Marvel's Spider-Man Review

@rerunaway: audio too!

I enjoy the change but would like some kind of time stamps as I may be more sensitive about certain aspects of a particular game than others. I usually prefer to know as little as I can about the story but maybe would wanna hear about how the game play handles as the game progresses

I was just thinking about something like this. I was searching for giantbombcast audio specifically about a game I’ve been playing and that can be hard to come by nice and isolated on YouTube or somewhere. I love the idea of having game specific talk from you guys that I can search for and not have to jog through an entire bombast. I don’t have the time I used to. Like

Dude, I really like this format for reviews. Leveraging the strength of the podcast-style in a smart way.

this reminds me of what i suggested 6 months ago in this topic about GB reviews: https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/should-giant-bomb-keep-doing-reviews-1819138/

here's what i wrote:

"i think an interesting game of the year addition/alternative would be to review games as a group. maybe come up with a list of 20 good games, but instead of arguing the rankings, they try to get a consensus on how many stars each game deserves. it's basically more loose rankings since there can be several top games, if we count 5 stars as the equivalent of that, instead of arbitrarily saying one is somehow better than the other. then they could select a winner as usual, or maybe they could even scrap selecting a single game of the year and just go with declaring the 5 star games as the games of the year."

"i don't envision these as traditional reviews. games like invisible inc. and stardew valley barely make the top 10 even though only one person finished them. the equivalent of that would be if only one person felt strongly about and finished a game, instead of 5 stars, it would be brought down to 4 or maybe even 3 because everyone else fell off it or weren't convinced by the arguments. earning a 5 star score would be a bigger deal than it is now. they actually already write a mini review in the game of the year article so they could just also do that for the rest of their top games."

I'll check this out AFTER I play the game since GB is always awful with spoilers.

I understand why we've come to this point and I get the specific problems that Jeff had with how his coverage of the Crew 2 was spread across a bunch of content in a way that made it impossible to follow for the casual viewer but this format doesn't seem like it serves anyone.

The biggest problem is that its a 'casual' style format being used to present what is ostensibly a quite dry review. It ends up feeling quite rambling and its some of the only content that's come out of GB west that I'd describe as boring me. You've replaced a 2 minutes read with 60 minutes of talking and it manages to do both the job of entertaining and the job of pushing across information far worse than any of the other formats you use.

It could be that this is representative of growing pains with a new format for the site and further iteration will get us to a product that does what this is intended to do but as it stands now its pretty hard to get behind this.

This is precisely why they're trying it. Reviews are huuuge time sinks for staff members that don't really have that much of a pay off. I typically read the first and last paragraph of a review, and get what I need from it. Nothing against the reviewers, but most video game reviews are not very interesting to read. Of course, there are exceptions, but since the advent of the internet, the quality of reviews, and writing in general, has greatly declined (no one edits anymore. The writer is the editor, hence so many typos everywhere). I love reading, but if I'm gonna bother reading, I'm gonna read something written well, that was given the time that good writing requires. Website writing just doesn't warrant that time. Again, there are exceptions, but they're so few, they prove the rule. I much prefer Giant Bomb's video content. It plays more towards their strengths: their personalities. That being said, I like this format. I'm curious to see how it affects discussion of these games on the Bombcast, though.

I like this discussion format, only downside I see is that the potential for spoilers to come up inadvertently in such a discussion seems quite high. However, the fact that it's pre-recorded would mitigate that I guess. I am generally not the kind of guy that flips out about SPOILERTHS!!!, but still it's something you guys will need to be careful about.

Group review I like it, 1 hour is quite long though

I like this idea for certain. My only constructive feedback would be to limit these to perhaps 30-45 minutes. I think an hour is a bit more than a general audience wants buying advice (if that is why you came to this review), but if you want to just talk about the game that's something that the podcasts will almost certainly cover. This review format could just be a little more focused and I think it would benefit from a bit of a shorter run time. Overall love it, keep experimenting!

Really like the format! I think this plays right into GB strengths. I always got more from your podcasts and quicklooks than the written reviews. At the same time I hope you don't completely abandon long form written articles. I enjoy it when you guys and girls flex your writing muscles.

This format is interesting and I kinda like it. Though I do have some issues:

• The video makes the text review feel a little superfluous
• The discussion feels a little reiterative of the Bombcast discussion. Maybe a shorter and one-on-one discussion would be more unique.
• I'd either love to listen to this as a podcast or watch a video with a little more production values.

So, while I like this review, future iterations of this format should carve out a more unique identity than just Bombcast-lite.

Probably DLC. Though the movie is so close, I'm surprised they didn't capitalize on the synergy. Have you heard that Eminem song for Venom, by the way? Not much of a hip-hop fan, but that shit's pretty dope.

I like this format. I haven't read any of the write up reviews on this site in multiple years; Please take this in the way of constructive criticism, but I don't have a use for written reviews anymore. A back and forth conversation will let me catch the information I need much more efficiently, and going with this review as an example, we also get three unique perspectives on the one product. (Triangulation is awesome)

Keep up the good work, guys.

Agreed. Either talk about it on the bombcast or have a written review. An extra hour long podcast about a game is a bit much.

My feedback on the new review process: a little shorter on the video and a little longer on the written piece.

Count me in as liking this new format. It's a refreshing change and I hope to see more of the same not only from GB West, but from GB East as well!

Thanks guys!

Seriously, though, GB is a personality driven gaming website, and of course you'd have game reviews that are in video format!

At the same time that I recognize the necessity of switching to this kind of format given revenue and time, I'm not going to claim to be a fan of reducing written content on this site to a token review especially given the strong origins of practically everyone on the Giant Bomb team as writers.

Innnnteresting new idea! I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the de-emphasis on writing, considering I like writing and am in fact doing it right now, but I certainly do appreciate the idea of having a dedicated space for directed thoughts on a game that would be too long for a podcast.

I would hope the format isn't too rigid - if someone wants to write a longer or looser review, let them, and if a game doesn't warrant an hour of conversation, don't force it - but I like the idea! Who knows - maybe it'll even lead to more reviews of games, now that the process is leading to something novel and different...

...

I like cool new things!

On the whole, I like this idea.

A refinement: perhaps a few timestamps indicating specific discussions. An hour is a long time and there may be an element or elements that I'd like to know about regarding story or whatever.

Beyond that, with games as a service, this could do well as a check-in for returning players as a game changes and twists and molds itself.

Also do a drink review in the middle as an intermission ;)

I'm a fan of the discussion video. There is a clipping sound though that was also there on the normal podcast during the live stream of it.

Love it when you guys spend like half a bombcast geeking out on a hyped game (ie. Mass Effect 2) so this is great. I hope there's still gonna be a Quick Look though. As much as I appreciate this to listen to it doesn't make for great watching.

The last time I've actively read game reviews was probably back in early '00s when I was still subscribing to print magazines. Only sometimes will I bother reading reviews these days and even then, I mostly check out the last paragraph. So for me, this change where the "written review" is short enough to just glance through is great and if I want to hear more in-depth thoughts, I can listen/watch the conversation.

I do wonder though how this will affect the podcasts if you talk through new games in this way.

@dandyshlonglegs: you're expectations for journalism already need to shift. They're critics and personalities. They've said multiple times they aren't journalists.

I like this a lot. It's nice to get an "official" review with a score and a quick summary for a game. For the game's I'm more interested in, I get some bonus podcast time which always makes me happy (and can convey a lot more than a written review, just given the length of this first one as an example)! I dig it!

Yea, was interested in this until I saw the length. They should at least include timestamps of what they discuss and when, imo.

Feedback I guess for the guys. I don't hate the new move, but the written piece is pretty bad. It kind of just ends with no brief summary of Ben's overall opinion on the game (so maybe a little longer for the written section of the review). And as others have pointed out, an hour is a bit much especially when you start to add up all the other content ya'll dedicated to the game (two podcasts with the occasional overlap, a QL and this too) it really does seem a little excessive.

I personally like the long review format, Dan's review of BoTW was fantastic last year. It really showed that he took the time to express himself in a proper written piece that was articulated perfectly to be a reflection of him and his passion for the game. But I can understand why this format will probably reach more people and ultimately will make the site content more accessible.

@dunchad: They barely do scored reviews now days anyways. If they do this at the same rate I don't see it affecting the Bombcast much.

While I don't mind seeing a video review of games I feel like this long winded sit down version has lost a lot of it's tight nature. Letting the video run for so long lets it just drag on forever.

This kind of stuff seems to belong more in the Bombcast during the "what'cha been playin" section.

Written reviews require a bit more thought into the structure of what you're talking about and it makes the piece feel more polished (I always enjoy Brad's review style). Sure it takes more time to construct but you get a better quality product than a rambling 1 hour video.

I'm not really sure what the purpose of a review in this format becomes. It's not really useful to someone looking for something that tells them if they would be interested. People buying consumer goods don't spend an hour on a single review. If this is for entertainment purposes then why even call this a review?

My hope is that GiantBomb (if it continues to review products at all) will shave it down and start looking at a tighter more structured video review format so people can get a faster glean of what's for sale. If they want more they have the Quick Look or additional reviews.

This new format is fucking fantastic. In-depth in a way a written review could never be. More please!

I'm into this format. I don't think the written review alone is usable in this video heavy age. The raw score and a deep dive discussion is an appealing change. Often the site's comments and opinions get spread across a few minutes here and there on UPF and the Bombcast.

I would suggest bringing into East Coast and West Coast for these and also not using the existence of this format to limit your commentary in the podcasts and other shows.

I really like this, it plays to the sites strengths.
People come for the personalities, and the podcast?
Give them the podcast, with the personality, but hyperfocused on one game.

I like this format although it would be nice if it felt more like a two or three way conversation the whole thing kind of just felt more like a casual interview of Ben which was fine but personally I'd rather have these roundtable discussions be a device for the outlet as a whole to give multiple takes on the various bits of whatever game is up for discussion.

I like this format.

Ah, so this is the new review format Jeff has been alluding to

Good, most of the reviews are just thoughts from the respective podcasts written down anyway

But this video has no personality, it's just Brad and Jeff solemnly asking Ben questions about spider man and Ben answers them. Because this is Ben's "review" brad and jeff tended to just let ben talk and not give their piece.

I'm a fan of this, as often the review-ish segments of the bomb/beastcast are hard to refer to without scrubbing through 3+ hours of content. However it definitely feels less organic/more formal than the full podcast discussions, which I guess is good in some ways and bad in others.

One thing that stood out to me was that it feels super weird to have a video of three people talking about a new videogame which features absolutely no footage of the game itself. I know your video producers are busy but I think having even some short clips to illustrate the points you're making would be really cool.

EDIT: I see there's a quick look of this game also coming, in which case my comment is pretty redundant.

I have no problem with doing an audio version, although I think an hour is too long and unfocused for a review, but this written review is just pointless - I learnt nothing from this.

This seems cool, though I think I want to play the game first, before watching a review this long. Feels like it must "spoil" some fun moments with so much discussion.

Really loved this review format, would love it even more if you broke these out into a giant bomb reviews podcast feed (if you continue with this style long enough).

I think this is a really smart way to do reviews, but it does need some work. I would like to see it be more directed rather than just a conversation (the bombcast already has that), and maybe have more than one person finish the game if possible, so it isn't just a question-and-answer and more of a discussion about the quality of the different parts of the game (sort of like GOTY, but without the need to tear down or build up a game on the top 10). Also, some solid numbers or notes would be useful, like how long did it take to finish? Specific notes on story beats? Notes on specific skills or abilities? How did you feel about the graphics and music, any standout moments in those? Stuff like that.

Otherwise, I think this works really well.

I love this new audio review format but the written review seems rather minimal. The writing left me wondering if the review was posted erroneously with paragraphs missing. I would almost argue to not call the written portion a review and instead something to underscore that it is the key takeaways from the audio review discussions and to listen to it for the full meat and potatoes.

I think this format is a pretty cool way to handle reviews.

Just another proof that video game criticism has no idea what the fuck to do with itself.

I don't know why I still bother with this industry.

I want to push back against some of the negative sentiment in this comment thread. As someone who is actually a writer, the written word does not have more inherent value than an in-depth discussion in audio form when it comes to video game reviews. Or even, like, a lot of things. They're not trying to be fuckin' Nabokov. The style of review Giant Bomb has always done is much more product-focused than something like a Waypoint review, which you could argue is meant to be taken seriously as a piece of prose rather than a service provided to readers.

I also don't think this is lazy at all. And you shouldn't judge this stuff by how much work it seemed to take. That's not a useful barometer for quality. Reviews have become more and more a jagged edge in the Giant Bomb editorial milieu. They've always been good, but felt disconnected. What's more: they felt like an afterthought, even though the writers clearly did not think of them as such. This feels like a unification of the Giant Bomb voice, and lends a certain fullness to their output that I didn't even know I was missing.

Hey, GB: This format whips ass

I appreciate that GB is trying new things, but not a fan of this idea.

-This is too long. If I'm on the fence about a game enough to look for reviews, I probably don't care enough to listen to an hour-long podcast about it. Scanning a written review for the info I care about takes me 2-5 minutes.

-Giving point-by-point opinions on the game's facets doesn't really benefit from an audio format (unless I want to listen to reviews on my commute, which I don't). This didn't really seem more informative or entertaining than a written review, despite taking way longer to go through.

-The one possible benefit of this format, IMO, would be having multiple people chime in on the game, and they don't take advantage of it. And I get why: they likely want the review out by release, and they likely won't have multiple people playing the game pre-release. Still, it's a bummer.

-This is probably less time-consuming for the staff than a written review, but is also oddly superfluous. They're producing a short text, an hour-long podcast and likely a quick look afterwards. But all three likely contain more or less the same information, except that the quick look has actual video of the game. Why would I go through anything but the quick look? Might as well concentrate on video features and dump formal reviews entirely.

-I think some staff members benefit from structuring their thoughts about a game in writing. The conversation about a game on the Bombcast/Beastcast can be a bit rambling. Which makes sense; the same thing happens to me when I write for work. (Then again they would probably adapt to do the same for this format, so maybe it doesn't matter)

This isn't a big deal, and again, it's cool that GB is experimenting. But this feels like a step backwards to me.