Giant Bomb Thread #4: A thread of perceived slights

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaBuddaDa said:
Like almost every other site, GB waited until the servers went live before starting the review process. Alex is doing this one.
Click to expand...

It's funny because I was sure that Polygon was one of those sites that proudly announced that they'd be waiting until the game's official release to review.
 
slightconfuse said:
i thought they all used dev servers in fact most oher outlets ahve reviews out. Giantbomb is always late with their reviews for the most part
Click to expand...

Oh? Provide some links to IGN, Gamespot, Eurogamer, Joystiq, Edge, Revision 3, Game Informer, Game Trailers and Destructoid's reviews please.
 
jeff is laying some real talk on tumblr

Large companies are interested in large dollars. Boutique products that only pull in modest amounts of profit aren’t things they can go trumpet to investors or CEOs or presidents. Those people are interested in the bottom-line results. The business types are probably more interested in rolling the dice and trying to turn the small thing into a big thing (or bleeding the small thing’s talent dry in an attempt to make their big things bigger) has a greater potential upside than just leaving it be does.

EA is a business. They are running their business the way businesses are run. They are not a charity and the idea of creating great art is something that the guys and gals at the top probably only talk about when they sense that the person they’re talking to thinks that the company is run by monsters. I don’t even feel like I’m singling out EA here. You could substitute the names of most major corporations into this and get a similar result. I don’t especially like it, either, but at some point you’re asking lions to act like lambs and that isn’t how the world works.

Stop asking large corporations to not be large corporations.
Click to expand...

For now we’re comfortable posting video coverage timed to a game’s release and following up with a review when it’s ready. It’s one of the big reasons why the Quick Look was implemented in the first place: To give people something to see for themselves on or around release day, when interest surrounding a game is typically at its highest. We didn’t originally anticipate that this content would end up becoming more popular than the reviews themselves, but it’s been a pretty happy accident, I suppose.

In some ways, the idea that the review itself needs to be the thing that lives on and remains relevant for all time is just absurd to begin with. Reviews are generally good for about 21 days, and after that, who cares? With that much time under its belt, more and more people will be turning to overall word of mouth and additional non-editorial sources for purchasing advice. Struggling against that tide to ensure that your one-page article remains useful just in case someone stumbles upon it six months later seems like a bad use of time. Leave them up for historical context, since some people are still interested in that sort of information, and move on. If games warrant further coverage as they change, post new coverage devoted to those changes. Maybe post links to that coverage at the end of the old review page?

People playing a service-driven game over a long stretch will go on to want dedicated coverage and insight from someone that has stayed with that game all along, not some reviewer who is cruising back into a game for a few days to see if the latest patch makes some part of an old review obsolete.
Click to expand...
 
Ugh, watching the Lara Croft quick look and one of the characters referenced the challenge they overcame while climbing Snowdon.

1) I could probably drive down to Snowdon in a jacket and a pair of cheap trainers and climb Snowdon in about 3 hours. If I was slow.

2) They spelled it as "Snowden".
 
Meadows said:
Ugh, watching the Lara Croft quick look and one of the characters referenced the challenge they overcame while climbing Snowdon.

1) I could probably drive down to Snowdon in a jacket and a pair of cheap trainers and climb Snowdon in about 3 hours. If I was slow.

2) They spelled it as "Snowden".
Click to expand...

Maybe they were talking about Lisa.
 
Meadows said:
Ugh, watching the Lara Croft quick look and one of the characters referenced the challenge they overcame while climbing Snowdon.

1) I could probably drive down to Snowdon in a jacket and a pair of cheap trainers and climb Snowdon in about 3 hours. If I was slow.

2) They spelled it as "Snowden".
Click to expand...
Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
 
Meadows said:
Ugh, watching the Lara Croft quick look and one of the characters referenced the challenge they overcame while climbing Snowdon.

1) I could probably drive down to Snowdon in a jacket and a pair of cheap trainers and climb Snowdon in about 3 hours. If I was slow.

2) They spelled it as "Snowden".
Click to expand...

Maybe they just read Catch 22.
 
Anyone having trouble loading videos at the moment? I'm on an 18 Mbps connection and it's pretty much every ten seconds it has to buffer.
 
Dragon said:
Anyone having trouble loading videos at the moment? I'm on an 18 Mbps connection and it's pretty much every ten seconds it has to buffer.
Click to expand...
Only problem I have had lately is some videos will randomly "finish" at a point during playback. It cuts to grey as though the video is finished, I reload the page, and it starts at the last few seconds of the video or back where it was prior. No real way to tell which one it will be.
 
Dragon said:
Anyone having trouble loading videos at the moment? I'm on an 18 Mbps connection and it's pretty much every ten seconds it has to buffer.
Click to expand...

I have 12Mbps DSL and most of the time videos in Giantbomb.com will load using all my bandwidth, but sometimes they load at less than 500kbps. But I don't know if my ISP is to blame or if its a load issue with Giantbomb's hosting.

EDIT: ZOMB Bombcast. My commute is saved.
 
Large companies are interested in large dollars. Boutique products that only pull in modest amounts of profit aren’t things they can go trumpet to investors or CEOs or presidents. Those people are interested in the bottom-line results. The business types are probably more interested in rolling the dice and trying to turn the small thing into a big thing (or bleeding the small thing’s talent dry in an attempt to make their big things bigger) has a greater potential upside than just leaving it be does.

EA is a business. They are running their business the way businesses are run. They are not a charity and the idea of creating great art is something that the guys and gals at the top probably only talk about when they sense that the person they’re talking to thinks that the company is run by monsters. I don’t even feel like I’m singling out EA here. You could substitute the names of most major corporations into this and get a similar result. I don’t especially like it, either, but at some point you’re asking lions to act like lambs and that isn’t how the world works.

Stop asking large corporations to not be large corporations.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't completely agree with this. Apple, Valve, Google, Amazon, Oracle, etc., have done things their way to great success. Valve being private gives it a big advantage, but if EA actually had strong leadership (rather than weak ass clowns like the guy who threw one of the Warfighter devs under the bus for its failure) then they could create the space they need to innovate rather than simply chase results from one quarter to the next.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Borderlands 4 - Reviews Thread
2 3 4
152
2K
Lokaum D+ replied
Dan leaving Giant Bomb?
2
68
2K
MagnesD3 replied
Grubb no longer at Giant Bomb
2
54
1K
ChorizoPicozo replied
Ghost of Yotei | Review Thread
Analysis Review  12 13 14 15 16
776
2K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 + 4 - Reviews Thread
17
1K
Kenneth Haight replied
Top Bottom