Support NeoGAF

[Optimus Lime]

I pay attention to Brad and Jeff's opinions, but it's partly because I've been reading them for so long going back to Gamespot days. Whether we really need videogame critics goes back to the are videogames art debate. In 2018, the vast majority of games are not art. They are just vehicles to monetize attention and would be more accurately described as anti-art. You don't need critics for sorting those out, you just need Consumer Reports-style analysis.

Consumer reports-style analysis requires extensive technical expertise in a discipline or medium. Do you think that Abby Russell and Dan Ryckert are qualified, on any level, to talk about resolution, framerates, bugs, patches, performance options, experience on different systems, or ongoing aftermarket support regarding technical issues?

They are likeable talking heads, with a schtick that is literally no more sophisticated than 'relatable person likes/doesn't like a thing'. I agree with you, but it returns us to the original argument I was making - these 'critics' are not qualified to fulfill the functions of their role.

 

[Fuz]

Probably an apt place for this tweet



I'm on mobile or would write a lot more.

He's right, you know.

 

[cormack12]

Tim also has a bias there too.

He does, but his game is looked on favourably (was?) by the 'big guys'. So technically he has a lot to lose with a long way out to release.....so he has credibility to go on record from a position of strength.

I guess complacent means the level of discussion really. They can dial it in for want of a better expression. Take RDR2 getting 10's or even God of War. Both are hardly flawless. While some aspects of those games are without a doubt top tier (graphics, animations) there are a lot of mechanics and design decisions that hinder the game (some subjectively I guess) but none of this finesse or nuance is covered to the required level. Of course this is also in part to the over rationalised and genericised score spectrum. But I think it would be interesting for one of these critics to justify their score against the player metascore for example.

I just looked at the metascore for rdr2. Critics at 97/100 and users 7.9 - basically 10 versus 8.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Consumer reports-style analysis requires extensive technical expertise in a discipline or medium. Do you think that Abby Russell and Dan Ryckert are qualified, on any level, to talk about resolution, framerates, bugs, patches, performance options, experience on different systems, or ongoing aftermarket support regarding technical issues?

They are likeable talking heads, with a schtick that is literally no more sophisticated than 'relatable person likes/doesn't like a thing'. I agree with you, but it returns us to the original argument I was making - these 'critics' are not qualified to fulfill the functions of their role.

Exhibit A)

 

[Optimus Lime]

Exhibit A)

Holy... fuck.

Is... that real?

If so, that is the greatest exhibit A of all time. My god. I mean, you couldn't find a more definitive example of what we're talking about if you tried.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Holy... fuck.

Is... that real?

If so, that is the greatest exhibit A of all time. My god. I mean, you couldn't find a more definitive example of what we're talking about if you tried.

Yes, it happened after or around the release of the PS4/XboxOne.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Yes, it happened after or around the release of the PS4/XboxOne.

I'm just speechless looking at that. And these idiots were employed by IGN to discuss the technical aspects of digital entertainment. It's just staggering.

 

[Nikana]

/s

I knew going in that their goty picks would be weird. So really, I am honestly not surprised.

Thanks for ruining it.....

 

[Shai-Tan]

Consumer reports-style analysis requires extensive technical expertise in a discipline or medium. Do you think that Abby Russell and Dan Ryckert are qualified, on any level, to talk about resolution, framerates, bugs, patches, performance options, experience on different systems, or ongoing aftermarket support regarding technical issues?

They are likeable talking heads, with a schtick that is literally no more sophisticated than 'relatable person likes/doesn't like a thing'. I agree with you, but it returns us to the original argument I was making - these 'critics' are not qualified to fulfill the functions of their role.

There isn't a single model for a critic to follow, not in games or elsewhere. The popularity of Giant Bomb is in line with enthusiast media that doesn't quite know or engage with the craft but can engage with what the hoi polloi like by being immersed in games as a player while cultivating a para social relationship with the audience who gets to know their tastes as they get to know them as a personality. There's a tension if the critic as a personality becomes more distant from the subculture and it's tastes but that should be separated from a navel gazing elitism or obsession with trivia that only a subset of the audience is engaged in. I think a more fair criticism of a personality based media outlet like Giant Bomb is in how entertaining their banter is. I'm personally not taken by their recent output particularly where unrelated hobbies like wrestling sleep in but other people are apparently so good for them.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Thanks for ruining it.....

Ohhh oops, I'm sorry. Didn't even dawn on me that it could be spoiled. Sorry.

 

[Nikana]

Ohhh oops, I'm sorry. Didn't even dawn on me that it could be spoiled. Sorry.

Shit happens. I figured that would be their pick honestly.

Should go back and edit that post though.

 

[Optimus Lime]

There isn't a single model for a critic to follow, not in games or elsewhere. The popularity of Giant Bomb is in line with enthusiast media that doesn't quite know or engage with the craft but can engage with what the hoi polloi like by being immersed in games as a player while cultivating a para social relationship with the audience who gets to know their tastes as they get to know them as a personality. There's a tension if the critic as a personality becomes more distant from the subculture and it's tastes but that should be separated from a navel gazing elitism or obsession with trivia that only a subset of the audience is engaged in

Oh, I'm not suggesting that there is a single model for a critic to follow. I've offered a sense of the multiplicity of models that can comfortably exist alongside one another - from consumer reviews, to theoretical analysis, to historical context. And, I agree with you - that's very much Giant Bomb's schtick right now, they produce material that is designed to enable an audience to 'get to know their tastes as they get to know them as a personality'.

My argument is that this isn't journalism, and it isn't criticism. There are many models for criticism - 'reading my thoughts because I'm relatable' just isn't one of them. It's something else; it's a creature of the social media era, where audiences create vicarious, one-sided relationships with media figures of all kinds. The conjuring trick that Giant Bomb excels at is making the audience feel like they're amongst slightly goofy, quirky friends, as they shoot the shit about games and crack wise.

That's fine. People enjoy it, clearly - and I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't. My argument is that it isn't criticism, and it isn't journalism. It's a social media parlor trick. Which would be fine, except that Giant Bomb (and Waypoint, and Jim Sterling, and Polygon, etc.) are desperate to assert themselves as credible and reputable sources of serious thought around digital media and gaming culture - to the point that they will attempt to merge their personal politics with their content, as though they are Gore Vidal, and they have earned the right to exploit that informal social media relationship with their audience in order to advance their personal political agendas. They are not qualified enough, skilled enough, or experienced enough to do that. Not even close. They're likeable bloggers and nothing more.

 

[mckmas8808]

I disagree. I'm well above the age of 35, and I remember Gerstman's early years very well. If you honestly believe that Jeff Gerstman, Brad Shoemaker, Jim Sterling, or Alex Navarro have written pieces of criticism that rival the work of people like George Plimpton and Hunter S. Thompson - I don't know what to tell you. We're going to have to strenuously agree to disagree.

The 'some of us older people' stuff is pretty disappointing, I must say. Oh well. You're welcome to your opinion. I absolutely stand by mine.

Well these are videogames, so there's a ceiling as to how high or impactful a piece may be. But my post wasn't only talking about Gerstman and Brad.

I pay attention to Brad and Jeff's opinions, but it's partly because I've been reading them for so long going back to Gamespot days. Whether we really need videogame critics goes back to the are videogames art debate. In 2018, the vast majority of games are not art. They are just vehicles to monetize attention and would be more accurately described as anti-art. You don't need critics for sorting those out, you just need Consumer Reports-style analysis.

See this is where gamers start to get on my nerves and we start to sound like some elitist. They aren't here giving opinions to satisfy your need for a Consumer Report style analysis, nor to judge "art". The are critics of the medium. That's it! Sometimes people will do it from the perspective of using something in a video game to talk about a larger societal issue. Sometimes it will be a straight up Consumer Reports-style analysis. Sometimes it'll be in a fun top 10 breakdown of best games. And sometimes it'll be in an interview form with someone within the industry to talk about the industry.

And games can do viewed as art. Just because they are games, doesn't remember the artistry from it. There's nothing about the interactivity of games that make it less art than say a TV show.

 

[Optimus Lime]

Well these are videogames, so there's a ceiling as to how high or impactful a piece may be.

What do you mean by this?

 

[LegendOfKage]

Holy... fuck.

Is... that real?

If so, that is the greatest exhibit A of all time. My god. I mean, you couldn't find a more definitive example of what we're talking about if you tried.

For the full video evidence:

Shit happens. I figured that would be their pick honestly.

Should go back and edit that post though.

You should probably also edit your quote of their post.

 

[mckmas8808]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that there is a single model for a critic to follow. I've offered a sense of the multiplicity of models that can comfortably exist alongside one another - from consumer reviews, to theoretical analysis, to historical context. And, I agree with you - that's very much Giant Bomb's schtick right now, they produce material that is designed to enable an audience to 'get to know their tastes as they get to know them as a personality'.

My argument is that this isn't journalism, and it isn't criticism. There are many models for criticism - 'reading my thoughts because I'm relatable' just isn't one of them. It's something else; it's a creature of the social media era, where audiences create vicarious, one-sided relationships with media figures of all kinds. The conjuring trick that Giant Bomb excels at is making the audience feel like they're amongst slightly goofy, quirky friends, as they shoot the shit about games and crack wise.

That's fine. People enjoy it, clearly - and I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't. My argument is that it isn't criticism, and it isn't journalism. It's a social media parlor trick. Which would be fine, except that Giant Bomb (and Waypoint, and Jim Sterling, and Polygon, etc.) are desperate to assert themselves as credible and reputable sources of serious thought around digital media and gaming culture - to the point that they will attempt to merge their personal politics with their content, as though they are Gore Vidal, and they have earned the right to exploit that informal social media relationship with their audience in order to advance their personal political agendas. They are not qualified enough, skilled enough, or experienced enough to do that. Not even close. They're likeable bloggers and nothing more.

My main problem with what you are saying (because I actually agree with you here mostly), is that you are making the last bolded sentenece out to be a bad thing. Or a thing that GiantBomb themselves wouldn't consider themselves to be. I don't think GB thinks that they are journalist at heart. I do disagree with you in saying they aren't critics though.

Like come on Optimus Lime they do 15 hours worth of debating and discussion on GOTY at the end of every year. To act as if they don't play games or know the industry enough isn't true and it's not cool. Clearly, some of them are better than others, but why do you and others act like guys like Austin Walker, Jim Sterling, Jeff Gurstmann, and Greg Miller don't play games?

What do you mean by this?

For the most part, a person writing a serious story about video games will have of a less impact than a writer like Bob Woodward writing a piece about The White House. Or a famous author writing a story about a serious thing even in Hollywood. Video games still have a way to go before people and society takes us all more seriously. The fact that WayPoint gets crapped on the way it does proves my point. WayPoint is trying to exist to cover games, but in a different way. They want to cover games from a cultural standpoint and blur the lines between just "games" and how the gaming industry relates to our every day lives. And so many of us gamers don't want them to do that. We want them all to just cover it like IGN from 15 years ago.

WayPoint "wants" to do it in a more serious way.

 

[Optimus Lime]

My main problem with what you are saying (because I actually agree with you here mostly), is that you are making the last bolded sentenece out to be a bad thing. Or a thing that GiantBomb themselves wouldn't consider themselves to be. I don't think GB thinks that they are journalist at heart. I do disagree with you in saying they aren't critics though.

Like come on Optimus Lime they do 15 hours worth of debating and discussion on GOTY at the end of every year. To act as if they don't play games or know the industry enough isn't true and it's not cool. Clearly, some of them are better than others, but why do you and others act like guys like Austin Walker, Jim Sterling, Jeff Gurstmann, and Greg Miller don't play games?

I haven't said a single thing about whether or not the staff play games. I've not questioned their dedication to the medium as players of games - not even once. And, I challenge you to quote a single line that I've written calling that into question. It's disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise, so my expectation is that you retract that claim.

It is a bad thing to have an entire public profile constructed about how likeable you are, if your objective is to be taken seriously as a journalist and critic. It's totally fine, as I've said, if your objective is to maximise your clicks and your user engagement telemetry. These are two vastly different objectives, and you are trying to conflate them.

Giant Bomb is an interesting case, because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be your beer drinkin' buddy who just wants to have a rowdy good time when it suits them, but they also reserve the right to attack their audience over Jessica Price, to misdirect over Daniel Vavra, and to nakedly reach for a synergy between political commentary and personality-driven clickbait - they want the credibility and power of formal, studied journalism/criticism, but they have no interest in earning it. The former is absolutely fine. If you want to engage in that universe, and pretend that Alex Navarro is your good buddy, more power to you. That's not really what we're discussing, though. We're talking about the role of a critic in 2018. And, in that capacity, Giant Bomb, Jim Sterling, and Waypoint are woefully out of their depth - and as Twitch/Youtube increases in consumer power and penetration, they are looking increasingly old fashioned, out of touch, and devoid of serious rigor and credibility.

 

[Grinchy]

I'm just speechless looking at that. And these idiots were employed by IGN to discuss the technical aspects of digital entertainment. It's just staggering.

This is what I don't understand about the entire game review industry. To be a movie reviewer, you have to know a lot about film. To review cars, you have to know a lot about cars. To review sports equipment, yada yada you get the point.

But for game reviews, you just need to get out of college with some kind of writing degree and suddenly you're qualified to review and rate something you may have no experience with whatsoever.

 

[Guiberu]

My main problem with what you are saying (because I actually agree with you here mostly), is that you are making the last bolded sentenece out to be a bad thing. Or a thing that GiantBomb themselves wouldn't consider themselves to be. I don't think GB thinks that they are journalist at heart. I do disagree with you in saying they aren't critics though.

Like come on Optimus Lime they do 15 hours worth of debating and discussion on GOTY at the end of every year. To act as if they don't play games or know the industry enough isn't true and it's not cool. Clearly, some of them are better than others, but why do you and others act like guys like Austin Walker, Jim Sterling, Jeff Gurstmann, and Greg Miller don't play games?



For the most part, a person writing a serious story about video games will have of a less impact than a writer like Bob Woodward writing a piece about The White House. Or a famous author writing a story about a serious thing even in Hollywood. Video games still have a way to go before people and society takes us all more seriously. The fact that WayPoint gets crapped on the way it does proves my point. WayPoint is trying to exist to cover games, but in a different way. They want to cover games from a cultural standpoint and blur the lines between just "games" and how the gaming industry relates to our every day lives. And so many of us gamers don't want them to do that. We want them all to just cover it like IGN from 15 years ago.

WayPoint "wants" to do it in a more serious way.

Waypoint exist to shove progressive ideological beliefs down people's throats ; under the guise of "serious" journalism.

 

[Optimus Lime]

For the most part, a person writing a serious story about video games will have of a less impact than a writer like Bob Woodward writing a piece about The White House. Or a famous author writing a story about a serious thing even in Hollywood. Video games still have a way to go before people and society takes us all more seriously. The fact that WayPoint gets crapped on the way it does proves my point. WayPoint is trying to exist to cover games, but in a different way. They want to cover games from a cultural standpoint and blur the lines between just "games" and how the gaming industry relates to our every day lives. And so many of us gamers don't want them to do that. We want them all to just cover it like IGN from 15 years ago.

I don't agree with this in the slightest.

People have been writing profound, impactful pieces about entertainment and media for decades. Generations, even. The idea that for some ill-defined reason, video games are exempt from that is strange, and speaks more to your personal expectations and appraisal of the medium than any universal rule around the subjects that are matched well to power in writing and journalism.

Perhaps the reason that 'people and society' haven't taken 'us' more seriously is that they have been given absolutely no reason to, considering the shoddy state of video game journalism, and the medium's inability to see itself as worthy of very serious, rigorous, and sophisticated discussion.

The basic idea of Waypoint is great. A site for 'serious' discussion of gaming, which dips in and out of various bits of social, critical, and cultural theory. The problem is in the execution, and in the people behind it. Austin Walker is a seriously mediocre academic talent (at least in his public writing), offering generic, unexciting, cliched analysis of the medium. Patrick Klepek is, and always has been, a non-event - and is more interested in manipulating his audience as instruments of political change, and when challenged, he plays his ultimate get out of jail free card: 'all art is political'. That kind of dunderheaded sloganeering is a beautifully rendered example of the inexperience of these people.

Here's an example of what I mean. This is Nick Kent writing about Syd Barrett in 1973. It's a stunning, beautiful piece of work - lyrical, and mournful, and troubling, and evocative of a time and place. Really moving stuff.

Think about Matthew Smith, the designer of one of the first big computer platform games - Manic Miner, and the sequel, Jet Set Willy. Similarly, Matthew Smith created two masterpieces, before burning out in a haze of drugs and unrealised ambition and mental illness and stress. He disappeared for years, and nobody knew where he was. He was very much the Crazy Diamond of the early 8-bit computer era. It's a really sad story, if you can piece it together, and even when he re-emerged, there was something in there about lost opportunity, and right place/wrong time, and how talent and madness sometimes are twins.

Where's Matt Smith's equivalent of the Nick Kent piece? There's a perfect example of the kind of powerful writing that could exist around video games - which is very much tied to the kind of writing that used to exist on film, or music, or art, or politics. It doesn't exist, though. It's a very human, very mournful story which provides a compelling backdrop of how the medium was created - and by who. But, it's just not there.

Here's what I do know though. We're not going to get there when the overwhelming focus of games journalism rests on commanding your audience to 'do better', while screeching at them about how Daniel Vavra triggered a writer by wearing a homemade t-shirt, or by having Abby Russell end a conversation with 'I don't fucking care'.

You know what I mean?

 

[mckmas8808]

I haven't said a single thing about whether or not the staff play games. I've not questioned their dedication to the medium as players of games - not even once. And, I challenge you to quote a single line that I've written calling that into question. It's disingenuous for you to suggest otherwise, so my expectation is that you retract that claim.

It is a bad thing to have an entire public profile constructed about how likeable you are, if your objective is to be taken seriously as a journalist and critic. It's totally fine, as I've said, if your objective is to maximise your clicks and your user engagement telemetry. These are two vastly different objectives, and you are trying to conflate them.

Giant Bomb is an interesting case, because they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be your beer drinkin' buddy who just wants to have a rowdy good time when it suits them, but they also reserve the right to attack their audience over Jessica Price, to misdirect over Daniel Vavra, and to nakedly reach for a synergy between political commentary and personality-driven clickbait - they want the credibility and power of formal, studied journalism/criticism, but they have no interest in earning it. The former is absolutely fine. If you want to engage in that universe, and pretend that Alex Navarro is your good buddy, more power to you. That's not really what we're discussing, though. We're talking about the role of a critic in 2018. And, in that capacity, Giant Bomb, Jim Sterling, and Waypoint are woefully out of their depth - and as Twitch/Youtube increases in consumer power and penetration, they are looking increasingly old fashioned, out of touch, and devoid of serious rigor and credibility.

- Well, I read that you said they aren't "qualified" to be critics of video games, I read that as they don't or haven't played enough video games or know enough about the video games industry.
- I don't agree that both of the bolded can't co-exist within the same person or group of people (I'd remove the word "clickbait" from your sentence and it's perfectly possible to do both).
- As YouTube and Twitch get bigger and bigger all WayPoint and GB has to do is adapt. There's not much that's being done on YT and Twitch that the other critics can't recreate and do themselves. As a matter a fact they can probably do it on a bigger scale (even if it's not better), than some young 22 year old at home on Twitch.


The great thing about the internet is that it's big enough to support all of them. So nobody should be going out of business. Kinda Funny exist only because companies like IGN were holding some of them back from their full potential.

 

[eot]

I try to listen to all of these podcasts even though they spoil most games I haven't touched yet - I figure if the spoilers are good enough I will look into the game.

My issue with Abby isn't the views she has but the fact she is so prominent on these when she is one of the newest people. I know if I was in that room in her position I would sit back for a bit like Jason or Jan does. It seems obnoxious to just blab on about games no one else cares about.

I kinda agree, but if you found her very entertaining / insightful I suspect you'd mind it less.

Personally I didn't find the GoW thing particularly annoying, but I haven't played the game so I have no way of evaluating her criticisms. On the whole though, I don't particularly enjoy her (or Ben's) contributions to the podcasts. I've completely dropped the beastcast and listen to the bombcast with much lower frequency. Can't expect to keep liking something indefinitely though.

 

[Optimus Lime]

- Well, I read that you said they aren't "qualified" to be critics of video games, I read that as they don't or haven't played enough video games or know enough about the video games industry.

No, you accused me of saying something that I didn't say, as the basis for your argument. You were wrong to do th at.

- I don't agree that both of the bolded can't co-exist within the same person or group of people (I'd remove the word "clickbait" from your sentence and it's perfectly possible to do both).

Well, I wouldn't remove clickbait from my sentence, and will not - but thanks for your editorial feedback. You are, of course, free to hold that opinion. I think that one is corrosive to the other - you cannot claim a position of intellectual authority and rigor on one hand, while operating through personality and clickbait on the other.

- As YouTube and Twitch get bigger and bigger all WayPoint and GB has to do is adapt. There's not much that's being done on YT and Twitch that the other critics can't recreate and do themselves. As a matter a fact they can probably do it on a bigger scale (even if it's not better), than some young 22 year old at home on Twitch.

If it is so simple, why haven't they done it? Why is the public perception of what video games can be, and are, being driven by people like Ninja - and not Jeff Gerstman? If it's so easy, what's the hold up? Are they trying to be fair and giving Ninja a head start before they come after him or something?

 

[mckmas8808]

Here's what I do know though. We're not going to get there when the overwhelming focus of games journalism rests on commanding your audience to 'do better', while screeching at them about how Daniel Vavra triggered a writer by wearing a homemade t-shirt, or by having Abby Russell end a conversation with 'I don't fucking care'.

You know what I mean?

We can agree to disagree on somethings, but this I 100% agree with. And this is where you are right with the balances "social media type interaction" with journalism. It is a hard tightrope to balance if you are trying to do both things, because too much interaction with the normal people on Twitter can interfere with your journalist work. It can affect how the writer sees an issue if they don't properly understand what social media is.

I think Austin Walker does a great job articulating a lot of these within the games media and conflating it with societal issues (regardless if most of GAF doesn't want this kind of stuff). But his overuse of Twitter destroyed his ability to process the Kingdom Come: Deliverance controversy properly. Him wanting and needing to be a "minor celebrity" that makes a statement in the industry blinded him from actually interpreting what was going on and how boycotting covering the game isn't actually "Games criticism" or "Journalism" at all. I wouldn't even call it advocacy.

But even with all of that, I still support Austin Walker, because I allow people to screw up (as long as it's not overly repeated) as long as they admit to the screw up at some point.

If it is so simple, why haven't they done it? Why is the public perception of what video games can be, and are, being driven by people like Ninja - and not Jeff Gerstman? If it's so easy, what's the hold up? Are they trying to be fair and giving Ninja a head start before they come after him or something?

Well, guys like Ninja and GiantBomb occupy different spaces in videogames. They aren't really doing the same thing per-say. Ninja isn't out here breaking down games and speaking to game developers about the Next-Gen Consoles.

 

[Shai-Tan]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that there is a single model for a critic to follow. I've offered a sense of the multiplicity of models that can comfortably exist alongside one another - from consumer reviews, to theoretical analysis, to historical context. And, I agree with you - that's very much Giant Bomb's schtick right now, they produce material that is designed to enable an audience to 'get to know their tastes as they get to know them as a personality'.

My argument is that this isn't journalism, and it isn't criticism. There are many models for criticism - 'reading my thoughts because I'm relatable' just isn't one of them. It's something else; it's a creature of the social media era, where audiences create vicarious, one-sided relationships with media figures of all kinds. The conjuring trick that Giant Bomb excels at is making the audience feel like they're amongst slightly goofy, quirky friends, as they shoot the shit about games and crack wise.

That's fine. People enjoy it, clearly - and I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't. My argument is that it isn't criticism, and it isn't journalism. It's a social media parlor trick. Which would be fine, except that Giant Bomb (and Waypoint, and Jim Sterling, and Polygon, etc.) are desperate to assert themselves as credible and reputable sources of serious thought around digital media and gaming culture - to the point that they will attempt to merge their personal politics with their content, as though they are Gore Vidal, and they have earned the right to exploit that informal social media relationship with their audience in order to advance their personal political agendas. They are not qualified enough, skilled enough, or experienced enough to do that. Not even close. They're likeable bloggers and nothing more.

We could make similar criticisms of the commentariat, immersed in a particular set of learning and professionalization towards being out of touch, idiosyncratic, and as prone to promoting their interests, tastes and subculture as a human like anyone else so perhaps the complaint about political agendas is a separate issue. I would tend to agree that game journalists and gamers themselves tend to be philistines who get swept along with fashionable nonsense but they aren't uniquely prone to it, clearly.

There is something to how social media creates pundits elevated by an audience and peers as ignorant as they are e.g. Jim Sterling commenting on the business side of the industry - a kind of populism in cultural criticism -- but there is no easy solution to that, if it is an issue relative to other "problems of civilization". I'm much more worried about the economics of journalism contributing to generalists writing stories that should have been written by someone with a more specific beat with relevant training or experience. Where that merges here is how oped pages have turned into a cushy retirement for a journalist as a social commentator as if there weren't more qualified people out there. Commentary in games is just following that broader trend of person that can write well about topics they know little about beyond the popular discourse that week.

To circle back, to me Giant Bomb is on the right side of that line, offering a not particularly serious subjective point of view about popular entertainment

 

[Ailike]

Waypoint exist to shove progressive ideological beliefs down people's throats ; under the guise of "serious" journalism.

Ouch. I cut myself on that edge.

 

[Optimus Lime]

We can agree to disagree on somethings, but this I 100% agree with. And this is where you are right with the balances "social media type interaction" with journalism. It is a hard tightrope to balance if you are trying to do both things, because too much interaction with the normal people on Twitter can interfere with your journalist work. It can affect how the writer sees an issue if they don't properly understand what social media is.

I think Austin Walker does a great job articulating a lot of these within the games media and conflating it with societal issues (regardless if most of GAF doesn't want this kind of stuff). But his overuse of Twitter destroyed his ability to process the Kingdom Come: Deliverance controversy properly. Him wanting and needing to be a "minor celebrity" that makes a statement in the industry blinded him from actually interpreting what was going on and how boycotting covering the game isn't actually "Games criticism" or "Journalism" at all. I wouldn't even call it advocacy.

But even with all of that, I still support Austin Walker, because I allow people to screw up (as long as it's not overly repeated) as long as they admit to the screw up at some point.

I agree with all of this.

Well, guys like Ninja and GiantBomb occupy different spaces in videogames. They aren't really doing the same thing per-say. Ninja isn't out here breaking down games and speaking to game developers about the Next-Gen Consoles.

That's right. And, I actually think that's a benefit. Do you remember the bizarre interview that Giant Bomb did with Adam Sessler just before the release of No Man's Sky? They gave him an hour or so to rant and rave about how mindblowingly amazing the game was, unchallenged. The idea that there is something really wonderful about the fact that these people are in bed with the producers of the products they are tasked with critiquing is quite unsettling to me. Giant Bomb is in San Francisco and are literally close personal friends with the major players in the gaming industry. Do you really think that doesn't compromise their ability to objectively discuss the products being released?

Ninja - who I absolutely do not care for - is an industry outsider. And, that is what will increasingly give him (and those like him) currency which eclipses that of established, traditional gaming outlets.

 

[Scopa]

It's hard not to laugh at Gerstmann sometimes. He basically says he hates Mario Party because it is old, boring and never changes. Goes on to praise and wax lyrical about the latest CoD multiplayer yet again. Does he hear himself?

 

[Ecto311]

So you're imply she's uppity and needs to know her place? That's the discourse you want to go with? What makes someone an expert? When can an opinion, be valid? We tolerate dumb opinions on this board all the time from supposed 'experts'. What makes our dumb opinions more wisened than someone else's? Everyone can have an opinion. It's your choice whether you can be swayed by it. Letting it get to you or using it to inform your own opinion is where real maturity is. Blaming other opinions, even if they're dumb, on global takedown conspiracies and doomsaying is just silly. If those other opinions are so wrong, then consider them outliers to your own, and move on. I'm a 50/50 with Abby personally, but to make a topic on one individual person as the thing that's wrong with the entire gaming industry is...childish.

It's not the problem with the entire gaming industry it's just my issue with her on these podcasts. I don't want her to stay silent but when everyone is pushing back against her she should understand that she doesn't have the support for her game and let it go. Others do that but she just pushes and pushes against the tide till the others are exhausted and let her have her way. What makes the others "experts" compared to her? Well the fact they have been doing the site and expressing their opinions since she was in 5th grade? They have a history of the subject and at least from me get respect for that knowledge.

Abby should dial it back a hair and listen more than push for games she doesn't have a good argument for in general. I'm not through the podcasts this year but I still remember her having no argument for dream daddy and just saying "I don't care I like it" kind of argument over and over last year. The most heartbreaking was Vinny fighting for her even though I don't think he wanted it at all. It is odd how he backs her on almost everything no matter how dumb it is. Also want to see some bizarre shit check out the mailbox vid they did when Dan got the slingshot. She was playing mom to Dan so hard I couldn't watch it all. It seems like she feels this power in the gro

I think this would be likely due to not wanting to seem confrontational to avoid any back lash that it continued and it continued being directed at Abby this year; it might give some voice that it's because she's the only woman on crew, truth or not.

That and in a corporate environment (Which they are in, CBSi and all) it would likely HAVE to be reviewed with the employee off the air because of HR reasons.

I don't watch much "normal," news to know if those sort of performance discussions happens regularly on CBS/CBSi products or not.

On the flip, if she didn't contribute to the discussion, people could say "She doesn't really contribute a whole lot to the conversation; why is she even there instead of Jan?"

Yeahhhh...I think they were letting her test the waters with other game genres...

She seems to have most experience in games like The Sims and point and click adventures; more of the "Chill and play," focused with picking up the occasional "Focus and play," game.
-=-=-
All in all it seems to me like they're trying to broaden their scope of games while preparing to pass the torch so that the seniors can focus on other things behind the scenes or resign their position. They could also be prepping for what they're predicting becomes >>A<< (Meaning there can be multiple) major landscape in gaming. As misguided as some may say picking up Abby is, all a part of the learning curve. I tend to believe that Giant Bomb has a lead on that curve compared to other outlets like Kotaku and Waypoint.

I encourage her to contribute for sure I actually like the mix of her in there. But when her voice is heard most of the time it makes it all lose it's cred for me. Last year (again haven't finished this years podcasts) she was heard so much when she was so new at least learn how the format works and why and when to fight for something. That's it. She would get a lot more respect from me as a listener if she dialed it back and watched how it all works and spoke on games she had a good argument for not just all of the ones she liked or possibly the only ones she finished through the year.

She is entertaining when she is laid back and not pressing for some bullshit game to be game of the year when almost everyone else is against it. All the other guys give up when there is no support but she just keeps barking about.

I kinda agree, but if you found her very entertaining / insightful I suspect you'd mind it less.

Personally I didn't find the GoW thing particularly annoying, but I haven't played the game so I have no way of evaluating her criticisms. On the whole though, I don't particularly enjoy her (or Ben's) contributions to the podcasts. I've completely dropped the beastcast and listen to the bombcast with much lower frequency. Can't expect to keep liking something indefinitely though.

I like Ben and Abby for the most part. I really like the after cast with Jeff and Ben. It's fun to hear them take calls and the way they interact with each other can be funny. Both are good for sure but this subject being about abby seems like there is more annoyance with her than any of the others. Again see Jason and Jan. Both have good opinions on games they are passionate about. Not being passionate about a game but having no reasoning to make it be above others in the main list.

 

[thejared]

I don't know if we can discuss Giantbomb related stuff here, since they moved to that other forum with a lot of other people, but I am really want to to talk about this and none of my friends listen to Giantbomb Cast here in Brazil, unfortunately, so I decided to open this thread here.

For those who don't know, every year they put out a GOTY podcast that is really good, mostly because the listeners can follow the whole decision making process for a lot of categories (that they change every year) because they record the discussion for each category.

Iirc, Abby joined the crew soon after they doing one of these, and participated in two or three editions.

Last year, she was the one who was pushing some really weird games that no one else played for the entire process.

In some cases, it seemed like she wanted to push some "progressive agenda", for the lack of a better term. The main example being Dream Daddy, who got really high on their list.

Now, I am listening to day two of this year's deliberations and the appalling arguments that she uses do criticize the latest God of War.

Things like "I don't like the women representation on that game" or " this is a backwards trope" really pissed me off as I was listening mainly because of two reasons:

1) I really don't understand why this matters to the subject and

2) None of the guys at the crew reacts to this unreasonable identity politics mentality.

I mean... Everything she likes or dislikes has something to do with some organized political group.

What do you think about this and what should they do to avoid this annoying thing?

Did you also hear her bashing on far cry because it didn’t go far enough with what she wanted those militia, hick, religious people to be like. They didn’t make it fit her view of what animals she believes those people are.

She is, in main part the reason I cancelled premium... (and the constant fighting game videos and discussions)... But the amount of stupid content that goes up from East along with her terrible narration and inane political comments are the worst thing to happen to giant bomb since Dan went east and Drew left.

Last year’s GOTY was mind numbing, her pushing games based on some weird societal shit that she cares about sucked. And no one could challenge her, Dan came close but they had to give her her game in the top 10. I’m sure this year will be no different.

I finished Day Two yesterday and I just about turned it off when she started talking shit about women in god of war.. Vinny snickered and made some comment like “I don’t thing the demons’ gender was specified”, but her Valkyrie point was challenged and she had no answer to it.

Ultimately, like a lot of other young people today, they don’t really know what they think or why they think it. She is someone that never cared about this shit before, but now she’s acting like some crusader for the downtrodden.

 

[Shai-Tan]

That's right. And, I actually think that's a benefit. Do you remember the bizarre interview that Giant Bomb did with Adam Sessler just before the release of No Man's Sky? They gave him an hour or so to rant and rave about how mindblowingly amazing the game was, unchallenged. The idea that there is something really wonderful about the fact that these people are in bed with the producers of the products they are tasked with critiquing is quite unsettling to me. Giant Bomb is in San Francisco and are literally close personal friends with the major players in the gaming industry. Do you really think that doesn't compromise their ability to objectively discuss the products being released?

Ninja - who I absolutely do not care for - is an industry outsider. And, that is what will increasingly give him (and those like him) currency which eclipses that of established, traditional gaming outlets.

They had already discussed that many times before I stopped listening to the podcast in 2008. Their contention is that the commonly held concern relies on a misunderstanding of their relationship with industry and friends in industry. Even if there were something behind the appearance of impropriety the format of their site provides a wealth of video to judge for yourself and the podcast often includes discussion between multiple people who have played a game (back when I listened to it anyway).

YouTubers and Twitch streamers do promo material that seems more problematic to me even though, again you get more than enough video to judge for yourself. Advertisers are mostly paying for your eyeballs. The average gamer is sophisticated enough to know the creator isn't going to completely shit on a product they are getting paid to play. What goes unmentioned in the worry about corporate influence is how captive creators are to the preferred games of the audience well beyond how much they themselves enjoy it

 

[Nikana]

For the full video evidence:





You should probably also edit your quote of their post.

Good man. Done.

 

[GamesAreFun]

I think she offers a different opinion - she's younger and into different games than the other crew, which provides an interesting perspective.

I wish she were better spoken though - using "like" in every sentence is irritating.

 

[Thing on a Spring]

I think she offers a different opinion - she's younger and into different games than the other crew, which provides an interesting perspective.

I wish she were better spoken though - using "like" in every sentence is irritating.

I was listening towards the end of the day one cast earlier and she went on a 'like' rampage. I counted 8 or 9 in 10 seconds.

I've no real issue with her opinions but she just doesn't convey them very well.

 

[bumleforce]

That's all well and good, but its not really helpful to say things like that. To many people seemed entirely focused on what other boards might do. It just smacks of "But...but...but..." If the best someone can to do to further discourse is point to what someone else might say it doesn't really further your cause. It just looks petty. So let's be above that. I'd like to think we all stuck around here for the good of -this-, not because of the bad of -that-.

It was. A joke. True but still a joke so you can relax.

 

[olimariOA]

Abby might have dumb opinions that could clear out any room, but at least she's grating as well.

 

[hariseldon]

If you can't stand Abby or modern Giant Bomb, there are a bajillion other sites and forums that can give you exactly what you're looking for. Or, you can weigh up the pros of Giant Bomb's more worthwhile and interesting moments, against what is apparently the crippling indignity of having to listen to the growing pains of a younger and less nuanced critic. The choice is yours.

The problem is that there AREN'T a lot of good gaming news/review sites out there because of entryism, these people have invaded and left nothing for the rest of us. If they hadn't done that I could happily live and let live but they've left me with nowhere to get my news/reviews, something I've enjoyed getting from the gaming press through ST Format, PC Zone and early RockPaperShotgun. Instead of making their own thing, they took away mine. That gives me a right to be pissed off.

 

[Alexios]

The problem is that there AREN'T a lot of good gaming news/review sites out there because of entryism, these people have invaded and left nothing for the rest of us. If they hadn't done that I could happily live and let live but they've left me with nowhere to get my news/reviews, something I've enjoyed getting from the gaming press through ST Format, PC Zone and early RockPaperShotgun. Instead of making their own thing, they took away mine. That gives me a right to be pissed off.

Make your own with like minded people, you don't even a degree for it. Just saying, it might help you cool off so you don't keep thinking Giant Bomb are held at gunpoint to include Abby and would otherwise be real manly gamers holding the torches and pitchforks with you, how scared and angry are you, you're seeing enemies and "these people" who apparently are barely humans like you but almost another species entirely warranting this description just about everywhere, easily identifiable and easy to hate for everything they stand for which is to steal from you, that's just not healthy man, seriously, it's just games, for real. Like wow, damn. If you do make your own I hope you make it about games rather than yammering about these people and resetera and whatever else folks do here, maybe I'd follow it too then.

 

[Dr. Claus]

The problem is that there AREN'T a lot of good gaming news/review sites out there because of entryism, these people have invaded and left nothing for the rest of us. If they hadn't done that I could happily live and let live but they've left me with nowhere to get my news/reviews, something I've enjoyed getting from the gaming press through ST Format, PC Zone and early RockPaperShotgun. Instead of making their own thing, they took away mine. That gives me a right to be pissed off.

Plus some of us really liked Giant Bomb and hate what it has turned into. Abby is only one person in a line of terrible hires.

Make your own with like minded people, you don't even a degree for it. Just saying, it might help you cool off so you don't keep thinking Giant Bomb are held at gunpoint to include Abby and would otherwise be real manly gamers holding the torches and pitchforks with you, how scared and angry are you, you're seeing enemies and "these people" who apparently are barely humans like you but almost another species entirely warranting this description just about everywhere, easily identifiable and easy to hate for everything they stand for which is to steal from you, that's just not healthy man, seriously, it's just games, for real. Like wow, damn. If you do make your own I hope you make it about games rather than yammering about these people and resetera and whatever else folks do here, maybe I'd follow it too then.

Wow. That is some major hyperbole/strawman. People have a right to criticize changes from a group they enjoyed for many years. The thing that isn't healthy is making up such disingenuous claims. The only one who seems scared and angry is you, mate. Project less onto others.

 

[hariseldon]

Make your own with like minded people, you don't even a degree for it. Just saying, it might help you cool off so you don't keep thinking Giant Bomb are held at gunpoint to include Abby and would otherwise be real manly gamers holding the torches and pitchforks with you, how scared and angry are you, you're seeing enemies and "these people" who apparently are barely humans like you but almost another species entirely warranting this description just about everywhere, easily identifiable and easy to hate for everything they stand for which is to steal from you, that's just not healthy man, seriously, it's just games, for real. Like wow, damn. If you do make your own I hope you make it about games rather than yammering about these people and resetera and whatever else folks do here, maybe I'd follow it too then.

Thinly disguised ad-hominem is neither useful nor entertaining. Do better.

 

[Scopa]

Make your own with like minded people, you don't even a degree for it. Just saying, it might help you cool off so you don't keep thinking Giant Bomb are held at gunpoint to include Abby and would otherwise be real manly gamers holding the torches and pitchforks with you, how scared and angry are you, you're seeing enemies and "these people" who apparently are barely humans like you but almost another species entirely warranting this description just about everywhere, easily identifiable and easy to hate for everything they stand for which is to steal from you, that's just not healthy man, seriously, it's just games, for real. Like wow, damn. If you do make your own I hope you make it about games rather than yammering about these people and resetera and whatever else folks do here, maybe I'd follow it too then.

“Make your own” is the single dumbest attempted argument to come out of the leftist/progressive movement and it has plenty of competition in that department.

It translates to: I have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this discussion. I know I cannot win any debate with my badly researched, poorly formed, brainwashed opinions on this subject. I know:

*Beep beep boop...*

*LOADING PROGRAM...*

Program ready: “Why don’t you make your own?”

*Haha (phew), that was a close one! I almost had to think for myself!*

 

[Dr. Claus]

Double Post*

 

[A.Romero]

I got to listen to the God of War bit the day before yesterday and now I agree that Abby is, at least, putting her political opinions before objectively criticizing the game. It doesn't even have any coherence in her argument. I'm paraphrasing of course:

- Not happy about Kratos killing the Valkyries and then thanking him for beating them.
- One of the other people points out that they are corrupted and Kratos is helping them. Which she then replies that it is a trope and it is stupid.
- She then says that Kratos goes around killing all women... Another person replies "to be fair he goes around killing everyone". She then replies "I know but whatever, I don't like it". Those kind of responses eliminates any kind of credibility she might have.
- She then complains that all the enemies are male. So basically she is not happy about Kratos killing women but also that there are not enough women to kill.

I really want to hear a coherent argument from her.

I won't listen to the rest of the GOTY discussions or any other episode where she is. Might give her another chance next year to see if she learned some debate skills by then.

By the way, she did say that the game is good and she enjoyed it but I don't see anything worthwhile in the rest of her participation.

 

[TriSuit666]

I always get to a point with the GOTY where I want to punch a wall or something, it's like they become feral creatures and the bloodsport is their particular gaming hang-up.

This time it was the toxic discussion around Forza Horizon 4 or Dragonball Fighterz, and how they all changed their tune once one particular person set out their stall, you could literally see their flags switching from one to the other. It's like a weird kind of Stockholm Syndrome.

Do think if it was Klepek saying some of the nonsense being spouted from some of their mouths, it would've been shut down pretty quickly.

 

[Scopa]

Almost 100% of her contribution to any podcast consists of little more than:

• I think it’s very satisfying
• I think it’s very good
• I think it’s very fun
• I like it’s aesthetic (wow, she’s getting wordy now)
• I loved it
• *repeating what others said verbatim*


And then if someone tries to talk about a different game:

• But, I like (insert name) better
• (Insert name) will be in my top 10
• I think (insert name) should be on there instead


When someone asks her why that is:

• I think it’s very satisfying
• I think it’s very good
• I think it’s very fun
• I like it’s aesthetic
• I loved it
• *repeating what others said verbatim*

Wash, rinse and repeat.

It reminds me of when I did some tertiary study and was in some classes with kids straight out of high school. Just obnoxious, loud, poorly thought out opinions that are a waste of everyone’s time. You don’t have to be the first to answer or the loudest. You don’t have to talk over everyone else to get heard. You don’t have to be stubborn, petty and obnoxious when someone doesn’t agree with you. Simply, use your brain, construct an argument properly, convey it and people will respect you. You have to earn it. Respect is not your privilege or your right.

She’s just not worth listening to at the moment. I thought she would improve over the past year, but she hasn’t. She’s done little more than add a couple of words with more syllables to her extremely limited vocabulary.

It’s really frustrating and tedious to listen to for a mature and intelligent adult. I don’t care if that sounds arrogant to anyone, the truth sometimes hurts. You can’t trump life experience with obstinacy.

Why listen? I ask myself the same question. I tune in to listen to some funny stories from Dan on the odd occasion when he is permitted to do his thing, which is rare nowadays. I also tune in so I can remain informed on the current state of affairs and comment on it with knowledge rather than past thoughts, but it’s getting harder to keep listening.

One thing I don’t do is give them a single red cent. No way I’m paying for this shit.

 

[dirthead]

Consumer reports-style analysis requires extensive technical expertise in a discipline or medium. Do you think that Abby Russell and Dan Ryckert are qualified, on any level, to talk about resolution, framerates, bugs, patches, performance options, experience on different systems, or ongoing aftermarket support regarding technical issues?

They are likeable talking heads, with a schtick that is literally no more sophisticated than 'relatable person likes/doesn't like a thing'. I agree with you, but it returns us to the original argument I was making - these 'critics' are not qualified to fulfill the functions of their role.

I don't think Gerstmann's qualified to talk about those aspects of games.

 

[LittleBusters]

Since when do you need to be an "expert" to have an opinion on a piece of media you consumed? How would adding another "expert" to the discussion change much?

She's a young woman who obviously hasn't been in the industry as long as the people she works with (Some have around 20 years of age on her). She's going to view things differently.

Maybe then she should show some fucking humility about games instead of coming in with an SJW agenda like a bull in a China shop?

 

[dirthead]

Basically everyone who works at Giantbomb is an incompetent boob who would barely be qualified to work at Starbucks let alone critique video games for a living, but I think this justifies their existence.



They're such fucking idiots and so terrible at video games that they couldn't figure out how to stop the elevator in DNF. If you saw their stream, he died like 12 times in a row and just kept trying to do the same wrong thing every time. They're so dumb that they cross the line into entertaining as schadenfreude territory.

 

[JimmyJones]

The crew was never as funny as they were when they were on gamespot.

Agreed. Rich Gallup was always my favourite.

 

[Shifty]

Eh, Abby's argumentation around God of War was pretty poor. Leading with 'regressive trope', failing to really elaborate on any of her major criticisms, and so forth. Seemed fine outside of the "I'm going to plant my flag and die on this hill now" moments though.

I don't think I can really be bothered to keep watching. This thread has become another case of "let's hate on giant bomb in general", and I'm coming to realize that I don't really give a shit about what anyone thinks is or isn't GOTY anymore. Meh.