Giant Bomb Bomb-All

oh my.

So apparently Battleborn is the new Destiny, and every episode of the Bombcast will feature 45 minutes of complaining about how bad it is despite the fact that they're all apparently stiil playing it. So, y'know. Look forward to that.

Are they? I got the impression they played it for release coverage, and had little or no intention of going back.

Yeah, I feel like this podcast's discussion was simply because they were comparing it to Overwatch. It mostly sprang up from that, rather than on its own like Destiny kept doing. I mean, that whole segment basically ended with Jeff going "Man, I hope they hit it out of the park with Boarderlands 3. Moving on."

Mario Party Party was rough this time. I think it even got to Dan but that might have been the package of red vines, oreos in nacho cheese and Bud Lime-a-rita playing tricks in his stomach.

Also premium subscriptions are on sale now.

Boy, the premium "HitDan" is awesome.

Spoiler:

CIRCUMCISE! SCIENTIST!
"No witnesses! THROW SPAGHETTI AT HIM!"

Today's Beastcast is f*cking priceless.

Iridium884 wrote:

Boy, the premium "HitDan" is awesome.

Spoiler:

CIRCUMCISE! SCIENTIST!
"No witnesses! THROW SPAGHETTI AT HIM!"

I thought Metal Gear was the more absurd of the two series, but the videos are showing me different.

Norfair wrote:

Also premium subscriptions are on sale now.

I'm still undecided on if it's worth me subscribing. No ads during the podcasts would be nice, but I don't know that I'd watch enough of the streams to make it worthwhile?

This was definitely the worst Mario Party Party so far. Not even so much because of the game, but that map they chose because of the community was awful for building any sort of drama. I feel like the community has voted for some questionable maps in the past and luckily they ignored it. I wish they did that this time.

J.C. wrote:
Norfair wrote:

Also premium subscriptions are on sale now.

I'm still undecided on if it's worth me subscribing. No ads during the podcasts would be nice, but I don't know that I'd watch enough of the streams to make it worthwhile?

But the ads in the podcasts are really amusing! I actually listen to them instead of fast forwarding through them like in most of my podcasts.

Is that really the main benefit of premium? I subscribed for Metal Gear Scanlon, but I couldn't figure out what else I was paying for.

Chaz wrote:

Is that really the main benefit of premium? I subscribed for Metal Gear Scanlon, but I couldn't figure out what else I was paying for.

Unprofessional Fridays VODS are also premium, I think. I watch that every week so I figure I'm getting my money's worth.

Chaz wrote:
J.C. wrote:
Norfair wrote:

Also premium subscriptions are on sale now.

I'm still undecided on if it's worth me subscribing. No ads during the podcasts would be nice, but I don't know that I'd watch enough of the streams to make it worthwhile?

But the ads in the podcasts are really amusing! I actually listen to them instead of fast forwarding through them like in most of my podcasts.

Is that really the main benefit of premium? I subscribed for Metal Gear Scanlon, but I couldn't figure out what else I was paying for.

I would say the "main" benefit is supporting Giant Bomb... I doubt that without the premium memberships, they would be allowed to do all the dumb stuff they're allowed to do.

Also, there are a lot of premium streams... "Unprofessional Fridays" where they play random games, other Endurance Runs... premium podcasts, etc.

Also, it was hinted that you'll be able to watch them podcast live soon.

Thin_J wrote:
Chaz wrote:

Is that really the main benefit of premium? I subscribed for Metal Gear Scanlon, but I couldn't figure out what else I was paying for.

Unprofessional Fridays VODS are also premium, I think. I watch that every week so I figure I'm getting my money's worth.

How long do those tend to be? My main thing with GB stuff is it tends to be very much on the long side. The podcasts are fine because I can listen at work and it helps pass the day, but video streams is a bit tougher.

Yeah, I can't do long video streams either. The long podcasts are already borderline, but since I listen to those at 1.7x normal speed, they're not so bad.

UPF is usually 2 hours.

Looking at the Premium section under videos I see VOD content for UPF, Giant Bomb East Playdates, Brad and Dan's Hitman videos, Demo Derby videos, and Mario Party Party VODs.

There's also an assortment of premium podcasts, though for me with those I generally only listen to Drew and Dan's Film and 40s "casts", as long as I have the movie they're watching anyway

Chaz wrote:
J.C. wrote:
Norfair wrote:

Also premium subscriptions are on sale now.

I'm still undecided on if it's worth me subscribing. No ads during the podcasts would be nice, but I don't know that I'd watch enough of the streams to make it worthwhile?

But the ads in the podcasts are really amusing! I actually listen to them instead of fast forwarding through them like in most of my podcasts.

Is that really the main benefit of premium? I subscribed for Metal Gear Scanlon, but I couldn't figure out what else I was paying for.

Unprofessional Fridays, VinnyVania, GBE Playdate, Mario Party Party, and random playthrough of various games (Contradiction being the best thing they`ve ever done).

Thin_J wrote:

UPF is usually 2 hours.

Looking at the Premium section under videos I see VOD content for UPF, Giant Bomb East Playdates, Brad and Dan's Hitman videos, Demo Derby videos, and Mario Party Party VODs.

There's also an assortment of premium podcasts, though for me with those I generally only listen to Drew and Dan's Film and 40s "casts", as long as I have the movie they're watching anyway :)

Film and 40s is some quality content.

I just remembered this week that Ryan and Patrick did an Chrono Trigger endurance run years ago that I never watched, so I'm going through that now for a very pleasant 40hr dose of Ryan. Also, since I know the game pretty well, and premium lets you download videos, I can download them and listen in the car just like they're podcasts. Downloading is a pretty good premium perk for me.

I just re-upped my subscription. While I don't always check out the premium content, I like their free stuff enough that I'm happy to pay them for what they do

Holy crap! The Brad read my email this week! That has never happened and I am unreasonably excited!

See if you can guess which one was me.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

Holy crap! The Brad read my email this week! That has never happened and I am unreasonably excited!

See if you can guess which one was me. ;)

I (irrationally) thought of you immediately upon hearing the email byline -- I mean, how many people with your first name & town could there be, who would possibly want to submit an email to the GB crew? Turns out, there's only one, so I was right.

P.S. As someone who has lived his entire life in Massachusetts, GB West > GB East.

I'm tempted to email both coasts and ask if they're sick of interacting with and reporting on this culture of morons who don't understand even the basic tenants of criticism.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm tempted to email both coasts and ask if they're sick of interacting with and reporting on this culture of morons who don't understand even the basic tenants of criticism.

'Twas it ever thus.

Also they've requested people stop sending emails to both podcasts.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

I'm tempted to email both coasts and ask if they're sick of interacting with and reporting on this culture of morons who don't understand even the basic tenants of criticism.

In general I agree, but when Jeff was complaining about the people who ask if the fact that game X got a higher score than game Y means that GB is saying that game X is objectively better, all I could think was "then stop giving games numeric scores."

Numbers are basically the only objective thing that humans trade in, when you boil it all down. If you're going to use numbers to rate something you can't get mad at people for comparing numbers and assuming that 5 > 4. Five is greater than four. Five will always be greater than four. If a game that gets a five is not better than a game that gets a four, then stop using numbers because you're flying in the face of math.

As much as I sympathize with Jeff dealing with snarky asshats, the engineer in me cringes when people start saying that numbers are subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If criticism is subjective, then it shouldn't use numbers.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

As much as I sympathize with Jeff dealing with snarky asshats, the engineer in me cringes when people start saying that numbers are subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If criticism is subjective, then it shouldn't use numbers.

Review numbers certainly are subjective, though. There is no actual value behind those numbers--there isn't a magic review equation that can take someone's opinion and spit out a real number. It's why the Vinny always asks Bakalar "How many bananas out of Devil May Cry's would you give this?" Even they themselves basically admit that the numbers are made up and the points don't matter.

I understand what you're saying about not using numbers, but there is also a need from their readers to be able to have a quick summary of the actual review. At the moment, there hasn't been a better system than having some sort of number with a small blurb that should entice the reader to read the full review if they so desire. Obviously that isn't how that works.

doubtingthomas396 wrote:

As much as I sympathize with Jeff dealing with snarky asshats, the engineer in me cringes when people start saying that numbers are subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If criticism is subjective, then it shouldn't use numbers.

You're ignoring all the context though.

Your point only has validity if the same reviewer reviewed both games in question and both games are of the same type/genre/etc.

If any of those various bits are different then directly comparing review scores is pointless and kinda silly.

Thin_J wrote:

Your point only has validity if the same reviewer reviewed both games in question and both games are of the same type/genre/etc.

Even then, the reviewer is altered by the fact of reviewing, so it's not objective.

What I'm trying to say is I'm getting a kickstarter off the ground to clone and infinite number of Dan Rykerts (the brain was easier to map) to allow my true, fully objective review site to exist.

Thin_J wrote:
doubtingthomas396 wrote:

As much as I sympathize with Jeff dealing with snarky asshats, the engineer in me cringes when people start saying that numbers are subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If criticism is subjective, then it shouldn't use numbers.

You're ignoring all the context though.

Your point only has validity if the same reviewer reviewed both games in question and both games are of the same type/genre/etc.

If any of those various bits are different then directly comparing review scores is pointless and kinda silly.

Not to mention the moment in time itself changes so much of an opinion. Rating two games side by side is more of a direct comparison than "I reviewed this thing two weeks ago and this one now". Then you've got people making crazy comparisons between year old reviews and current ones. I don't blame them at all for expecting people to not just compare numbers, in this case they are not objective because they were not reached via an objective means.

CptDomano wrote:
doubtingthomas396 wrote:

As much as I sympathize with Jeff dealing with snarky asshats, the engineer in me cringes when people start saying that numbers are subjective. Numbers are not subjective. If criticism is subjective, then it shouldn't use numbers.

Review numbers certainly are subjective, though. There is no actual value behind those numbers--there isn't a magic review equation that can take someone's opinion and spit out a real number.

Then those numbers should wear trucker hats and drink PBR to let us know they're just, like, ironic numbers.

It's like Sesame Street for adults.