Brad can't stand up to Jeff when Jeff is committed, really.
The reason Destiny managed to squeak into the top 10 is because Jeff was 50/50 on it, while everyone else except Brad pretty much loathed it.
+4
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
I've noticed that I have had a tendency to zone out during both the Bombcast and Beastcast lately, and I think I'm going to blame that on my inability to play most of the games since I don't have any of the current-gen systems and my PC is a bit long in the tooth. It kind of reminds me of back when I first started listening to podcasts back in late 2007. All I had at that point was a Wii, PS2, and a PC I had build 4 years earlier. I was listening to a lot of 1up's podcasts back then, and probably a few others. (Giant Bomb didn't exist yet, and I wasn't really paying attention to Gamespot anymore.)
I definitely got more interested in the podcasts I was listening to once I finally bought a 360 the following year and could play a lot of the games they were talking about. Hopefully when I build my next PC I can feel more engaged. At the moment, they're pretty much the only two remaining podcasts I regularly listen to.
Also Jeff allowed DOTA 2 to get into the top 10 because it was "important" or whatever, but immediately stamped on Brad the second he suggested it should be #1 and in consideration for the best game of all time.
I think that's what frustrated me the most about the Dota talk. Because if Brad was arguing for UI of the year or something, I would have absolutely supported him. Messing around with that spectator client, with real time commentary and stuff like that, felt magical. It felt next-level. And that's great, but it's not the game.
The game is still the 10+ year old Warcraft III mod. Surrounding it with chests and keys and hats and stuff like that was all very pretty UI-stuff that was very specifically not the game.
That was for most disappointing. He was 50/50 on whether or not it should be on the top 10.
Like, his reasoning is while everything around the core of the game is bad, the was something to the core gameplay worthy of recognition. He kept flopping back and forth on whether it should be on the top 10.
I think that's what frustrated me the most about the Dota talk. Because if Brad was arguing for UI of the year or something, I would have absolutely supported him. Messing around with that spectator client, with real time commentary and stuff like that, felt magical. It felt next-level. And that's great, but it's not the game.
The game is still the 10+ year old Warcraft III mod. Surrounding it with chests and keys and hats and stuff like that was all very pretty UI-stuff that was very specifically not the game.
Their game scores (and top 10 considerations) are not "oh, how good are the individual elements? Now average it out". This is why Destiny could still get up there, it's why Doom's multiplayer is entire irrelevant- it's how good the elements that stand out are and how much the downsides blemish them. In the latter's case, not at all, because it's not the multiplayer component that makes it great.
I mean, Jeff once mentioned that he would have given GTA5 4 stars instead of 5 if it had shipped with the multiplayer, so it's not like there isn't precedent.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
0
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Vinny and Alex did a Red Dead Redemption playdate and now I want to play Red Dead Redemption again.
It also made me remember this article/video from Polygon about the guy who played John Marston and how he left the gaming industry for good.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
I agree, Brad definitely gets over-excited by things he enjoys and should take a moment to calm down before attempting to be critical towards them. It's most grating when he wants to talk about spoilers and the others have to figuratively strap him down to keep him from bursting.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
You're asking for a reduction in bias, which is, in its very essence, asking for a more objective stance to a subjective argument.
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
I agree, what we all need is for Objective Game Reviews to start updating again.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
I agree, Brad definitely gets over-excited by things he enjoys and should take a moment to calm down before attempting to be critical towards them. It's most grating when he wants to talk about spoilers and the others have to figuratively strap him down to keep him from bursting.
I generally don't give a shit about spoilers, but Brad's thing of talking like he's walking on eggshells while he's actually just running through them blindly always irks the hell out of me.
Say it if you want to say it! Insisting on steadily creeping into spoilers while everybody around him says there's no reason to do so just drives me crazy. And I like Brad!
I honestly think about this a lot, but it's a shitton of work, and I'm pretty lazy. But depressingly I think there's still a real need for the site, even more so in some ways given the sorts of things people seem to value in Steam reviews lately.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
You're asking for a reduction in bias, which is, in its very essence, asking for a more objective stance to a subjective argument.
Don't be obtuse. I'm not asking for anything. I'm just saying that a way Brad could possibly improve his reviews is by tempering his excitement a bit when he plays something new/exclusively. I subscribe to GB because of the bias. Reviews in general are silly. When it comes to games criticism I follow people whom I tend to share similar opinions with thus making the reviews relevant to me. I'm just saying Brad's pieces could be that much better if he managed his excitement a bit better.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
You're asking for a reduction in bias, which is, in its very essence, asking for a more objective stance to a subjective argument.
Don't be obtuse. I'm not asking for anything. I'm just saying that a way Brad could possibly improve his reviews is by tempering his excitement a bit when he plays something new/exclusively. I subscribe to GB because of the bias. Reviews in general are silly. When it comes to games criticism I follow people whom I tend to share similar opinions with thus making the reviews relevant to me. I'm just saying Brad's pieces could be that much better if he managed his excitement a bit better.
No, you're asking for something here, which is for Brad to dilute his enthusiasm for the titles he very much enjoys so the review can be... Clearer? Align with your views more?
You clearly understand Giant Bomb's general MO but you're wanting some kind of objective improvement for a review, and those two things seem very opposite of each other.
His argument in the Lego QL was more on the lines of "story-wise it's pretty much The New Hope again", which is a point of view he's hardly alone in holding.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
You're asking for a reduction in bias, which is, in its very essence, asking for a more objective stance to a subjective argument.
Don't be obtuse. I'm not asking for anything. I'm just saying that a way Brad could possibly improve his reviews is by tempering his excitement a bit when he plays something new/exclusively. I subscribe to GB because of the bias. Reviews in general are silly. When it comes to games criticism I follow people whom I tend to share similar opinions with thus making the reviews relevant to me. I'm just saying Brad's pieces could be that much better if he managed his excitement a bit better.
No, you're asking for something here, which is for Brad to dilute his enthusiasm for the titles he very much enjoys so the review can be... Clearer? Align with your views more?
You clearly understand Giant Bomb's general MO but you're wanting some kind of objective improvement for a review, and those two things seem very opposite of each other.
I feel like you're reading more into that comment that was there.
This is absolutely a thing that happens. Not just with Brad, but with a lot of people. Being super excited and hyped about something when it's brand new and fresh, to the point of having blinders on and basically shutting out anything that you don't absolutely love about it. Then, after you've had some time with it, you may still love it, but you have a clearer view of it.
Brad definitely seems like the type of person who will have one or two things at any given time that he's in that first phase with, and every time, that thing will totally be the thing to keep that level of hype forever.
Overall, it's not that bad of a thing. I'd much rather see someone get super excited about something and enjoy the heck out of it, than just have and endless string of cynicism. I think all that's being said here is that, a lot of people would let that initial excitement temper a little before making an assessment of it, while Brad is less likely to wait.
I think Brad needs to be a bit more objective in his interviews. While they addressed the fact that they tend to cover and review games they're interested in (thus resulting in higher scores) on last week's podcast I still think Brad is being a bit liberal w/ his scores. Inside is a fantastic game but I certainly wouldn't call it perfect (granted 5 stars doesn't necessarily mean perfect). On this week's podcast Brad seemed to agree with Jeff's demerits for the game.
I feel like Brad gets really excited about new things - especially when others don't have access to them.
Objectivity in reviews basically breaks down to "this is a puzzle platformer game with heavy emphasis on horror atmosphere". Past that, every single other word is subjective; it's opinion. Calling for an opinion piece (which every single review will always be forever and ever because that's what criticism fucking is) to be objective literally makes no sense.
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
You're asking for a reduction in bias, which is, in its very essence, asking for a more objective stance to a subjective argument.
Don't be obtuse. I'm not asking for anything. I'm just saying that a way Brad could possibly improve his reviews is by tempering his excitement a bit when he plays something new/exclusively. I subscribe to GB because of the bias. Reviews in general are silly. When it comes to games criticism I follow people whom I tend to share similar opinions with thus making the reviews relevant to me. I'm just saying Brad's pieces could be that much better if he managed his excitement a bit better.
No, you're asking for something here, which is for Brad to dilute his enthusiasm for the titles he very much enjoys so the review can be... Clearer? Align with your views more?
You clearly understand Giant Bomb's general MO but you're wanting some kind of objective improvement for a review, and those two things seem very opposite of each other.
You're reading about 3 layers too deep into my post. I'm just making a comment on a nuance of Brad's reviewing style. I'm literally 100% fine with that never changing - in fact it likely won't. I have no desire to have his reviews align with my POVs. That's asinine.
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
That still doesn't make it a reboot though. It is literally the seventh part of a series.
I imagine he'd also insist that Doctor Who was rebooted in 2009 even though it's a direct continuation of the old series.
But we can agree the Christopher Eccleston Doctor Who was a reboot, because even though that's an existing character and franchise and has a history they refer back to, it was still called "season one" when the DVDs came out
Force Awakens literally opens with EPISODE VII as the first title on the crawl, and major characters from the old movies are still in it
I guess you could call it a "soft" reboot if you wanted to but at that point the word has lost all meaning and we live in a nightmare dystopia dominated by marketing executives
Posts
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
He was unable to keep Super Mario Maker from the #1 spot
The dream died
The reason Destiny managed to squeak into the top 10 is because Jeff was 50/50 on it, while everyone else except Brad pretty much loathed it.
I definitely got more interested in the podcasts I was listening to once I finally bought a 360 the following year and could play a lot of the games they were talking about. Hopefully when I build my next PC I can feel more engaged. At the moment, they're pretty much the only two remaining podcasts I regularly listen to.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
jeff wasn't 50/50 on destiny, he hated that game
The game is still the 10+ year old Warcraft III mod. Surrounding it with chests and keys and hats and stuff like that was all very pretty UI-stuff that was very specifically not the game.
That was for most disappointing. He was 50/50 on whether or not it should be on the top 10.
Like, his reasoning is while everything around the core of the game is bad, the was something to the core gameplay worthy of recognition. He kept flopping back and forth on whether it should be on the top 10.
All that stuff is still the game
Sorry, but that's not really what I meant. It's not really about wanting less subjectivity in the reviews. I just think Brad lets hype temporarily over-inflate his opinion of things and his reviews would be a little bit better if he could distance himself from that.
It also made me remember this article/video from Polygon about the guy who played John Marston and how he left the gaming industry for good.
Except GTA4's MP was new and fresh when it first came out?
I agree, Brad definitely gets over-excited by things he enjoys and should take a moment to calm down before attempting to be critical towards them. It's most grating when he wants to talk about spoilers and the others have to figuratively strap him down to keep him from bursting.
It has a 92 on Metacritic right now.
I swear I missed it.
it ended about an hour ago
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
You're asking for a reduction in bias, which is, in its very essence, asking for a more objective stance to a subjective argument.
I generally don't give a shit about spoilers, but Brad's thing of talking like he's walking on eggshells while he's actually just running through them blindly always irks the hell out of me.
Say it if you want to say it! Insisting on steadily creeping into spoilers while everybody around him says there's no reason to do so just drives me crazy. And I like Brad!
@TychoCelchuuu
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
http://www.pcgamer.com/actor-and-former-nfl-player-terry-crews-brings-celebrity-muscle-to-pc-gaming/
That's a whole lot of cash on the components. I hear my wallet crying.
The Force Awakens is not a reboot, Brad
It is a sequel-ass sequel
Don't be obtuse. I'm not asking for anything. I'm just saying that a way Brad could possibly improve his reviews is by tempering his excitement a bit when he plays something new/exclusively. I subscribe to GB because of the bias. Reviews in general are silly. When it comes to games criticism I follow people whom I tend to share similar opinions with thus making the reviews relevant to me. I'm just saying Brad's pieces could be that much better if he managed his excitement a bit better.
No, you're asking for something here, which is for Brad to dilute his enthusiasm for the titles he very much enjoys so the review can be... Clearer? Align with your views more?
You clearly understand Giant Bomb's general MO but you're wanting some kind of objective improvement for a review, and those two things seem very opposite of each other.
Yeah, his argument that introducing the series to a new generation makes it a reboot is seven shades of stupid.
I imagine he'd also insist that Doctor Who was rebooted in 2009 even though it's a direct continuation of the old series.
I feel like you're reading more into that comment that was there.
This is absolutely a thing that happens. Not just with Brad, but with a lot of people. Being super excited and hyped about something when it's brand new and fresh, to the point of having blinders on and basically shutting out anything that you don't absolutely love about it. Then, after you've had some time with it, you may still love it, but you have a clearer view of it.
Brad definitely seems like the type of person who will have one or two things at any given time that he's in that first phase with, and every time, that thing will totally be the thing to keep that level of hype forever.
Overall, it's not that bad of a thing. I'd much rather see someone get super excited about something and enjoy the heck out of it, than just have and endless string of cynicism. I think all that's being said here is that, a lot of people would let that initial excitement temper a little before making an assessment of it, while Brad is less likely to wait.
You're reading about 3 layers too deep into my post. I'm just making a comment on a nuance of Brad's reviewing style. I'm literally 100% fine with that never changing - in fact it likely won't. I have no desire to have his reviews align with my POVs. That's asinine.
But we can agree the Christopher Eccleston Doctor Who was a reboot, because even though that's an existing character and franchise and has a history they refer back to, it was still called "season one" when the DVDs came out
Force Awakens literally opens with EPISODE VII as the first title on the crawl, and major characters from the old movies are still in it
I guess you could call it a "soft" reboot if you wanted to but at that point the word has lost all meaning and we live in a nightmare dystopia dominated by marketing executives
Which we do
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET