Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

Guys my comment was only trying to say that although there are many things I personally think contribute to Giant Bomb being awful, I don't think this is one of them.

I'm not going to sit here and deconstruct why Giant Bomb is awful since it's off topic. I've done that in threads in the past and this is not the right topic for that. I promise the next appropriate Giant Bomb thread I will post something about that (again).

So, moving on.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Guys my comment was only trying to say that although there are many things I personally think contribute to Giant Bomb being awful, I don't think this is one of them.

I'm not going to sit here and deconstruct why Giant Bomb is awful since it's off topic. I've done that in threads in the past and this is not the right topic for that. I promise the next appropriate Giant Bomb thread I will post something about that (again).

So, moving on.

Can you link me to the thread where you gave a detailed breakdown of why Giant Bomb is awful? I read your Heavy Rain deconstruction and I was impressed at how well you articulated your argument.

 

[Amir0x]

Can you link me to the thread where you gave a detailed breakdown of why Giant Bomb is awful? I read your Heavy Rain deconstruction and it was impressively well thought out and articulated.

I will try to find it with the mediocre Google Custom Search and PM it to you.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Giantbomb do reviews? lol

 

[Calcaneus]

I don't know, they are being pretty up front about it. It seems like its being made out to be a bigger thing that it actually is.

 

[elrechazado]

Giant Bomb is entertaining. Whether they continue to entertain me with the highest of business ethics (and as a side note, I could not care less about these kinds of disclosures and "ethics" in gaming and sports blogs), or with backroom deals and purchased exclusives, I don't care.

Entertain me, that's your job.

 

[Celsior]

Giantbomb is pretty overrated since gaf thinks it is god gift to gaming. Being better then ign is not much of a challenge.

 

[Zeliard]

This sounds a bit fishy to me. Just because they're being honest and forthright about their relationship, that doesn't make it ethical.

But I'm really not surprised. Giantbomb is more about personality than integrity.

What's the issue if they both a) admit the personal connection they have to the company, and b) state they won't render a verdict due to this? They're essentially advertising their friend's game, but since they're not officially reviewing it, there's no real conflict of interest there.

OP posted a quote from Gamespot about Kasavin where it says in part: "Kasavin said that he intentionally segmented himself off from the development community while at GameSpot, because it is much more difficult to give an honest assessment of a game when the writer is friends with the developer."

Giant Bomb are leap-frogging this issue by specifically not giving an assessment of the game, at least on any official basis.

 

[elrechazado]

This sounds a bit fishy to me. Just because they're being honest and forthright about their relationship, that doesn't make it ethical.

But I'm really not surprised. Giantbomb is more about personality than integrity.

Where might one find the code of ethics that applies to video game blogs on the internet? I think you meant to write "that doesn't make it kosher by my arbitrary standards".

 

[ultron87]

Giant Bomb are leap-frogging this issue by specifically not giving an assessment of the game, at least on any official basis.

Yeah, they're not giving an assessment. They're just shouting from the rooftops "Look how awesome this game is!!! I mean if it wasn't awesome would we be covering it? Exactly. Be super hyped!"

 

[elrechazado]

Yeah, they're not giving an assessment. They're just shouting from the rooftops "Look how awesome this game is!!! I mean if it wasn't awesome would we be covering it? Exactly. Be super hyped!"

And they should be prohibited from doing this why?

 

[PowerSmell]

This sounds a bit fishy to me. Just because they're being honest and forthright about their relationship, that doesn't make it ethical.

But I'm really not surprised. Giantbomb is more about personality than integrity.

lol that's a nice way to put it.

It seems to me that they're basically saying "we're not going to review the game because we're just going to end up being biased", in which case you might as well just say it's a 5 out of 5 explosion faces game. Is it really that hard to be objective? The desire to give a game whose developers you're friends with a good review must be like Akujiki's blood lust.

How about next time they're in the same situation, instead of not reviewing the game just don't put yourself in a position where you feel you can't give an honest opinion.

 

[ultron87]

And they should be prohibited from doing this why?

Did I say they should be prohibited from it? I'm just pointing out that saying "we're not going to do a review" doesn't mean they aren't making a statement about the game's quality.

 

[Blueblur1]

I enjoy Giant Bomb and the coverage they provide. This seemed like a neat idea when they mentioned it in their panel last night. I might be interested in their coverage.

 

[thcsquad]

lol that's a nice way to put it.

It seems to me that they're basically saying "we're not going to review the game because we're just going to end up being biased", in which case you might as well just say it's a 5 out of 5 explosion faces game. Is it really that hard to be objective? The desire to give a game whose developers you're friends with a good review must be like Akujiki's blood lust.

How about next time they're in the same situation, instead of not reviewing the game just don't put yourself in a position where you feel you can't give an honest opinion.

Reviews mean a lot more than previews and in-depth looks because they affect sites like Metacritic. Sure, GB's score wouldn't do that much to boost any game's score, but its a principle.

Other than that, giving a large amount of airtime to any one game is not unethical at all. Newspapers endorse candidates all the time, and nobody gives a shit because they're upfront about it.

 

[thetrin]

GiantBomb is a pretty terrible website with terrible ideas...

:lol

You are a fucking class act, Amir0x.

 

[Havok]

I don't take issue with it. They just want to show people a glimpse into the development process of a game, and this was an avenue for them to do it. People shouting bias act as if they didn't fairly review Alpha Protocol, the Rock Band games, or Bionic Commando when they're pals with Matt Rorie, Alex Navarro, and the ex-GRIN dudes, respectively.

 

[Zeliard]

lol that's a nice way to put it.

It seems to me that they're basically saying "we're not going to review the game because we're just going to end up being biased", in which case you might as well just say it's a 5 out of 5 explosion faces game. Is it really that hard to be objective? The desire to give a game whose developers you're friends with a good review must be like Akujiki's blood lust.

How about next time they're in the same situation, instead of not reviewing the game just don't put yourself in a position where you feel you can't give an honest opinion.

Kasavin is a part of that company. For them not to put themselves in that position would require that friend not to be a part of that company.

Yeah, they're not giving an assessment. They're just shouting from the rooftops "Look how awesome this game is!!! I mean if it wasn't awesome would we be covering it? Exactly. Be super hyped!"

"On any official basis."

They're not officially reviewing the game specifically due to their friend working there, which is significant in these days of powerful Metacritic influence. What they're doing also strikes me more as a behind-the-scenes look at indie development rather than some unchecked raving.

Concentrating on something as relatively mild as this when there are far more egregious examples of ethical breaches in this industry is rather silly.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I like the guys at Giant Bomb and I enjoy their video content and their podcast. They entertain me, but I don't really depend on them to influence my game purchasing decisions. So I, personally, don't really give a shit. However, I'm glad they went with full disclosure so whoever does care can make up their own mind.

 

[thetrin]

Giant Bomb to me is (as I imagine was originally intended) a fantastic gaming-themed wikipedia.

Also, I enjoy the little page hunt quests.

 

[kenta]

All I can say is that I think Jeff has earned the benefit of the doubt on situations like this

 

[Myomoto]

I think it is pretty much impossible to actually tell whether or not their coverage of this will be somehow 'unethical', whatever that means, until they actually produce any coverage.

Right now, I'm not imagining this as much else than a couple videos following the development of the game, in style with the video series produced by the Penny Arcade team.

 

[mavs]

Previews are typically the most shady part of gaming sites. I like their QLEX format because it's normally up to the developer to sell their game from scratch, usually with no previous media framework available. This idea is a downgrade. Reviews are usually the [only available] counterbalance to gushing previews, so it's even worse that their coverage of the game will be entirely pre-release media push.

 

[thetrin]

To be honest, Giant Bomb could probably stop reviewing games entirely, and the site would probably be better for it. I think their video content and wiki style knowledge base is what drives the site and keeps it alive. The reviews, to me, just seem like a hold over from what Jeff believes was their job at Gamestop: writing consumer reports.

(btw, I always thought reviews were more meant to be a conversation between the audience and the writer, rather than a consumer report)

 

[Shurs]

So what game that you LOVE did they make fun of in a quicklook?

Demon's Souls

 

[pirata]

Giant Bomb is entertaining.

Exactly. Giant Bomb can be either a good site or a bad site, depending on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a fun entertainment/comedy site, it's pretty great. If you're expecting a good news/editorial/review site, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I've decided games writers are not journalists anyway.

Why are you saying it like that? "anyway"? Who gives a hell about what they are - Being a journalist or a self proclaimed one, should not matter to me. There are millions of retarded journalists out there, with crappy opinions!

 

[pirata]

To be honest, Giant Bomb could probably stop reviewing games entirely, and the site would probably be better for it. I think their video content and wiki style knowledge base is what drives the site and keeps it alive. The reviews, to me, just seem like a hold over from what Jeff believes was their job at Gamestop: writing consumer reports.

(btw, I always thought reviews were more meant to be a conversation between the audience and the writer, rather than a consumer report)

I'm starting to think along these lines as well. There are only a handful of them, so the reviews that they do get out the door tend to be only over the really big releases that every single other site in existence has already been covered to death by the games media (it doesn't help that the Giant Bomb crew only seems to play a very small spectrum of games, but that's another complaint entirely). With the time that they save by not reviewing games, they could make more exclusive content and get up to more crazy hi-jinks, which is what makes the site fun and different in the first place.

 

[Zeliard]

Previews are typically the most shady part of gaming sites. I like their QLEX format because it's normally up to the developer to sell their game from scratch, usually with no previous media framework available. This idea is a downgrade. Reviews are usually the [only available] counterbalance to gushing previews, so it's even worse that their coverage of the game will be entirely pre-release media push.

There will be many available reviews from many different sources with which to "counter-balance" Giant Bomb's "gushing" previewing.

None of this is terribly unusual, except for the fact that Giant Bomb was actually up-front about it. Ultimately, Kasavin is a close friend of the Giant Bomb crew and he works at a certain dev company. Due to this, the Giant Bomb crew wants to go behind-the-scenes and check out what game their friend is involved, and what that process is like. They release a statement saying they won't review the game due to their closeness to the project.

Their only other option would be to ignore the game completely. Even without the coverage, they'd be unable to render an untarnished verdict due to the fact that Kasavin works there, so good on them to admit to this sort of thing when most other sites probably wouldn't. Of course, most other sites also weren't created due to the same circumstances as Giant Bomb. Everything surrounding IGN's Music Hub, as an example, was considerably worse than anything you'll find here.

 

[stupei]

Did I say they should be prohibited from it? I'm just pointing out that saying "we're not going to do a review" doesn't mean they aren't making a statement about the game's quality.

It means that everything they say won't be included in that all important metacritic.

I'm not sure why this matters. They're being honest about likely being biased. So now we all know to take their opinions on it with a grain of salt. Confused about why anyone would care. If people find their enthusiasm off-putting, then don't seek out their previews or early videos for the game. Problem easily solved.

 

[mavs]

There will be many available reviews from many different sources with which to "counter-balance" Giant Bomb's "gushing" previewing.

None of this is terribly unusual, except for the fact that Giant Bomb was actually up-front about it. Ultimately, Kasavin is a close friend of the Giant Bomb crew and he works at a certain dev company. Due to this, the Giant Bomb crew wants to go behind-the-scenes and check out what game their friend is involved, and what that process is like. They release a statement saying they won't review the game due to their closeness to the project.

Their only other option would be to ignore the game completely. Even without the coverage, they'd be unable to render an untarnished verdict due to the fact that Kasavin works there, so good on them to admit to this sort of thing when most other sites probably wouldn't. Of course, most other sites also weren't created due to the same circumstances as Giant Bomb. Everything surrounding IGN's Music Hub, as an example, was considerably worse than anything you'll find here.

The key is that they are up front about the relationship. As long as they announce that, I'd like to see one QLEX and one review. Or they could do what they're doing now, and still review the game. Their coverage of the game won't affect what I think of Giant Bomb no matter what they do, that's just the content I do want to see.

 

[hamchan]

There is no issue here, Giant Bomb is doing nothing wrong. Good on them for not reviewing it.

Say whatever you want about their website or their content but you can't deny they have integrity.

 

[iratA]

Not directly related to this topic.

Disappointed Greg Kasavin isn't reviewing games anymore. He was best game reviewer in the industry and has yet to be surpassed.

This can't be stated enough. I don't know Greg personally but he always came across as a nice fellow.

Back on topic, so long as GB don't review the game I see no harm at all. I dare say many other media outlets wouldn't have taken that step.

 

[watership]

GiantBomb is a pretty terrible website with terrible ideas that for some reason has a little following here

Wow. I completely disagree, it's a great site. They're not even trying to be like other industry sites. I consider them to 4 editorial guys who talk about games they like, who just happen to be on a website that doubles as a user run database.

 

[a Master Ninja]

Wow. I completely disagree. I think its a great website. They're not even trying to be like other industry sites. I consider them to 4 editorial guys who talk about games they like, that happens to be on a website that doubles as a user run database.

It was an unsubstantiated comment in an attempt to provoke the community, let's move on.

Giant Bomb's treatment of games like Age of Booty and Bionic Commando never sat right with me. Capcom has some games worth gushing over, no doubt, but it seemed like Gerstmann was just trying to do a favor for some friends with those reviews.

 

[moojito]

Aye, giant bomb to me is quick looks and the bombcast. If they want to run a feature on the making of a game, good for them. I don't really understand how this could have escalated past 'moderately interesting' for anyone.

 

[elrechazado]

It was an unsubstantiated comment in an attempt to provoke the community, let's move on.

Indeed. Haters, after all, are going to hate. Or so the gifs have told me.

 

[chubigans]

I'm not going to sit here and deconstruct why Giant Bomb is awful since it's off topic. I've done that in threads in the past and this is not the right topic for that. I promise the next appropriate Giant Bomb thread I will post something about that (again).

So, moving on.

There are ways of posting so you don't cause such a commotion, Amir0x. Had you said they are a site you very much dislike, or something to that effect, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But to say

GiantBomb is a pretty terrible website with terrible ideas that for some reason has a little following here

Well of COURSE people are going to ask you why you feel that way. And then you post that discussing your opinion is off topic and that in some random future Giant Bomb thread, you'll explain your post.

Great. :\

Anyways, good on them for the transparency. Another reason why GB is a class act site.

 

[Amir0x]

There are ways of posting so you don't cause such a commotion, Amir0x. Had you said they are a site you very much dislike, or something to that effect, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But to say

You know my posting style is never to beat around the bush, I'm just going to state what I feel. But most of my post was about the fact that even though I dislike them, I don't think this is so bad "and here's why." In typical Amir0x fashion I stated how I dislike them in as blunt of terms as possible, but it wasn't meant to cause commotion or even distract the thread like it has.

Realistically, my comment was only meant to say "even as someone who dislikes the website so passionately, I don't find anything wrong with this." Sort of highlighting how this seems like a non-issue to me, and I'm not even Giantbomb biased as much of GAF is!

Well of COURSE people are going to ask you why you feel that way. And then you post that discussing your opinion is off topic and that in some random future Giant Bomb thread, you'll explain your post.

You don't want to know the reasons anyway. No one ever does. When I post my reasons in all these topics, all I hear is pages after pages of petulant whining about them. I can say my reasons in this thread, but it'd be off topic and what would that serve? To hear more whining about how I'm always derailing topics with my negativity.

 

[chubigans]

text

Fair enough I suppose.

 

[grkazan12]

I enjoy Giant Bomb and the coverage they provide. This seemed like a neat idea when they mentioned it in their panel last night. I might be interested in their coverage.

Man I wish I could make it out to PAX this year, how was their panel?

 

[Chris R]

Does the entire game have that super annoying douchelike narrating over everything you do? Or was that just for the first preview video?

 

[Teknopathetic]

Amir0x gets piled on even when he's right, lose/lose.

 

[MikeE21286]

I honestly don't see any conflict of interest here seeing as how they are not reviewing the game (which would be unethical). They are getting exclusive coverage because they are friends. It's a scratch-your-back-scratch-my- back situation for both parties.

 

[Cday]

They're a small team who can't cover everything like gamespot/ign can. So instead of trying to compete and pander to the masses they do the best with what they have and don't shy away from trying new things. There's no *gasp* controversy to be seen here.

 

[Rorschach]

I will try to find it with the mediocre Google Custom Search and PM it to you.

PM me too. I hate the website and I'd like to know what it's like to be on your side of an argument. It probably feels dirty.

 

[obonicus]

Amir0x gets piled on even when he's right, lose/lose.

Scaling back the hyperbole would help matters. I know it's anathema for GAF, but Amir0x is even more hyperbolic than the rest of us, and we're usually fat little buckets of vitriol. Stuff isn't good, it's usually 'generation justifying'. Stuff isn't just bad, it's more often a cataclysm in game form. Of course, we can do the usual 'oh, amir0x, what a card' and wait for the next time, hoping he goes absolutely crazy on something we don't like.

 

[hamchan]

Amir0x gets piled on even when he's right, lose/lose.

Depends on whether he shares the majority of people's opinion. Obviously the majority of people here think he's wrong.

One thing I'll say for Amir0x is that although I disagree with him half the time, he argues his opinions damn well. (Though he didn't try and argue in this case)

 

[Rodney McKay]

FF13 is the worst Final Fantasy game in the entire series that some people like for whatever reason, but I don't think Giant Bomb is doing anything wrong here.

They are up front about there intentions and they haven't had a problem in the past about being hard on games that were made by people they like (Alpha Protocol and Crimecraft are the first that come to mind.)

 

[Karram]

I think the reason Amir0x thinks it's a terrible website is that because they hated Demon's Souls especially Jeff. I remember him being mad at how Jeff didn't like the game and how bad Vinny is.

Back to the topic I think they won't review the game. Just like they did with the Mythic's MMO game Paul Barnett and the ex GS female were working on.