I have made my peace with the fact that he is somewhat divisive and not everyone likes him.
But I will never understand why people who don't like him feel the need to proclaim it in threads about his reviews.
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.
Nevertheless, it's no different from when people feel the need to come to a certain game or genre related thread just to proclaim how much they don't like it.
We're getting to a point where generalists can't be expected to cover the whole industry anymore. You probably shouldn't assign a game like The Order to a reviewer who resents the idea of cinematic games the same way you shouldn't let a reviewer who makes passive-aggressive "sportsball" jokes on twitter cover Madden for you.
Really? Is this something that happens in any other field? I don't think it happens in movie reviews, in any case.
Moreover, is there any evidence that reviewers of The Order resent the idea of cinematic games, rather than just thinking that The Order is not a good game, period?
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.
I watched a playthrough, it looked pretty damn poor to me. And yes I didn't play it, but we're talking about the cinematic aspect, watching it is enough to form an opinion.
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.
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
Wtffffff how can this thread keep on going? The game is clearly flawed. Sony published a flawed game and so what? Hopefully the sequel will fix those flaws and the game will receive a 6/10.
Honestly paying $60 for a linear, story driven (with an average story at best), "generic" tps that lasts 7 hours and have no replay value, no multiplayer, no "challenge mode" no nothing is kinda ridiculous. Obviously if you do truly enjoy the shory and graphics, good for you!
And to make it all sound more compelling the game is more about hunting rebels than what the initial reveal hinted? Combined with horrible ai (at times), excessive amount of QTEs and auto fail stealth segments.
Honest as hell if I where to make a purchase of this game and I looked up all the pros and cons of the game, put them up against each other it would be really hard to make the purchase.
The redeeming factors for this game is clearly only meant for a very limited amount of "gamers".
However feel free to defend something that have otherwise been said to be average at best by the entire industry and most gamers.
That goes for those with an opposing view as well, yet they're labelled as fanboys and "gamers", with their more positive opinions dismissed as just seeking justification for their purchase.
I got 11½ hours of entertainment on my initial playthrough, and few hours on top of that for platinuming the game. I'm going to replay it later on, hoping they add a photo mode at some point. So, I certainly got my money's worth of it, but I can understand how some would think otherwise. I found the atmosphere so alluring, that I was willing to look past the flaws in the gameplay.
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.