No, I've never heard of this podcast before - not a sin in itself; I'm writing on a platform of which even fewer, far fewer, have heard - but the "first crack," as Gerstmann calls it on BlueSky, at his post-killing-of-the-corpse commentary until, presumably, his show on Tuesday is this interview. Which is frustrating, because the fellow running the podcast clearly was not prepared for this to Be It. He does just let Gerstmann speak, which is perhaps the best thing he could have done, and he puts the discussion right at the top of the podcast. He doesn't ask any interesting questions, though (or, really, any questions at all), and the main event, the founder and raison d'être of the site commenting on it being put out of its misery, is sidetracked by commentary from a freelancer the brand hired in its undead days (and it's worthwhile to have a recent viewpoint from within the corporation, but, you know, they're not why we're here) and by, man, we've got to move on to talk about this Titanfall news!
But the ten minutes of Jeff talking (starting at 10:00 in the podcast) is worth listening to, and the takeaway is, well, in the title. Gerstmann seems, in retrospect, to have considered Giant Bomb to have died the moment it was sold. The keynote bit is Gerstmann's memory of engineer Dave Snider* pulling him aside the day Giant Bomb was sold to CBS and telling him to remember moving forward that once you sell something, it's no longer yours, and Jeff reflecting that he never really internalized Snider's words but now feels he should have. He remarks that after parting ways from GameSpot and founding Giant Bomb to do things differently, "the very idea that we had to sell it to [GameSpot]...it's a failure of the original concept."
He describes the GameSpot takeover as the death knell for Giant Bomb receiving any funding from a parent company, as any resources Giant Bomb would have gotten were instead funneled to the larger, better-known GameSpot. (The money Giant Bomb's project proposals would have made wasn't considered enough for execs to invest in them - "we had to fight for scraps against executives who had no idea why we were even there.") He calls the Giant Bomb website "a series of missed opportunities" (he seems in particular to lament the diminishment of the wiki, on which he claims he worked for far into many nights) and claims in regard to the owner finally killing the brand that there's "a disgusting relief to it" - "there wasn't a moment in the last five years where it wasn't going to go any way other than this."
As mentioned, Jeff calls this bit just a "first crack" at his feelings. I do think it's unfortunate, though, that Gerstmann evidently looks on what I imagine most consider the defining creative project of his career as a failure due to corporate frustrations. It's difficult to exaggerate how foundational and inspirational Giant Bomb was for LPs, gaming coverage, and podcasting & video creation in general, and they made a lot of good content that entertained and informed a lot of people and got them through difficult times. I completely understand why Gerstmann feels frustrated, but that's going to be his outlet's legacy, not the corporate garbage.
There's a lesson in the podcast for the diehard fans who drown out everyone on the various forums and swear allegiance to the brand, regardless of who's behind it: Gerstmann talks about one major goal he had for Giant Bomb was to leave the creators who joined it "better [when they left] than when they came in" - that "it was never about the brand, because, like, who cares," that "it's about the people." But they will never learn this.
(The show host tries to put a happy face on events by citing all the social media tribute posts he's seen in the wake of what happened and claiming that Giant Bomb's true "legacy" was its "community." Jeff: "Heh heh - sure.")
* - Snider seems to be a more foundational character in Giant Bomb than one might suppose from the on-screen talent; I have more to say on this, but in the meantime, see this post Snider wrote on the perpetual difficulties of monetizing Giant Bomb (with a supplement allegedly from fellow GB engineer Rick Reynolds), and the show to which Gerstmann invited Snider the week after said post.)
Reminders for those mourning the supposedly-impending "death" of what's calling itself Giant Bomb nowadays:
- This is the infamous tone-deaf text post by which Giant Bomb announced the departure of the founder of the site, Jeff Gerstmann, likening its makeup to SNL's rotating cast and effectively saying that people didn't matter. It also failed to mention the small detail that Giant Bomb had fired him.
- Voidburger defended the wording of this announcement vigorously on social media. This did not prevent Giant Bomb from laying off Voidburger a few months after that. I mention this not as a callout but as a demonstration of how little what called itself "Giant Bomb" after Gerstmann's departure cared for its people, even those who defended its worst decisions.
(Since this is the extended edition of this post, I'll also note that the other party hit by that layoff was Jason Oestreicher, who was fighting a battle with prolonged medical complications at that time.)
I know the diehards in the forums insist that it's toxic to maintain loyalty to the people who made a creative endeavor and that it's the Giant Bomb brand that deserves fan loyalty, not the people who once made it great. But a brand is a concept—a marketable asset of a corporation. Corporations have none of the loyalty that the diehards demand you show them, and brands have no creative power. A brand did not make any of the entertainment or art that you loved. What is allegedly on the verge of death is no more Giant Bomb than I would be a Beatle if I bought the trademark and named myself George Harrison.
Support people, not brands. One can make a few arguments for when Giant Bomb died, but it was most certainly dead after Jeff was fired.
(That goes for those who would lose work with the supposedly-impending closure. If you stuck around and liked what they did, do what you can to support their future endeavors.)
Jeff Gerstmann's NES ranking project - where he plays a handful of NES titles for a half-hour to an hour or so each in an effort to work his way through the entire library and rank it based on his experiences - has been a highlight of my week ever since he launched it a few years ago. It's brought a spotlight to underappreciated or to-me unknown games and has inspired me to try out, replay, or put a mental "to do" stamp next to several titles. It's also been neat to go to the various reaction threads post-episode and read everyone's takes on or memories of a given title. (If you're new to it, this fan page, which features an up-to-date ranked list complete with links to each ranked game's segment, might be of more use than Gerstmann's playlists.)
I should note that Gerstmann's opinion, though he's well-played and usually an interesting listen, had little to do with my choices. Sometimes it helps: I really enjoyed the proto-emoji match-three or four or six or seven unlicensed puzzle game Krazy Kreatures, which offers friendly visuals and demands a satisfying level of quick thinking and which Jeff liked as well. It can be tough to know how a puzzle game handles without hands-on experience, so personal impressions are a big boost there. But one of the other games I played to completion, for example, was LJN's Jaws, a sea-themed shoot-'em-up with a friendly aesthetic. It has dumb, Atari-level score attack-ish gameplay but breaks it up into bite-sized chunks with level-by-level objectives and a simple power-up system. Runs amount to a comfortable 30 minutes or so, and the dang thing can be completed, capped off with a smile-you-SOB confrontation, which gives a feeling of satisfaction. It's extremely simple, and Jeff ranked it as appropriately middling, but it shows how very primitive gameplay can be more enjoyable married to fun graphics and mechanics just a little further up the evolutionary ladder. It's the type of curiosity that's not remarkable enough to merit extended conversation or accolades but which might pique your interest for a few painless runs if, say, someone's playing it for a ranking project.
Seeing some titles again sparks personal memories that prompt reexploration - such as Mickey Mousecapade, one of those games, like Rygar and Wizards & Warriors, that everyone on the playground just knew for no discernible reason and that enjoyed a healthy life on the rental circuit despite lacking a point of marketability (Mickey Mouse didn't have widespread popularity in the 80s). I wanted to put it to bed again to see if there were anything to the damn thing after all these years (no, not really). Sometimes I want to try out a title for myself that Jeff seems to have given short shrift, such as the action RPG Conquest of the Crystal Palace, which looks polished and seems to have a good deal of thought behind its mechanics and friendly, Clash at Demonhead-ish visuals - and, well, this very post was spun off of a forthcoming write-up of my feelings on replaying Final Fantasy after Gerstmann panned it to hype up his own childhood favorite of Dragon Warrior. The upshot is: I've been using Jeff's project from a variety of avenues to discover titles I would like to play myself, and to seek out opinions and memories from other players, not just Jeff.
My experience doesn't seem to be typical, though. Ranking projects like this used to refer to their results glibly as "scientific," and while that used to be understood commonly as a joke - since, you know, rankings are by definition opinions and therefore inherently unscientific - both the rankers and their audiences seem to have come to take this label seriously. For example, I remember one YouTube commenter on the Little Nemo ep lamenting that since Jeff didn't like the game, his own experience was considerably dimmed, with another commiserating about having the blindfold of nostalgia (any positive feelings about a game from one's own past experience are inevitably labeled as "nostalgia") lifted and seeing the light of objective truth that was Jeff's indisputably-correct opinion. That was an early ep, and this has problem only gotten worse with time: on both the subreddit and the ResetEra thread, most of the personal takes and memories I mentioned enjoying have been crowded out with tired jokes bleating the "science!" meme and rigid insistence that Jeff's experience is the only valid one.
(An aside: People in hobbies such as gaming are extraordinarily bad in noting when a joke has run its course. Most seem convinced that if it's the 512th time a joke has been made, that just means it's 512 times as funny.)
Part of this attitude, I think, is just audience identification with the streamer's opinion. Identifying with and agreeing with a streamer's frustrations in playing a title, or championing the things they champion, is considered a basic show of support - just common courtesy. It's born of a pure feeling, the desire to support someone whom you like and who entertains you, but I don't think it's wholly healthy (you can enjoy somebody's content and not agree with every single thing they say, you know - and you're not obliged to give voice to every point of disagreement). Plus, it seems to be carried to an extreme nowadays: to take watching the streamer's experience of the game as equal to hands-on experience, to defer to the streamer to a degree that their experience is taken as the only experience. Obviously, you can learn a good deal about a game by watching it, and as observed here, most if not all of us have titles out of which we've gotten a great deal of enjoyment solely through LPs and such. There are many ways of enjoying a game - watching tournaments or challenges, chat votes on in-game decisions, watching others (be it chat or streamer) react to the developments of a familiar title - that can be had only secondhand. I think it's also good to keep in mind, though, that in most cases, watching isn't a 1:1 substitute for playing and engaging with a game yourself, and engaging with a title yourself, with an open mind, can also be valuable. (I am again reminded of the Obscuritory article on the trouble with getting people to attempt to engage with games on their own terms instead of automatically engaging on them with contempt and as fodder, prima facie ludicrous and contemptible, for derisive incredulous react material. Unfortunately, I'm not finding the exact story I recall, but this article, and this linked story by game dev Nathalie Lawson, cover some of the points.)
Another part of it, I think, is particular to the current moment, where it seems more common to equate having tastes or opinions that are different from those of one's friends with insulting them. It's a particular danger with Gerstmann's project, as the diehards who populate the discussions of material from Giant Bomb alumni are particularly strident in this mindset. (Frankly, it was encouraged by Giant Bomb in its dying days, when the personalities were on edge from numerous, then-unvoiced offscreen stresses and would take it out on the fans, who then would blame the negative among them for their heroes' irritation and encourage lockstep fealty. It wouldn't help, since the real problems were offscreen, but it led to a vicious cycle of blame, where more and more fans were driven away by imagined slights and failure to adhere to impossible behavior standards until only those diehards were left.) For example: How many Mega Man 2 vs. 3 forum battles have you read in your lifetime? Well, read this: perhaps the first message board discussion of the topic ever in which most everyone pretends that no one likes 3, that everyone hates it and it's never had any supporters ever. This is all because Jeff believes that no Mega Man games at all - in the original series, the X series, the portable titles - should have been made after Mega Man 2.
I seem excessively negative toward Gerstmann's project and the attitudes of absolute correctness I perceive, I suppose. I do think it's been a net positive. I also think, though, that it'd be better if more viewers were open to playing the games themselves rather than parroting "science!" memes.
Maybe you should quit your job. (Type Help, Day Repeat Day, Dead Letter Dept., Strange Horticulture)
Type Help
What's your job?: Some manner of data investigator.
Responsibilities: A recently-deceased colleague left behind some old notes on an unsolved And Then There Were None-style murder, sealed for decades for unknown reasons. Plumb the depths of his ancient machine, read his files, and try to piece together what happened and why this case was sealed.
What's the problem?: Only a few files are initially accessible; your first job is to figure out the naming scheme so you can start access the rest (though this reveals further complications). The files also have additional encoding that must be sussed out from context; the computer system still has a few twists in wait; and even after all the tech problems, there's still the issue of: How and why did all these people die?
(Note: This is a freeware text adventure; there are no images and no audio. I didn't need them and found the game compelling without them, but just so you know.)
On one hand, Type Help has some compelling and smart gameplay, strong prose, and a really excellent twist in the middle to its And Then There Were None scenario where I intensely wanted to see what was going on. (The death on the bed is the most disturbing scene I've seen in a while - not through gore, as there is none, but just through sheer ideas.) On the other hand - um, there actually IS nothing going on. The game doesn't really have an ending; it just...stops. I know some folks are gonna say "ooooOOOOOoooooh it's more MYSTERIOUS that way," but this is an instance, to steal from Roger Ebert, where less is not more. Less is actually less. (Even the handwave we're given makes no sense; what was with the thunderclaps, then?) Type Help has some dynamite ideas, but they deserved a smarter, stronger follow-through, and they didn't get it. Given the weak denouement, I don't think Type Help is going to have quite the legs that Her Story, Return of the Obra Dinn, or The Roottrees Are Dead have.
Also: while I appreciate the dev letting you create and load from actual files you can save on your hard drive for his browser game, that has a bit of inherent diciness due to browser shenanigans (I had to futz with Vivaldi a bit after it glitched and wouldn't save an updated file). I know Roottrees took this release path successfully, but I wish devs would stop putting these lengthy mystery games on browser-based platforms. Just let me give you money in exchange for a reliable saving system and the luxury of not feeling like I have to solve the entire case in one sitting. (I literally just looked up the last thing because I was feeling a little nauseous after playing the game for 5 hours straight.) I want to savor your game, not feel like I have to speedrun it the first time through!
Day Repeat Day
What's your job?: Corporate drone in order fulfillment.
Responsibilities: Scheduling shipment of various deliveries through a Match-3 interface.
What's the problem?: You took this job because your art degree's not in high demand on the employment market, and you're questioning where, if anywhere, this prospective career path is gonna lead you. Also, this is partially a visual novel, and your brother's struggling with a drinking problem (well, it's more like you're struggling with it - he seems perfectly fine with just hitting you up for cash with increasing frequency), while your nominal ex-girlfriend seems invested in stringing you along while painting any attempts at boundary-setting as toxic behavior on your part. Furthermore, Sadako seems to be sending you curse videos drawn from '50s workplace documentaries in between levels.
The twists on Match-3 gameplay are good - limited moves, modes where you have to clear every starting tile on a given grid, or clear pieces closed off on the sides of the grid by maneuvering & setting off "clear column" or "clear row" pieces, etc. - and I understand they get better, but I think I'm more satisfied with the way my story turned out: I left the ex on read, arranged to meet a receptive coworker for coffee, turned down the brother's latest loan demand, and went to look for another job after my protag expressed the thought that he just couldn't do this anymore. It was - and I say this honestly, without sarcasm - a complete, satisfying interactive experience for me in the span of 43 minutes.
(If you need more out of a game: the price tag on sale's three bucks, and while it's another artistic work about how being a cog in the corporate gears dehumanizes you, I think the Match-3 gameplay and choices afforded by the visual novel elements deliver well enough. But I was honestly thought the ending I chose for the character was the most satisfying.)
Dead Letter Dept.
What's your job?: "Data Conversion Operator."
Responsibilities: You type in handwritten or damaged addresses on mail the OCR can't make out.
What's the problem?: Your pay doesn't quite make apartment rent, even in Wisconsin (this is the rare Wisconsin-based title). Also, the mail seems to want to kill you.
You're here to see creepy mail, and the devs delivered. There is some excellent creepy mail in this title.
There are problems that get in the way of Creepy Mail Enjoyment, though. First, the devs have you spend a few minutes walking to your job each day, presumably to underline the hopelessness of the daily grind and bleakness of your shitty surroundings and employment sitch, but it's in practice just a tedious annoyance that gets between you and the USPS. I looked it up, and there are things you can do in your apartment to get different endings, but after the first walk, they should have just had you arrive at your job after exiting the apartment.
Second, you can save only once per run. A run supposedly takes about two hours, but it can be longer if you run into a few problem pieces of mail, and this is a game that can be physically taxing (see below). I assume this is meant to make you feel worn-down and compelled to work like the character, but I just found it a needless aggravation.
Third: The core of the game is making out hard-to-read handwriting and typing, and sometimes, the game approaches this by making text very blurry or very small. I can handle both individually, but both at once tends to give me eyestrain. I felt sick, and had to call my session, after attempting to type about 50 lines of light-colored tiny text that was printed sideways on one piece of mail. There's a "magnify" button, but it doesn't always help as much as you'd like.
(Note: The 50 lines of tiny text were a red herring, by the way. On pieces of mail where it seems you have to type in a ridiculous amount of text, there's always another, way shorter hidden message the game wants instead. The game is perfectly happy to encourage you to pursue those red herrings, though - there's no "ERROR: MAXIMUM NO. OF LINES EXCEEDED" message to let you know, hey, don't type all that in, we want something else, and the game is perfectly fine with putting you in physical discomfort elsewhere, so a trick like typing in 50 lines of barely-readable, sideways text wouldn't be beyond it.)
I know it sounds like I'm complaining, "hey, the addresses are hard to read in this game where addresses are supposed to be hard to read," but Dead Letter Office uses so many other tricks that don't rely on eyestrain to pull off its gimmick - extravagantly bad handwriting; blotched-out parts of the address where the info is available through other means; etc. The eyestrain traps seem to be inflicting physical discomfort for the sake of it.
This whole thing reminds me: We've made remarkable strides in accessibility in video games in recent years, but we seem to have overlooked that a good number of gamers have passed the threshold of middle age. The Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters, remakes of some of the most influential RPGs of all time, were released with a ridiculously, needlessly cramped, tiny, and hard-to-read font. The Lunar remasters were announced with a spidery font. Again, I understand "hard to read" is part of the bargain for Dead Letter Office, but, as the game itself demonstrates, there are plenty of "hard to read" options that don't inflict eyestrain. "Don't make things stupidly small and don't make stupid font choices" is an absurdly low bar, but it's too much to ask of some games, apparently. (Props to Strange Horticulture, discussed below, for noting the presence of small text and including a magnify function that makes a damn difference.)
The damnable thing: I am actually considering going back to the damn game, physical pain and all, for more creepy mail. Apparently, I can't pass low bars, either.
Strange Horticulture
What's your job?: Not computer-related! You're a horticulturalist.
Responsibilities: Providing the right botanical solutions to resolve your customers' many and varied problems. Uh, you've got a lot of plants, though, and it's not like any of them came with labels...
What's the problem? Besides the challenge of trying to ID dozens of rare & dangerous plants with Victorian-level info-distro tech, it seems the local druids have summoned a murder monster that wants to kill everyone. Fertilize your way out of that, fucker.
It didn't occur to me until another post called it out: this is a big-picture deduction-based game like Obra Dinn, Roottrees, etc. There's a loop of scrutinizing the physical characteristics of the plants in your greenhouse and what your character observes (scent, discharge, numbing/itching/etc. upon touch) to see which entry in your identification grimoire it most closely matches, then unlocking more grimoire pages and clues to new plant locations on your big ol' 500-grid square map of the environs by successfully fulfilling plant orders. You're a bit more on rails here than in the other games: the amount and range of info with which you have to deal at any given time is more limited, and your current objectives are more pointed. It's a more guided, less-freeform experience than the other titles, but it might appeal more to those seeking a more granular experience.
(If we're doing a power ranking, I'd put it: Obra Dinn -> Her Story - Roottrees (may move up a tier if you prefer a longer experience) -> Strange Horticulture -> power gap -> Type Help.)
There are a couple problems. If you mess up too many times, you're sent to a series of minigames to earn another "life," so to speak, but I seemed to get locked up in one, involving find the right key to fit a lock, that just would not progress no matter what I tried. I don't know whether it was ham-handedness on my part - I was pretty sure I had the right key; maybe I was mistaken - but nothing I tried would work, and every wrong choice would multiply the number of keys available, and I just couldn't get out of the death spiral. (It got my first playthrough into an unwinnable state, actually, and I abandoned the game for a couple years before picking it back up- recently.) My advice: if you get one wrong move away from "death" - it's the "A Rising Dread" meter in the lower-left with the wilted tree, which resets at the start of each day - don't take any actions of which you aren't certain: risking wrong plant IDs, going to unfamiliar portions of the map that might fill the meter, etc. You might wanna be cautious after even one hit to your meter, in fact. Treat "death" like permadeath. (I'm making death sound like a bigger threat than it is, but you can run into trouble if you don't know what that meter means and how it can fill up.)
The second is that a couple of the major decisions in the game had the opposite effect than I expected, as the intended target of the plant turned out to be unclear. On Day 10, the choice of plant always concerns the safety of your client. On Day 15, the intended recipient of the plant is the druid.
That said, I had fun returning to this game. The graphics are good at relaying the necessary info for IDs and make the plants look cool and interesting, the game has a minor dark Victorian fantasy vibe that serves to distinguish it, the gameplay loop is really fun, and it's just a pleasant time if you like plants. (The story's not spectacular, but it's serviceable.) Again, it's a more granular, guided experience than similar titles, and it's on the short side (about 5 to 6 hours), which sets it apart - not necessarily in a bad way. Give it a try if you like the deduction genre, as I suppose it can now be called.
Page 1 of 54
