You do understand that a review score is a personal opinion and not the result of a math equation, right?
I also do understand, for that very reason, personal opinions can be unfair.
You do understand that a review score is a personal opinion and not the result of a math equation, right?
You watched the 5-hour video playthrough from start to finish, without skipping any parts of it? I find that hard to believe, as I personally wouldn't have interest to watch that long when someone else plays a game. Then there's the point, that a more speedier playthrough would probably dismiss most of the phonographs, newspapers and documents found in the game, which are there to build the story.
.
wait, so did the game actually endwith a QTE?
More of a minigame than a QTE. I thought those fights were actually fun, just wish it didn't have the dodge prompts on screen so the player had to pay more attention.wait, so did the game actually endwith a QTE?
Sorta? It ended withthe classic Blade Runner, MGS3 *pull the trigger yourself* ending. Except in this case it didn't have any of the emotional weight
Yes we can see you "thought it was amazing". Let's just stick to disagreeing instead of insulting people just because they have legitimate criticisms that they explain in detail about a game you like.
Joe's a hard worker, and he deserves a hell of a lot more than some lame personal attack or dismissal like that
Ryse wasn't that great but at least you can actually PLAY the game unlike the movie 1886
Yes, making a youtube video is backbreaking labor. It's right up there with typing on a message board.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of his panning of the game's pace. I found its pacing to be one of its strongest points. No other game has ever ebbed and flowed with such conviction. That was a bold choice, which is why reception has been so polarized.
Had he loved the game as much as me I'd still have not wanted to watch his review. I'm more than content with the brevity of an 8 hour, single playthough campaign, but a 25 minute long review seems superfluous, especially since I don't enjoy his curmudgeonly schtick.
Feel free to continue watching his reviews. I'm just not of the youtube generation. I'd prefer more succinct reviews, with optimistic outlooks. Ones that come from erudite, well written perspectives instead of from troglodytes slinging the word 'fucking' around ad nauseam. Doing so, and pairing it with his angry personal, really devalues his opinion in my eyes.
I watch twitch streamers regularly every night, one of my regulars was playing it. So not out of the ordinary for me at all.
Yes, making a youtube video is backbreaking labor. It's right up there with typing on a message board.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of his panning of the game's pace. I found its pacing to be one of its strongest points. No other game has ever ebbed and flowed with such conviction. That was a bold choice, which is why reception has been so polarized.
Had he loved the game as much as me I'd still have not wanted to watch his review. I'm more than content with the brevity of an 8 hour, single playthough campaign, but a 25 minute long review seems superfluous, especially since I don't enjoy his curmudgeonly schtick.
Feel free to continue watching his reviews. I'm just not of the youtube generation. I'd prefer more succinct reviews, with optimistic outlooks. Ones that come from erudite, well written perspectives instead of from troglodytes slinging the word 'fucking' around ad nauseam. Doing so, and pairing it with his angry personal, really devalues his opinion in my eyes.
This thread is a fucking goldmine.
Yes, making a fucking youtube video is fucking hard. It's right fucking up there with typing on a fucking message board.
I was just fucking pointing out the fucking irony of his not liking of the game's fucking pace. I found its pacing to be one of its strongest fucking points. No other game has ever fucking ebbed and fucking flowed with such fucking conviction. That was a bold fucking choice, which is why reception has been so fucking mixed.
Had he fucking loved the fucking game as much as me I'd still have not wanted to watch his fucking review. I'm fucking okay with the short 8 hour, single playthough campaign, but a fucking 25 minute long review seems too fucking long, especially since I don't enjoy his angry fucking mood.
Fucking feel free to continue watching his fucking reviews. I'm just fucking not of the fucking youtube generation. I'd prefer fucking short reviews, with fucking good moods. Ones that come from fucking smart people instead of from [well-repected internet reviewers] slinging the word fucking 'fucking' around a fucking lot. Doing fucking so, and pairing it with his angry mood, really makes opinion bad in my fucking eyes.
Never watched an Angry Joe review before, but figured I would just to see what he had to say. (Full disclosure: I thought The Order was amazing!)
An unlikeable curmudgeon complains about the game's pace during his uninteresting 25 minute review - that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes, making a youtube video is backbreaking labor. It's right up there with typing on a message board.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of his panning of the game's pace. I found its pacing to be one of its strongest points. No other game has ever ebbed and flowed with such conviction. That was a bold choice, which is why reception has been so polarized.
Had he loved the game as much as me I'd still have not wanted to watch his review. I'm more than content with the brevity of an 8 hour, single playthough campaign, but a 25 minute long review seems superfluous, especially since I don't enjoy his curmudgeonly schtick.
Feel free to continue watching his reviews. I'm just not of the youtube generation. I'd prefer more succinct reviews, with optimistic outlooks. Ones that come from erudite, well written perspectives instead of from troglodytes slinging the word 'fucking' around ad nauseam. Doing so, and pairing it with his angry personal, really devalues his opinion in my eyes.
It's also a thread about the game. I personally didn't watch his review, as I find the angry guy act cringeworthy. I'm here to just discuss about the game, not the review. .
*Fucking edited for Muntu.
It's also a thread about the game. I personally didn't watch his review, as I find the angry guy act cringeworthy. I'm here to just discuss about the game, not the review.
Well now. That certainly seems like a solid recommendation..I got 11½ hours of entertainment on my initial playthrough, and few hours on top of that for platinuming the game... So, I certainly got my money's worth of it.
Never mind.I showed my girlfriend the hospital section of The Order on my first playthrough, and she grew tired of me going back and forth, inspecting every corner and taking screenshots. It's not something that's very interesting to watch.
Haha, this is actually great! So much easier to process the text with my troglodyte brains now man, thanks
Your post are GOLD dude, ahahhahahhahahhaha. You need a tag or something.
In your opinion if he can not create a interesting video review then his points don't matter? How about coming up with counterpoints to his criticism instead of looking through a thesaurus. Your posts is the very definition of superfluous, you have said nothing about the review at all.
No fucking problem... wait you have more than one brain?
He keeps saying it's the best looking console game, looks better than 90% of PC games. Which PC game looks better? Ryse and Unity don't, even maxed out, imo.
It helps to watch the video in question with this thread before saying something like this or you come off as ignorant. He's more disappointed the game doesn't do much with the world and mythos than being dismissive of the type of game it is. Angry Joe is all up for the premise of the game, not at all resentful.The reviews would have certainly been more informative, if they were written by someone who didn't look down on the genre.
I'm not saying that's the case here, as I don't even know what Joe's preferences are, but generally it would be better if products weren't reviewed by people who resent the premise from the get-go.
I was disappointed with the lycan encounters, and how few of them there were, but I also think that it often works well in horror-themed games and films, when the monsters aren't there all the time. The more familiar they become, the less effective they are. You don't see the werewolves in The Howling or the cenobites in Hellraiser all the time either, and you're against the humans more often in TLOU than the infected. The zombies in Resident Evil become all too familiar after a while, that without the introduction of hunters (and crimson heads in the remake) the game's fear factor wouldn't be the same towards the end. Hopefully RAD improve on the shortcomings if there is a sequel, and introduce more variety to the lycan encounters.
He keeps saying it's the best looking console game, looks better than 90% of PC games. Which PC game looks better? Ryse and Unity don't, even maxed out, imo.
Why did The Order review thread get locked? Can't remember that happening for any other game before.
Nah, it's happened in the past. Just things running its course and people were getting pretty nasty, since for some reason there has to be a positive OT (though I feel that The Order OT, very much like Destiny nowadays, has a good balance) and some negative band-together thread.
Always found the behavior odd in both cases.
Well now. That certainly seems like a solid recommendation..
Never mind.
Watching someone go back and forth, snooping every corner, as often occurs on the first playthrough, definitely isn't as interesting to observe, particularly for someone who doesn't play games at all.I did find Outlast pretty enjoyable to watch though, as the player was very familiar with the game (he/she played on insane mode), and there wasn't much of going back and forth involved. It was like watching a horror film in a sense.
It helps to watch the video in question with this thread before saying something like this or you come off as ignorant. He's more disappointed the game doesn't do much with the world and mythos than being dismissive of the type of game it is. Angry Joe is all up for the premise of the game, not at all resentful.
There used to be a film reviewer in a local magazine, who always gave 1-2 stars out of 5 for all horror films, no matter their quality. With the sole exception being Kubrick's The Shining, as he apparently couldn't downplay the works of critics' darling eventhough it was a horror film. The reviews would have certainly been more informative, if they were written by someone who didn't look down on the genre.
I'm not saying that's the case here, as I don't even know what Joe's preferences are, but generally it would be better if products weren't reviewed by people who resent the premise from the get-go.
It's not just the problem that there are too few lycan scenarios but also that they're bland and repetitive with bad AI that he highlights rather than leaving a great memorable impact from the few times they're present.
As far as the review goes, I did mention the pacing issue. I think its the most unique feature of The Order. I can see why people would find it off-putting, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It really helps drive the narrative, makes the gameplay sections tense, and lets the beautiful atmosphere breathe. It's a very relaxing change from the average game. It does feel like a movie, and I've always cringed at the movement for games to be "cinematic," but The Order has shifted the foundation of my thinking.
Which is it? More tense or very relaxing?
I don't see how constantly taking control away from the player with cutscenes or having the player wander around and look at the backs of pieces of paper is good pacing.
Video editing does take up a surprising amount of time and effort.Yes, making a youtube video is backbreaking labor. It's right up there with typing on a message board.
Which is it? More tense or very relaxing?
I don't see how constantly taking control away from the player with cutscenes or having the player wander around and look at the backs of pieces of paper is good pacing.
These games just sort of suck, indiscriminately and hard. But someone had to review them. They are scarcely played and quickly forgotten, and it's easy to wind up with the impression that scores like this are never assigned, because we barely ever pay attention to them. I know, I know, the first Assassin's Creed is a terrible, embarrassing game and reviewers just couldn't wait to fellate Ubisoft upon its release. But let me assure you that there is a vast gulf in quality between a game like that and a game like Tony Hawk Ride- and games you can point to as guideposts for every marker in between.
Big Rigs is so deeply broken and obviously unfinished that it barely manages to squeeze itself within the confines of what qualifies under even the loosest definition of a "game." It barely has any expressed limits or goals, and lacks even the inclusion of a failure state despite being a racing game in theory. It earned that 1 point almost wholly due to the novelty of having such a hilariously unplayable product put on a reviewer's desk to be taken seriously. For broken games, being reviewed and scored at all is an absolute luxury.
I couldn't believe this... a dev making a personal stake in the critical reception of a game is unusual, but I had to know what it was that he felt significant enough to specifically call attention to, in a "here's the final word" sense.
Even if I can manage to get past the lack of even token maturity on display here ("It's just like what Angry Joe does, isn't it?"), the IDIOT review tagline he's taking aim at doesn't say a goddamn thing about Ready at Dawn delivering a different product than was advertised or promised. Nothing! The criticism is that it does not live up to its own potential (which may be considerable), and this is something you can recognize in a game even if you hadn't even heard of it before picking up the controller.
Not the type of thread I usually speak up in, but a few things have jumped out at me here. Joe's review really (even moreso than his average one, I'd say) supports the points he's making about the game's traits, both good and bad with nearly incontrovertible examples of what he's talking about in-game. I'm really hard pressed to say he didn't give it a fair shake.
Some of the counterpoints I've seen have been reasonable (that he faulted the design of one combat encounter without trying various attempts to clear it first), while others have been fairly absurd (placing an unfair emphasis on gameplay..?).
A few things keep biting at me though. The first is this omnipresent notion of game reviewers not using "the whole scale." I think this concept began when recurrent, profitable franchises started putting out annual entries that never seem to wind up scoring below a 7.5 or (*gasp*) a 7.0.
But regardless of whether or not reviewers are particularly forgiving with regard to these games, the undying truth of the matter is that they had enough appeal at the start to make them into popular franchises. A fun factor. Once we're in "above average" territory, i.e. something above a 5/10, this tends to be what reviewers draw from in doling out the points.
The fact that these games score consistently in the upper register of the scale doesn't mean the lower isn't being used. Take Gamespot... there are reviewed games with essentially every interval of the scale at a reviewer's disposal in the Gamespot archives.
These games just sort of suck, indiscriminately and hard. But someone had to review them. They are scarcely played and quickly forgotten, and it's easy to wind up with the impression that scores like this are never assigned, because we barely ever pay attention to them. I know, I know, the first Assassin's Creed is a terrible, embarrassing game and reviewers just couldn't wait to fellate Ubisoft upon its release. But let me assure you that there is a vast gulf in quality between a game like that and a game like Tony Hawk Ride- and games you can point to as guideposts for every marker in between.
The reasons a game might wind up scoring below average when judged by any reviewer are many, but the idea that scores of 4/10 and below should be reserved for functionally broken games is beyond ludicrous. Some 2/10s, 3/10s and 4/10s that are reviewed have severe bugs and broken designs holding them back and would have otherwise scored higher; others are merely so boring and lackluster in their intended design that they earn no more, even if perfectly stable and bug-free.
In other words, a reviewer may choose whatever criteria they feel appropriate to determine their review score, the number ultimately reflecting nothing other than a quantification of their own feelings about a game.
This is why I used to love the old EGM style of reviews, which actually consisted of three or four separate mini-reviews, each by a different person and with its own score, with the highest accolades reserved for those games that averaged out among these different viewpoints to an 8, 9, or 10- having such universal appeal as to withstand the critiques of multiple voices. Things are different in the Metacritic era, and I do miss that, even if the "they don't use full scale" complaints don't quite resonate with me.
You want to see what it looks like when a truly broken game goes before a reviewer?
Big Rigs is so deeply broken and obviously unfinished that it barely manages to squeeze itself within the confines of what qualifies under even the loosest definition of a "game." It barely has any expressed limits or goals, and lacks even the inclusion of a failure state despite being a racing game in theory. It earned that 1 point almost wholly due to the novelty of having such a hilariously unplayable product put on a reviewer's desk to be taken seriously. For broken games, being reviewed and scored at all is an absolute luxury.
My point is: Gamespot gave The Order a 5/10. And there are a LOT of games in the spread between that 5 and the aforementioned 1.
For Angry Joe, The Order instead comes in one notch lower down. That shouldn't be a controversial or unacceptable notion, to anyone. He explains precisely how he arrived at this number to represent his viewpoint. Condemning this range to only be used for products with broken functionality is so restrictive as to make the idea of using a numerical scale even more meaningless than it already is.
The one last thing I wanted to revisit was that tweet from one of the founders of the developer that made The Order:
I couldn't believe this... a dev making a personal stake in the critical reception of a game is unusual, but I had to know what it was that he felt significant enough to specifically call attention to, in a "here's the final word" sense.
So I watched it (this review). The whole thing.
And... fuck. It isn't even a review, first of all- it's a rebuttal. From the very outset, it takes the position that critical reviews of the game are wrong and here's why. That's a terrible, meritless, cringeworthy approach to reviewing a game. It belies that the content of the review won't be primarily informed by the reviewer's own experience with the game, but a need to counter what other people have already said about it.
It only gets worse from there. The capstone, in my opinion, is this screengrab toward the very end:
Even if I can manage to get past the lack of even token maturity on display here ("It's just like what Angry Joe does, isn't it?"), the IDIOT review tagline he's taking aim at doesn't say a goddamn thing about Ready at Dawn delivering a different product than was advertised or promised. Nothing! The criticism is that it does not live up to its own potential (which may be considerable), and this is something you can recognize in a game even if you hadn't even heard of it before picking up the controller.
I didn't really have any feelings one way or another about Ready at Dawn until seeing that tweet and watching that review. I know that having a lackluster reception must be very difficult for people who have poured their hearts into creating something. But by hitching their wagon to this guy, they've really generated a lot of ill will in me that wasn't there before. I mean, just take the hit. There's no reason to go out calling attention to the reviews that explicitly aim to stand against consensus in the first place, but when it includes as many abhorrent conclusions as this one... I've gone from neutral to actively wary of their future endeavors. :-/
I mean it entirely depends on the whole of the rest of the game. A lot of people seem to agree that in this case it ruins the pacing but in another game it could do wonders (like the slower sections of Half-Life 2).
Then you have a terrible lack of imagination.
To people that thought the story was good how exactly was it good? Same goes to the people that think its bad. I read a lot of comments and very few people takes the time to explain why the its bad or good; they just say its bad or good and continue to talk over one and other when they debate or argue.
No fucking problem... wait you have more than one brain?
I'm jokingly saying I found The Order far more engaging and entertaining than he or his review. He's in the industry of entertainment. His mission should be to provide an entertaining review. The same way I've try to provide entertaining commentary here.
I dont need to watch the angry joe review to know its rubbish
Shame cause I was looking forward to it but it seems to be like many other opinions I saw I dont agree with
Definately not worth 10 min of my life
Gotta admit that the more I think about it the more I don't understand how this premise of knights vs. supernatural beasts is best served by a third person cover-based shooter.I'll just say it again, I want the developers to sit down and explain some of the decisions made with this game. The heavy presence of QTEs, the major human combat focus, the emphasis on cinematic presentation over traditional gameplay.
I really find their design decisions to be confounding,
I'll just say it again, I want the developers to sit down and explain some of the decisions made with this game. The heavy presence of QTEs, the major human combat focus, the emphasis on cinematic presentation over traditional gameplay.
Gotta admit that the more I think about it the more I don't understand how this premise of knights vs. supernatural beasts is best served by a third person cover-based shooter.
The more I think about this game or analyze its individual systems the more it unravels.
story first gameplay second
But that isn't an explanation for the narrative shortcomings, which I think is why so many of us are curious more than anything else.