Talk:Giant Bomb

Front page

I removed the image of the front page. The site has not launched yet, its just the blog. The site needs to launch first and then there should be a screenshot. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because Giant Bomb is only in it's blog phase right now, doesn't mean we can't show a screenshot of what the blog looks like. It is written under the image that it is only a screenshot of the blog phase of Giant Bomb. Once the full site opens, we can change to image to a screenshot of the front page of the complete website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakeelens (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaming Wiki

Updated the site definition, it is a gaming wiki based on Comicvine's software. --192.154.91.225 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support

There is no mention of how Giantbomb is supported, the site does not run any ads beside the Giantbomb iPhone app. Anyone have any insight on this? Jayrossss (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They do run advertising, but not all the time. See Giant Bomb Sells Out. I've also seen a page targeted at the advertisers themselves, but I can't find it anymore. No matter, since the page is of little use to people like us anyway. Reach Out to the Truth 05:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Would it be appropriate to include criticism section? For example: slow load times, glitchy video player and such? Has this type of section been ever included in a "website" wiki? -Andriyko (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Has any of that stuff been discussed in reliable sources? Reach Out to the Truth 02:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wonder. There's very little to go on with regards to third-party sources. Most websites were only talking about GB during its development, in the wake of Jeff's firing from GameSpot. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Some mention of the poorly written reviews wouldn't go amiss. Also, I doubt I'm alone in finding the gaming blogs self indulgent, amateurish, inane and puerile. Guv2006 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Then find reliable sources. Reach Out to the Truth 15:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Touchy, touchy. You'd never make a Giant Bomb presenter/writer with terseness like that. Guv2006 (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the heck you're talking about, but I'm talking about Wikipedia. Whether or not I ever become a Giant Bomb "presenter" is irrelevant. Find reliable sources that discuss criticisms of the site, and they can be added to the article. Reach Out to the Truth 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Game Reviews/Rankings

Why are there no game review scores from Giantbomb on any game wiki pages? The company is usually included in the text of the subtitle Release but not in the tables that list the scores handed out by different game review organizations, why is this? X-Play and Gamespot are not included as well, IIRC. Wondering if it's because of lack of publicity/popularity or some other reason. Pir (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

{{VG reviews}} was recently changed to remove some lesser-known and rarely used parameters. Some people have requested Giant Bomb be added, but there was no consensus for it. You can use custom parameters to link to Giant Bomb reviews though. Reach Out to the Truth 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thursday Night Throwdown

Is a list of all the games really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismafuchris (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone disagrees I'm going to delete the table of games played. If TNT continues for another year there's no way the table could be kept, it would take up too much of the page. --FLStyle (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really not necessary. Readers don't care what games they're playing, but you could give a few examples. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 01:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article, per this discussion. If someone wants to add a couple examples they're free to do so, but we don't need a full list. Reach Out to the Truth 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "Community Content"

I created the Community Content section specifically for notable additions to the website, in which users can interact with the site, that Giant Bomb and the Whiskey Media engineers created themselves. Please keep that in mind.

Due to interviews with notable industry figures like Adam boyes and Swery I left The Luchazine there as a grey-area exception that may be deleted eventually prior to further discussion. It doesn't need to be any bigger with details of what users worked on it or what else it entails. Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.237.52 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Wasn't logged in when I posted, just confirming that I created this section. FLStyle (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about removing too. It seems the thing that would make the Luchazine notable are the Adam Boyes and Hidetaka Suehiro interviews, but Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on either of them. SWERY might a better chance than Adam Boyes, but I'm not sure either of them could pass the notability test. I do like the Luchazine, but it really is just one of many awesome things that Giant Bomb's community has generated. It may be worth a mention elsewhere in the article, but I don't think it needs to be singled out in its own section. Here's a reference that we could possibly use to justify its inclusion. Reach Out to the Truth 03:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Making this article better

I was editing this article at some point last year, and while it's gotten very long I don't know that it's a great article for a few reasons.

This article is almost entirely primary sources (as in, giantbomb.com), and there's a lot of them, which isn't entirely a good thing. Part of it is because the article is overly detailed in spots, like with the list of TNT games. I'll acknowledge that some chunk of it is my own fault, since I made a series of edits in September of last year that added some of those sources. For this article to be better it needs to be leaner (less detailed) and have more outside sources. It could use a section on recognition.

Problem is, most of the site's press came in early 2008, around the launch of the site. Those guys aren't really doing press anymore, although a few of the Whiskey Media staff have been interviewed by various publications. As for recognition, I've heard a few off-hand positive remarks from various writers, but I'd have to go hunt that stuff down. See the good articles Halo.Bungie.Org and OverClocked ReMix for examples of website articles with a section for outside recognition.

I think that's the first big problem. The second is that it's too detailed. I'll give a few examples:

• Listing of every TNT game

• Giving reasoning below that table for why they missed a few weeks

• The listing of games that have received Quick Look EXes
• The detailed mention of the fact that Dragon Age got two Quick Looks!
• The listing of Endurance Runs and "Limited Series" also probably goes into too much detail.

The whole thing kind of reads like a Giant Bomb Wikipedia page for Giant Bomb fans. I'd like to start hacking away at some of the content, but I'm afraid I might encounter a little resistance. What think you guys? --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 02:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's agreed the some sections are too long they I've no problem with them being shortened. As for 3rd parties I recall Giant Bomb featuring on the home page of the official Starcraft 2 site when they went to South Korea, those links must still exist. Also, I can't tell if they themselves keep a record or not but the Giant Bombcast is a two-time nominated entrant for best video game podcast at podcastawards.com. There must be an article on the net somewhere talking about the podcast awards. --FLStyle (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Has one big podcast award been established? From what I've seen there are a number of them, but none of them are run by a recognizable name and no single one as yet risen to the top as the de facto podcast award. Unless one has, considering I haven't been following that stuff recently. Giant Bomb was nominated for some award on some site this year, so we'll see how that pans out. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 17:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me give some examples of things I'd cut down:

• Within Video:

• Trim to a few sentences describing what a Quick Look is, and probably adding that they occasionally do demos with developers. Do the same for TANG.
• In the Endurance Run section, cut out the mentions of Bad Dudes, Afterburner, and Devil Summoner.
• I think we could do without most of the limited series stuff. This section also has a few good examples of things being too detailed:

"Shoemaker plays the game while he comments on the game's qualities, humorous beta glitches and the Star Trek franchise as a whole, with Caravella and Snider (and Ryan Davis, who as of part seven, has been in three episodes, once to replace Caravella while he worked on video content and twice to replace Snider while he works on the forth Whiskey Media "television/movie" website [35])."

• Explaining when and why the staff rotated during Set Phasers is completely irrelevant.

• Cut out the second paragraph in Thursday Night Throwdown, because once again, that kind of detailed explanation is unnecessary, especially with the list of games having been removed.
• Within Community content, the descriptions of various site features could stand to be more basic. Here are some sentences I'd remove:

"Users can flag specific questions if they are badly written, misleading, or incorrect."

"The site features a proprietary editor to allow guide writers to insert images, use rich-text formatting, and even embed YouTube videos and other HTML code.""

"The editor will also create a dynamic table of contents, allowing for quick navigation to specific sections of the guide."

I think I'll go build a draft of the changes I'm interested in in my userspace. --gakon^{5 (talk / contribs)} 05:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started to better the article today, I've tried to address as many of the above issues as possible. --FLStyle (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ryan Davis (video game journalist)

Not clear how this might meet WP:BIO, biographical coverage in 3rd party reliable sources appears to be limited to his passing. Merging this to a section within the Giant Bomb article on the founders seems most appropriate. RadioFan (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ryan Davis would fall under the creative professional. Just looking at the first and third points, I think it's better for Ryan Davis to have his own article and just expand on that article. I do believe that there's quite a bit of information out there that could expand upon the biography page for Ryan and it just needs to be added to the Wikipedia article itself.TsukiKanade (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)