Definitely agree. Chaining everything together feels so good (and looks amazing). The global illumination and physically-based rendering really make this game stand out.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Angry Joe Quantum Break Review.
- Thread starter Gamezone
- Start date
Definitely agree. Chaining everything together feels so good (and looks amazing). The global illumination and physically-based rendering really make this game stand out.
Yeah.
Does saving her lead to her popping up more? More exposition or dialogue? I don't see the issue with that example unless she never appears after you save her and finding examples of choices with no emotional weight in any game that offers choices isn't hard. Not all of them have to as long as they're changing something you can notice and make it so two people may possibly have different experiences.
I mean, that's true for most things but innovation comes from taking something and adding a new twist to it. Live action is that even if it's similar to telltale games. It's hard to think of something from a game that isn't a changed/revamped/twisted/improved version of an earlier thing.
Your actions changing a dialogue in a button prompt and them changing a live action TV show is different.
I haven't played QB so I'm not defending the game or his review. It's not surprising TW3 had more openness in choices. It being open world allowed you to affect numerous things without the main story being thrown out of wack. As a linear shooter, the flexibility and options in the story is appreciated. I would love if more games offered them. I even enjoyed GTA IV's choices.
SprachBrooks
Member
I finally got round to watching the review and I think he was on point with the criticisms. It was not overtly angry of superficial. He actually goes in depth when discussing the mechanics and the woefully lazy level design was just comical. This is one of the games that people will for the reason he did not.
Edit: Also, that whole idea of stopping gameplay for a 20-minute TV show is just misguided and badly executed. No one wants that shit. Games should be heading to interactive cutscenes.
Edit: Also, that whole idea of stopping gameplay for a 20-minute TV show is just misguided and badly executed. No one wants that shit. Games should be heading to interactive cutscenes.
Gravy Boat
Member
The more gifs I see the more this game reminds me of Infamous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qGVibdkmmU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewP9dHOXNo4
Quantum Break's controls and movement is nowhere near as fluid as Infamous.
Super_Cobra
Member
Angry joe is probably laughing right now and ch checking his bank account to see how much he have made out of this. While you people are arguing about it.
Hmmmmmmm, visually? I can see a little bit of that. Gameplay wise they're quite different. I actually never finished Second Son, wasn't a big fan of the gameplay.
Gravy Boat
Member
The way I see it is in Second Son you use your powers to destroy your enemies. In Quantum Break it's all defensive except for time blast. Your powers are there for you to close the gap where you zip between cover and use your guns to destroy your enemies. Overall I guess there are some similarities but the gameplay loop definitely feels different to me. Sort of how Gears and Uncharted are both third person shooters but overall have very different gameplay styles.
Gravy Boat
Member
I mean, it's not that different if when you consider your R2 in Infamous is basically a gun from a mechanics point of view. You can dash towards enemies, stun lock them in place, dash away for defensive reasons, pop up a shield, slow down time. Infamous has a wider range of powers so there's definitely more options available when it comes to offensive abilities, but the more I look at the two the more similarities I see from a mechanics stand point. The 'Loop' may feel different due to the pacing but mechanically there are quite a lot of similarities.
Gears and Uncharted are similar too, but I don't think anyone has ever claimed one of these games to be innovative compared to the other. The reason I'm bringing this up is because like I mentioned earlier, quite a few people are saying the gameplay in QB is innovative and I don't see it. It doesn't need to be, I mean, not every game needs to break the mould. It can be good without doing anything new but if people are going to claim it's innovative I'd like them to provide examples but I can't see it doing anything new.
Freeman76
Member
You clearly dont watch his reviews so why are you even posting in thia thread? Just to antagonise people?
Sure, mechanically Gears and Uncharted have similarities with cover, shooting, and grenades but overall they play very differently. I think the difference here is a bit more defined though here since you do have to consider cover and what type of gun you're using (shotgun, sniper, burst pistol, etc).
Is the gameplay in Quantum Break innovative? No, but it is a pretty interesting and fresh take on a third person shooter. It's definitely different and the fact so many people initially try to play it as a standard cover shooter I think shows this. I have seen claims here about it being innovative with the storytelling and that can be argued. Personally I don't think it was but, again, I thought it was a pretty interesting and fresh take on that front as well.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
And that's ok.
Sure, she pops up more. That is not the point. It's that the moment you decide, you have barely a clue of who she is or what her importance is. The choice in itself is void of emotional weight, that was the point I was making. If you decide to let her die, you just get another sidekick. If she was your sidekick for a few levels and thén you needed to decide, it would have been totally different.
Offcourse there are lots of games with choices without that weight (and does that make it any better?) But QB only has FOUR, and none of them have actual meaning. Oh, they change a scene in the live action bit, yeah, but it has no real tangible consequence for your main character (Jack). To use the same example of choice 1. It was previously touted by Remedy that Jack would be 'hunted' as a terrorist if you let her live. Well, in reality it does not change a thing in the game experience itself. What I like about the better Telltale games is that the choices in itself can at times be hard. The choice is often more important than the consequence, as it is you as a character taking a certain stand (the Walking Dead scene with the car full of food is a good example. Whatever you do, the food will be taken by your group, but the decision is one where you decide who you are and how you act as a survivor. That's something that hits home). In QB you play literally for a couple of minutes wih Serene and make a choice and the only gimicky thing it leads to is some alternate scenes. Just like TWD it has no consequence, but it also lacks the importance of the choice in itself.
Sure, innovation comes from small things. I don't disagree at all. But it's the result that matters. The result in QB, despite all the good intentions of Remedy, is not innovative in anyway. Live action is just a form. It would have literally made not a single difference if it was in engine cutscènes. How can you even call it a tv-show and not just cutscenes if the 'show' isn't self-contained. It's not that game and show interact with each other. It's a 'show' that can only survive and makes narratively sense in the context of the game. The show is a storybit inside the game. It's cutscenes like we had them for so long now, only filmed in live action, a technique the game industry has left behind with good reason.
But you haven't play the game? How can you actually judge the merrits of the storytelling-concept then?
EDIT: and I don't agree TW3 is easier to have a branching story then a linear shooter at all. I actually think it might be harder to do so as the scope is way bigger. Actually, the idea is quite the same as QB's. You make decisions and based on that the cutscenes aftewards alterate and you might see some visual effects of your choices in the gameworld too. It's only way better handled, because you make the choices from your own characters standpoint. (And it is often done a bit subtler too then just a binary press LB for this and RB for that-choice)
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
This isn't true. I played on hard and they don't consistently push you out of cover.
Defending a game with coherent examples, without spoilers ofc, is one thing. Defending it tooth and nail despite honest observations and criticisms is another.
Like I said, I've been cautiously curious and joes opinion and those who also played it and agree with his assessments as put into bargain bin category for me. The defense force has done nothing but belabor how much energy this game needs to enjoy properly.
1) I need to play it on hard
2) I need to rebuke the urge to use cover
3) I need to understand inconsistencies in game design are tied into the storytelling somehow
4) Watch the episodic cut scenes
5) read every wall of text in the game to understand, dare I say appreciate, the story from all angles
From the Angry Joe Livestream
Agreed, so I took (probably wasted) my time to show an example of not honest criticism and observation.
-----------------------------------------------
The following is dialog from Joe during one of their streams.
They're playing the game and have to get through a gate. I would assume Joe has put the time into this game to know this area by now. Right?
Joe: "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!"
Joe: "This gaaaame! (laughing) This game!! (laughing)"
(pause while acting annoyed by game and rubbing face/head)
Joe: "Stupid fucking invisible walls! That's hilarious."
(lets slow that down)
Invisible walls...right Joe?
On the fourth try they finally get through the gate with the time freeze/blast (the easiest "puzzle" in the game).
Now...I guess we find out Joe HASN'T put any time into this area...
Joe: "But still! He didn't use the RIIIIIGHT...He didn't use the riiight (does quotation fingers) time power." (Continues implying you can only do things one way) "You have to use the riiiight time power."
Joe: (responding to character's conversation) "No you can't, you can't control time...what do you think this is Quantum Break?" (after all, you can only do things one way)
------------------
Hmmm, so do these play sessions influence Joe's review? Did Joe actually play these sections and figure out there isn't just one way? Did he figure out that these invisible walls were often him or other players with him not pulling things off correctly?
Let us go fire up the game..I.. I assume Joe has played that part (multiple times). The way he's acting these invisible walls and only "one way" to do things has to be right. Why would he keep harping on it?
Here we go..
..imagine that...very first try, with the "wrooong" time power, that you apparently can't use. Boy, that invisible wall and only one way to do things sure messed me up.
Lets try screwing around now. Lets see if that "invisible wall" Joe moaned, and overeacted about ever gets in my way.
Surely I couldn't go through the gate multiple times with multiple powers even. Surely you can only go through the gate one way...I mean..there has to be an invisible wall there at some point.
(shrug..haha)
Anyway, this is just one of multiple situations where comments he's made isn't accurate. Not everything he talks about is off-base, but his stuff makes me do some double takes when I know for a fact what he's saying is not right.
I like a challenge. He's right on a lot of his points...but you know what...he's also a showman..and at times disingenuous.
Agreed, so I took (probably wasted) my time to show an example of not honest criticism and observation.
-----------------------------------------------
The following is dialog from Joe during one of their streams.
They're playing the game and have to get through a gate. I would assume Joe has put the time into this game to know this area by now. Right?
Joe: "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?!"
Joe: "This gaaaame! (laughing) This game!! (laughing)"
(pause while acting annoyed by game and rubbing face/head)
Joe: "Stupid fucking invisible walls! That's hilarious."
(lets slow that down)
Invisible walls...right Joe?
On the fourth try they finally get through the gate with the time freeze/blast (the easiest "puzzle" in the game).
Now...I guess we find out Joe HASN'T put any time into this area...
Joe: "But still! He didn't use the RIIIIIGHT...He didn't use the riiight (does quotation fingers) time power." (Continues implying you can only do things one way) "You have to use the riiiight time power."
Joe: (responding to character's conversation) "No you can't, you can't control time...what do you think this is Quantum Break?" (after all, you can only do things one way)
------------------
Hmmm, so do these play sessions influence Joe's review? Did Joe actually play these sections and figure out there isn't just one way? Did he figure out that these invisible walls were often him or other players with him not pulling things off correctly?
Let us go fire up the game..I.. I assume Joe has played that part (multiple times). The way he's acting these invisible walls and only "one way" to do things has to be right. Why would he keep harping on it?
Here we go..
..imagine that...very first try, with the "wrooong" time power, that you apparently can't use. Boy, that invisible wall and only one way to do things sure messed me up.
Lets try screwing around now. Lets see if that "invisible wall" Joe moaned, and overeacted about ever gets in my way.
Surely I couldn't go through the gate multiple times with multiple powers even. Surely you can only go through the gate one way...I mean..there has to be an invisible wall there at some point.
(shrug..haha)
Anyway, this is just one of multiple situations where comments he's made isn't accurate. Not everything he talks about is off-base, but his stuff makes me do some double takes when I know for a fact what he's saying is not right.
I like a challenge. He's right on a lot of his points...but you know what...he's also a showman..and at times disingenuous.
Also no proper reload animation.
Nothing that will hinder my experience with a game, but it does look weird that he isn't even swapping magazines for example and just .. moving his hands a bit.
Well like I said, it's a good game in my opinion but it could've been so much better, especially the gunplay and gameplay in general. I really hope there will be a sequel.
Joe's main issue with the invisible walls is that it breaks immersion, not that he couldn't solve the puzzle or figure out which power to use. It's the fact that a character that is given huge destructive power shouldn't be getting stopped by simple doors and gates. It makes the whole thing feel like its own universe doesn't play by its own rules just for the sake of putting the usual linear roadblock gaming tropes in place, even if it makes no sense to have these specific roadblocks given the player's power set.
RespectThySole
Member
It's just one review. How did this thread get so long lol
Exactly. Personally I get really bummed when modern games still have the keycard/run to door before it closes after pushing a button tropes.
Neither of these arguments make sense in context of the game and where you are in it. You're at a security entrance to a factory. Hence the security gate. You can't jump 12 feet (just hop the gate), you can't blow things up, you're not in a time fracture/stutter. Therefore you have to use your abilities to get out.
It fits perfectly within the rules of the game. You can use the time "speed burst" and the time "stop". Both are viable...and his reaction is wrong. There's no invisible wall and there's no gameplay immersion breakage based on your abilities in that area.
Someone said something negative about an exclusive game that people enjoy/care about.
If this was an Uncharted 4 thread the same thing would happen.
I can't really disagree much, if at all. The game was average from start to finish and completely forgettable. As far as the TV show being implemented, it was incredibly disjointed for me. I spent the entire time wishing that I had more actual game to play during these sessions. But even then, the game itself is nothing remarkable. The TV show just bogged it down even more.
Snkfanatic
Banned
justsomeguy
Member
You're missing the point though. At that part of the game you are
playing as Paul not Jack. So you're not being asked to save the girl, you're being asked what kind of company/boss they are... Murderous and brutal, or PR led. I.e. What kind of foe you want Jack to face.
justsomeguy
Member
heh, was he really moaning about *running into a highly visible gate*? He was just too slow on his dash - that's how I got through.
Now, in that same room off a side room there's a
power up bonus thing ( Chronos shard?)
Well done, that's how I hate my steaks.
Shandy, you bring up some good points against Joe. It's a mix of not knowing what to do or understanding the mechanics of a game, and then shitting on it because you don't know how to play it. Granted, Joe (like you said) brings up good points but he seems pretty ignorant for the most part (imo anyways).
I know I am playing Paul. That doesn't change my point at all. It's not because you play Paul voor maybe 5 minutes in total, the choices suddenly matter. You have zero affinity with Paul (who isn't even a big character in the live action bit) and as the effect of your choices on Jack are minimal at best, the whole 'who do you want Jack to face'-bit doesn't work at all.
Thank you shandy.
There are valid criticisms in the video, but also many highly nitpicky and facetious ones.
The thing that annoys me most about this example is that the Time Dodge is not a teleport. Joe seems to be trying to play Quantum Break like he's Delsin Rowe from inFamous Second Son, where you can Smoke Dodge through fences. This is not inFamous Second Son. You can't do that. Joyce's body is still battering into that fence when he tries to warp through it.
Such selective, bullshit rhetoric.
For me, it's nothing to do with his score. 5/10 is fine by me – if that's how he felt about it, that's totally valid.
The video deserves the scrutiny because a lot of his examples are bullshit. (Not all of them, but a lot of them.) If the examples are facetious then it's worth calling the score/his opinion into question. It doesn't feel like he's thought it through, or hasn't put thought into his actual examples.
For instance, the 'you can stay in cover forever' argument only applies to a fraction of gunfights in the game.
There are many tiers or 'levels' of enemy NPCs in Quantum Break. The lower-tier goons who have no armour, have no grenades, have pistols or small rifles, and do not have Chronon powers, are scared of you. They are low paygrade security guards. They will hang back, uncertain. They will stay away. They will try to shoot you from afar. Joe's '10 minute AFK' example includes a low-level enemy not wanting to come attack him. Which makes perfect sense. It's good AI.
Step up to the mid-tier goons who have shotgun, who move faster, who have armour and possibly have Chronon powers – these enemies will never stop flanking you, pressuring you, and grenading you.
I'd wager 19/20 of the fights from the game's 3rd act onwards would be impossible to play as a cover shooter. Of course, if you kill all the offensive goons and leave a sniper or a low-tier guy behind, then yes, they won't come get you. But most of the fights after Act 2 include heaps and heaps of supper-aggressive, pressing enemies.
You can't give a game 5/10, citing the argument 'it's a cover shooter', when that is just not true in many cases in the game.
This has nothing to do with Quantum Break being an exclusive. I played the game on PC. I play many games on PC. I own a PS4 and play many games on that. I do not own an Xbox One.
In short: I have no agenda. My issue here is with Joe's examples. They are selective and/or poorly thought-out.
It's fine that he gave the game 5/10. When I read that, I didn't blink an eye. It's when I saw his examples/arguments that my blood began to boil.
R_thanatos
Member
You know that he's a showman , and does the show when he's live streaming , but you try to undermine his opinion by using those moments when you're aware that he's a showman but not those moments he used in his review that he argumented during 30 minutes ?
I really think you're Way too deep into this.
Gravy Boat
Member
Come on now. I'm not saying that his video is damming proof that all the AI in the game is terrible, but you must be joking if you're saying it's an example of good AI. It's not smart for a guy to stand a shoot a guy who is non responsive and out in the open for 10 minutes without realising "Hey, maybe I should rally up my buddies and go in for a closer look", regardless of how scared or low level he is. You're trying to hard to either defend the game or dismiss Joe if you're honestly trying to claim that this is an example of good AI.
Watch the video. What I said ties up exactly with what happens. I said that some enemies are super low level and are just fodder, essentially - and that sometimes you'll clear an entire area of tough enemies and be left with this one low-tier bad guy, who will not attack you, because that's not realistic to their 'character'.
In Joe's example, he has killed all the enemies in the area bar one - a single low-level security guard with a pea-shooter pistol. The guard can't call anyone else in because they're all dead, or there's just nobody else around. The guard is taking pot shots at him with a pistol - a pistol which an entire clip of would still probably fail to kill Chronon-enabled Jack.
It's not great, sure, and it looks damn stupid (calling it good AI was facetious on my part - but it is in-character) but this is also literally the easiest type of enemy in the game, and only one of him. This isn't Dark Souls where even some of the earliest enemies can still kill you.
If he was at the very start of this combat encounter - with enemies of varying capabilities/levels all over the shop - and he left for 10 minutes, he would have died within 20-30 seconds. This has happened to me.
Gravy Boat
Member
I get the point you're trying to make but a guy standing in the same spot shooting at a guy who isn't moving for 10 minutes without even changing position is terrible AI. Again I'm not implying it's indicative of the game's AI as a whole but in that specific example it is awful.
It's not in character with anything because no one would ever do that in a real life situation, which is what AI generally tries to replicate.
Good examples of what, someone playing a game and making a mistake? Because that's never happened to anyone before. He wrongly assumed there was an invisible wall because he's a noob, and it took him a few tries to realise it was a time stop puzzle. I already posted above that I don't think he's particularly good at games, all the GIFs above do is highlight that.
Well I do think that Quantum Break being an exclusive plays a factor in why this thread is getting as long as it is.
I don't think that it's just a coincidence that the threads made about Angry Joe reviewing exclusives have more pages than the ones the ones made about non exclusives.
The exception I'd make would be the Titanfall thread even though it's still about his review.
Obviously it being exclusive is not why the thread is getting as long as it is but his reviews for exclusives seem to gather the most attention here on gaf.
multi-plat:
Star Wars Battlefront - 10 pages
Witcher 3 - 3 pages
The Division - 14 pages
Batman: Arkham Knight - 6 pages
Evolve - 7 pages
Mortal Kombat X - 4 pages
Dragon Age Inquisition - 4 pages
exclusives:
The Order 1886 - 21 pages
Halo 5: Guardians - 33 pages
Titanfall - 37 pages
Quantum Break - 22+ pages
Violence Jack
Member
It seemed like a completely honest review to me. Just looked like he wasn't having fun, and the TV segments weren't very engaging. And Joe was much less angry at this game than he has been towards other games receiving similar scores.
justsomeguy
Member
You were complaining about lack of emotional attachment to this person because you hadn't spent any time getting to know her.
That's exactly the situation Paul is in: she's some random girl who saw too much, he has no emotional attachment to her. Other than as a fellow human being.
Now are you going to
murder her,
use her to front the PR campaign
It definitely attracts more posters, but I think in case of Quantum Break the nature of the game also instigates a lot of additional discussion. Same goes for The Order, which was not only console wars, but also "cinematic linear games vs reviewers" wars. In case of QB, looking at 20 minutes live action scenes is bound to be divisive amongst gamers.
Corronchilejano
Member
Do you have a problem with people making money? Do you have a problem with people giving their opinion out on the internet? Do you have a problem with people laughing? What is this post about?
NewOrder79
Banned
angry joe sucks, his reviews suck, his facial hair sucks, his website sucks, his friends suck, his mother sucks and so does his dog... The only one that doesnt suck is his girlfriend which must be why he is so angry.
The same could be said for literally any game where you have guns and grenades.
Steverulez
Member
I predict a long and fruitful time for you on NeoGaf with posts like that!
