-
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
_/¯I think the powers mesh together pretty well. You can actually get fairly creative with how you use them to dispatch enemies.
continued
chillybright
Banned
Joe's video is usually too long for me but this one got me hooked. Great and hilarious review and I agree most of his points. Game is
.
average at best
Such a hollow statement when he goes to great lengths to explain exactly his gripes with the game.
Lys Skygge
Member
I like this. Being able to see if reviewers "get" the game before they post their review scores. This is actually really nice.
Freeman76
Member
He doesnt need to give low score reviews for clicks and attention, you're wrong there. You just don't agree with his reviews. He is pretty much spot on every time in my books, he doesnt get drawn in by fanboy hype though like 90% of the gaming community. He plays a game, inside out, and points out non-biased facts, and lets face it in an age where so many gamers post reviews its good to have someone who tells it like it is. There are a million reviewers who post the same shit as everyone else, just check the review threads on here, every other post is "heres mine", we need people like Angry Joe to counter all the army of youtube reviewers who ARE just looking for clicks and attention.
I quit watching his reviews ever since he made false and hyperbolic comments about Halo 5 during his review of the game. He said and I quote, "343 Industries removed split-screen without any prior warnings". Angry Joe must gave been living under a rock then because 343 Industries were upfront and transparent about the lack of split-screen since it's E3 showing last year.
His statement aswell about the lack of content at launch (a valid point) meaning he had to review the game as it was at that present time also showed his biased attitude, as he knocked points off the game for his unwarranted fears that 343 Industries would later make Halo 5's or Halo 6's entire multiplayer use the REQ system/pay to win setup. Thats hardly reviewing the game for what it is, isn't it?!
I had my own criticisms of Halo 5 but holy crap Angry Joe was obviously biased with his review.
His statement aswell about the lack of content at launch (a valid point) meaning he had to review the game as it was at that present time also showed his biased attitude, as he knocked points off the game for his unwarranted fears that 343 Industries would later make Halo 5's or Halo 6's entire multiplayer use the REQ system/pay to win setup. Thats hardly reviewing the game for what it is, isn't it?!
I had my own criticisms of Halo 5 but holy crap Angry Joe was obviously biased with his review.
Angry Joe is the new Yatzhee but instead of being popular for being funny he's popular for being critical and in depth.
I see Joe having longer longevity than Zero Punctuation because his content is more useful.
He has a 2 weaknesses but they haven't crippled him.
Freeman76
Member
If you actually believed in that statement you wouldnt feel the need to tell people they are wrong.
johnnydrama
Banned
I finished my third playthrough today. There is a lot to love in this game, but it is also a very flawed game. I do not like the live action sequences at all. They're competent, but completely unnecessary. While I do enjoy good cutscenes, I mostly just wanna play my damn game. I sure as hell don't want a TV show shoved into my game. The overall gameplay is a lot of fun and god, I love the time powers, but the gunplay and movement need some work. Encounters are a blast, but they are noticeably sparse, and there need to be more of them and they need to be more varied. After I had enough time to process it, I thought this was a 7.5/10. I love it to bits, because it had that personality and charm that Remedy games do, and a really smart and engaging sci-fi story which was both deep and personal, but as an overall experience, it is definitely flawed.
If you ask me, this is a solid foundation for a great franchise, and I hope Remedy build upon this. Now, about Joe's review. Never been a fan of the guy, because I don't enjoy the way he presents his content, but I watched this video, and while some of the stuff seems nitpicky, I agree with a lot of his criticisms. 5/10 is definitely a bit low, but it's the guy's opinion. It's not like he has a vendetta against Microsoft or Xbox. He murdered and buried The Order 1886 as well. So basically, if you agree with his opinion, it sucks you didn't enjoy this game, but if you disagree and you did enjoy the game, please don't embarrass yourself. Him not enjoying it doesn't take anything away from your enjoyment of the game. Not until you decide to get unnecessarily mad at it.
If you ask me, this is a solid foundation for a great franchise, and I hope Remedy build upon this. Now, about Joe's review. Never been a fan of the guy, because I don't enjoy the way he presents his content, but I watched this video, and while some of the stuff seems nitpicky, I agree with a lot of his criticisms. 5/10 is definitely a bit low, but it's the guy's opinion. It's not like he has a vendetta against Microsoft or Xbox. He murdered and buried The Order 1886 as well. So basically, if you agree with his opinion, it sucks you didn't enjoy this game, but if you disagree and you did enjoy the game, please don't embarrass yourself. Him not enjoying it doesn't take anything away from your enjoyment of the game. Not until you decide to get unnecessarily mad at it.
IAmAnAgnostic
Member
From what I have seen I agree with everything Joe said. Especially the TV show parts, it is bizarre to me that the in game cut-scenes are usually far more interesting, better paced and more relevant to the actual plot. So why does the TV show even exist? Especially when they still put so much of the story into long text files. Seems like such a waste.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I haven't watched this review (I'll do it when I get into work), but I watched him playing some of Killzone Shadow Fall and thought the same: he struggled a lot and played it very straightforward, barely making any use of the variety and combat options available.
I'd be interested to see how he gets on with a challenging character action game like Devil May Cry.
The game came out last year. He wasn't paying attention to the news, thinking there would be splitscreen, and there wasn't. A bad turn of phrase perhaps, but it was a thing a lot of people were critical over.
If he had concerns about the pay to win structure of the title, they were because of what 343 put out in the game he reviewed at the time he reviewed it, and at launch.
If your trying to pin bias on him because of that, your the one out of bounds.
He played and really loved to OG DMC series. he was able to cleanly contrast it with DMC2013 in his DMC 2013 review.
No it does not. It is a fairly standard tps with power, with a 'branching' story that barely branches and a 'tv-show' that doesn't surpas the level of cutscenes (you can't watch the show without the game as you would have no clue of what is going on, so it is cutscenes that only work in context of the game ). So gameplaywise and storytellingwise there is nothing groundbreaking going on.
It is not because Remedy says they are doing something new, that they actually are
Fortinbras
Member
QB really is XB1's Order 1886. Sure the gameplay is a bit better but overall QB is as forgettable as The Order.
QB is my disappointment of the year.
Well said.
Nice appetizer for the the next NPD thread, Abdiel, thanks. Can we expect you to repost this when the time comes, just in case SalesGAF did not click on this thread?
Psyrgery ES
Member
Lol no.
Gamezone
Gold Member
I need a good story, but not that long cutscenes. I remember Max Payne 3 was annoying as hell because of all the cutscenes. Not sure if I played or watched it.
Kralamoonard
Member
He raises some valid points even though I don't agree with the score. I felt the gameplay was the best part of the game and made it excellent, so if anything, a 8.5/10, so he may have perhaps been a bit hard on the game design, although he's entitled to his opinion.
FWIW, thread whining is frowned upon here and I'm sure if you've got a problem, take it up with a mod since AJ's review threads have been on GAF a while and the mods have been ok with it. Just saying as you probably want to be on the safe side (as I've seen people get banned before for questioning a threads existence).
Besides, thinking that all he does is get angry based on just his name, is simply facile. (I also take it by that comment and time posted you hadn't watched the whole video which really doesn't help your case).
It's also funny since you label it as a 'poor review' when it's more detailed and in-depth than many reviews nowadays. Perhaps, actually respond to his points next time rather than using the 'angry' card (as if that's a valid argument). If anything, it's quite reductive rather than constructive and just boils down to 'I'm irritated he scored this game that I liked lower than I would have liked' so let me use a cop-out criticism by attacking him and not even responding to his criticism, (which he's entitled to may I add - which you seem upset by the latter concept).
It's also selective in the sense to see that when he scores other games higher (or one you agree with), his angry 'shtick' somehow disappears and isn't used as an ad hominem. Your attempt to discredit him is not a compelling argument at all and perhaps responding to his actual points, like a normal discussion, would be better for all of us next time.
I mean damn, my comment does read a bit harshly, but I mean all of this genuinely. For someone who writes for a website, it's just weird to see this coming from you as you'd think you'd know all of this and people dish you out the same crap (and FWIW, I have nothing against you, or your website -- I actually like a lot of the content you produce on DS, especially your succinct summary on long ass livestreams).
It just seems to me, you clearly dislike the guy based on his previous threads, for the same reasoning, so why keep visiting them with drive-bys if you have nothing worthwhile to say? It's a genuine question as I've seen you make the exact points before. Seriously, it would save everyone the headache.
Exactly. And most of the posts such as the one above don't even dare address his opinion and points, but rather think it's better to drive-by shit post with adhominrm attacks, so it's best people stop acting as if they have anything compelling to say and exit the thread, unless they actually contribute to the discussion.
And heh, it's funny you say the first point since people on his channel were complaining he wasn't getting them fast out enough. FWIW, he actually used to do reviews more regularly but as time went on, he's gotten much more busier.
FWIW, thread whining is frowned upon here and I'm sure if you've got a problem, take it up with a mod since AJ's review threads have been on GAF a while and the mods have been ok with it. Just saying as you probably want to be on the safe side (as I've seen people get banned before for questioning a threads existence).
Besides, thinking that all he does is get angry based on just his name, is simply facile. (I also take it by that comment and time posted you hadn't watched the whole video which really doesn't help your case).
It's also funny since you label it as a 'poor review' when it's more detailed and in-depth than many reviews nowadays. Perhaps, actually respond to his points next time rather than using the 'angry' card (as if that's a valid argument). If anything, it's quite reductive rather than constructive and just boils down to 'I'm irritated he scored this game that I liked lower than I would have liked' so let me use a cop-out criticism by attacking him and not even responding to his criticism, (which he's entitled to may I add - which you seem upset by the latter concept).
It's also selective in the sense to see that when he scores other games higher (or one you agree with), his angry 'shtick' somehow disappears and isn't used as an ad hominem. Your attempt to discredit him is not a compelling argument at all and perhaps responding to his actual points, like a normal discussion, would be better for all of us next time.
I mean damn, my comment does read a bit harshly, but I mean all of this genuinely. For someone who writes for a website, it's just weird to see this coming from you as you'd think you'd know all of this and people dish you out the same crap (and FWIW, I have nothing against you, or your website -- I actually like a lot of the content you produce on DS, especially your succinct summary on long ass livestreams).
It just seems to me, you clearly dislike the guy based on his previous threads, for the same reasoning, so why keep visiting them with drive-bys if you have nothing worthwhile to say? It's a genuine question as I've seen you make the exact points before. Seriously, it would save everyone the headache.
Exactly. And most of the posts such as the one above don't even dare address his opinion and points, but rather think it's better to drive-by shit post with adhominrm attacks, so it's best people stop acting as if they have anything compelling to say and exit the thread, unless they actually contribute to the discussion.
And heh, it's funny you say the first point since people on his channel were complaining he wasn't getting them fast out enough. FWIW, he actually used to do reviews more regularly but as time went on, he's gotten much more busier.
He seems to be really upset about game design in general. All his negative points regarding the gameplay can be applied to almost every game. Games do not allow you to interact with everything in the environment. That is something he seemed really upset about.
Also, I had to cringe when he kept talking about ''immersion''.
Also, I had to cringe when he kept talking about ''immersion''.
Glorified G
Member
No way, how could you tell?
Wait, aren't you the biggest Ryse fan on GAF?
travisbickle
Member
The tv show doesn't look as good as I thought it would.
Except it wasn't a secret and mainstream game media were reporting it, so as a journalist he should have done his research. But instead he made a false and biased claim that 343 Industries mislead everyone on splitscreen when they didn't.
No he didn't, he made false statements and reviewed the game for what he feared it would turn into (which it hasn't) and instead it became even better.
Hardly since the reasons for my opinion on his review is available for all to see. Again, I don't disagree with him on everything, but his Halo 5 review was biased from how he presented it.
You can never interacting with everything, but what you can interact with should be consistent throughout. If at one point you can use contextual time powers to unlock a door, it makes no sense why you couldn't do it later.
This is probably the worst logic I've ever seen.
Quantum Break's story is incredible. A week after release and it still sticks. So many incredible scenes and potential background story.
The world building and atmosphere is second to none. People judging the game from the reviews are doing their selves an incredible disservice by not experiencing it for themselves. I wholeheartedly believe this is another Alan Wake. An amazing game behind average reviews.
It is by no means an average experience, IMO.
Your being disingenuous. He was clearly looking at a game that didn't play by its own rules to encourage freedom and player experimentation. He hated the linearity of the game because the design of the levels made it too obvious that there was a single path with no real room for going off the beaten road.
He loved Last of Us and that was linear as well. Difference is, it had a lot more collectable mini search points and side paths to break up simply going in one direction which this game does not have.
He makes a valid point that if your going to encourage the player to time manipulate stuff, suddenly confining that to small sections is bad game design, especially when concerning the exact same situation you were already able to manipulate through a predetermined setpiece.
I'm dumbfounded that this game got such low scores. That's the controversy imo
chillybright
Banned
Too bad it is.
It's not another classic by Remedy.
But, to each his/her own...
Lol yes.
See, I can do this too. Driveby is too easy. I agree with Joe's opinion on this one and he explained them with a lengthy video. If you don't know how to make a compelling counter argument, here is a pro tip:
back it up with examples.
The criticisms are shown along with video evidence. It's a fine review in that sense.
Adding my own, I found the game to be extremely uneven.
- The TV show ranged overall from bad to terrible. You can see some of the scenes in his video; The scenes with Charlie in particular are incredibly bad.
- The Game/TV/Game/TV/Game format is a hinderance to the game. There's no sense of pacing or purpose for the interruptions. It adds nothing to the game.
- The platforming is awkward, stilted and entirely unnecessary.
- Combat is the saving grace of the game: Punchy, fun, varied, interesting.
- The story is forgettable.
- The level design is hyperlinear, predictable and unremarkable. Nothing stands out, save for the impressive-looking setpieces.
- Which leads to another cardinal sin: The setpieces have unremarkable gameplay, because it typically focuses on exactly the bad platforming.
Eh. It's a very solid and fun shooter wrapped in bad decisions. There is a period in the game where the shooting saved it and I was very excited about playing it -- I didn't even want it to the end. Eventually, it just plain fell apart IMO.
Adding my own, I found the game to be extremely uneven.
- The TV show ranged overall from bad to terrible. You can see some of the scenes in his video; The scenes with Charlie in particular are incredibly bad.
- The Game/TV/Game/TV/Game format is a hinderance to the game. There's no sense of pacing or purpose for the interruptions. It adds nothing to the game.
- The platforming is awkward, stilted and entirely unnecessary.
- Combat is the saving grace of the game: Punchy, fun, varied, interesting.
- The story is forgettable.
- The level design is hyperlinear, predictable and unremarkable. Nothing stands out, save for the impressive-looking setpieces.
- Which leads to another cardinal sin: The setpieces have unremarkable gameplay, because it typically focuses on exactly the bad platforming.
Eh. It's a very solid and fun shooter wrapped in bad decisions. There is a period in the game where the shooting saved it and I was very excited about playing it -- I didn't even want it to the end. Eventually, it just plain fell apart IMO.
AmethystEnd
Member
This is why I like most of Joe's reviews. If he makes a claim about bullshit happening, there's video showing the bullshit happening.
That part with the enemy shooting his afk character for 10 minutes and failing to kill him is just utterly ridiculous.
Freeman76
Member
Worst login you have ever seen? Are you serious?
You ram your opinion of it down peoples throats and tell them they are wrong, then basically say live and let live. You must be deluded about what logic means pal.
World building second to none? Jesus man, thank GAF for the ignore function!
But neither the video title or the description give any indication that he didn't like the game.
Freeman76
Member
Also I find it a bit hard to understand when people say he should do his reviews quicker, then jump on him for 'attention and click seeking' when actually his method of reviewing is the opposite. He gives the game plenty of time and produces a balanced and thought out review based on the whole picture.
The Division is a great example of this. I loved that game for the first week, until it's gameplay loop finally sank in and I got bored of it. In the first week I would have given that a 9/10, 3 weeks later probably a 6/10 after seeing the overall picture. Joe knows this and works it into his structure, therefore becoming a more reliable source of information to me.
People saying he does this for clicks are just plain ignorant to what really goes on.
AmethystEnd
Member
You think the person you quoted actually watched and listened to Joe's points?
cripterion
Member
Why do you and others feel to come here and bitch about it if it bothers you? Can't you just avoid the thread?
About QB, the game seems rather boring, ever since they revealed the real actors I felt the game lost some of it luster somehow, initial reveal was intriguing though.
That plus a stinky pc version killed any interest I've ever had in it.
Oh yeah that 14:54 segment sure shows it's a great shooter...
Maybe just maybe he disliked the game and it's not that good for others?
Gravy Boat
Member
You watched a 30 minute review in 10 minutes?
StrongBlackVine
Banned
All you are doing is making yourself look butthurt with these childish responses.
I did. But not very long. Gunplay feels terrible imho. And I'm not 'claiming it' I actually saw it. My best buddy played through it in ~4 hours. If you want (and have the time) you can watch how this guy here completed it in under 4 hours on his first playthrough.
Exactly
Joe get clicks regardless.
I lol @ these fanboys that spread the word like wildfires. And then wonder why so many people look at his videos?
This coming from an xbox shill...good lord. Didn't you defend every xbox 1st party exclusive and weren't you like marketing Ryse? That makes your opinion on this just tainted and worthless.
You're right. You can't interact with everything in games. That's not his problem with QB. The problem is the game doesn't make sense regarding what you can interact with. His door-critique for instance: one time he can just rewind untill a door is open, the next time he must find an alternative route. This is something that didn't bug me though, as it's more a plothole really. (the door he rewinds is a button press, like when Drake in Uncharted can bang open a certain door while he can't bang open another)
The bigger problem (which bothered me a lot during the platform sections) is that Jack can sometimes pull himeself up to a pretty high wall, but the next moment can't climb a container the same size. There is a section in a trainyard that is pretty jarring. You feel like you can climb 50% of the environment because the containers are hights Jack has climbed before, but you can't! No, you have to find some lower boxes next to a container before you can jump one. It's bad game and level design...
I don't mind linearity at all. Hell, games like these are my favourite genre. But good level design means the linearity makes sense and doesn't feel to hard like a game designer pulling you into the direction he wants you to be in. The Last of Us for instance is a prime example of that done right.