Talk:Giant Bomb
To-do list for 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. --gakon5 (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Touchy, touchy. You'd never make a Giant Bomb presenter/writer with terseness like that. Guv2006 (talk) 23:36, 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. --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 01:49, 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? --gakon5 (talk / contribs) 02:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)