, not all the EU dreck. I know he didn't direct Empire and Jedi and it seems the case that those movies are good largely in spite of him and not because of him, but he did still have significant influence both on the overall story and the day-to-day of production. The guy has some great ideas, he just needs a serious filter, and someone who knows how to write dialog and direct actors.
Between Marvel and stuff like Pirates of the Caribbean and Tron, Disney has proven itself adept at producing fun summer popcorn movies that appeal to huge audiences, including a lot of people with fairly discriminating taste. But that stuff is still pop fluff, even if it's good pop fluff. You wouldn't accuse those movies of subtlety or nuanced characterization. So now it seems like the potential is there for theatrical Star Wars to become more of a commoditized product, excelling at superficial action but without the heart and soul of something like Empire.
I say give Episode 7 to Spielberg, who embodies the sensibilities of the era that produced Star Wars but has also adapted well to modern filmmaking. He always wanted to direct one anyway, and nearly did until Directors' Guild bullshit prevented him from taking the reins on Jedi.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
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.
I think you have this backwards: the audience is the one stuck in the no-win scenario right now. You have a vested financial interest in the current system and benefit directly from its practices. In contrast, the audience is stuck sorting through muck to find the least bad options for coverage. You aren't the victim here. The victim is the person in the audience who buys a game based on coverage that was altered by a successful PR campaign.
There are options for you to provide coverage free of the PR influence. You choose not to avail yourself of those options. You make a conscious choice to operate within an ethical framework that is not designed to eliminate the effect of PR on your coverage.
If you don't want to be questioned about the influence of accepting a free statue, then don't accept the statue. If you accept the free statue, you have zero room to complain about conclusions that the audience draws from that.
I think you have this backwards: the audience is the one stuck in the no-win scenario right now. You have a vested financial interest in the current system and benefit directly from its practices. In contrast, the audience is stuck sorting through muck to find the least bad options for coverage. You aren't the victim here. The victim is the person in the audience who buys a game based on coverage that was altered by a successful PR campaign.
There are options for you to provide coverage free of the PR influence. You choose not to avail yourself of those options. You make a conscious choice to operate within an ethical framework that is not designed to eliminate the effect of PR on your coverage.
If you don't want to be questioned about the influence of accepting a free statue, then don't accept the statue. If you accept the free statue, you have zero room to complain about conclusions that the audience draws from that.
The problem is the game companies ultimately control what is shown, when and how. There is no avoiding the PR inlfuence as a consumer if you want any informaton pre release.
Now there is the choice that the PR controlled material is covered by giantbomb or ign or a youtube channel or whoever. But no ethical standard will change the flow of information. Especially not because the bulk of the audience wants pre release coverage, and they will support publications that have it. And if that publication has no integrity it will change absolutely nothing as everyone (even people on GAF, who care a lot about this stuff) will go to that site for the information.
EternalGamer
Banned
*Deleted duplicate post.*
EternalGamer
Banned
For me it is not about whether or not I find GB "enjoyable" or even whether I think they are "on the take."
What I have a problem with is them admitting to accepting what they literally describe as "a mountain of swag" and then just completely blowing off it's potential psycological impact with "trust us we are cynical." I would not find it reasonable if my favorite film critic accepted a free Spiderman statue from Columbia Pictures and then just gave the argument they are giving. Would anyone think it was ok if a New York Times book critic accept a Harry Potter statue when the new J.K Rowlings book was coming out? Why does this industry have different standards? Because PR dictates the way the game is played.
On one hand they argue that this industry us "fucked up," but on the other they seem pretty ok with the way it is. The largest part of their attack on PR and marketing was against screen shots, exclusives, trailers, amd re-written press releases. While it is commendable that they mock this stuff , take it to task, and have found a way to mostly avoid it, it is convenient that this is the exact part of marketing influence any writer would want to avoid just because it involves busy work that totally sucks to do. The fun part? Collecting lots of swag? That part they dont seem nearly as aggressive about wanting to go out of their way to try to avoid.
As many people inside the industry (former and current) in the other thread indicated you do not have to accept free shit. Period. Accepting it and turning around and saying "trust me, it does not affect me" is the very definition of a self rationalization.
They also made some pretty amazing self rationalizations when talking about PR relationships. Vinny made the astounding claim that the Washington press core can be friends with politicians and cover them just as effectively. Just a few weeks ago there was a giant blow out on NPR's On The Media about this very problem. There have in fact been many such stories in recent years. I am sure every politician who ever accepted a free meal from a lobbyist or who considered a lobbyist a friend that they hung out with made the same arguments to themselves.
The GB guys may very well be cynical and that may be part of the problem. It may have made them so complacent that they refuse to use this opportunity to even consider the idea that perhaps some of their actions need to change.
What I have a problem with is them admitting to accepting what they literally describe as "a mountain of swag" and then just completely blowing off it's potential psycological impact with "trust us we are cynical." I would not find it reasonable if my favorite film critic accepted a free Spiderman statue from Columbia Pictures and then just gave the argument they are giving. Would anyone think it was ok if a New York Times book critic accept a Harry Potter statue when the new J.K Rowlings book was coming out? Why does this industry have different standards? Because PR dictates the way the game is played.
On one hand they argue that this industry us "fucked up," but on the other they seem pretty ok with the way it is. The largest part of their attack on PR and marketing was against screen shots, exclusives, trailers, amd re-written press releases. While it is commendable that they mock this stuff , take it to task, and have found a way to mostly avoid it, it is convenient that this is the exact part of marketing influence any writer would want to avoid just because it involves busy work that totally sucks to do. The fun part? Collecting lots of swag? That part they dont seem nearly as aggressive about wanting to go out of their way to try to avoid.
As many people inside the industry (former and current) in the other thread indicated you do not have to accept free shit. Period. Accepting it and turning around and saying "trust me, it does not affect me" is the very definition of a self rationalization.
They also made some pretty amazing self rationalizations when talking about PR relationships. Vinny made the astounding claim that the Washington press core can be friends with politicians and cover them just as effectively. Just a few weeks ago there was a giant blow out on NPR's On The Media about this very problem. There have in fact been many such stories in recent years. I am sure every politician who ever accepted a free meal from a lobbyist or who considered a lobbyist a friend that they hung out with made the same arguments to themselves.
The GB guys may very well be cynical and that may be part of the problem. It may have made them so complacent that they refuse to use this opportunity to even consider the idea that perhaps some of their actions need to change.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, just look at how this plays out in politics. Politicians think they're okay sleeping with prostitutes or having gay lovers or taking bribes or whatever because they don't think they are compromising themselves.With apologies, it's a stupid argument. It's both entirely obvious (we're products of our environment? who'da thunkit?) and a loaded question fallacy. The way people have latched onto the notion makes it seem like we're living in a world that's one or two steps from They Live (and maybe we are -- but at that point the situation's so hopeless we should just enjoy the Dew(tm)).
I'm sure even Lance Armstrong justified his doping to himself at some point as something that was not fucked up in the least.
And again, as I said in the other thread, this is just video games. But I don't think that's an excuse for shady behaviour.
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.Between Marvel and stuff like Pirates of the Caribbean and Tron, Disney has proven itself adept at producing fun summer popcorn movies that appeal to huge audiences, including a lot of people with fairly discriminating taste. But that stuff is still pop fluff, even if it's good pop fluff. You wouldn't accuse those movies of subtlety or nuanced characterization. So now it seems like the potential is there for theatrical Star Wars to become more of a commoditized product, excelling at superficial action but without the heart and soul of something like Empire.
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
What I have a problem with is them admitting to accepting what they literally describe as "a mountain of swag" and then just completely blowing it's potential psycological impact off with "trust us we are cynical." I would not find it acceptable if my favorite film critic excepted a free Spiderman statue from Columbia Pictures and then just gave the argument they are giving. Would anyone think it was ok if a New York Times book critic accept a Harry Potter statue when the new J.K Rowlings book was coming out? Why does this industry have different standards? Because PR dictates the way the game is played.
When you suggest that some statue will change someone's opinion to that degree you are, in fact, suggesting that they're on the take. If you feel you can't trust them, they gave you a clear solution -- stop giving them your attention. Trust is essentially fungible for the GB guys, it's what they trade on.
Basically your argument hinges on them not having any critical thought of their own. We're bombarded with advertising constantly; Activision and Microsoft are spending millions upon millions for you to pick up BLOPS2 and Halo 4. Are you? As the specious argument goes, they spend those untold millions for a reason.
Well, just look at how this plays out in politics. Politicians think they're okay sleeping with prostitutes or having gay lovers or taking bribes or whatever because they don't think they are compromising themselves.
Those are terrible examples; for starters, I don't really see how having a gay lover really compromises anyone, unless they're a North Korean spy. Secondly, in most of those cases what brought the downfall was hypocrisy, which in our context is often an unforgivable sin. Hypocrisy doesn't really apply here, not unless we actually find out that the GBers have been dishonest and 'on the take', and under those circumstances hypocrisy is the least of ours worries.
I'm sure even Lance Armstrong justified his doping to himself at some point as something that was not fucked up in the least.
Another terrible, unapplicable example. What Lance Armstrong did was directly against the rules. If he was juicing, it was because he expected it to have some effect on his performance. It has no equivalence with anything related to the GBers, not unless you're accusing them directly of impropriety (such as taking swag/money for scores).
EternalGamer
Banned
When you suggest that some statue will change someone's opinion to that degree you are, in fact, suggesting that they're on the take.
Influence is not so simple. I was probably wrong to try to use such a direct correlation, but I was just trying to give a potential scenario for something that works in profoundly intangible ways. "On the take," to me, implies something much more conscious and decietful
If you feel you can't trust them, they gave you a clear solution -- stop giving them your attention. Trust is essentially fungible for the GB guys, it's what they what trade on.
That is an amazing complacent response to any potential criticism. Restaraunt owner: "If you don't like our food, go somewhere else." Student to teacher, "If you don't like my work, fail me." Or how about this one, if you don't like the argument I am making in this thread, go read another one. You see how shitty it would be for me to respond to you in that way? That is not a response. It is a dismissal.
Activision and Microsoft are spending millions upon millions for you to pick up BLOPS2 and Halo 4. Are you? As the specious argument goes, they spend those untold millions for a reason.
Activision and Microsoft are not sending me free shit on a weekly basis nor am I friends with anyone that works at either company. Nor am I a games media writer making my living by giving my opinion on their products.
For me it is not about whether or not I find GB "enjoyable" or even whether I think they are "on the take."
What I have a problem with is them admitting to accepting what they literally describe as "a mountain of swag" and then just completely blowing off it's potential psycological impact with "trust us we are cynical." I would not find it reasonable if my favorite film critic accepted a free Spiderman statue from Columbia Pictures and then just gave the argument they are giving. Would anyone think it was ok if a New York Times book critic accept a Harry Potter statue when the new J.K Rowlings book was coming out? Why does this industry have different standards? Because PR dictates the way the game is played.
and there is absolutely nothing game journalists can do to change that. The audience will go where the coverage is.
Unless gamers refuse to listen to anyone but the most ethical reviewers and unless gamers are willing to not consume the PR material companies give out pre release nothing will change.
and that will never happen, ever. We will have to live with some gray zones in our coverage if we want it early.
No amount of guidelines and such stuff will change that, ultimately it's the marketing department that decides who gets what, when and how.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Those are terrible examples; for starters, I don't really see how having a gay lover really compromises anyone, unless they're a North Korean spy. Secondly, in most of those cases what brought the downfall was hypocrisy, which in our context is often an unforgivable sin. Hypocrisy doesn't really apply here, not unless we actually find out that the GBers have been dishonest and 'on the take', and under those circumstances hypocrisy is the least of ours worries.
Another terrible, unapplicable example. What Lance Armstrong did was directly against the rules. If he was juicing, it was because he expected it to have some effect on his performance. It has no equivalence with anything related to the GBers, not unless you're accusing them directly of impropriety (such as taking swag/money for scores).
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.
People break rules but don't think they're doing anything wrong because they find a way to make themselves believe that it's perfectly fine to do whatever it is that they're doing. I'm saying that is something that can be documented to happen in real life.
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.
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.
EternalGamer
Banned
and there is absolutely nothing game journalists can do to change that. The audience will go where the coverage is.
Unless gamers refuse to listen to anyone but the most ethical reviewers and unless gamers are willing to not consume the PR material companies give out pre release nothing will change.
and that will never happen, ever. We will have to live with some gray zones in our coverage if we want it early.
No amount of guidelines and such stuff will change that, ultimately it's the marketing department that decides who gets what, when and how.
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:
Jeff Green said: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.
That is an amazing complacent response to any potential criticism. Restaraunt owner: "If you don't like our food, go somewhere else." Student to teacher, "If you don't like my work, fail me." Or how about this one, if you don't like the argument I am making in this thread, go read another one. You see how shitty it would be for me to respond to you in that way? That is not a response. It is a dismissal.
The whole argument is about people being afraid that Giantbomb has put itself into too many situations where they could possibly be influenced to give certain games positive coverage. People from the site have been super clear about how they're not going to stop doing that, and that you can either read their work and trust them as long as you feel said work earns your trust, or stop reading. I'm not saying you have to like it, and I understand and admire people's desire to try and make something they like better in their eyes. At the same time, what is the end game here? People have voiced their fears and the site has made it fairly clear they're not going to change (Except maybe in the case of Jeff possibly shelving his idea for sponsored events like The Raid). There's nothing more you, or anyone, can do. And quite frankly, your dollar, or in this case, your page views, can collectively make a bigger impact sometimes than message board posts can.
Maybe a better comparison would be if Giantbomb was a guy running a roller coaster. The rollercoaster has run well so far, but there's a couple exposed wires that you're worried about and you point them out. He tells you he's been running this coaster for years and that you can trust him that he knows how to keep the coaster in safe working order. I can see both side's views but at some point the only real decision you have to make is if you want to ride the coaster or not.
That is an amazing complacent response to any potential criticism. Restaraunt owner: "If you don't like our food, go somewhere else."
Well, yes. How should it work? He loses the clientele and either improves his product or goes out of business. Incidentally, this is the only example that applies to giant bomb.
Student to teacher, "If you don't like my work, fail me."
Not really the same situation. School was a while back, but isn't that how it should work? You pass or fail on the quality of your work?
Or how about this one, if you don't like the argument I am making in this thread, go read another one. You see how shitty it would be for me to respond to you in that way? That is not a response. It is a dismissal.
It's a dismissal, sure, but it's not really the same thing. I'm not your customer, but your peer, and ostensibly we're having a debate of sorts. Also, it's quite correct, I can go talk to someone else.
Activision and Microsoft are not sending me free shit on a weekly basis nor am I friendswith anyone that works at either company. Nor am I a games media writer making my living by giving my opinion on their products.
No, but you're talking about the insidious nature of advertising and the invisible, imperceptible hand guiding people's opinions. You're inserted into the same world that is oversaturated in ads; clearly they must be having their effect on you. The point is that this argument is nonsense; it's a loaded question, it's 'have you stopped beating your wife' posed to games writers.
I think you have this backwards: the audience is the one stuck in the no-win scenario right now. You have a vested financial interest in the current system and benefit directly from its practices. In contrast, the audience is stuck sorting through muck to find the least bad options for coverage. You aren't the victim here. The victim is the person in the audience who buys a game based on coverage that was altered by a successful PR campaign.
There are options for you to provide coverage free of the PR influence. You choose not to avail yourself of those options. You make a conscious choice to operate within an ethical framework that is not designed to eliminate the effect of PR on your coverage.
If you don't want to be questioned about the influence of accepting a free statue, then don't accept the statue. If you accept the free statue, you have zero room to complain about conclusions that the audience draws from that.
Fair point. I understand that perception is reality in a lot of cases, and it doesn't look great that the game we got a giant statue for also turned out to be my favorite game last year. So I guess I'd ask you to take it on faith that it was my favorite game purely because of what came off the disc when I put it in the console, and not any factor that existed outside my living room. (Bastion almost edged out Skyrim on my list last year, but... I guess I'm not helping my case much with that one either.) This year, my current personal GOTY candidate was made by a company that I've had virtually no interaction with, of any kind, for a couple of years now. In 2008 it was Banjo Nuts & Bolts, and if you want to talk about standing by your convictions...
I'm not the first to mention this idea, but the only video game site that operates with absolute independence from publishers is the one that begins coverage of each game when it buys the game on release day. There may well be demand for that sort of coverage (since day one of Giant Bomb we've discussed and planned for a scenario in which we operate with no publisher access whatsoever; it would probably involve a LOT of Commodore 64), and if there is that demand I sincerely hope new sites rise to meet it. The broad audience has certainly made clear its appetite for pre-release coverage over the years as well, though.
In some cases, we've chosen to meet things like the statue or the 3DS conga line head on, rather than running away from it or sweeping it under the rug. This may be making too many assumptions, but our hope when we show and discuss that stuff publicly is that many watching will realize those elements of the games business are as patently absurd as we do.
EternalGamer
Banned
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.