• 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.

The Division is an open world game so it makes sense that the AI would be rough at spots and not be designed for every environment. This game is linear. Did you know that in FEAR they designed the AI uniquely for every single encounter? That's why that game is still renowned for its AI.



.

lol yes, and I bet theres a good bunch of linear games that also could be coaxed with enough time into showing the AI doing something dumb. Using a game that renowned for the unique quality of its AI doesnt really reinforce your point much, as few reach that lvl.
 

Orca

Member
There was a post earlier from a Remedy developer who said not including hip-fire came down to time and resources (feeling that the resources could be better spent on something players would better utilize), so it seems like even Remedy would have preferred hip-fire (though obviously I can't speak for the studio).

For a game that tries to encourage movement during combat having the only means of shooting to be taking up a fairly static aiming position wasn't a good idea. If anything the game should have only had hip-fire, if they had to pick one.

Here's the quote:

That quote doesn't say Remedy would have preferred hipfire at all. As they cut it since not enough used it to justify the extra dev time, it's kind of the opposite.
 
Too low on resources to include a basic game mechanic like hip fire but they got enough money and time to hire fairly well known actors and spend 20 minutes or more on drawn out cutscenes? hahahahahh



If I remember correctly the enemy in Angry Joe's video was trying his best to kill the player (for 15 minutes lol) and not running off and cowering in a corner somewhere. It looked pretty bad.


There was no 'desire' or 'time' on Joe's part, the game created the situation itself. All I hear are empty words but no one coming up with any sort of proof of this happening in other games lol. Also when Joe rounded the corner after killing that dumb grunt there was a whole battlefield of enemies who did nothing except wait for Joe to come out from behind his rock. Dumbest enemy AI I've seen in a long time, that's for sure. Seems to have been created with zero passion for exciting gameplay, just cannon fodder by the numbers.
There's also plenty of good AI in the game, but lets ignore those in favor of this cherry picked instance shall we.
 
There was no 'desire' or 'time' on Joe's part, the game created the situation itself.

Of course there was.

All I hear are empty words but no one coming up with any sort of proof of this happening in other games lol.

What, are you new to gaming? This kind of stuff has gone on since the dawn of time.

And with that I'll take my leave from this thread, kinda sad to see so many willing to just lap up what this guy puts out like its gospel. His content really is jerry springer lvl.
 

Snaggle

Banned
Of course there was.

Please explain? He just left the controller and walked off, he didn't coax the AI into this situation it just created itself.



What, are you new to gaming? This kind of stuff has gone on since the dawn of time.

And with that I'll take my leave from this thread, kinda sad to see so many willing to just lap up what this guy puts out like its gospel. His content really is jerry springer lvl.

I have seen evidence of bad enemy AI that's for sure but I've never seen anyone leave their controller in front of an enemy and not get killed. Sure it might happened in the past but I've never seen it and it's probably extremely rare. Also for it to happen in such a modern day 'system seller' title is kinda embarrassing imo.

I think it's increasingly clear that Remedy would much rather be working in Hollywood than actually creating games as the videogame component seems like it's been undercooked and more of a chore for them (oh noes not enuff resources for simply gameplay features), they would much rather be rubbing elbows with actors etc than spending time programming.
 
I bet ya in the Division I could if I was just in a regular street battle and I had whittled it down to just one marksman type. take standing cover and they'll bang away at it or make insignificant position adjustments till the end of time from what I've seen. Likely more easily reproduced than what Joe showed.

Point is, anyone with enough time and the desire to do so can mess around with a game enough to find a place where the AI breaks down somewhere. In no way does that mean its representative of the typical experience.

You see, IN THE VIDEO , after he kills the guy that was shooting at him you clearly see 2 more behind the hill.
Also in the division, even with 180+gear with 60K health and 65% armor mitigation , you will die , if you stay still in front of the regular Lv 25 ennemies in the end game ( the lowest ennemy in the end-game content )
So you exemple doesn't work.

Heck , joe wasn't even in cover when he was afk, so you'll escuse me for not buying it.
 
Except they couldn't have hip fire because they were low on resources, and yet they invest resources into the tv shows that SEEM mediocre. Is that not a valid concern we should be able to have before plunking down 60 dollars cash money? Also, is it not a valid concern that this of us who are cable cutters who seek only TV productions worthy of our time judge the TV show portion of this game with those same critiques we use to filter our other shows with?

The game doesn't look anything like it did when they had that awesome reveal. And even then I had concerns when they mentioned tv integration. When I saw the screens and gameplay of the final product, via Gaf I might add, I immediately thought it actually looked boring. I suspected that those awesome powers might be pointless. And on normal it seems they can be.

Now with all the media and games to divide my time I now know the lackluster fringe-sequel tv show might be a pain and I'll need to play on hard to git good. That has a lot going against it with how much energy I'll need to muster to enjoy this game when I do eventually get it.

The defense force in this thread has done more to damage the game for me than Joe ever could in that review.

How dare someone have a mind of their own and defend something that they enjoy. We should just all bend to the opinion of Angry Joe and be done with it.
 
How dare someone have a mind of their own and defend something that they enjoy. We should just all bend to the opinion of Angry Joe and be done with it.
He's not attacking "your" game. He's critiquing it.
Judge the merits and criticism of his review all day but not whatever it is some people are doing in this thread right now.
 

LiK

Member
good review and complaints. i enjoyed the game a lot but he pointed out a lot of dumb stuff i agree with. i thought the gunplay was fun tho.
 
He's not attacking "your" game. He's critiquing it.
Judge the merits and criticism of his review all day but not whatever it is some people are doing in this thread right now.

Angry Joe is definitely welcome to his opinion, and he does bring up good points. It's just weird when I hear "Defense Force" coming from someone who has never even touched the game for themselves, acting like people are crazy for liking a game that they themselves are assuming they don't like based on screenshots and GIF's.
 
Angry Joe is definitely welcome to his opinion, and he does bring up good points. It's just weird when I hear "Defense Force" coming from someone who has never even touched the game for themselves, like people are crazy for liking a game that they themselves are assuming they don't like based on screenshots and GIF's.
I don't like the defense force shit either but I can't honestly say that some of the reactions in this thread don't seem to come from people who personally enjoyed this game and feel that any criticism brought against it has to be lying, is clickbait, hating or any other dumb fanboy reasonings except for simply not liking a video game.
 
"playing it wrong" is a criticism that often comes up in reviews of reviews and it's invalid to me. if a game isn't fun to play intuitively without special out-of-game coaching then that's a problem with the game itself.

Agreed, but then there's just being bad and complaining about it. The game literally gives you power by power having tutorial like examples on how you can use the powers in combat. And there's often loading screens that pretty much tell you to not stay in cover, but rather use your powers to control the fight.
 
Can you not skip them? Because that would be an instant deal breaker.
You can, and they are optional (though add a lot to the game) towards understanding the story.

Too low on resources to include a basic game mechanic like hip fire but they got enough money and time to hire fairly well known actors and spend 20 minutes or more on drawn out cutscenes? hahahahahh

Hip fire isn't there obviously due a design choice. They clearly didn't want this to play like a cover based shooter.
 

nib95

Banned
Agreed, but then there's just being bad and complaining about it. The game literally gives you power by power having tutorial like examples on how you can use the powers in combat. And there's often loading screens that pretty much tell you to not stay in cover, but rather use your powers to control the fight.

As I stated before, I don't think games should necessarily force you to play a certain way, but I do agree there is a difference between playing a game the wrong way, and simply being bad at one. In my experience, Angry Joe tends to fall towards the latter, especially with console games, and especially when there are alternative options, powers etc offered to mix things up. I've found he has a reluctancy to generously use and creatively experiment with such things to strategic effect, or notably skillfully. Evident in his play throughs of games like Quantum Break, Halo 5, InFamous Second Son and Killzone Shadowfall.

That's not to say it automatically makes his opinion useless or objectively less important or anything like that, but for me on a subjective level, as someone who's generally a bit more skilled or accomplished at these sorts of games, I'd say his opinions on gameplay aren't always quite as relevant to me personally. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I actually often get genuinely frustrated watching him (and others) play games on Twitch etc, and wish I could just jump in and show him how not to get his ass handed to him, or how to more effectively use the tools on offer. Then again I feel that way a lot of the time when watching preview videos, or show floor demo's etc. That's one awesome thing about these Let's Play's, you actually get to see how these journos play these games, how competent they are at them, and how their skill level or play styles might match up with your own.
 

AgentP

Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
It was a good video review. He clearly wasn't have fun and that is a Cardinal sin for a game. Loved the AFK part, Remedy needs to ditch the TV stuff and get back to basics.
 
Of course there was.



What, are you new to gaming? This kind of stuff has gone on since the dawn of time.

And with that I'll take my leave from this thread, kinda sad to see so many willing to just lap up what this guy puts out like its gospel. His content really is jerry springer lvl.

Flying even closer to the sun 5+ pages later

Good luck ;)
 
Nah, your post was bad. Laughing first of all and not getting the meaning of the post you're replying to. Then acting all "LOL git gud" behavior with that hand held comment, even though what the suggestion was wasn't about getting good, but rewarding good combo play. And then going on to proclaim the gameplay being the rewards like a PR/shill/fanboy line. Your post was bad and embarrassing all around.

By combo system, they didn't mean that you can't combo moves together, they said maybe having a hook/tangible reward for comboing together would've encouraged players to try comboing more. Like for instance, extra damage, or a faster meter recharge etc. Something along those lines. Not that comboing isn't possible.

Looking like a boss is its own reward:

DyquJid.gif
 
These are valid criticisms of the game, it's not like he's pulling stuff out of nowhere about this game. What those who are on the fence need to figure out is if these criticisms bother them or not and those that say "he's playing it wrong" or whatever doesn't make his criticisms less valid, it just means these "negatives" don't bother you as much.
 

farisr

Member
lol, the tangible reward was not losing and getting mad about it.. Somehow, without any kind of counter on the screen, I managed to figure out that it was able to string the moves together. I don't think that I'm special in any way, so yea I kinda blame anyone who just went "argh dumb game" and kept playing it in a way they didnt enjoy
Yet again completely missing the point. Wow... Just stop.
 
Looking like a boss is its own reward:

DyquJid.gif

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.
 
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.
Flash grenades don't look this cool!
 
i can't disagree with the score as I could see why someone would give it that, but I'd give it 2 more points in a score tbh. I feel the shooting was tight if you were not playing it as a cover shooter.
 
Angry Joe is definitely welcome to his opinion, and he does bring up good points. It's just weird when I hear "Defense Force" coming from someone who has never even touched the game for themselves, acting like people are crazy for liking a game that they themselves are assuming they don't like based on screenshots and GIF's.

Ok. Ive played the game, beat it, hated it.

Im very well aware how to play the game combing time powers and whatnot.

While joes critisims arent all valid, my own personal experience shows me he is right when he says this games combat is mind numbingly average to outright bad. Its not like there isnt a template of how to do this kind of combat right (vanquish).

The overal presentation might be top notch, but even then, there was some awful design decisions with the visuals too.

And yes, there is a clear Microsoft branded defence force for this game.
 
Is it just an aesthetic thing? It's fine if it is, I only asked because of people talking about how fresh and innovative the gameplay is but mechanically this doesn't seem like anything new.
I was being facetious :p

Anyways, I agree with you. Judging by all the examples being provided here I feel like people are mistaking style for innovative mechanics.
 

TransTrender

Gold Member
First thing I noticed in this review is the relatively low and inconsistent frame rate.
Is this a side effect of the capture device or is the game just as janky in the video?
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
Is it just an aesthetic thing? It's fine if it is, I only asked because of people talking about how fresh and innovative the gameplay is but mechanically this doesn't seem like anything new.

It doesn't. But it's dripping with style and it makes for great gifs.

I don't think anyone can deny that the game has some pretty rad effects going on.
 

Alienous

Member
That quote doesn't say Remedy would have preferred hipfire at all. As they cut it since not enough used it to justify the extra dev time, it's kind of the opposite.

What?

I'm saying that it seems they didn't remove it because of balance, or anything like that. They removed it because of the cost of completing it, which implies that they'd have completed if not for the cost of doing so. If they had the resources to spare they wouldn't have removed hip-fire.
 
These are valid criticisms of the game, it's not like he's pulling stuff out of nowhere about this game. What those who are on the fence need to figure out is if these criticisms bother them or not and those that say "he's playing it wrong" or whatever doesn't make his criticisms less valid, it just means these "negatives" don't bother you as much.
I had more specific criticisms of his criticisms in a previous post that had nothing to with criticisms bothering one more than another but just simple logic and what things are hyperbolic. His review, I felt, wasn't thorough enough, and that's what I've found with the lower-scoring reviews that still perpetuate that this is a cover-based shooter. They don't go as in-depth into their issues with the gameplay compared to the TV show, which I have no problem getting shit on.
 
One mans opinion doesn't deter me from any game but those cutscenes being 20+ mins each is not something I'm looking forward too. i'll pick up the game sometime within the next few months.
I only finished the first two acts so far, but I've enjoyed the videos at the end of the acts. They are well acted, provide a different perspective, and are overall pretty enjoyable... at least to me.
 
Game is super stylish. Getting the right chain going feels so.good.gif. Really wish it had a challenge / arena mode with leaderboards / replays.

hHEvVEk.gif
 

Freeman76

Member
I had more specific criticisms of his criticisms in a previous post that had nothing to with criticisms bothering one more than another but just simple logic and what things are hyperbolic. His review, I felt, wasn't thorough enough, and that's what I've found with the lower-scoring reviews that still perpetuate that this is a cover-based shooter. They don't go as in-depth into their issues with the gameplay compared to the TV show, which I have no problem getting shit on.
His review wasnt thorough enough? Ffs are you serious? Have you even watched it? There are seriously so many posts in this thread that clearly have some kind of alternative agenda, that statement is pure bollocks man. His reviews are more in depth than most, and this one is no different.
 
His review wasnt thorough enough? Ffs are you serious? Have you even watched it? There are seriously so many posts in this thread that clearly have some kind of alternative agenda, that statement is pure bollocks man. His reviews are more in depth than most, and this one is no different.

Don't mistake length for depth.
 
These are valid criticisms of the game, it's not like he's pulling stuff out of nowhere about this game. What those who are on the fence need to figure out is if these criticisms bother them or not and those that say "he's playing it wrong" or whatever doesn't make his criticisms less valid, it just means these "negatives" don't bother you as much.

THIS right here everyone.

I love Huber on Easy Allies and he gave it a 4 1/2 stars out of 5. However, the things Joe mentioned and showed would significantly drag my personal enjoyment of the game to a really low level.

Each review is informative and helps you make your decision based on your own tastes.
 
Good review, felt a bit more on the subjective side of what he likes/dislike than usual but I'm ok with that. The trashy tv-serial concept of this game is an absolute turn-off for me personally, this is obviously something that will not /can't be repeated by most developers out there. I wonder why they didn't halted this thing when Microsoft changed it's mind about all of this after the launch of the XB1? (I guess they were already too far along into production here). Sorry Remedy, do not want!
 
Nah. He's not.



No, it doesn't. It deserves more.



You shouldn't be. It's a really good game. It's not Alan Wake good, but it's really good.

The only time I remember him being wrong was Guild Wars 2.
I guess the trick is finding a reviewer who shares your tastes, not one that clearly doesn't. It's not an exact science.

I'll get this at some point, though, I do love Remedy games.
 

Osahi

Member
If you ask me, they have been building up to this half game / half TV show format for over a decade now, and they're taking a courageous step to try something different and make it happen.

True. They've been on this path for a long time, and yes, I'm sure they started this with the ambition of doing something innovative.

Thing is, they didn't succeed. The way QB tells it's story is pretty old fashioned (and in my opinion pretty boring to, regardless of the qualities of the story itself - which I found lacking too). We had a discussion about those episodes being cutscenes or not a few pages back.

There is actually nothing QB does that hasn't been done before, and often even better. The only thing separating it from for instance MGS4 with it's overlong cutscènes is the fact it's 'show' is live action. The show is not self-contained and only works when you also play the game --> so it can't be called an actual tv-show. It can be skipped and you will still understand most of the games story, but then you hurt the narrative of the game, as lots of things will be badly explained or be vague.

The junction moments and little collectibles that change the series? It's not that different from what Telltale or Quantic Dream does. It does it even worse, as the choices you make in those games are actually about characters you care about. In QB your choices don't actually concern Jack Joyce, the main character who you are actually invested in. Also, the choices don't matter at all. The timeline is set, there is only one possible ending.

And then they tell lots of it's backstory in overlong emails and stuff like that, which to me is very lazy storytelling in a game. I can live with short notes and diary fragments (though even those often break the pace to much ), but in the medium games are it is just not a good way to tell your story. You have so many other ways to do so.

QB tells his story with old techniques posed of as new. There is not a single element in which it is innovative or pushing games as a storytelling medium forwards. In contrary.

Personally I love these kind of games and I am very interested in new storytelling techniques and experiments. I found QB very disapointing in that regard.
 

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
Really funny and thorough review. More so than other AJ vids I've watched. It's painful to watch him slog through it. Game looks far worse than what the mixed reviews suggested. And those live action parts...oh man. All the cringe.
 
Is it just an aesthetic thing? It's fine if it is, I only asked because of people talking about how fresh and innovative the gameplay is but mechanically this doesn't seem like anything new.

This is taken from the game manual regarding time stop.

Stop
Freeze enemies inside of a time bubble. You can then stack bullets on them, resulting in more damage.
 

Rembrandt

Banned
As I stated before, I don't think games should necessarily force you to play a certain way, but I do agree there is a difference between playing a game the wrong way, and simply being bad at one. In my experience, Angry Joe tends to fall towards the latter, especially with console games, and especially when there are alternative options, powers etc offered to mix things up. I've found he has a reluctancy to generously use and creatively experiment with such things to strategic effect, or notably skillfully. Evident in his play throughs of games like Quantum Break, Halo 5, InFamous Second Son and Killzone Shadowfall.

That's not to say it automatically makes his opinion useless or objectively less important or anything like that, but for me on a subjective level, as someone who's generally a bit more skilled or accomplished at these sorts of games, I'd say his opinions on gameplay aren't always quite as relevant to me personally. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I actually often get genuinely frustrated watching him (and others) play games on Twitch etc, and wish I could just jump in and show him how not to get his ass handed to him, or how to more effectively use the tools on offer. Then again I feel that way a lot of the time when watching preview videos, or show floor demo's etc. That's one awesome thing about these Let's Play's, you actually get to see how these journos play these games, how competent they are at them, and how their skill level or play styles might match up with your own.

I agree but I also don't think any game should rely on you being creative to be fun or to get the full experience. I've seen it uncharted threads where you'll have people defending criticisms by playing it a unique way other people want and I can understand that, but it's also worth noting that most people aren't going to use powers, movement, gunplay, etc. to the fullest as some more dedicated people will.

I think it comes from a lot of games being designed around making it accessible rather than making it so players really have to use their wits and the options the games provide to do crazy stuff.

But yeah, it's why you can never take one review to heart and why the access of other gamers on twitch/YouTube/etc is such a great thing.


True. They've been on this path for a long time, and yes, I'm sure they started this with the ambition of doing something innovative.

Thing is, they didn't succeed. The way QB tells it's story is pretty old fashioned (and in my opinion pretty boring to, regardless of the qualities of the story itself - which I found lacking too). We had a discussion about those episodes being cutscenes or not a few pages back.

There is actually nothing QB does that hasn't been done before, and often even better. The only thing separating it from for instance MGS4 with it's overlong cutscènes is the fact it's 'show' is live action. The show is not self-contained and only works when you also play the game --> so it can't be called an actual tv-show. It can be skipped and you will still understand most of the games story, but then you hurt the narrative of the game, as lots of things will be badly explained or be vague.

The junction moments and little collectibles that change the series? It's not that different from what Telltale or Quantic Dream does. It does it even worse, as the choices you make in those games are actually about characters you care about. In QB your choices don't actually concern Jack Joyce, the main character who you are actually invested in. Also, the choices don't matter at all. The timeline is set, there is only one possible ending.

And then they tell lots of it's backstory in overlong emails and stuff like that, which to me is very lazy storytelling in a game. I can live with short notes and diary fragments (though even those often break the pace to much ), but in the medium games are it is just not a good way to tell your story. You have so many other ways to do so.

QB tells his story with old techniques posed of as new. There is not a single element in which it is innovative or pushing games as a storytelling medium forwards. In contrary.

Personally I love these kind of games and I am very interested in new storytelling techniques and experiments. I found QB very disapointing in that regard.

I can't think of another game that made live action cut scenes from a different perspective that change on your actions in game. I think that's a new storytelling technique in games. The one thing you said that separates it from MGS4 is a big thing.

And the criticism about choices not mattering is one that has been used again telltale for a while. It doesn't have to have multiple endings just because your choices influence cutscenes.

The one studio I can think of that really utilizing multiple endings and choices is QD, though.



Also everyone: as an exclusive you're going to have people on both sides talking about this game to the extreme. There's a defense force and a hyperbolic criticism force.
 
Really funny and thorough review. More so than other AJ vids I've watched. It's painful to watch him slog through it. Game looks far worse than what the mixed reviews suggested. And those live action parts...oh man. All the cringe.

I've only watched 1 live action part, but although in places it's a bit hammy, I found it really added to the story when you jump back into the game part.
 
This is taken from the game manual regarding time stop.

But I mean, if I shoot someone with 6 bullets while they're stunned, how is that different from shooting 6 bullets into a time bubble that then hit the enemy all at once? You're still shooting a guy with 6 bullets who is unable to shoot you back. Mechanically it's the same thing. Even if it gives bonus damage it's hardly innovation as I'm sure there are games where enemies take bonus damage while stunned.

Again the only reason I'm brining this up is because several people have said that the gameplay is innovative. I'm just looking for examples because I'm not seeing it unless I'm grossly misunderstanding what your abilities do in this game.
 

Osahi

Member
I can't think of another game that made live action cut scenes from a different perspective that change on your actions in game. I think that's a new storytelling technique in games. The one thing you said that separates it from MGS4 is a big thing.

And the criticism about choices not mattering is one that has been used again telltale for a while. It doesn't have to have multiple endings just because your choices influence cutscenes.

The one studio I can think of that really utilizing multiple endings and choices is QD, though.

So, because it is live action it is 'innovative' and different? That's just a form factor. Those sequences could have easily been done in engine too, and it would not have made a difference (maybe the bad writing and acting would have been a less jarring)

The fact cutscenes change because of your actions is what games from Telltale and QD do for a long time. The fact your choices matter or not does not matter in this argument. My point was: it has been done before in practically the same way and to better effect (because at least your choices have consequences for the main characters you care about. For instance, the first choice in QB
who cares if she dies or not? You only get to know her if you let her live. It's not that the choices don't lead to a real different outcome, it's that the choice in itself has no meaning. At least in a good Telltale-games the choice in itself has emotional weight, regardles of the outcome
.

Sure, the concept of QB was conceived as 'something new', but in the execution it isn't at all. Storytellingwise there is nothing QB does that other games didn't before in some way or another, and often even better. The fact it is filmed in live action doesn't change a thing about that.

EDIT: it also doesn't really change on your actions in the game. It changes based on a binary choice just before the episode (not even a choice by the main character!), and maybe some collectibles you did or did not find (in a teensy way). It had a lot more potential than that imo. Say ingame you had two routes in a level, and the B-story reflected on which route Jack took or how he took on a bunch of badguys (let's say: stealthy or fullblown)... That would have been a lot more innovative (The Witcher 3 does this to a certain extent. The recent Stories: Paths of Destiny also does way more interesting things with binary choices)
 
Top Bottom