Support NeoGAF

[sheepishlord]

Also, does the first bit of combat start with the instruction "hide behind this cover!"? Yes...

you mean this?

Like i said before just because something has cover in it dont make it a cover shooter, i agree with the devs, they could have made it more clear to people who have not followed the game to move about, i played the game on hard and always felt like i needed to move out of cover.

 

[SomTervo]

If anything this thread just goes to show how objectionable 5/10, a supposed score for an average game (based on a reviewer's opinion), has become.

Again, the 5/10 is fine. His examples and justifications aren't.

 

[nynt9]

How does that compare to someone trying to discredit someone making observations based on content thats been public? Its not like the poster hacked his computer to get it. People play a game, make observations, want to challenge things...

Sounds like you would prefer it if this was just a thread of posters bobbing heads in agreement

If you don't think someone taking the time to watch hours of stream to find moments to discredit a man's opinion on the internet is weird then I don't have anything to say to you. I like arguing, and I like it when people make points and counterpoints, but at some point it goes from argumentative to obsessive, at which point I'm no longer interested in the conversation because things start getting weird. Remember that there are people on gaf who will go through your post history to find one post from three years ago to discredit you on something, or search your user name on social media and other sites to find what you've said elsewhere and bring it up. I just find this behavior weird and creepy. The man played the game, right or wrong, and gave it a score, and gave some arguments for it. If you disagree with him, feel free to provide your arguments but for me, personally, I get uncomfortable when people spend so much time digging. It makes you look desperate and way too invested. If the score bothers one that much, then they can just make their argument and move on to another thread. No need to make it personal.

But hey, that's just how I feel.

 

[holygeesus]

Yeah this is not a open world game, its a linear story driven game so im guessing the devs wants the players going down as set path to trigger cutscenes/story. not to run round and trigger stuff out of order, every 3rd person game that i can think of has 3ft high objects that stop a player going somewhere the devs dont want the player going, and yeah like every other 3rd person game quantum break has 3ft high walls but i never had any problems with it in quantum break compard to any other 3rd person game.

also the game tells you where to go alot of the time with audio eg (maybe i can get through that window) and visual with time vision and marking the spot you need to go, so i dont know why you would be jumpin up "objects to see if you can traverse." saying its "It's just sloppy game design" is going abit far, yes it not ideal but this is nothing new and quantum break is no worse then alot of 3rd person games in that aspect.

No I disagree. I have played through a good few 3rd person shooters of late, some cover, and just don't put climbable objects in your game if they can't be climbed. In the example in the video review in question, there is a break in a wall, where it looks like you can visit, with a small car blocking the way - don't put the bleeding car there! It's an artificial attempt at boosting map size by hinting that there might be collectibles down there, when in reality it is an unaccessible area of the level.

I recently replayed Gears of War on UWP/Windows 10 and say what you want about the quality of the port, the map design is sound. You know where to go without prompting, and there are no parts where you feel like you should be able to get to but invisible walls are holding you back.

I'm not being funny, but when you are defending a game from sensible criticism, and you have an avatar consisting of a character from said game being criticised, it is tricky to come across as in any way neutral.

I say all this as someone currently playing though a bad PC port and enjoying myself a lot. This review is not impacting at all on my time with the game.

 

[Steverulez]

If you don't think someone taking the time to watch hours of stream to find moments to discredit a man's opinion on the internet is weird then I don't have anything to say to you. I like arguing, and I like it when people make points and counterpoints, but at some point it goes from argumentative to obsessive, at which point I'm no longer interested in the conversation because things start getting weird. Remember that there are people on gaf who will go through your post history to find one post from three years ago to discredit you on something, or search your user name on social media and other sites to find what you've said elsewhere and bring it up. I just find this behavior weird and creepy. The man played the game, right or wrong, and gave it a score, and gave some arguments for it. If you disagree with him, feel free to provide your arguments but for me, personally, I get uncomfortable when people spend so much time digging. It makes you look desperate and way too invested. If the score bothers one that much, then they can just make their argument and move on to another thread. No need to make it personal.

But hey, that's just how I feel.

These points are reasonable but you've made a lot of assumptions about this specific guy obsessively went to discredit AJ rather than disagreeing with the review, seeking out content and making observations - then backing them up.

I don't see the weird and creepiness of this specific instance, he even says he is right on some point, perhaps if he had posted a utility bill as well...

 

[TheKeyPit]

It's still not an explanation though so I'm not sure why you're presenting it as such. The rules are layer out but they are not explained. You may as well be saying 'just because'.

So, you want an explanation? How about: Chronon Particle Levels around these objects are dropping and raising uncontrollably resulting in these objects future and past timelines to be manipulated by a Chronon Enabled Device or Subject.

 

[justsomeguy]

you mean this?


Like a said before just because something has cover in it dont make it a cover shooter, i agree with the devs, they could have made it more clear to people who have not followed the game to move about,

yep totally agree.

 

[JaggedSac]

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.

Joe provides pieces of entertainment. Pieces of entertainment get reviewed. Someone needs to review Joe's reviews.

 

[LukasTaves]

Maybe I'm missing something but the first part of the gif where he uses the time bubble thing and shots the guy, how is that mechanically different from throwing a stun grenade in any other shooter? In both situations you're keeping the enemy in place and stopping them from shooting back temporarily, then shooting them until they die. It doesn't seem like the bullets stopping then unloading at once makes any difference since you're still just hitting the guy you're shooting at.

Because the bubble holds your bullets and kinda combines them into a super shot. It's useful for the guy trapped in the bubble, but you can also use it as a cover, or to hit enemies outside of the bubble as well.

You can even chain up the bubbles and their effects on the bullets.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

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.

Oh wow, Angry Joe should be more professional .

 

[sheepishlord]

No I disagree. I have played through a good few 3rd person shooters of late, some cover, and just don't put climbable objects in your game if they can't be climbed. In the example in the video review in question, there is a break in a wall, where it looks like you can visit, with a small car blocking the way - don't put the bleeding car there! It's an artificial attempt at boosting map size by hinting that there might be collectibles down there, when in reality it is an unaccessible area of the level.

I recently replayed Gears of War on UWP/Windows 10 and say what you want about the quality of the port, the map design is sound. You know where to go without prompting, and there are no parts where you feel like you should be able to get to but invisible walls are holding you back.

I'm not being funny, but when you are defending a game from sensible criticism, and you have an avatar consisting of a character from said game being criticised, it is tricky to come across as in any way neutral.

I say all this as someone currently playing though a bad PC port and enjoying myself a lot. This review is not impacting at all on my time with the game.

so i skimmed through the review again are you talking about this? if so you can get down that road, just not by climbing ontop of the truck. in fact you need to get past the truck to progress (by rewinding time) kinda a simple puzzle that the game does ever now and then, if you can call it a puzzle. so that "unaccessible area of the level" is very accessible, and yeah i can understand why people would think "why can't i climb over this truck" i did the same thing as joe first time, but soon as i found out i could not climb the truck. it came to me that it was a time rewind thing. but like i said most 3rd person games have these problems when you think you can climb over something you can't, and this part was the only time i did in quantum break.

Also about my avatar ill be honest im not neutral as someone who played and liked the game but im not blind to its faults i enjoyed Quantum Break alot but do i think the game is perfect? no its not, it has its faults.

It just a opinion like joes and yours.

 

[SURGEdude]

It's very big thing especially when talking about exclusives. People from both "sides" come out from woodwork. Others defending the game and others "defending" the critic. Then often roles get flipped when other exclusive comes out.

So true and so sad. It's like clockwork. And like you point out you start to recognize the same people everytime.

 

[Drencrom]

No, I really don't think anything can top that

Nearly everyone that is quoted have been banned or doesn't post anymore on GAF.

Good.

 

[Gxgear]

Again, the 5/10 is fine. His examples and justifications aren't.

The bugs/immersion were exaggerated for sure, but he did justify his opinions whether people agree with them or not.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I agree with Joe's review. Game was a massive disappointment and I expected better from Remedy. The story was excellent but the gameplay was boring, which is one of the worst things you can say about a game. Here's my impressions after I beat it last week.

Better not Jack.

Die.

Better not Jack

Repeat.

Honestly, by the 5th chapter, I was just waiting for this game to be through. It's okay, story is awesome, but I for one, found the shooting to be mediocre. It looks okay, but it's kinda boring. You more or less have 2 powers that are worth anything and it begins to get very repetitive. Time stop, unload, zip to next guy unload, repeat. For the entire game. Until, the end, where it's all of that plus a fucking awful *new* one hit kill mechanic that gets thrown in.

My enjoyment may be hampered by the controller, as aiming is not great. Would have much preferred m/KB, but no one who makes any decisions knows when the PC codes are supposed to go out for those that haven't received them yet.

Beat it on Hard in about 10 hours, finding a good majority of the collectibles.

When it's not blurry, which is often, it looks fantastic. Lighting and animation especially look great.

Of all the Remedy games, it's my least favorite and I adored Alan Wake. Still, the story was really stellar and I do want to see the other choices and options. I may just YouTube them or wait till PC codes get sent. Though, definitely gonna step away from it for a while. I'm just surprised how underwhelmed I am with it as I've been blown away by literally every other Remedy game.

I hope we do get Alan Wake 2 next.

 

[DARKZRO]

NISSAN/10

 

[K' Dash]

Have you played the game, mate?

The story directly explains this. And why it happens. Joe clearly doesn't listen to the fucking story at any point, or take his time reading content.

Time is fractured like a pane of glass. It is not stopped/frozen in a ubiquitous sense. When a stutter happens, swathes of it are frozen fully but there are fracture points and ripples where objects are 'unstuck in time' rather than 'stopped in time'. This also goes for objects after a time fracture - some of them stay unstuck, because time is breaking bit by bit.

Jack Joyce literally says this before the scene Joe shows with the door, as well as earlier in the game. And the lore explains it. At this point in the game they encounter an object which has become unstuck in time during a stutter (everything else is frozen). That's what the whole 'glass' aesthetic is about. Time is broken in a shattered way. This one object is buzzing back and forth between a time when it is closed and a time when it is open. Other doors are just frozen shut, so you can't pass through.

This also explains why some objects can be rewound and others cant. Some objects are unstuck - in quantum states between present and past - while others are just frozen in the present.

But Joe doesn't care.

Can't say much about this game cause I'm waiting for a patch on PC but it is obvious people who clearly didn't play the fucking game are hating for the sake of hating, I saw the review and live stream and as much as I love Joe, the thing was fucking embarrassing at times.

This thread is not worth your time, people will not give a valid argument as to why it "sucks" they just want in the hate train for the lols, even more if the game is not available in their console of choice which happens to be very popular around here.

 

[LukasTaves]

Probably because the guy is being criticised for his review, this being the review thread. To take a small section from hours of live streaming and crowbar it into your criticism of a review that doesn't even use that video or mention the issue it discusses seems as disingenuous as anything the guy does or says in his review. Indeed it's pretty underhand.

There are invisible walls in this game. Hell, it's not an open world game, so that's not necessarily a bad thing, but don't prevent access to certain sections, by having your character not able to leap on a 3ft high object - it breaks immersion. It also means you have to keep trying to jump on objects to see if you can traverse. It's just sloppy game design.

Basically anywhere that you can jump to has a yellow cloth as a marker. It's a subtle hint that works very well imo, without the need to put arrows or any other stuff to directly tell you where you need to go.

 

[holygeesus]

Can't say much about this game cause I'm waiting for a patch on PC but it is obvious people who clearly didn't play the fucking game are hating for the sake of hating, I saw the review and live stream and as much as I love Joe, the thing was fucking embarrassing at times.

This thread is not worth your time, people will not give a valid argument as to why it "sucks" they just want in the hate train for the lols, even more if the game is not available in their console of choice which happens to be very popular around here.

Your opinion of his review might change when you actually play the damn game!

There are as many people defending his review, having, you know, actually played the game, as there are people with QB avatars going to extraordinary lengths to defend it. In fact, I'd argue that those who think the game has faults have done far more to justify their reasoning than those who claim it a masterpiece.

 

[sheepishlord]

Your opinion of his review might change when you actually play the damn game!

There are as many people defending his review, having, you know, actually played the game, as there are people with QB avatars going to extraordinary lengths to defend it. In fact, I'd argue that those who think the game has faults have done far more to justify their reasoning than those who claim it a masterpiece.

yes us evil QB avater people going to "extraordinary lengths" so im guessin my last post was wrong which you ignored? where you said there is a whole "unaccessible area of the level" passed the truck and i corrected you by telling you thats how you progress through the level by getting passed it but never mind hey? just ignore it.

but maybe you would have known about that if you had played the game. instead of spewing misinformation about "unaccessible area of the level" because if you had played it you would know about that section of the game.

also i feels like there are people on both sides of this "extraordinary lengths" debate in this thread people defending/negtive about the game, think its called a discussion?

so sorry if not everyone rolls over for you, must be nice in that bubble which everyone agrees with you. send me a postcard plz

 

[holygeesus]

yes us evil QB avater people going to "extraordinary lengths" so im guessin my last post was wrong which you ignored? where you said there is a whole "unaccessible area of the level" passed the truck and i corrected you by telling you thats how you progress through the level by getting passed it but never mind hey? just ignore it.

but maybe you would have known about that if you had played the game. instead of spewing misinformation about "unaccessible area of the level" because if you had played it you would know about that section of the game.

also i feels like there are people on both sides of this "extraordinary lengths" debate in this thread people defending/negtive about the game, think its called a discussion?

so sorry if not everyone rolls over for you, must be nice in that bubble which everyone agrees with you. send me a postcard plz

Eh? I have played it. On the PC. What possible reason could they make that truck inaccessible then if it was an area you can get to in another way? Just another example of the invisible walls his review mentions. It's sloppy design. Why make some objects scaleable and not other taller ones? Again, poor design.

I have the feeling the QBDF are just sore about the final score rather than the review. If he had tacked a 7 on there there wouldn't have been this outrage as nigh on every point he brings up as a negative, were brought up on message boards such as this, before his review went live, by objective players of the game.

 

[Cheezus]

I gotta be honest I don't like Angry Joe's reviews. They are not very insightful compared to others and often his points are exaggerated for entertainment value. The skits are usually a lot of work for low payoff.

That being said I don't think he's wrong but I do find myself enjoying the game a lot despite the absolute garbage PC port. The gunplay is very flashy in that classic remedy way and the story is very good. I expected to be more annoyed by the tv show than I actually am which is one point where Joe and I disagree.

I just wish Microsoft would give a shit and stop releasing trash PC ports. It's at the point where unless they get their act together or release on Steam they shouldn't bother porting anything else. All it's doing is pissing people off.

 

[Montresor]

If you don't think someone taking the time to watch hours of stream to find moments to discredit a man's opinion on the internet is weird then I don't have anything to say to you. I like arguing, and I like it when people make points and counterpoints, but at some point it goes from argumentative to obsessive, at which point I'm no longer interested in the conversation because things start getting weird. Remember that there are people on gaf who will go through your post history to find one post from three years ago to discredit you on something, or search your user name on social media and other sites to find what you've said elsewhere and bring it up. I just find this behavior weird and creepy. The man played the game, right or wrong, and gave it a score, and gave some arguments for it. If you disagree with him, feel free to provide your arguments but for me, personally, I get uncomfortable when people spend so much time digging. It makes you look desperate and way too invested. If the score bothers one that much, then they can just make their argument and move on to another thread. No need to make it personal.

But hey, that's just how I feel.

I'm at a loss to explain how you could reasonably react this way, saying "No need to make it personal" when someone like Shandy made an informed post backed up with facts about the game play of AngryJoe. Why does it get personal if someone disagrees with a reviewer? There were no personal insults, just an opinionated post backed up with solid evidence. It just so happens that it takes time and effort to make such a post. But I don't think it's fair at all to react the way you're doing right now just because someone took the time and effort to make a counter-argument versus Angry Joe.

 

[SomTervo]

Can't say much about this game cause I'm waiting for a patch on PC but it is obvious people who clearly didn't play the fucking game are hating for the sake of hating, I saw the review and live stream and as much as I love Joe, the thing was fucking embarrassing at times.

This thread is not worth your time, people will not give a valid argument as to why it "sucks" they just want in the hate train for the lols, even more if the game is not available in their console of choice which happens to be very popular around here.

Thanks for the response. The bolded is how I felt.

It's fine to give the game a 5/10, but his examples are just complete selective bullshit. Use some proper examples if you're going to cricitise aspects of a game and stop laughing about it like a dunce.

Your opinion of his review might change when you actually play the damn game!

There are as many people defending his review, having, you know, actually played the game, as there are people with QB avatars going to extraordinary lengths to defend it. In fact, I'd argue that those who think the game has faults have done far more to justify their reasoning than those who claim it a masterpiece.

There are many people criticising his review having, you know, actually played the game. Me for one. And I don't have a QB avatar. I don't even own an Xbox One. I didn't like Alan Wake very much but Max Payne 2 is on my top 10 GOAT list.

but he did justify his opinions whether people agree with them or not.

He certainly didn't - what he criticised in several examples:

A) was fully wrong in at least once instance ("why can't I use any other powers to stop this gate" - he 100% could)
B) showed no understanding of the lore - which fully explained some of the shit he was complaining about in more than sufficient detail - 'why can I rewind this thing but not that thing' - 100% explained in the lore, he just didn't pay fucking attention
C) was entirely selective. Yes, there are some fights which you can stand still for 10 minutes and survive. But I'd say at least 7/10 fights in the game do not fit that description and you will get killed within 30 seconds on any difficulty if you stand still. The same probably also goes for many games with multiple enemy types - there are several fights in QB against snipers or enemies who are like 'training enemies' who will not come get you (the latter is the case in his example)

 

[sheepishlord]

Eh? I have played it. On the PC. What possible reason could they make that truck inaccessible then if it was an area you can get to in another way? Just another example of the invisible walls his review mentions. It's sloppy design. Why make some objects scaleable and not other taller ones? Again, poor design.

I have the feeling the QBDF are just sore about the final score rather than the review. If he had tacked a 7 on there there wouldn't have been this outrage as nigh on every point he brings up as a negative, were brought up on message boards such as this, before his review went live, by objective players of the game.

ok lets go through this.

What possible reason could they make that truck inaccessible then if it was an area you can get to in another way?

im not a game dev but this would be my opinion on why its like this. So you enter a area and the devs say "hey we want the player to have a gun fight here before progressing to the next area." how do you make sure the player does not move out of that area or bypasss it altogether? simple barriers, if that truck was climbable what would stop a player just running upto the truck and bypassing the whole section, by making it a puzzle it forces the player to clear the area before progressing. this is nothing new every game has it in some form.

Why make some objects scaleable and not other taller ones
becasuse they are taller? you learn very quick which objects you can climb and if you have problems with this on Quantum Break how do you feel about ever other game that does it? uncharted does it, last of us, gears of war ect and like 90% of games in some form and in my opinion Quantum Break is no worse with invisible walls/unscaleble objects then say the last of us.

So something you say is poor design i call very basic game design that has been used for a very long time in almost all games.

and joes review is just one of many, a 5 is a avarage not poor im fine with that i can see why some people would not like the game but some of joes points seem very nitpicky but its just my opinion take it how every you want. im still a fan of joe reviews though, even if i dont see eye to eye on this one review.

 

[Osahi]

Basically anywhere that you can jump to has a yellow cloth as a marker. It's a subtle hint that works very well imo, without the need to put arrows or any other stuff to directly tell you where you need to go.

Haha, I just checked this and and idd, they seem to have put a yellow hint into climable object so subtle it totally passed me by. xD

This actually doesn't change a thing about how mediocre the level design is. QB's areas are still full of elements that look like you can climb them, but can't. The truck example is a great one. You can climb a van of similar height 5 feet away. But there are also a lot of dumpsters you can't get onto, while you can climb a wall that is a tad higher, etc. The fact they colorcoded the stuff that was climbable doesn't make it any less bad.

Naughty Dog for instance colorcodes too, but does it way better. I've never really felt in any of their games restricted to what I could climb and not, because they stick to their own rules. I never found a container I couldn't jump onto of a same hight of one I could in Uncharted. QB is full of this shit.

It was to me one of the most annoying elements of the game (it kills the platform sections completely), together with the bad pacing and the dead-in-the-water live action bits (and the way the story is brought in general). I liked the action bits, but they were way to few and far between and also suffered from the boring level design (practically every confrontation takes place in some open space. There are rarely alternative paths, you never have to read the environment to make a stratey, etc)

It is defenitely true Angry Joe made some arguments that don't hold up, but he points at lots of valid ones too. He didn't like the game, and overall he gave a fair analysis of why he didn't...

 

[holygeesus]

There are many people criticising his review having, you know, actually played the game. Me for one.

Why do people keep bringing this point up, as if everyone who agrees with his review haven't played the game? A lot of people who have played it, myself included can see that a lot of his points are valid, and can appreciate why they make the game only average IMO. I am enjoying the game, but it is not flawless, but the issues I have with the game, don't impact upon my enjoyment as much as they did Joe. I am far from an AJ fanboy (disagreed with his Division review lately) but he is usually spot on with his analysis of games, whether you agree with his final opinion or not.

IMO Quantum Break is just an average game. Pretty forgettable and not a patch on any of Remedy's past work, and I don't understand the lengths people are going to to defend it. Bizarre.

 

[blankempathy]

If you don't think someone taking the time to watch hours of stream to find moments to discredit a man's opinion on the internet is weird then I don't have anything to say to you. I like arguing, and I like it when people make points and counterpoints, but at some point it goes from argumentative to obsessive, at which point I'm no longer interested in the conversation because things start getting weird. Remember that there are people on gaf who will go through your post history to find one post from three years ago to discredit you on something, or search your user name on social media and other sites to find what you've said elsewhere and bring it up. I just find this behavior weird and creepy. The man played the game, right or wrong, and gave it a score, and gave some arguments for it. If you disagree with him, feel free to provide your arguments but for me, personally, I get uncomfortable when people spend so much time digging. It makes you look desperate and way too invested. If the score bothers one that much, then they can just make their argument and move on to another thread. No need to make it personal.

But hey, that's just how I feel.

Who said someone spent time digging? Maybe someone watched him stream the game first and then saw his review and recalled some mistakes he made. I saw him stream cod advance warfare before his review and could also argue that some of his arguments against the game are due to his misconceptions.

 

[sheepishlord]

Why do people keep bringing this point up, as if everyone who agrees with his review haven't played the game? A lot of people who have played it, myself included can see that a lot of his points are valid,

maybe it because of stuff you said earlier?

In the example in the video review in question, there is a break in a wall, where it looks like you can visit, with a small car blocking the way - don't put the bleeding car there! It's an artificial attempt at boosting map size by hinting that there might be collectibles down there, when in reality it is an unaccessible area of the level.

The above rang alam bells for me if you had played the game you would know that this is not true, as you are forced to go down that "unaccessible area of the level" to progress.

so what can we deduce from your post one of 2 options.

1. you lied about having the game.

2. you have the game but have not progressed to that part (which is not too far into the game) if this is the case, then i apologize.

also if you got the impression "hinting that there might be collectibles down there, when in reality it is an unaccessible area of the level" from joes review think that says something about the review.

 

[holygeesus]

maybe it because of stuff you said earlier?



The above rang alam bells for me if you had played the game you would know that this is not true, as you are forced to go down that "unaccessible area of the level" to progress.

so what can we deduce from your post one of 2 options.

1. you lied about having the game.

2. you have the game but have not progressed to that part (which is not too far into the game) if this is the case, then i apologize.

also if you got the "hinting that there might be collectibles down there, when in reality it is an unaccessible area of the level" from joes review think that says something about the review.

Wow after decades on the internet I think this is the first time I've had to 'prove' I've bought a game lol

If I hold up my hands and admit to making a mistake in regard the accessibility of that location, would you admit to not being able to climb that car, despite it being lower and no less accessible than other objects you can climb, as being poor game design? How about doors that can be manipulated by time in some occurrences but not others, without explanation? Bad game design?

 

[shandy706]

Wow after decades on the internet I think this is the first time I've had to 'prove' I've bought a game lol

How about doors that can be manipulated by time in some occurrences but not others, without explanation?

I hate coming back into this darn thread, but...

...the example he used in the review video IS EXPLAINED. It also fits into the game world and breaks none of its rules. That's been pointed out multiple times in the thread.

The area he's in that he reverses time in is in a stutter/massively broken time event. The area he shows where he can't get past a door is a locked and chained gate that is in a normal time event with no stutters or broken time anywhere in that section. You even have to solve a simple "puzzle" with the powers you do have to bypass it due to no stutters or broken time in that part of the Act.

I figure you'd know that at 29%, but perhaps you should play further so you're not making mistakes in your arguments.

 

[ResoRai]

I hate coming back into this darn thread, but...

...the example he used in the review video IS EXPLAINED. It also fits into the game world and breaks none of its rules. That's been pointed out multiple times in the thread.

The area he's in that he reverses time in is in a stutter/massively broken time event. The area he shows where he can't get past a door is a locked and chained gate that is in a normal time event with no stutters or broken time anywhere in that section. You even have to solve a simple "puzzle" with the powers you do have to bypass it due to no stutters or broken time in that part of the Act.

I figure you'd know that at 29%, but perhaps you should play further so you're not making mistakes in your arguments.

I'm surprised at how many times this explanation had to be repeated lol.

 

[Zvonimir Boban]

I'm surprised at how many times this explanation had to be repeated lol.

Can't blame people for missing the explanation tbf, the time egg is fucked.

OK so now I haven't played *enough* of the game? Jesus...

Are the reasons for the stutters occurring when convenient aka when certain doors need opening, explained later on then?

Explained in the first Act.

"Explosion make time go bad! If time is an egg, then that egg is fucking broken! The time egg is fucked!"

 

[holygeesus]

I figure you'd know that at 29%, but perhaps you should play further so you're not making mistakes in your arguments.

OK so now I haven't played *enough* of the game? Jesus...

Are the reasons for the stutters occurring when convenient aka when certain doors need opening, explained later on then?

 

[nib95]

I never had a problem with the rewind time at certain points game logic. It's a bit convenient, and almost pointless in places, sure, but why not, it's a video game and the effect looks cool.

I did however have an issue with the height and climbing logic. So many vans, crates, cars, boxes etc that weren't even that high, magically no longer being climbable, when other times things of similar height were. It definitely led to some cumbersome looking moments where I'd try and climb stuff I couldn't.

Another thing that sort of irritated me that wasn't mentioned in his review, is the few times Cronon sources are placed in places which you can't actually access till later on in the game, even though they're dangled right in-front of you at that point. It just makes you unnecessarily waste time trying to figure out a way to get to the source, only to later realise the game was tricking you in the first place. Totally cheesy design.

That said, these things don't detract from the bigger picture, nor the game being highly enjoyable in other areas.

 

[shandy706]

OK so now I haven't played *enough* of the game? Jesus...

Are the reasons for the stutters occurring when convenient aka when certain doors need opening, explained later on then?

Honestly, from what I can remember the "reverse time" events all happen in really jacked up areas...where time is in a bad fluctuation or broken or near the actual time machines/major event locations.

I don't think you run into a "door" you can reverse time on when the rest of the area is just fine. They don't just stick a convenient "reverse time" spot randomly here and there and then ignore it elsewhere for no reason. I'm playing through the game again though, so I'll keep an eye out for that scenario.

Edit* Nibs post above isn't innacurate..and I agree with those darn Cronon sources being just on the other side of a wall, or above/below you and me trying to get to it...then realizing I need to go in the next room, lol.

 

[Alxjn]

Haha, I just checked this and and idd, they seem to have put a yellow hint into climable object so subtle it totally passed me by. xD

This actually doesn't change a thing about how mediocre the level design is. QB's areas are still full of elements that look like you can climb them, but can't. The truck example is a great one. You can climb a van of similar height 5 feet away. But there are also a lot of dumpsters you can't get onto, while you can climb a wall that is a tad higher, etc. The fact they colorcoded the stuff that was climbable doesn't make it any less bad.

Naughty Dog for instance colorcodes too, but does it way better. I've never really felt in any of their games restricted to what I could climb and not, because they stick to their own rules. I never found a container I couldn't jump onto of a same hight of one I could in Uncharted. QB is full of this shit.

It was to me one of the most annoying elements of the game (it kills the platform sections completely), together with the bad pacing and the dead-in-the-water live action bits (and the way the story is brought in general). I liked the action bits, but they were way to few and far between and also suffered from the boring level design (practically every confrontation takes place in some open space. There are rarely alternative paths, you never have to read the environment to make a stratey, etc)

It is defenitely true Angry Joe made some arguments that don't hold up, but he points at lots of valid ones too. He didn't like the game, and overall he gave a fair analysis of why he didn't...

There were maybe 2 times throughout the campaign where I felt I should have been able to climb something, but I couldnt. What platforming segments are you talking about? They're all really straight forward, there isnt much room to deviate.

 

[sheepishlord]

Wow after decades on the internet I think this is the first time I've had to 'prove' I've bought a game lol



If I hold up my hands and admit to making a mistake in regard the accessibility of that location, would you admit to not being able to climb that car, despite it being lower and no less accessible than other objects you can climb, as being poor game design? How about doors that can be manipulated by time in some occurrences but not others, without explanation? Bad game design?

as i said before it was a way to stop a player progressing by having them do a (time rewind) like i said in my earlier post, ever game has these barriers Quantum Break is not on its own ill requote myself incase you missed it.

What possible reason could they make that truck inaccessible then if it was an area you can get to in another way?

im not a game dev but this would be my opinion on why its like this. So you enter a area and the devs say "hey we want the player to have a gun fight here before progressing to the next area." how do you make sure the player does not move out of that area or bypasss it altogether? simple barriers, if that truck was climbable what would stop a player just running upto the truck and bypassing the whole section, by making it a puzzle it forces the player to clear the area before progressing. this is nothing new every game has it in some form.

so in my opinion nope not bad game design.

About the door thing. it is explained and alot of people have explained it in this thread, ill think somtervo explains it better then i could so ill quote him.

Time is fractured like a pane of glass. It is not stopped/frozen in a ubiquitous sense. When a stutter happens, swathes of it are frozen fully but there are fracture points and ripples where objects are 'unstuck in time' rather than 'stopped in time'. This also goes for objects after a time fracture - some of them stay unstuck, because time is breaking bit by bit.

Jack Joyce literally says this before the scene Joe shows with the door, as well as earlier in the game. And the lore explains it. At this point in the game they encounter an object which has become unstuck in time during a stutter (everything else is frozen). That's what the whole 'glass' aesthetic is about. Time is broken in a shattered way. This one object is buzzing back and forth between a time when it is closed and a time when it is open. Other doors are just frozen shut, so you can't pass through.

This also explains why some objects can be rewound and others cant. Some objects are unstuck - in quantum states between present and past - while others are just frozen in the present

.

 

[ghibli99]

If anything this thread just goes to show how objectionable 5/10, a supposed score for an average game (based on a reviewer's opinion), has become.

Who truly supposes that a 5/10 is average, though? It's always been like that. I sometimes see the "5 out of 10 is not shit, it's average" argument in review threads, but let's face it: it just isn't perceived that way except for edge casers. Name me one person who goes on MC or OC, sees an aggregate of 50/100, and says, "I really should check that game out."

 

[Dargor]

Who truly supposes that a 5/10 is average, though? It's always been like that. I sometimes see the "5 out of 10 is not shit, it's average" argument in review threads, but let's face it: it just isn't perceived that way except for edge casers. Name me one person who goes on MC or OC, sees an aggregate of 50/100, and says, "I really should check that game out."

No one, but not because of the reason you think.

People don't want to play the game with 50/100 grades because they want to play a good game, not an average one.

 

[WordsintheWater]

Can't say much about this game cause I'm waiting for a patch on PC but it is obvious people who clearly didn't play the fucking game are hating for the sake of hating, I saw the review and live stream and as much as I love Joe, the thing was fucking embarrassing at times.

This thread is not worth your time, people will not give a valid argument as to why it "sucks" they just want in the hate train for the lols, even more if the game is not available in their console of choice which happens to be very popular around here.

People have given very valid arguments as to why they didn't like it. And I don't understand how you can even speak against that when you haven't played the game. And that part of your post I bolded is such a dumb comment. But then again most of your post is terrible, so I'm not surprised.

I can't believe that people still don't understand the concept that individuals may feel differently about certain aspects of a game. Angry Joe may feel that as though those "negatives" he perceives bring the game down to a 5/10, while others who see those "negatives" as well don't think they weight that heavily against their enjoyment of the game.

 

[dragonflys545]

I remember stuff from the E3 and Gamescom demo that were taken out of the final release was actually what made me interested in the game to begin with. Why did they take them out? for example one of the demo, Jack was against one of the suited enemy. If I remember correctly he used his power to push a car/truck.

 

[WordsintheWater]

I remember stuff from the E3 and Gamescom demo that were taken out of the final release was actually what made me interested in the game to begin with. Why did they take them out? for example one of the demo, Jack was against one of the suited enemy. If I remember correctly he used his power to push a car/truck.

Pretty sure that's still in there, I think I saw a GIF of it somewhere.

 

[lcap]

I remember stuff from the E3 and Gamescom demo that were taken out of the final release was actually what made me interested in the game to begin with. Why did they take them out? for example one of the demo, Jack was against one of the suited enemy. If I remember correctly he used his power to push a car/truck.

It's still there, almost in the same way. It's a Juggernaut encounter on the bridge.

 

[dragonflys545]

Pretty sure that's still in there, I think I saw a GIF of it somewhere.

On my play-through I did not get anything remotely close to that.

 

[Gestault]

On my play-through I did not get anything remotely close to that.

The enemy flips the car, which is then in a flickering time-stasis after the hit. That fight's definitely in there. It's just before the really cool crumbling bridge traversal section.

 

[Messofanego]

I remember stuff from the E3 and Gamescom demo that were taken out of the final release was actually what made me interested in the game to begin with. Why did they take them out? for example one of the demo, Jack was against one of the suited enemy. If I remember correctly he used his power to push a car/truck.

That bit where you throw the car at the Juggernaut is not there, and also stopping a car mid-air.

These are minor cinematic things from presentations though, everything else is intact with a different lighting system considering this was shown years ago and could've been some vertical slice that is just for E3 but not in the final game (Halo 2, Killzone 2, Bioshock Infinite, Half Life 2, Far Cry 3, Brothers In Arms Hell's Highway, Ghost Recon Future Soldier, Watch Dogs, The Division).

 

[smashballTaz]

The thing about being an online 'personality' and having to keep up the character you've cultivated, is that some of that is going to clash with being an impartial reviewer. If you are even aiming for that in the first place. If Joe wasn't actively looking for issues to be Angry about or playing up for the camera, he might have realised quickly that there were other ways through that gate, and then it wouldn't be such a feature in his video review.

I don't agree with all of his points, but I occasionally do check out his video reviews of something I've already played because it can be great hearing someone else's second opinion. Even if you disagree with it, or it's misinformed.

I'm still looking forward to playing Quantum Break (on PC, even) so I would rather play it unbiased and without expectations set by online reviewers. I'm hoping that it's as enjoyable as it looks to me, narrative-driven single-player games are such a rare thing these days.

 

[holygeesus]

I don't think anyone can claim it is not enjoyable - even Joe himself recommends buying it when on sale - but, for me, it is not the classic I was expecting, particularly as I consider nigh on all of Remedy's back catalogue as legendary status.

 

[Artvanderlay]

Think the Angry joe name sometimes does him a disservice as people think hes just a gimmick. When infact if you watch a lot of his stuff hes very knowledgeable about a lot of different genres of games and is passionate about them. Don't think hes out to be controversial , just don't think he cares about peoples reaction . Which is a good thing .