Support NeoGAF

[Hot Coldman]

Is it a bad game. It just seems like its generic. It doesn't do anything bad does it?

At this point a lot of people are so sick of games settling for "generic" that it's become a crime in itself, in their eyes anyway.

Objectively, the game works, and it doesn't appear to be bad so much as boring, but boring still sucks, you know? Games are weird. Nowadays you can get more fun out of a fucked-up game like Sonic 06 than a perfectly competent-albeit-dull one like, I dunno, that Transformers game was pretty snoozeworthy.

3/5 is kinda high, though. It's not the middle-ground, it's above the middle ground. Woof doesn't seem like an "above-average" game, but I haven't played it and Brad has, so I'll take his word that it's not as fucking banal as it looks.

 

[Cannon Goose]

Soooo, Oktobercast archive?

They put the whole thing up as a 10-part podcast last year so I'm assuming they'll at least do that again.

 

[darkressurection]

I mean, Jeff gave MW3 a 4/5 and I think many would say that game is boring or played out. That doesn't mean it isn't well made, because for the most part MW3 is a decently well made game.

I think Brad took that route with MoH, the game looks boring as fuck no doubt but that doesn't mean that it is unplayable trash or anything so I can see a 3/5. Average score for an average game.

I more take issue with the people in the Game Journalism thread now trying to discredit GB for eating a pizza EA bought them, give me a fucking break. I think Patrick's point in his worth reading about trust was great. I absolutely trust GB, and they are the most transparent games writers I can think of. People also get so mad about them hanging with HMX/ Double Fine dudes, but I haven't seen any of that bleed into their critical coverage of the games. Jeff is one of the few people I heard talk about being frustrated with Dance Central 3.

I just have no idea why some people try so hard to tear down Giant Bomb. Do they do everything right? No. I don't always agree with their scores. But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

At this point a lot of people are so sick of games settling for "generic" that it's become a crime in itself, in their eyes anyway.

3/5 is kinda high, though. It's not the middle-ground, it's above the middle ground. Woof doesn't seem like an "above-average" game, but I haven't played it and Brad has, so I'll take his word that it's not as fucking banal as it looks.

3 is an average score though. They don't give 0s, so it's the middle of the scale.

 

[The Wizard]

3/5 is kinda high, though. It's not the middle-ground, it's above the middle ground. Woof doesn't seem like an "above-average" game, but I haven't played it and Brad has, so I'll take his word that it's not as fucking banal as it looks.

On the Giant Bomb scale, 3/5 is exactly the middle-ground

 

[Perfusion]

But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

Could not agree more with this statement. I love that site for who they are as individuals.

 

[Felix Lighter]

It seems that 2 is used for blatantly bad games and 1 is saved for practically unplayable, completely broken games.

 

[FStop7]

Is it a bad game. It just seems like its generic. It doesn't do anything bad does it?

I think it controls very badly. Hipfire is really broken, too. The Battlelog implementation is much worse than BF3 - you can't tell what is unlocking.

Control of your character is abruptly taken away from you for scripted moments. There's a moment where you're being told to run and yet running is disabled as you glide along on rails.

It's like a culmination of my gaming pet peeves.

My dislike's not just a matter of Warfighter being derivative or generic. I found the single player campaign of COD:MW3 to be a decent ride, although I hated the multiplayer. I think it is far better than Warfighter. With Battlefield 3 I hated the single player campaign (glitches, stabbing the rat, all enemy AI hate/aggro was directed at just you) but the multiplayer I still love.

I dunno, maybe I'll give Warfighter another shot after I get through all the other stuff I want to play.

 

[Hot Coldman]

3 is an average score though. They don't give 0s, so it's the middle of the scale.

Oh, yeah, duh. Stupid me.

 

[Aaron]

I mean, Jeff gave MW3 a 4/5 and I think many would say that game is boring or played out. That doesn't mean it isn't well made, because for the most part MW3 is a decently well made game.

Even if we put their campaigns and general multiplayer at equal, MW3 has the excellent spec ops and survival modes. Though I didn't find it boring or played out in any way. More like haters gonna hate.

 

[rudds]

At this point a lot of people are so sick of games settling for "generic" that it's become a crime in itself, in their eyes anyway.

Objectively, the game works, and it doesn't appear to be bad so much as boring, but boring still sucks, you know? Games are weird. Nowadays you can get more fun out of a fucked-up game like Sonic 06 than a perfectly competent-albeit-dull one like, I dunno, that Transformers game was pretty snoozeworthy.

3/5 is kinda high, though. It's not the middle-ground, it's above the middle ground. Woof doesn't seem like an "above-average" game, but I haven't played it and Brad has, so I'll take his word that it's not as fucking banal as it looks.

Not sure if you mean the "middle ground" of Warfighter scores, since I still haven't looked at any other sites' reviews, but it certainly is the middle ground on our scale.

I did vacillate between 2 and 3 on that game, but ultimately the score was the product of the same editorial rigor we apply to all our reviews, which just involves having all the other guys read the text for logical consistency both within the review itself and also against the potential numerical score. Once any potential pizza deliveries are factored in, we reach a consensus.

Having reviewed games for many years where you arrived at a score by plugging several numbers into a spreadsheet, I've found the five-point scale to be especially liberating because it lets you use a rubric that simply amounts to "how much did I like this game?" or "how good do I think this game is?" Is it great, good, just OK, bad, or awful? Warfighter isn't flat-out bad -- I had a decent time with the multiplayer, as noted -- and didn't leave me with the intensely negative feelings of, say, RE6. Furthermore, the score isn't necessarily the right place to make a statement about EA riding the modern-military bandwagon; that's what the text is for. Nobody likes an activist reviewer, right?

 

[razgriz417]

Soooo, Oktobercast archive?

according to Will's twitter, he's uploading the first 2 hours to youtube as we speak

 

[rudds]

I just have no idea why some people try so hard to tear down Giant Bomb. Do they do everything right? No. I don't always agree with their scores. But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

It gives me the warm fuzzies every time I see someone say stuff like this, because that's exactly the vision Jeff pitched to me for the site when I first came on board. For anyone in the audience to have arrived at that conclusion themselves makes me feel like we did at least one thing right.

 

[megalowho]

I more take issue with the people in the Game Journalism thread now trying to discredit GB for eating a pizza EA bought them, give me a fucking break. I think Patrick's point in his worth reading about trust was great. I absolutely trust GB, and they are the most transparent games writers I can think of. People also get so mad about them hanging with HMX/ Double Fine dudes, but I haven't seen any of that bleed into their critical coverage of the games. Jeff is one of the few people I heard talk about being frustrated with Dance Central 3.

I just have no idea why some people try so hard to tear down Giant Bomb. Do they do everything right? No. I don't always agree with their scores. But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, there's some good discussion in that thread but also a lot of nastiness and folks just looking to pick a fight. It's important stuff worth exploring, but not for me when civility gets tossed aside and assumptions are presented as factual.

Those guys have gone on the record more than a few times about the Captivate events, the PR crap they get and how that relationship works/changes over the years, and their philosophies on how to cover this industry. They have a history that's built off of this very issue, and while folks are free to pick away at the trust they've established it's not going to affect how I use the site.

Getting up in arms about scores is a dangerous path, too. Reviewer X has a different opinion on Game Y than me, ergo the trail of corruption must be at work. That's a leap that doesn't sit well with me, and it's a tale as old as time at this point. Totally agree that having perspective of taste and personality puts even more value in our hands when it comes to processing opinions.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I really enjoy the 5 star scale, even if games tha I like suffer more by this (Catherine and Spec Ops). It is really better than Random decimals.

 

[razgriz417]

I mean, Jeff gave MW3 a 4/5 and I think many would say that game is boring or played out. That doesn't mean it isn't well made, because for the most part MW3 is a decently well made game.

I think Brad took that route with MoH, the game looks boring as fuck no doubt but that doesn't mean that it is unplayable trash or anything so I can see a 3/5. Average score for an average game.

I more take issue with the people in the Game Journalism thread now trying to discredit GB for eating a pizza EA bought them, give me a fucking break. I think Patrick's point in his worth reading about trust was great. I absolutely trust GB, and they are the most transparent games writers I can think of. People also get so mad about them hanging with HMX/ Double Fine dudes, but I haven't seen any of that bleed into their critical coverage of the games. Jeff is one of the few people I heard talk about being frustrated with Dance Central 3.

I just have no idea why some people try so hard to tear down Giant Bomb. Do they do everything right? No. I don't always agree with their scores. But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

Totally agree with this. While I may not agree with some of the scores they've posted in the past, knowing what floats each reviewer's boat helps me put it in perspective. But yea I can't even stand going into the Games Journalism thread anymore

 

[Gomu Gomu]

It gives me the warm fuzzies every time I see someone say stuff like this, because that's exactly the vision Jeff pitched to me for the site when I first came on board. For anyone in the audience to have arrived at that conclusion themselves makes me feel like we did at least one thing right.

Whoa brad replying to a positive post? What happened to you man?

 

[Infinite Justice]

Whoa brad replying to a positive post? What happened to you man?

Because the thread told him to stop harping on the negatives only, since its bad for his health. LOL

 

[LuchaShaq]

But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

This a thousand times.

I know I agree 100% with Jeff on how shooters feel so when he gives syndicate a five despite most giving it poor scores I know I will enjoy it, and I did a ton.

I know I 100% disagree with Brad on stuff like flower/braid/journey so when a game of that ilk gets praise for everything but the actual mechanics in a 4-5 star review I know I won't like it.

Both of these extremes are great imo.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

according to Will's twitter, he's uploading the first 2 hours to youtube as we speak

Urgh, the worst thing about new Tested is everything being on fucking Youtube.

 

[rudds]

This a thousand times.

I know I agree 100% with Jeff on how shooters feel so when he gives syndicate a five despite most giving it poor scores I know I will enjoy it, and I did a ton.

I know I 100% disagree with Brad on stuff like flower/braid/journey so when a game of that ilk gets praise for everything but the actual mechanics in a 4-5 star review I know I won't like it.

Both of these extremes are great imo.

Braid's mechanics are impeccable.

 

[Xater]

I have to say that I very much trust the GB crew. They are incredibly open as to what they get from publishers and Jeff has mentioned numerous times that he is not interested to play ball with the PR people if that means go to some stupid event to see new weapons. I also think these guys have held up to these standards. What I still hope is that the current discussion about games journalism that got kicked off will not be ignored on the podcast. I have read Patricks piece but I am sure the rest of the crew also has something to say. I like my Bombcast to be fun and silly but I just wished you guys would not shy away from some more serious discussions. Sometimes it just seems to me like that is the case...

Anyway, back to the regular sillyness in here.

 

[firehawk12]

They talked all about it on the Oktobercast so I assume they won't cover it too much on Bombcast.

 

[Xater]

They talked all about it on the Oktobercast so I assume they won't cover it too much.

I have not seen/heard the entire thing and that's probably not something the crew can expect (I mean that's tested not GB). But I will sek it out once the whole thing is archived.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I mean, Jeff gave MW3 a 4/5 and I think many would say that game is boring or played out. That doesn't mean it isn't well made, because for the most part MW3 is a decently well made game.

I think Brad took that route with MoH, the game looks boring as fuck no doubt but that doesn't mean that it is unplayable trash or anything so I can see a 3/5. Average score for an average game.

I more take issue with the people in the Game Journalism thread now trying to discredit GB for eating a pizza EA bought them, give me a fucking break. I think Patrick's point in his worth reading about trust was great. I absolutely trust GB, and they are the most transparent games writers I can think of. People also get so mad about them hanging with HMX/ Double Fine dudes, but I haven't seen any of that bleed into their critical coverage of the games. Jeff is one of the few people I heard talk about being frustrated with Dance Central 3.

I just have no idea why some people try so hard to tear down Giant Bomb. Do they do everything right? No. I don't always agree with their scores. But in the end, I know enough about every guys' personality that I can apply my own values to their scores and actually have a BETTER idea of how I would like a particular game than most other sites.

It makes sense that they are under the same microscope that the other media outlets are right now because the issues being brought up, specifically the broken relationship between publisher PR and the game media applies to them as well. I personally trust them because I've listened to them for hours and hours and hours but if you look at it from the perspective of someone who is not familiar with them or someone who actually actively distrusts them, you can see that the current state of the industry and gaming coverage doesn't help their position. I hope they use the situation as a chance to reassess their policies, adjust things if if makes sense and avoid the trap many other members of the media seem to have fallen into and become super defensive and dismissive. I think they're good guys, I trust them, but perception is as important as reality and not everyone is going to take the time to listen to hours of podcasts before judging.

 

[Salsa]

I only find myself strongly disagreeing with Jeff and Ryan, when I think about it

actually not necesarelly disagreeing but rather just having different tastes. I too appreciate the fact that you get to know the personalities to the point where you can analyze the reviews in a different way depending from who they come from. That's way better and more meaningful to take into account.

Jeff nails it with racing games. Trackmania and Criterion 4 lyfe

 

[Grisby]

Many thanks to Vinny, Drew and everyone for getting the Halo stuff up. Watched it all yesterday and today.

Great work.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Jeff's reviews are spot-on except when the words "Call of Duty" or "Mortal Kombat" are in the title. Then deduct 1 star.

Ryan reviews come out from a hat, and inside the hat is a swirling chaotic void. You can never tell with Ryan, because Ryan's tastes seem to be "if it's awesome I like it," with the definition of "awesome" being the X factor.

Patrick's and Alex's reviews are fairly good. Sometimes I disagree, but never more than a star in any direction.

Deduct a star from every single Brad review.

Wish upon a star for more Vinny reviews.

 

[firehawk12]

I have not seen/heard the entire thing and that's probably not something the crew can expect (I mean that's tested not GB). But I will sek it out once the whole thing is archived.

Yeah, but you know how the internet is. By the time they do their show, it'll be like 5 day old news that's been hashed to death.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I disagree with the guys as much as I agree with them (Dark Souls game of forever, fools) but I know what to trust them on and what to disregard, so it works for me regardless.

Reviews are often misleading even on GB. Their attitude towards the games in QLs/Bombcast/TNTs gives me a more honest view of their game than the final text and score... which is why I so rarely read their reviews anymore. They always seem to be kinder on games in their reviews than they are in an honest and casual conversation. I don't like how their reviews are basically consumer guides, ultimately, I guess. I'd rather they did more in-depth stuff a few weeks after launch if they have to do reviews, but I get why they don't.

 

[I'm an expert]

After the whole Skyrim debacle last year I've completely ignored anything that isn't the bombcast on GB. I realized I want the personalities more than the gamers because my gaming interests don't align with their's (well, with Vinny it does but that's just one). However, the recent journalism stuff did immediately make me think about the Rome trip for Capcom (which I noted in the other thread) and that made me reconsider what exactly I'm looking for from these guys. While I "trust" them as Patrick worded it, I do have to remind myself they're swimming just as deep in this shit as anyone mentioned.

 

[Haunted]

Not sure if you mean the "middle ground" of Warfighter scores, since I still haven't looked at any other sites' reviews, but it certainly is the middle ground on our scale.

I did vacillate between 2 and 3 on that game, but ultimately the score was the product of the same editorial rigor we apply to all our reviews, which just involves having all the other guys read the text for logical consistency both within the review itself and also against the potential numerical score. Once any potential pizza deliveries are factored in, we reach a consensus.

Having reviewed games for many years where you arrived at a score by plugging several numbers into a spreadsheet, I've found the five-point scale to be especially liberating because it lets you use a rubric that simply amounts to "how much did I like this game?" or "how good do I think this game is?" Is it great, good, just OK, bad, or awful? Warfighter isn't flat-out bad -- I had a decent time with the multiplayer, as noted -- and didn't leave me with the intensely negative feelings of, say, RE6. Furthermore, the score isn't necessarily the right place to make a statement about EA riding the modern-military bandwagon; that's what the text is for. Nobody likes an activist reviewer, right?

Just out of curiosity/interest, how would you score the SP campaign only? The positive comments in your review are almost all focused on the MP being ok.


edit: also bonus points for activist reviewer and the journalist bribes reference.

 

[slaughterking]

I don't identify with anyone on the GB crew in regard to game tastes and values and thus do not care about their reviews at all. I'm here for the entertainment and lighthearted videogame talk and thankfully I can get plenty of that.

 

[Arlecchino]

I find myself just watching their Quick Looks and judging the game there for myself, which has served me well thus far. (I generally only pay attention to their opinions on the podcast and such when it's a far end of one of the spectrums e.g. Bastion, Saints Row the Third, Trackmania, RE6.)

 

[Haunted]

It's just easier to trust people than whole companies/websites. I don't trust Giantbomb, I trust the people working there because I "know" (you know what I mean) them and their tastes. I don't care for their reviews at all, but if I were to use one for consumer advice, I'd take solace in the fact that they probably wouldn't lie to me.

 

[SerRodrik]

Generally speaking, I tend to agree the most with Vinny, followed by Patrick and Brad. Jeff is too much of a shooter fan for his views to align too much with mine. Also Dave, when he shows up, because he's the only one that really seems knowledgeable about RPGs.

Of course, it varies on a game by game basis. But even if I don't agree with their stance on a game (and it happens fairly often) I at least never get the sense that they're being disingenuous or letting hype cloud their judgement, which at this point seems pretty rare .

 

[Jb]

I don't identify with anyone on the GB crew in regard to game tastes and values and thus do not care about their reviews at all. I'm here for the entertainment and lighthearted videogame talk and thankfully I can get plenty of that.

Pretty much. They could drop reviews alltogether and I'd still visit the site. But obviously I understand why they don't.

 

[FStop7]

I more take issue with the people in the Game Journalism thread now trying to discredit GB for eating a pizza EA bought them, give me a fucking break. I think Patrick's point in his worth reading about trust was great. I absolutely trust GB, and they are the most transparent games writers I can think of. People also get so mad about them hanging with HMX/ Double Fine dudes, but I haven't seen any of that bleed into their critical coverage of the games. Jeff is one of the few people I heard talk about being frustrated with Dance Central 3.

Anyone who tries to discredit a site (any site, not just Giant Bomb) over a couple of greasy pizzas is trolling, clueless, or trying to derail the discussion that was happening in that thread. I was tired of all the DF/HMX appearances last year but it never seemed to impact their reviews.

I trust their reviews but I don't always agree with them. Forza Horizon, for example. I watched that quick look and thought the game looked really bad. I read the review and could not equate the words I was reading to what I saw in the video. Then I played it for myself and was completely hooked. Ultimately, I agreed with that review but my point is that when I do disagree it's not because of doubt over the motivations or credibility of the GBer who wrote it.

 

[faridmon]

I agree with Jeff on his review of MW3. I don't like it as much as Black OPs, but its was fine game that played well and what they introduced to the series, they did it well and it was quite enjoyable.

He may be jaded, but he can be a fair reviewer.

 

[Curufinwe]

I find myself just watching their Quick Looks and judging the game there for myself, which has served me well thus far. (I generally only pay attention to their opinions on the podcast and such when it's a far end of one of the spectrums e.g. Bastion, Saints Row the Third, Trackmania, RE6.)

Watching the Quick Look in combination with reading the review can be very revealing, with RE 6 being a good example.

If I had just gone by the review I would have been pretty sure RE 6 was going to be borderline unplayable and relentless annoying, but after watching the QL I knew that wouldn't be the case for me personally. And so it proved, I enjoyed RE 6 to the tune of about 7/10 and was no more annoyed by the dumb bits (running into the camera sequences, fucking snipers, QTEs) than I was in Uncharted 3. Aiming and shooting was fine from start to finish (without needing a patch), and the main problem I had was the terrible decision to remove the fantastic weapon upgrade system from RE 4 and RE 5 in favor of Skill Points.

 

[Ketch]

One of the reasons I like Giant Bomb so much is that when it comes to trips to Rome or free pizza, they openly lambaste how stupid it is, and at least from my point of view they make those companies look worse for trying to pull that stuff.

Jeff has said multiple times how stupid the captivate thing was, he still went to it.. but then he made sure that I knew that it was kind of shady (but also kind of not shady). Most coverage would just not even comment on it, or just be like "no, going to Rome didn't affect our coverage... but it sure was beautiful." Giantbomb says "It's fucking stupid! There office is right down the street. I wish these companies didn't try to pull this bullshit." I don't have to guess if there coverage of was affected, I know it was, because they just said it was... and heard how it was.

Same with the pizza, they showed it on camera, and then laughed out loud vigorously about how stupid it was.

If everyone in game journalism treated these "perks" the way giant bomb did I bet there'd be a whole lot less free pizzas going out.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Wish upon a star for more Vinny reviews.

He's done only one review hasn't he? It was pretty good one, he seemed to really like ACiT.

 

[Typographenia]

I can't really attach myself to anyone of the staff when it comes to shared tastes. I have similar likes and dislikes at times, but nobody has consistently matched up with my own preferences. Patrick is the closest it comes to movies and tv, but we're so far apart on games it makes me wonder how our tastes are so similar otherwise.


Not saying it's a bad thing, but I don't have a "go to" on them for any given thing.

 

[darkressurection]

It gives me the warm fuzzies every time I see someone say stuff like this, because that's exactly the vision Jeff pitched to me for the site when I first came on board. For anyone in the audience to have arrived at that conclusion themselves makes me feel like we did at least one thing right.

Bro-hugs all around

But yeah, you guys putting your personalities on display has made the reviews and discussions on games much more valuable than any other site. When I say "Oh Jeff gave X game a 5" that is wayyyyy more valuable to me than "Oh, dude at IGN gave x game an 8" because I find that my opinions line up pretty close to Jeff's in most cases.

 

[Gomu Gomu]

I really hope Jeff gets to read this last couple of pages, just to see that his an evidince of his original vision for GB achieved.

 

[darkressurection]

I really hope Jeff gets to read this last couple of pages, just to see that his an evidince of his original vision for GB achieved.

I also hope he reads it so he sees this next sentence.

The Raid is the greatest idea in Giant Bomb history, I want to see video of all of you in suits walking out of a G-Potato with duffle bags of Famicom tapes and Hu-cards in each hand.

 

[Ketch]

I want to see video of all of you in suits walking out of a G-Potato with duffle bags of Famicom tapes and Hu-cards in each hand.

Yes, black on white suits, reservoir dog style, Patrick is Mr.Pink.

Edit: and then rob a bank.

 

[I'm an expert]

Another poster brought up an interesting point in the other thread - why doesn't Jeff complete his Dance Central 3 review and officially put his negative thoughts on it out there? They reviewed the first two, positively, but the one that is negative just gets pushed aside? This is not a conspiracy theory or finger pointing, just an honest question that I probably wouldn't have had before all of this, but now I do.

 

[Hellsing321]

Wait whats this about free pizza?

 

[Antiwhippy]

Another poster brought up an interesting point in the other thread - why doesn't Jeff complete his Dance Central 3 review and officially put his negative thoughts on it out there? They reviewed the first two, positively, but the one that is negative just gets pushed aside? This is not a conspiracy theory or finger pointing, just an honest question that I probably wouldn't have had before all of this, but now I do.

He already stated that he had to go to the black ops 2 review event so he didn't have the time, and that his issues are mostly hardware based, if you listened to the podcasts.

Also he isn't exactly shy on his views on it, on a medium that is more widely distributed than their written reviews. I wouldn't call it pushed aside at all, unless you want to go into conspiracy stuff.