Well, he's not going to give Zelda a score since Dan already reviewed it.
It was pretty amusing seeing people flip out over that 8.8 score for Twilight Princess back in the day, though. I don't think even people on this forum were immune, although to be fair that was almost 11 years ago and I'd be surprised if half the people from that Wii or Zelda thread were still regulars here.
I only remember being very upset about hearing huge spoilers such as "the game contains dynamic music cues".
I hope the new hire(s) have taste in game genres different from the current crew. Without Drew and Austin the more niche one will more or less go untouched (except possibly by Vinny if he takes an interest in a specific game).
In the breath of the wild quicklook (dan not game)
dan said he cried talking about this game to someone because he loves it so much.
Still kinda surprised they let Dan review it but apparently he has already played 90+ hours of it.
This isn't how Giant Bomb does reviews. They let the person who knows most about a thing or has the most attachment to a thing review the thing because they understand that objective reviews are useless for swaying a purchasing decision, and the fan is more likely to do a deep dive and dig up things other fans want to know.
This is how all reviews should work. Bias is the human condition and ignoring it leads to things like the internet mad at Jeff because of an 8.8.
The review isn't Giant Bomb's review of Breath of the Wild, written by Dan. It's Dan Ryckert of Giant Bomb's review of Breath of the Wild. They put themselves and their tastes out there so much just so that people know the context the review is written in. If you know Dan's history and game preferences and what he thinks about games then you'll know how to take the text of the review and be able to form that information into something that will fit your own experiences.
It's review as information to help purchasing decision. That's what all reviews should be, really. It's just that a lot of people take reviews and their related scores to be the OBJECTIVE SET IN STONE FACTUAL VALUE OF THE GAME. That if Jeff says he doesn't like a game that means that game sucks and is terrible and should never have existed. Maybe Jeff isn't the best example because he often becomes hyperbolic and says that exact stuff, but it's all opinion.
In the breath of the wild quicklook (dan not game)
dan said he cried talking about this game to someone because he loves it so much.
Still kinda surprised they let Dan review it but apparently he has already played 90+ hours of it.
This isn't how Giant Bomb does reviews. They let the person who knows most about a thing or has the most attachment to a thing review the thing because they understand that objective reviews are useless for swaying a purchasing decision, and the fan is more likely to do a deep dive and dig up things other fans want to know.
This is how all reviews should work. Bias is the human condition and ignoring it leads to things like the internet mad at Jeff because of an 8.8.
I disagree with your premise that this is how reviews should work. There is a football field of leeway between letting reviewers review the games they are interested in, and letting Dan review a Zelda or Metal Gear game. Both of these games have other fans of the series on staff, other staff members will play to completion, and could review them. And I would be much more interested to hear their reviews. Dan spitting out a 5/5 for a Zelda game and calling it the greatest game of all time has zero value, because he was likely going to say that for anything with Zelda (or Metal Gear) in the title.
A Vinny or Alex 5/5 would have be much more likely to sway me, because listening to the quicklook, it sounds like they were having fun, but they also pointed out many of the flaws in the game via questions to Dan, which he generally glossed over.
I don't want reviews to be objective, those have no value. But if a reviewer can't keep their bias in check, or at least attempt to look at things with a critical eye, then they have swung too far in the opposite direction, and also lost all value.
Has Vinny EVER reviewed a game? Given he's a producer, not an editor, I'm not sure he reviews games.
I think he reviewed one of the Dragon Age games back in the day.
Reviews are basically a novelty for me to read at this point. I just need a bug report.
"Is game broken yes/no, if yes how broken"
I can look at twenty minutes of video to figure out if a game is for me or not outside of that. I will say that super positive reviews can make it more likely for me to look at said twenty minutes of video to see if it's for me, but some of my favorite games of all time are games that were universally given middling reviews.
I have also been playing video games as my primary hobby for the past 30+ years, so it's probably fair to say I might have a better handle on that than people who follow gaming very casually and would benefit from external structured criticism more than me.
In the breath of the wild quicklook (dan not game)
dan said he cried talking about this game to someone because he loves it so much.
Still kinda surprised they let Dan review it but apparently he has already played 90+ hours of it.
This isn't how Giant Bomb does reviews. They let the person who knows most about a thing or has the most attachment to a thing review the thing because they understand that objective reviews are useless for swaying a purchasing decision, and the fan is more likely to do a deep dive and dig up things other fans want to know.
This is how all reviews should work. Bias is the human condition and ignoring it leads to things like the internet mad at Jeff because of an 8.8.
I disagree with your premise that this is how reviews should work. There is a football field of leeway between letting reviewers review the games they are interested in, and letting Dan review a Zelda or Metal Gear game. Both of these games have other fans of the series on staff, other staff members will play to completion, and could review them. And I would be much more interested to hear their reviews. Dan spitting out a 5/5 for a Zelda game and calling it the greatest game of all time has zero value, because he was likely going to say that for anything with Zelda (or Metal Gear) in the title.
A Vinny or Alex 5/5 would have be much more likely to sway me, because listening to the quicklook, it sounds like they were having fun, but they also pointed out many of the flaws in the game via questions to Dan, which he generally glossed over.
I don't want reviews to be objective, those have no value. But if a reviewer can't keep their bias in check, or at least attempt to look at things with a critical eye, then they have swung too far in the opposite direction, and also lost all value.
I think both types of reviews have value and it's up to the reader to decide which point of view they're looking for.
There is also the all to pragmatic real world reason that only Dan had the time/was willing to put in 100 hours playing that game in the window they had to get a review up in time
In the breath of the wild quicklook (dan not game)
dan said he cried talking about this game to someone because he loves it so much.
Still kinda surprised they let Dan review it but apparently he has already played 90+ hours of it.
This isn't how Giant Bomb does reviews. They let the person who knows most about a thing or has the most attachment to a thing review the thing because they understand that objective reviews are useless for swaying a purchasing decision, and the fan is more likely to do a deep dive and dig up things other fans want to know.
This is how all reviews should work. Bias is the human condition and ignoring it leads to things like the internet mad at Jeff because of an 8.8.
I disagree with your premise that this is how reviews should work. There is a football field of leeway between letting reviewers review the games they are interested in, and letting Dan review a Zelda or Metal Gear game. Both of these games have other fans of the series on staff, other staff members will play to completion, and could review them. And I would be much more interested to hear their reviews. Dan spitting out a 5/5 for a Zelda game and calling it the greatest game of all time has zero value, because he was likely going to say that for anything with Zelda (or Metal Gear) in the title.
A Vinny or Alex 5/5 would have be much more likely to sway me, because listening to the quicklook, it sounds like they were having fun, but they also pointed out many of the flaws in the game via questions to Dan, which he generally glossed over.
I don't want reviews to be objective, those have no value. But if a reviewer can't keep their bias in check, or at least attempt to look at things with a critical eye, then they have swung too far in the opposite direction, and also lost all value.
I am super lukewarm on JRPGs. Asking me for an opinion on Bravely Default would result in a tiny thing about how "It's fun but I don't know how it compares to other games in the genre", which would be unsatisfying and useless. Put someone who lives and breathes the genre or series into a position where they can pull the game apart and put to words why this is the best Zelda. Dan getting weepy about BotW should be considered prime info because the last time he talked about TP he still said it was great but totally admitted it had flaws, particularly in its glacial pacing.
I am also a strong believer in going to multiple reviewers and getting a consensus, or seeing what could be divisive. This is probably the most important thing on being an informed consumer. I do wholly trust in GB's reviews because they know exactly what they like and how to convey stuff about it.
Reviews are about telling the reader how good a game is which is an entirely subjective matter. There are parts of this forum who believe Dragon Age 2 is superior to the first (myself included) but the wider internet at large think that game is garbage. Being honest about bias leads to transparency and clarity in the text.
0
RandomHajileNot actually a SnatcherThe New KremlinRegistered Userregular
It's real tough to get a read on how much Jeff's going to like Zelda BOTW
My guess is "not as much as Nintendo fans think he should".
Yesterday (I think) evening on his Mixlr stream, this was exactly the feeling he was putting out. The guys on the Bombcast did change his mind a bit about what the game is, but he was definitely down on it compared to basically everyone else I've read. He said he's going to give it more time, but it definitely sounded like he wouldn't give it the 5 stars Dan gave it based on what he has played so far.
It's real tough to get a read on how much Jeff's going to like Zelda BOTW
My guess is "not as much as Nintendo fans think he should".
Yesterday (I think) evening on his Mixlr stream, this was exactly the feeling he was putting out. The guys on the Bombcast did change his mind a bit about what the game is, but he was definitely down on it compared to basically everyone else I've read. He said he's going to give it more time, but it definitely sounded like he wouldn't give it the 5 stars Dan gave it based on what he has played so far.
I don't think there is anything that is going to get Jeff to like a 3D Zelda game these days. That's fine, Jeff is allowed to not like Zelda.
+1
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Tonight's UPF is free because it's Drew's last day and they have some devs on showing a game they're working on called FutureGrind. Apparently there were people in chat screaming that this is an ad or something. Anyway, Rorie came in and laid down the law:
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
As much as I love Giant Bomb, the GB community has a few real gems in it that always do things like that. If the programming varies even slightly, or the team tries to do something to open a revenue stream, there are some known names in their community who will lose their mind and accuse them of selling out, running ads on premium content, etc.
This video they are watching right now, E3 2013 The Longest Day, is one of my favorite videos on the site. Anyone who hasn't watched it should give it a look, it's super interesting.
+1
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
This video they are watching right now, E3 2013 The Longest Day, is one of my favorite videos on the site. Anyone who hasn't watched it should give it a look, it's super interesting.
Yeah, I loved their "how the sausage gets made" videos.
I know I can just go to the site anytime and watch a video with Ryan in it, but it's just so nostalgic to watch the guys watch videos with Ryan in them.
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Dan doesn't "gloss over" issues, he spends like three paragraphs talking about the inventory hassles, weapon durability, and technical issues
He just happened to think that the things that the game did well was enough to give it five stars in spite of those issues
This isn't the old EGM or Gamespot days where they have to dock games points for different things and then feed it all into a spreadsheet to get a final "objective" score
Imagine, if you will, seeing that Giant Bomb had their Blue Bombin' livestream up and running. And when you clicked on it, instead of seeing Mega Man 4 being played, you saw...what you see when you jump to about 2:30 in this video.
That's where I was earlier today, and the look on Alex's face was equal to my own.
SteevLWhat can I do for you?Registered Userregular
Also, I have missed an Inside Thing tonight. At the end of the UPF, people in chat spammed "o7". I do not understand the reference? Can someone explain?
As an aside, I edited the OP and moved Drew to the "former staff" section.
Posts
That was kind of bewildering to me, considering how much game experience he has, that that had never crossed his mind until that moment.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Still waiting on Dan "Man of his Word" Ryckert to eat a hat
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Still kinda surprised they let Dan review it but apparently he has already played 90+ hours of it.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
I tuned in right in the middle of that. Sure was a thing.
It'll probably end up over at Giant Bomb Unarchived.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
This isn't how Giant Bomb does reviews. They let the person who knows most about a thing or has the most attachment to a thing review the thing because they understand that objective reviews are useless for swaying a purchasing decision, and the fan is more likely to do a deep dive and dig up things other fans want to know.
This is how all reviews should work. Bias is the human condition and ignoring it leads to things like the internet mad at Jeff because of an 8.8.
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
It's review as information to help purchasing decision. That's what all reviews should be, really. It's just that a lot of people take reviews and their related scores to be the OBJECTIVE SET IN STONE FACTUAL VALUE OF THE GAME. That if Jeff says he doesn't like a game that means that game sucks and is terrible and should never have existed. Maybe Jeff isn't the best example because he often becomes hyperbolic and says that exact stuff, but it's all opinion.
It's ok to like things that other people don't.
I disagree with your premise that this is how reviews should work. There is a football field of leeway between letting reviewers review the games they are interested in, and letting Dan review a Zelda or Metal Gear game. Both of these games have other fans of the series on staff, other staff members will play to completion, and could review them. And I would be much more interested to hear their reviews. Dan spitting out a 5/5 for a Zelda game and calling it the greatest game of all time has zero value, because he was likely going to say that for anything with Zelda (or Metal Gear) in the title.
A Vinny or Alex 5/5 would have be much more likely to sway me, because listening to the quicklook, it sounds like they were having fun, but they also pointed out many of the flaws in the game via questions to Dan, which he generally glossed over.
I don't want reviews to be objective, those have no value. But if a reviewer can't keep their bias in check, or at least attempt to look at things with a critical eye, then they have swung too far in the opposite direction, and also lost all value.
My guess is "not as much as Nintendo fans think he should".
I think he reviewed one of the Dragon Age games back in the day.
Reviews are basically a novelty for me to read at this point. I just need a bug report.
"Is game broken yes/no, if yes how broken"
I can look at twenty minutes of video to figure out if a game is for me or not outside of that. I will say that super positive reviews can make it more likely for me to look at said twenty minutes of video to see if it's for me, but some of my favorite games of all time are games that were universally given middling reviews.
I have also been playing video games as my primary hobby for the past 30+ years, so it's probably fair to say I might have a better handle on that than people who follow gaming very casually and would benefit from external structured criticism more than me.
I think both types of reviews have value and it's up to the reader to decide which point of view they're looking for.
I am super lukewarm on JRPGs. Asking me for an opinion on Bravely Default would result in a tiny thing about how "It's fun but I don't know how it compares to other games in the genre", which would be unsatisfying and useless. Put someone who lives and breathes the genre or series into a position where they can pull the game apart and put to words why this is the best Zelda. Dan getting weepy about BotW should be considered prime info because the last time he talked about TP he still said it was great but totally admitted it had flaws, particularly in its glacial pacing.
I am also a strong believer in going to multiple reviewers and getting a consensus, or seeing what could be divisive. This is probably the most important thing on being an informed consumer. I do wholly trust in GB's reviews because they know exactly what they like and how to convey stuff about it.
Reviews are about telling the reader how good a game is which is an entirely subjective matter. There are parts of this forum who believe Dragon Age 2 is superior to the first (myself included) but the wider internet at large think that game is garbage. Being honest about bias leads to transparency and clarity in the text.
This is a clickable link to my Steam Profile.
I don't think there is anything that is going to get Jeff to like a 3D Zelda game these days. That's fine, Jeff is allowed to not like Zelda.
I think it has gotten better over the years, at least.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Still waiting on Dan "Man of his Word" Ryckert to eat a hat
And a solid burp
Yeah, I loved their "how the sausage gets made" videos.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Still waiting on Dan "Man of his Word" Ryckert to eat a hat
KILL ME NOW
Steam: abunchofdaftpunk | PSN: noautomobilesgo | Lastfm: sjchszeppelin | Backloggery: colincummings | 3DS FC: 1392-6019-0219 |
He just happened to think that the things that the game did well was enough to give it five stars in spite of those issues
This isn't the old EGM or Gamespot days where they have to dock games points for different things and then feed it all into a spreadsheet to get a final "objective" score
Imagine, if you will, seeing that Giant Bomb had their Blue Bombin' livestream up and running. And when you clicked on it, instead of seeing Mega Man 4 being played, you saw...what you see when you jump to about 2:30 in this video.
That's where I was earlier today, and the look on Alex's face was equal to my own.
As an aside, I edited the OP and moved Drew to the "former staff" section.