Giant Bomb & Bastion: I know, we normally don't traffic in exclusives, but...
- Thread starter MattyGrovesOrMe
- Start date
Rodney McKay
Member
hamchan said:
What? I'm not off topic because I followed up by saying something that was on topic.
Nothing wrong about that, right?
Not reviewing it was definitely the right decision, but I'm still not so sure about this level of collaboration. Even video game "journalists" should be impartial with all their content, not just reviews. Giving extra exposure to promising indie titles to help them out more than their marketing budget can afford is a noble endeavor, but giving extra exposure to the game of an old friend above and beyond everybody else is a little questionable. I hardly think this is a scandal or anything but I'm not sure it's entirely appropriate.
a Master Ninja
Member
I'm not sure I agree with this. The guys at Giant Bomb don't like sports games, so they don't cover them. That's fine in my book. I'm just saying they tend to give games their friends working on more coverage/leeway than others, which is understandable but I don't like it.Zek said:
In the end Giant Bomb has provided me countless hours of free entertainment, so I can look past this and continue to enjoy their site.
Cat in the Hat
Member
Yeah this is exactly how I feel about it.a Master Ninja said:
Whether or not they do a "formal review" (whatever that is), their opinions affect consumer opinion. I mean, how many folks here refer to their Quick Looks in order to pass judgment on games? Just because they don't give a game a score doesn't mean their opinions suddenly disappear or don't matter. We wouldn't be so understanding if this were a much bigger title (like Black Ops). Just because some people think of their site as "entertainment," that doesn't mean they're not intentionally influencing buying decisions. Again, seems fishy to me. But YMMV.
It's like saying that Rush Limbaugh doesn't affect political opinion because he's an "entertainer" or "radio personality."
It's like saying that Rush Limbaugh doesn't affect political opinion because he's an "entertainer" or "radio personality."
darkressurection
Banned
It doesn't really sound like they will be "pimping" it so much as they will be able to do some cool behind the scenes stuff on it.conman said:
If there weren't an ethical question here, they wouldn't feel compelled to make clear the fact that they're not doing a formal review.darkressurection said:
EDIT: Think of it this way, there's a reason why behind-the-scenes videos and docs are typically produced and released by publishers and/or developers rather than consumer-oriented gaming sites. It's a form of promotion and advertising.
Can't believe so many people are giving them a free pass on this. It's their job to educate and inform us about games. How can they objectively do that when they're acting as an outsourced marketing team for the game?
I mean, yeah, it's only one game, but still - I hope they don't start partnering with EA, Ubisoft, etc. The fact that they aren't reviewing it goes to show theres something fishy with the situation.
I mean, yeah, it's only one game, but still - I hope they don't start partnering with EA, Ubisoft, etc. The fact that they aren't reviewing it goes to show theres something fishy with the situation.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Well, the exclusivity thing is completely normal *coughgeoffkeighleycough*. The pimping has to actually be significant to rub me the wrong way tho. Hasn't really been unreasonable so far.conman said:
Not seeing any basis for complaints yet.
Especially not if I keep in mind what's the norm for the really fuckin big games.
how does this affect their coverage of other games? Even indirectly it raises doubts when they talk about other games/studios/publishers that may compete with their friends.
I guess it depends what day of the week it is whether these guys are considered journalists or not.
I guess it depends what day of the week it is whether these guys are considered journalists or not.
FirstInHell
Banned
What makes Giant Bomb so good is that they are not like every generic nonsense gaming website out there. The fact that they are pushing boundaries and doing different things is good for gamers. They provide a down to earth view of the industry. I don't even think of them as journalists. To me they are a bunch of guys who like games and enjoy what they do.
If you guys are so offended by what they are doing then I am sure there are plenty of awesome websites that will provide the standard vancrappy coverage we have all come to expect from the cesspool of internet 'journalism'.
If you guys are so offended by what they are doing then I am sure there are plenty of awesome websites that will provide the standard vancrappy coverage we have all come to expect from the cesspool of internet 'journalism'.
This discussion is idiotic.
If giantbomb never announced any of that coverage, game came out and received a 5 out out 5, nobody would say a damn thing.
However, they chose to do a much more interesting thing, covering the development backstage, allowing the audience to interact with the creators of the game, decides not to review it (in other words, they chose not to help the game on metacritic, which is what's used to justify a game's failure/success) and people bitch?
People are complaining because a gaming website is providing actual coverage of a game, from start to finish, instead of giving out a number in a scale of 1 to 5.
In a nutshell, people are complaining because a website is giving them all the material they need to make a decision if the game is good or bad, instead of telling you if the game is good or bad. Bizarro world indeed.
If giantbomb never announced any of that coverage, game came out and received a 5 out out 5, nobody would say a damn thing.
However, they chose to do a much more interesting thing, covering the development backstage, allowing the audience to interact with the creators of the game, decides not to review it (in other words, they chose not to help the game on metacritic, which is what's used to justify a game's failure/success) and people bitch?
People are complaining because a gaming website is providing actual coverage of a game, from start to finish, instead of giving out a number in a scale of 1 to 5.
In a nutshell, people are complaining because a website is giving them all the material they need to make a decision if the game is good or bad, instead of telling you if the game is good or bad. Bizarro world indeed.
elrechazado
Banned
so, not at allwmat said:
EmCeeGramr
Member
Almost everyone in this thread is giving them kudos, it looks like. Only a handful of people are questioning it.drizzle said:
This is fine, and I'm not sure they even need to recuse themselves from reviewing it. There is nothing wrong with leveraging contacts to promote your project.
The only difference here is that they're being up front about it, and that it's a generally unheard-of indie studio making their debut.
Press have friends at many developers, and it may or may not affect their review outcomes. I'm thinking it likely doesn't affect much on the whole, though, as I've heard stories about press/developer friendships go bad over reviews.
However, given the relationships involved and indie nature, they may be actively providing feedback during development. Again, this happens a lot with bigger games, but potentially not to the same extent. The solution is just to have a different person review it.
I'm wondering why Giant Bomb and Supergiant are being singled-out here. The same thing happened with Skulls of the Shogun and 1Up, an no one said anything, did they? And that game wasn't as far along as Bastion appears to be.
This was obviously also happening with Chris Remo and Sean Elliot and Irrational, just in a different and less obvious way, and it resulted in them getting jobs. Like Luke, Che and Bryan. On the surface, I think the whole "community manager" thing is much fishier than this, but only on the surface - I don't think any of these people were faking enthusiasm to get jobs at their current employers, and I don't think these studios are hiring people just because they were enthusiastic. But I can see how it might look that way to someone. But mostly, I don't think Jeff or anyone at Giant Bomb is going to get a job at Supergiant Games for breaking the news on this game... I don't see how they benefit from this relationship at all, really.
In the end, if you're worried about a particular site's review, then check it against someone else's and see how they match up. If everyone is giving the game a bad review except Giant Bomb, then... yeah, something's up. But somehow I don't expect that will happen.
Full Disclosure: Former press, now a developer, and I totally hope and expect to pull the same shit some day.
The only difference here is that they're being up front about it, and that it's a generally unheard-of indie studio making their debut.
Press have friends at many developers, and it may or may not affect their review outcomes. I'm thinking it likely doesn't affect much on the whole, though, as I've heard stories about press/developer friendships go bad over reviews.
However, given the relationships involved and indie nature, they may be actively providing feedback during development. Again, this happens a lot with bigger games, but potentially not to the same extent. The solution is just to have a different person review it.
I'm wondering why Giant Bomb and Supergiant are being singled-out here. The same thing happened with Skulls of the Shogun and 1Up, an no one said anything, did they? And that game wasn't as far along as Bastion appears to be.
This was obviously also happening with Chris Remo and Sean Elliot and Irrational, just in a different and less obvious way, and it resulted in them getting jobs. Like Luke, Che and Bryan. On the surface, I think the whole "community manager" thing is much fishier than this, but only on the surface - I don't think any of these people were faking enthusiasm to get jobs at their current employers, and I don't think these studios are hiring people just because they were enthusiastic. But I can see how it might look that way to someone. But mostly, I don't think Jeff or anyone at Giant Bomb is going to get a job at Supergiant Games for breaking the news on this game... I don't see how they benefit from this relationship at all, really.
In the end, if you're worried about a particular site's review, then check it against someone else's and see how they match up. If everyone is giving the game a bad review except Giant Bomb, then... yeah, something's up. But somehow I don't expect that will happen.
Full Disclosure: Former press, now a developer, and I totally hope and expect to pull the same shit some day.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Best case scenario is the game is super-awesome. Worst case scenario is the game is a fucking abomination.
In both cases, it doesn't really matter how they cover it, as long as they cover it because the game's quality will be glaringly obvious just by looking at the coverage.
Greyzone is medriocrity. If that's where the game ends up, just visit more than one site for a change to make up your mind.
In both cases, it doesn't really matter how they cover it, as long as they cover it because the game's quality will be glaringly obvious just by looking at the coverage.
Greyzone is medriocrity. If that's where the game ends up, just visit more than one site for a change to make up your mind.
Chris Murphy
Member
Giantbomb has produced some of the best gaming internet content... with their quick looks and endurance runs. I find it very difficult to believe that someone can think they are terrible, especially when you relate them to the large gaming sites that are out there.
I am a huge Nintendo fanboy, yet I still appreciate their opinions, even though they tend to mock Nintendo for their casual approach. I would rather hear honest opinions over anything else and as an independant company which was practically born from moneyhatting issues (gamespot Ubi) I think they have managed to stay honest.
I am a huge Nintendo fanboy, yet I still appreciate their opinions, even though they tend to mock Nintendo for their casual approach. I would rather hear honest opinions over anything else and as an independant company which was practically born from moneyhatting issues (gamespot Ubi) I think they have managed to stay honest.
Also, Jeff Green likes them.
WrenchNinja
Member
You mean Eidos.Chris Murphy said:
Aquavelvaman
Banned
This is my exact opinion and I love you.drizzle said:
drizzle said:
Not just that, but if they actually do what they propose to do, and give us an actual insight into the game development process, it'll be a massive first. Game development is still a PR-driven black box we know next to nothing about; I have my doubts that this won't be PR-drive also, of course, and whether there'll be actually worthwhile information.
Saw this thread while attending PAX but never got to reply so doing so now. But I'll add that this doesn't bother me much. I'm able to determine my own opinion of a game via other methods (played this at PAX and it didn't do much for me, so I already know where I stand with the game for now). But I am interested to see this coverage just to see what I can learn about game development.
What bothers me more about Giantbomb than any of this is
While seemingly innocuous, if you read Whiskey Media's advertising page, it clear that at least some of these are marketing messages.
If I'm reading these right, the essential goal is to have companies market their message without people realizing they're being marketed to. While I hate banner ads and flash pop-ups, etc., at least I know what they are and they seem to be a more honest way of trying to market something. Trying to incorporate marketing in a way that people don't realize it's marketing seems manipulative.
What bothers me more about Giantbomb than any of this is
thetrin said:
While seemingly innocuous, if you read Whiskey Media's advertising page, it clear that at least some of these are marketing messages.
If I'm reading these right, the essential goal is to have companies market their message without people realizing they're being marketed to. While I hate banner ads and flash pop-ups, etc., at least I know what they are and they seem to be a more honest way of trying to market something. Trying to incorporate marketing in a way that people don't realize it's marketing seems manipulative.
dekjo said:
It's not exactly deceptive, from the few sponsored quests I have inadvertently triggered. I saw a Best Buy one that had a bright yellow box with the BB logo on it. They actually are tiny popups, but you also want to examine them at least for a moment because they are part of the site.
Krauser Kat
Member
i think its kinda of funny that Giant Bomb is going to do better journalism by going in-depth into the company and its creations of the game, than most places that consider themselves journalism. We need more super indepth stuff about games, along the lines of the making of documentary that go along with most dvds now. I would rather read tons of information about the creation of a shitty game than just the review of a great game.