Ryan Davis talks up Giant Bomb's explosive re-launch
When Gamespot Editorial Director Jeff Gerstmann was abruptly fired under controversial circumstances late last year, it set off a sort of domino effect. In the wake of the scandal, Gamespot staffers Ryan Davis, Brad Shoemaker and Vinny Caravella all decided to leave the venerable site to start a new project with Gerstmann: a project called Giant Bomb. A skeleton of the site has been up since March, but the project really got going Monday with an overhaul that mixes user-created, wiki-style pages with editorial reviews, videos and podcasts from the four-man ex-Gamespot crew.
We talked to Giant Bomb co-founder Ryan Davis about his thoughts on the new site and his departure from Gamespot, and game journalism in general. Some excerpts from our conversation (be sure to click the "Continue" link for the full interview):
On Gerstmann-gate and the state of game journalism
"Obviously we still have lots of friends and a ton of history there [at CNET], but we're so focused on the good stuff we're doing now. ... [Gerstmann-gate] certainly helped get our names in people's mouths in certain circles. ... Before [Gerstmann-gate] even happened, I felt like people needed to be more skeptical about what they read, with the massive influx of news-blogs giving little distinction between rumor and fact.
"We're not in the business of reporting news, but as far as the review process goes, we're being very open about a review being that person's perspective. We don't use fancy math to come to our reviews, we just go with what the reviewer feels the game merits. I think when a review has to represent an entire organization's perspective on a game, that's where you can run into trouble. Also, for what it's worth, I've never considered myself a 'game journalist.' I think they exist, but I'm a reviewer and a commentator more than anything."
On what makes Giant Bomb different
"We're still just four guys, and we still feel that there's plenty of places to get 'coverage' out there. Our focus will be on commentary and perspective on the significant goings-on in video games. And, you know, fun! We don't want to run sales numbers stories. There's enough business out there in the game press, everyone trying to be Serious Journalists. I've got big respect for the way guys like N'gai and Totilo carry themselves, but no ... I'd rather do stuff that makes me laugh. ... I'll be honest, I wasn't 100% sure this was going to work before we launched, but the response we've gotten so far has been so overwhelming, I'm confident that we're doing something that no one else really is."
On relying on user-created content for much of the site
"The response we've had so far is completely staggering. Right now our biggest concern is recruiting moderators to help us get the tidal wave of information we've received up onto the site. ... We've registered over 10,000 users in just over 24 hours, so there's obviously a big demand for what we're doing there. I've seen a lot of comments of people saying that the whole process of editing pages and linking pages together is addictive, and I know that on the moderation end, it's amazing to see everyone's video game obsessions laid bare. There's a dude who's just going through the database, linking every game that features fog of war to the Fog of War concept page. There are developers filling in their own pages.
"I think we're just seeing the raw passion that people have for video games. ... I've described our system as an RPG, except instead of grinding orcs, you're contributing to a huge community of people who share your passion for this stuff. It's interactive, so it makes sense that people who play video games would enjoy a certain level of interactivity, no? Our tools are extremely easy to use, and I think our barrier for entry is lower [than other wikis]. Also, it was built with games in mind, so the data structure caters to video games in a more meaningful way than a general wiki."
On balancing user-created content and editorial
"As significant as that [user-created] stuff is, we're still focusing on providing the same kind of game coverage as we did with the blog ... same style, same tone. We all ended up feeling really good about the coverage we had for E3, which was essentially a handful of casual video wrap-ups and a lengthy podcast at the end of each day. ... [The two types of content] share the page in a number of spots, but we have enough dedicated spots on a page that will always be editorial."
On ads
"At some point down the road, there will be ads. We're still hammering out how exactly we're going to approach that stuff, and it's something that we're going to talk with our community a lot about. ... I think how it's approached, and how the organization decides to prioritize it and approve it, are all critical. I think, for us, one of the key differences is that we don't have a sales team on one floor and an edit team on another, each making decisions with vastly different priorities. And with our relative size, we don't really need a lot of money to do what we want to do. that helps."
On ambitions
"There's this piece of property on the moon that I've had my eye on for a while. I'd like to make enough money to settle down there. You know, I think we want to maintain our small editorial team, until it makes sense for us to expand it. We don't want to force the growth. It should be organic. ... Up until Sunday night, my ambition was to launch the site. Now that it's launched, we're all totally focused on making sure the site is doing what it ought to."
We talked to Giant Bomb co-founder Ryan Davis about his thoughts on the new site and his departure from Gamespot, and game journalism in general. Some excerpts from our conversation (be sure to click the "Continue" link for the full interview):
On Gerstmann-gate and the state of game journalism
"Obviously we still have lots of friends and a ton of history there [at CNET], but we're so focused on the good stuff we're doing now. ... [Gerstmann-gate] certainly helped get our names in people's mouths in certain circles. ... Before [Gerstmann-gate] even happened, I felt like people needed to be more skeptical about what they read, with the massive influx of news-blogs giving little distinction between rumor and fact.
"We're not in the business of reporting news, but as far as the review process goes, we're being very open about a review being that person's perspective. We don't use fancy math to come to our reviews, we just go with what the reviewer feels the game merits. I think when a review has to represent an entire organization's perspective on a game, that's where you can run into trouble. Also, for what it's worth, I've never considered myself a 'game journalist.' I think they exist, but I'm a reviewer and a commentator more than anything."
On what makes Giant Bomb different
"We're still just four guys, and we still feel that there's plenty of places to get 'coverage' out there. Our focus will be on commentary and perspective on the significant goings-on in video games. And, you know, fun! We don't want to run sales numbers stories. There's enough business out there in the game press, everyone trying to be Serious Journalists. I've got big respect for the way guys like N'gai and Totilo carry themselves, but no ... I'd rather do stuff that makes me laugh. ... I'll be honest, I wasn't 100% sure this was going to work before we launched, but the response we've gotten so far has been so overwhelming, I'm confident that we're doing something that no one else really is."
"I think when a review has to represent an entire organization's perspective on a game, that's where you can run into trouble." |
"The response we've had so far is completely staggering. Right now our biggest concern is recruiting moderators to help us get the tidal wave of information we've received up onto the site. ... We've registered over 10,000 users in just over 24 hours, so there's obviously a big demand for what we're doing there. I've seen a lot of comments of people saying that the whole process of editing pages and linking pages together is addictive, and I know that on the moderation end, it's amazing to see everyone's video game obsessions laid bare. There's a dude who's just going through the database, linking every game that features fog of war to the Fog of War concept page. There are developers filling in their own pages.
"I think we're just seeing the raw passion that people have for video games. ... I've described our system as an RPG, except instead of grinding orcs, you're contributing to a huge community of people who share your passion for this stuff. It's interactive, so it makes sense that people who play video games would enjoy a certain level of interactivity, no? Our tools are extremely easy to use, and I think our barrier for entry is lower [than other wikis]. Also, it was built with games in mind, so the data structure caters to video games in a more meaningful way than a general wiki."
On balancing user-created content and editorial
"As significant as that [user-created] stuff is, we're still focusing on providing the same kind of game coverage as we did with the blog ... same style, same tone. We all ended up feeling really good about the coverage we had for E3, which was essentially a handful of casual video wrap-ups and a lengthy podcast at the end of each day. ... [The two types of content] share the page in a number of spots, but we have enough dedicated spots on a page that will always be editorial."
"I think, for us, one of the key differences is that we don't have a sales team on one floor and an edit team on another, each making decisions with vastly different priorities." |
"At some point down the road, there will be ads. We're still hammering out how exactly we're going to approach that stuff, and it's something that we're going to talk with our community a lot about. ... I think how it's approached, and how the organization decides to prioritize it and approve it, are all critical. I think, for us, one of the key differences is that we don't have a sales team on one floor and an edit team on another, each making decisions with vastly different priorities. And with our relative size, we don't really need a lot of money to do what we want to do. that helps."
On ambitions
"There's this piece of property on the moon that I've had my eye on for a while. I'd like to make enough money to settle down there. You know, I think we want to maintain our small editorial team, until it makes sense for us to expand it. We don't want to force the growth. It should be organic. ... Up until Sunday night, my ambition was to launch the site. Now that it's launched, we're all totally focused on making sure the site is doing what it ought to."











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
OMGOMG @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:09PM
Giant Bomb is amazing. Been loving it so far.
Daniel @ Jul 23rd 2008 7:16PM
Really awesome, glad to see it go from its blog into a full fledged site.
silverwolf761 @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:10PM
Why does a review have to have some arbitrary number attached to it? Why not state what they like/dislike about said game (giving video "evidence" of these stances would help) and have the reader formulate a score if they absolutely need to? Isn't it time people started thinking for themselves?
brym @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:34PM
I have no idea why this point has become such a rallying cry amongst pretentious blog commenters these days. A score is a simple way of expressing how good a game is in a way that is comprehensible at a glance. Have you ever tried reading one of Kotaku's no-score reviews? Half the time, you come out not even understanding whether they liked the game or not!
The best part about scores, too, is that you can ignore them! Do you wish that [insert site here] didn't put scores on their games? Then just don't look at the score! The rest of the view contains exactly what you want--what they like and don't like about the game.
God forbid someone should draw a conclusion. You can still disagree with it, it's okay.
/rant off
silverwolf761 @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:37PM
It just gives people more ammunition in the "Game X got a 9.5 and this one only got 9.4! WTF?!!!" type arguments we see constantly. Letting people formulate for themselves would help alleviate this.
The only reason I can think of someone having something against such a system is if they're too lazy to read.
candafilm @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:42PM
I totally agree, I usually just read reviews and ignore the score. A score doesn't tell me anything since it is subjective. At least a review will tell me the mechanics of the game and let me decide whether it's my type of game or not.
But a single number is just easier to argue on the internet.
Stink Snake @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:50PM
I believe the people who complain about sites giving scores to games are the children of parents that wanted to remove grading from schools.
"Son, how did you do on your report card"
"Three lilacs, two fuchsias and a mauve in English"
"Good job, Son! Let's celebrate with some soy McNuggets."
silverwolf761 @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:57PM
@ Stink Snake:
Your method of deduction is flawed. In school, 100% is clearly defined as answering all of the provided question correctly.
But what is a 10 on the review scale? It changes from review to review, from person to person, and from game to game. The only purpose of scores is so you can compare games, but if the scale changes constantly, how can they be compared?
Unless each score on the scale is clearly defined and adhered to, it won't work
aristokrat @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:37PM
I've always preferred the easy '2 thumbs' summarizing (2 up means must play, 1 = pretty good, 0 = okay/enjoyable, 1 down = fundamentally flawed, 2 down = don't play at all). This gets rid of the point system that causes so much frustration, while distilling the commentary down to what everyone basically tells their friends about games anyway ("You've got to play this," "It's really fun," "it's cool," "can be fun if you're dedicated," and " it sucks"). I know I rarely say to friends "This game is a 8.7!"
The school comparison really highlights the problem with scores, in that they imply some kind of objectivity (especially as the scale gets bigger). These are 70% subjective reviews, so why not reflect that with the grading instead of trying to nail things down? That's what EGM tried with their letter scale, and I like their approach.
Mike M. @ Jul 24th 2008 12:50AM
aristokrat, that is simply a 1-5 scale with different symbols. Were you arguing for or against traditional scores?
aristokrat @ Jul 24th 2008 5:53PM
I understand that it is similar to a 1-5 scale, but without the outrage of getting a "4." "4" games are still pretty good, but people equate that with 80%, which is not good. Single thumbs up could mean great if you like this kind of game, while 2 thumbs up would mean a must-play for almost all gamers. I think attaching numerical values causes too much controversy.
SpekOpz @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:15PM
Giant Bomb is awesome. I encourage everyone to go register. Its a very community based website.
copa @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:17PM
I am very impressed with the site, and their ability to put together something compelling that feels very different from the other game sites out there.
They have placed a big emphasis on transparency, from doing behind-the-scenes features on how the site is built, to creating Wiki infrastructure where everyone can review and contribute, to highlighting individual personalities and perspectives rather than hiding behind the 'Editorial We'.
They put up a podcast last night walking through what happened when they turned the site on. They were really surprised by how quickly everything is coming together on the site, and so am I.
McWeen @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:20PM
Nadgers.
Fosssil @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:26PM
I've been there since the blog site and I must say, it is one of the most well-designed and addictive websites around. I've been making a handful of wiki edits so far, as well as working on some more major additions to certain pages, and it really is fun. I suggest that everyone who hasn't already, go and check it out.
LordKelvin @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:26PM
Giant Bomb nail, meet GameSpot coffin...
silverwolf761 @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:41PM
Or:
Stake (Giant Bomb) through the Heart (Gamespot) of the Vampire (cNet)
Tiptup300 @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:10PM
Giant Bomb blows up, kills gamestop. Comeon, that was easy!
Cal @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:45PM
BOOM! Gamestop?
Odog4ever @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:53PM
@silverwolf761
I think you meant
"Stake (Giant Bomb) through the Kidney (Gamespot) of the Granpa (CBS)"
CBS' buyout of all CNET properties went through a while ago...
FoxHoundADAM @ Jul 23rd 2008 2:54PM
I really like those guys, the have a genuine love for games and a real understanding of the community bhind that. I have high hope for them.
Stink Snake @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:13PM
@silverwolf761
The text of a review is equally as subjective as the score at the end. The likes, dislikes, and frustrations vary from reviewer to reviewer just as the scores.
Therefore, I advocate that from now on all reviews must lack any text and are simply accompanied by soothing or alluring color that has been randomly chosen from a hat.
I called Ubisoft and they are already on board with the new system.
From now on please refer to Haze as Haz[ur]e.
Anticrawl @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:15PM
It's just to bad Jeff Gerstmann works on this site, otherwise it might be worthwhile. He's a bigger fanboy than most of the trolls on this site and suffers from some sort of personality disorder which becomes very apparent in his wildly personal and rabid reviews.
ScottG13 @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:18PM
Really? You dislike his opinions? hahahahah Nice.
Anticrawl @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:31PM
He was suppose to be professional. Not many of his reviews were rational or professional, and he took everything personally and lacked any objective reasoning.
Dan @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:52PM
Yeah, that was his job! REVIEWS ARE SUBJECTIVE -- HIS JOB IS WRITING REVIEWS.
OMGOMG @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:22PM
More proof about how awesome the community is already:
Sent Brad Shoemaker a PM about FC2 and it's framrate, and sent me a nice 300 word response. Nice to know the editors will take time out of their busy day to respond to some random pale dude.
ronnzi @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:33PM
I couldn't disagree with Anticrawl more. While Jeff clearly has his likes and dislikes, he is completely upfront about them. If tells you what he truly thinks and feels about a game, just like all of the other reviewers at the site.
He doesn't have some kind of crazy, fanboy agenda like you are implying. Jeff gerstmann is as genuine as they come as far as I'm concerned. It's completely OK to disagree with his opinions on some franchises, because as he himself I'm sure would tell you, everyone has the right to judge things according to their own experience. I know one thing - I respects all of the editorial staff over at the GiantBomb and recommend their reviews to anyone looking for an honest opinion from a group of experienced commentators on the videogame world.
Wubbytoes @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:38PM
Giant bomb is really awesome so far, really, everyone should check it out.
ronnzi @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:39PM
I couldn't disagree with Anticrawl more. While Jeff clearly has his likes and dislikes, he is completely upfront about them. He tells you what he truly thinks and feels about a game, as do the other editors of the site.
He doesn't have some kind of crazy, fanboy agenda like you are implying. Jeff Gerstmann is as genuine as they come as far as I'm concerned. It's completely OK to disagree with his opinions on certain games, because as he himself I'm sure would tell you, everyone has the right to judge things according to their own experience. I know one thing - I respect all of the editorial staff over at the GiantBomb and recommend their reviews to anyone looking for an honest opinion from a group of experienced commentators on the videogame world.
Mr.ESC @ Jul 23rd 2008 3:40PM
As long as there are video reviews.
I would like to HEAR AN HONEST OPINION,Did you hear that GAMESPOT?! (And IGN)
Terry Bosky @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:25PM
Awesome how much of their content is from MobyGames, minus the watermarks.
Compare the covers:
http://www.giantbomb.com/lords-of-magic-special-edition/61-6863/
http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/lords-of-magic-special-edition/cover-art/gameCoverId,47897/
Seroth @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:29PM
It helps that their podcast is awesome and hilarious. Honestly, the Giant Bomb will still be awesome if all it had was that podcast.
CB @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:32PM
The site looks like it's coming along great.
Phish @ Jul 23rd 2008 4:52PM
I love the bomb, great site, great reviews, and most of all, great personality. I like Giant Bomb for the same reason i like Joystiq, everything they do seeps personality. It doesn't seem like some robot giving you a text printout of a review, it feels more like a person.
wibby @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:12PM
Giant Bomb is the law!
Best editors, best reviews full stop!
Bring on the Bomb :o)
wafflestomp @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:24PM
Giant Bomb = Awesome
Jacksons @ Jul 23rd 2008 5:34PM
I like the podcast, and spent quite a bit of time browsing the encyclopedia. It's pretty slick!
Nets @ Jul 23rd 2008 7:35PM
Jeff is in no way a fanboy. I've listened to every podcast and learned so much about, not only Jeff, but about the crew. His reviewes are notorious, but he's just another dude with an opinion.
D.Martin @ Jul 24th 2008 2:57AM
Has Gerstmann had anything to say about where his content came from?
chris @ Jul 25th 2008 11:57PM
its a great website beyong expectations, i left gs after the affair and this fainally gives me a game website that isn't just videos (GT) make sure to check it out guys