Giant Bombcast - 11/17/15

Jeff doesn't even know what orcarina of time is at this point because he knows that if he goes back and plays it he will realize that it's not that great. There are long stretches of that game that are boredville. So any comparison involving it doesn't really mean too much.

It's a great game, it's not accidentally held up as a great game by so many people.
 
I took that to mean that the 'awards' themselves are meaningless, it's the spectacle around them that makes it fun.

I mean, myself, I could care less what they give any of the awards too but hearing them argue about it for hours on end is my favorite thing theydo all year.

Thats how I take it. It also probably drives traffic to the site in an otherwise dead time of the year.
 
The idea that every game needs a robust unlock carrot on a stick system is amazingly flawed.

I unlocked everything in Rocket League pretty shortly and it's some of the most fun I've had in multiplayer in years. Similarly I don't get jack shit playing Arena in Halo 5. Do I care? Hell no, I play games to have fun - not unlock some rainbow skin shader for my gun.

Stupid criticism.
 
It's perfectly fine to make a game enjoyable. No arguments from me on that front. However, it's "unfair" to see them mod/cheat in one game to make more enjoyable while other moddable titles may not be given that chance.

What if they made MGSV's post launch FOB GMP changes a point of criticism and dock it "points" because a majority of them didn't mod the game to rid themselves of those annoyances?
alright, I get your point.
 
They gave the PC version a different score because it didn't have performance issues.
My point is Jeff already judged both versions in their original state for the review (at least I think he did). Once you're past that, stuff like GOTY debates is just about everyone's personal experience. Console commands are a legitimate part of that.

That probably goes double for a site like Giant Bomb where I think the review process and giving out an appropriate score is more important to them than the GOTY stuff. I've always looked at that as mostly just a fun spectacle / retrospective that they don't take too seriously.
 
the twilight princess discussion was great. absolutely a 3/5 on the giant bomb rating system. same with skyward sword. probably the only two mainline zeldas I'd give a score that low to, along with the DS games.

LMAO at Dan giving it a 9.9... fucking hell.
 
That probably goes double for a site like Giant Bomb where I think the review process and giving out an appropriate score is more important to them than the GOTY stuff. I've always looked at that as mostly just a fun spectacle / retrospective that they don't take too seriously.

For sure. That's my view on their GOTY stuff as well. Although, I've always wanted them to send out a Northies trophy/badge out to Nolan North to legitimize the award.
 
Gonna throw this out there: all 3D Zelda games are mediocre and the 2D games are awesome. Oracles of Ages/Seasons > any 3D Zelda.

i think we can all agree on one thing:

the oracle games completely shit on mario maker

and I'm pretty sure I can name 48 other Nintendo games since ocarina of time's release that are better than mario maker, too
 
i think we can all agree on one thing:

the oracle games completely shit on mario maker

and I'm pretty sure I can name 48 other Nintendo games since ocarina of time's release that are better than mario maker, too

The Oracle games weren't made by Nintendo iirc. You can use Minish Cap instead though!
 
The Oracle games weren't made by Nintendo iirc. You can use Minish Cap instead though!

I guess that's true!

My point still stands! I wouldn't consider Mario Maker a top 50 first party Nintendo game since the release of OOT, let alone the BEST Nintendo game since OOT.
 
It's a great game, it's not accidentally held up as a great game by so many people.

It was a great pioneer of the genre for sure, and the fact that the game is still playable and still has fun to be had is a pretty big achievement, but too many people act like it's still the pinnacle of gaming, and while that was probably the truth in the 90s, games have gotten better since its release.

I thought the same thing until this summer. I tried it again and was glued once again. Ocarina of Time is a near-perfect experience.

I guess it's just mostly subjective because when I last played it, I spent the first 1/3rd of so of the game thinking "well, I sure can't wait for this to be over so that I can get to the good part".
 
Jeff doesn't even know what orcarina of time is at this point because he knows that if he goes back and plays it he will realize that it's not that great. There are long stretches of that game that are boredville. So any comparison involving it doesn't really mean too much.

I thought the same thing until this summer. I tried it again and was glued once again. Ocarina of Time is a near-perfect experience.
 
Dan says time and time again that the core gameplay is solid, and he had a lot of fun with it. To me, that covers exactly what you're talking about.

If you're going to release a $60 triple-A FPS in November, against Call of Duty and Halo, then you're going to be judged against what those competitors offer. Does that not seem fair?

If you really enjoy the gameplay enough to be satisfied enough with the offered content, then that's great! But the fact of the matter is, in terms of what customers have grown to expect from a $60 FPS in 2015, this is coming up short.
He's not judging the amount of content but the way it's doled out. He says the game doesn't have 'legs' partially because after XX hours you stop unlocking new weapons and that you don't have incentive to keep playing because apparently he needs to have the potential of unlocking more stuff to enjoy the game. That's BS. What should be criticized is the bad design choice that many games take of weapons and abilities locked behind hours upon hours of leveling.

If BF doesn't have enough content to justify the price or to compete with other shooters then that fact will bear itself regardless if you get access to the all the content right away, unlock it after 5 hours or unlock it after 20 hours. In fact, by having this unlock system you set the impression you have much more to get but then when you'll see you're that ultimately it doesn't stack up at all then you'll be more negative about the game. And what if the game was balanced in a way that made unlock taking more time and levels so that even after 25 hours you would still get new stuff? Would that make it better because you aren't getting new stuff to play with and adding 'legs' or will it be seen as stretching the short blanket and lengthening the unlock process in attempt to 'hide' the low total number of content?

Is it bad design if people actually enjoy having these progression systems in the game?
What does people enjoying it have to do with critical analysis of video game design by professionals? There are plenty badly designed games that people enjoy.
 
I think I finally feel like I understand now what Destiny haters felt like whenever they brought up Destiny over the last year.

Fallout talk... ZZzzZzzzZ
 
I think I finally feel like I understand now what Destiny haters felt like whenever they brought up Destiny over the last year.

Fallout talk... ZZzzZzzzZ

Not even close unless Fallout 4 continues to be brought up on literally every other podcast for 3-4 months after now.
 
I think I finally feel like I understand now what Destiny haters felt like whenever they brought up Destiny over the last year.

Fallout talk... ZZzzZzzzZ

Destiny talks was a like a carousel of tedium. Literally the same stuff being said over and over again.
 
I think I finally feel like I understand now what Destiny haters felt like whenever they brought up Destiny over the last year.

Fallout talk... ZZzzZzzzZ

I was surprised at how quickly Brad wrote off the game having a chance to show some world-building and mini-narratives.

At least he turned his opinion around at Diamond City, but he hasn't seen shit until he gets to Goodneighbor.
 
Gonna throw this out there: all 3D Zelda games are mediocre and the 2D games are awesome. Oracles of Ages/Seasons > any 3D Zelda.

The 2D Capcom Zeldas are fucking amazing and up there as the best of the franchise.

The other 2D Zeldas besides the first one and maybe Link's Awakening? Not so much.
 
Well Fallout 4 is an actual interesting game, Destiny on the other hand....

That being said, I actually liked Destiny talk on the Bombcast. Especially Jeff's rants lol.
 
Love GiantBomb, but not having an 'RPG guy' on the crew(and Dan & Jeff's general aloofness towards them) hurts. It leads to some pretty shitty discourse about bigger role playing games they feel compelled to talk about(and most games in the genre being ignored completely). Happened with Bloodborne, Witcher, and now Fallout with the bulk of the discussion centered around breaking down technical issues, then some extremely general and surface level opinions about the mechanics and/or systems that rarely delve into the actual meat of those games.
 
Love GiantBomb, but not having an 'RPG guy' on the crew(and Dan & Jeff's general aloofness towards them) hurts. It leads to some pretty shitty discourse about bigger role playing games they feel compelled to talk about(and most games in the genre being ignored completely). Happened with Bloodborne, Witcher, and now Fallout with the bulk of the discussion centered around breaking down technical issues, then some extremely general and surface level opinions about the mechanics and/or systems that rarely delve into the actual meat of those games.
Yeah surprised none of them have talked shit about the dialogue system since it's awful. I have to guess that my guy doesn't say something terrible and make my companion hate him. The old system was so much better.
 
He's not judging the amount of content but the way it's doled out. He says the game doesn't have 'legs' partially because after XX hours you stop unlocking new weapons and that you don't have incentive to keep playing because apparently he needs to have the potential of unlocking more stuff to enjoy the game. That's BS. What should be criticized is the bad design choice that many games take of weapons and abilities locked behind hours upon hours of leveling.

Back in my day we played games like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament and we didn't have these newfangled unlocks and progression systems and we liked it!
 
Brad saying 'There's always that one guy who won't let something go during Game of the Year discussion...' without seeming to realize he's that guy.
 
Back in my day we played games like Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament and we didn't have these newfangled unlocks and progression systems and we liked it!

Those were great games though with great balance and a high skill ceiling.

People point to a lack of maps and/or progress system as a reason that BF won't have legs but that's because from a gameplay perspective there is very little reason to return to these maps and modes once you've played them once or twice because there is zero balance and it's completely chaotic. The game just isn't very fun after a while and with no progression system to encourage people to keep playing I think people will move on very quickly.
 
Love GiantBomb, but not having an 'RPG guy' on the crew(and Dan & Jeff's general aloofness towards them) hurts. It leads to some pretty shitty discourse about bigger role playing games they feel compelled to talk about(and most games in the genre being ignored completely). Happened with Bloodborne, Witcher, and now Fallout with the bulk of the discussion centered around breaking down technical issues, then some extremely general and surface level opinions about the mechanics and/or systems that rarely delve into the actual meat of those games.

Eh. You can say that with many titles. I feel Brad is the only one who gets deep enough into a game (Destiny & DOTA2) to delve into the meat of a game. Dan's Battlefront impressions and Jeff's BLOPS3 impressions didn't reach the depth I was hoping for either but that's fine. They're pretty good at discussing their "experiences" but not always in-depth details.
 
The idea that every game needs a robust unlock carrot on a stick system is amazingly flawed.

I unlocked everything in Rocket League pretty shortly and it's some of the most fun I've had in multiplayer in years. Similarly I don't get jack shit playing Arena in Halo 5. Do I care? Hell no, I play games to have fun - not unlock some rainbow skin shader for my gun.

Stupid criticism.

Then again Halo had a 4 player co-op SP campaign apart from it having 15 maps and Rocket League is a 27$ game as opposed to SW: BF having 12 maps and no SP campaign. Compared to SW:BF2 it's laughable.

Is it bad design if people actually enjoy having these progression systems in the game?

Yeah, tell me about it. It's all about going that extra mile and I enjoy it especially since it doesn't make or break the game but it's just something cool to have and gives you even more reason to dabble into anything optional other than it being challenging.
 
Then again Halo had a 4 player co-op SP campaign apart from it having 15 maps and Rocket League is a 27$ game as opposed to SW: BF having 12 maps and no SP campaign. Compared to SW:BF2 it's laughable.



Yeah, tell me about it. It's all about going that extra mile and I enjoy it especially since it doesn't make or break the game but it's just something cool to have and gives you even more reason to dabble into anything optional other than it being challenging.

When a game has as low a skill ceiling as Battlefront you kind of do need that extra hook to keep you coming back. The difference between something like that game and Halo or Rocket League is that you make progression your personal skill with each match because they have fairly high skill ceilings.
 
I think I finally feel like I understand now what Destiny haters felt like whenever they brought up Destiny over the last year.

Fallout talk... ZZzzZzzzZ

As someone who's played nothing but Destiny and Fallout for the past couple of months (with a brief incursion into Halo 5): There are some big lessons Destiny could take from Fallout.
 
Am I the only one who gets sick so of them constantly saying the "finally" joke on the site?
It's the only reason I've ever had a major gripe with their coverage.
 
Twilight Princess is the worst 3D Zelda. I haven't even played Skyward Sword, but it is.

I'd argue WW, TP, and SS are all equally terrible, but any given day the wind can change.

TP at the very least has a solid ratio of great dungeons as an advantage over the other two.
 
I think my personal 3D Zelda power rankings are WW > OoT > MM > TP, but I like all of them. MM's has my least favorite section (*everything* involved in the third temple) but also has a lot of really high highs. TP is a little more middling with the only bad part being the awful drag at the beginning but has some really great dungeons once you press on. I think I'm the only person in the world who liked the spinner, though, even though it was worthless outside of the dungeon you got it in. WW will probably remain my favorite forever and always.

Also, Jason gets my newfound respect and love for nipping Destiny talk right in the bud.

Don't worry, you're not the only one. I love the spinner and was really dissapointing to have it be useless outside it's dungeon. TP has some of the most interesting items out of all the games too. The ball and chain, dominion rod and the use of the iron boots was amazing. Don't even get me started on the double clawshot.

WW is still the best 3D Zelda for sure though.
 
The idea that every game needs a robust unlock carrot on a stick system is amazingly flawed.
I've seen it come up several times and I'd like to see the topic more thoroughly explored. I understand loot games (they don't appeal to me,) but I don't understand why everything must be a loot game. I don't quite side with the notion that a discrete reward is more meaningful than mastery of the systems in play.
I think I finally feel like I understand now what Destiny haters felt like whenever they brought up Destiny over the last year.
It's exactly like Destiny. To Jeff's credit one of his problems with Destiny is the lack of interesting content to use the existing loot with. I disagree, but I can sympathize with that more than the loot criticisms.
 
i think we can all agree on one thing:

the oracle games completely shit on mario maker

and I'm pretty sure I can name 48 other Nintendo games since ocarina of time's release that are better than mario maker, too

If one of them is Sunshine you know you crazier then Jeff, right.
 
Top Bottom