-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The GiantBomb Quick Look Thread
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
- Status
Zabka said:
I'm using EmCeeGramr's term. I think teen romance is actually fitting, but you're technically right. And yes, he didn't read it, but I don't think there's anything about the product that would actually appeal to him.
hamchan said:
Apparently some people do, though, I just gave you an example. I think the problem there actually goes deeper than that, I think there's a strong essence of 'we should like Scott Pilgrim because it references video-games right' and 'we should like Scott Pilgrim because it puts video-games at the forefront of popular culture'.
Also people here aren't telling Jeff 'you should like Scott Pilgrim because of its touching story', or even because of the way the fan-service and the story tie together. They're saying 'you should like Scott Pilgrim because you love video-games'.
Naturally, I'm not saying that that's the only reason people like it. A lot of people just like Scott Pilgrim in general. I'm referring to how the topic seems to be brought up on gaming communities (like GAF).
THE Caffeinated
Member
They nailed it right off the bat "I can't decide if this is really cool or if they're trying too hard"
Either way though, Beat 'em ups are only fun for about 30 minutes.
Either way though, Beat 'em ups are only fun for about 30 minutes.
I'm surprised at the responses here, I'm utterly sick of Scott Pilgrim everywhere I go and I've yet to see a single clip of the film or page of the comic. I played the game and hated it. I thought the quicklook was totally appropriate for the title and the buzz around the IP lately. And I don't mind Michael Cera.
I am extremely bummed that Scott Pilgrim has gotten to the point where people seem to hate it just because it is the "it" thing of the moment on the Internet.
Can we just go back to the fans loving it and the everyone else ignoring it once the movie doesn't do that well at the box office (despite its awesomeness)?
Can we just go back to the fans loving it and the everyone else ignoring it once the movie doesn't do that well at the box office (despite its awesomeness)?
PounchEnvy said:
BOMBA at the box office- http://www.deadline.com/2010/08/fir...m34m-eat-pray-love-8m23m-scott-pilgrim-5m12m/
now go and rant about how hollywood SHOULD love scott pilgram and how everyone SHOULD go and buy 7 dvds each to cover up the cost of the movie. cause you know, its our duty as gamermans !!1!
hamchan said:
felt a bit mean, because its obvious who won looking at the bomba and how no studio will ever touch that crap ever again. but i guess you have to drill it in for scott pilgram fans to make them understand, just like the "comedy" they enjoy, so i guess i shouldnt have changed it.
enjoy your movie, no ones stopping you. just like how Jeff and brad arent stoping you from playing the game. just dont go into other good movie threads and complain about how other people should love it because its their duty
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
WTF is going on here!? Go argue about scott pilgrim in the official threads. You're ruining a perfectly good giant bomb thread here, folks.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
Stop whining, people. If you love Scott Pilgrim, sweet. If you don't, cool. There's no need to agree on anything.
Retro-ism is annoying at times though, I'd have to agree there. Although the Scott Pilgrim game isn't so super-retro that it gets sticky and weird. My guess is that it would be less awesome if it didn't have pixelart+chiptunes.
Reducing gaming, even in retro stuff, to 80s-90s Nintendo stuff is weird and off-putting to me, especially since, like Draft just mentioned, the Jaguar existed at some point. Or the Amiga 500. Or the MS-DOS PC with a Voodoo card.
But as long as you're not proclaiming that mindset as The One Truth, go ahead and deprive yourself of additional awesomeness beyond Goombas. No point in berating you if you're happy with what you like!
Heal the world etc
Retro-ism is annoying at times though, I'd have to agree there. Although the Scott Pilgrim game isn't so super-retro that it gets sticky and weird. My guess is that it would be less awesome if it didn't have pixelart+chiptunes.
Reducing gaming, even in retro stuff, to 80s-90s Nintendo stuff is weird and off-putting to me, especially since, like Draft just mentioned, the Jaguar existed at some point. Or the Amiga 500. Or the MS-DOS PC with a Voodoo card.
But as long as you're not proclaiming that mindset as The One Truth, go ahead and deprive yourself of additional awesomeness beyond Goombas. No point in berating you if you're happy with what you like!
Heal the world etc
Lunchbox said:
I'm not going into other threads saying that though. The majority of fans aren't doing that. There are a few people doing that but the same thing happens for nearly every property when it's "in".
Were you doing this whole hate tirade against Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 back when they were mentioned in every topic?
If not, your hate directed towards Scott Pilgrim fans isn't logical.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
wmat said:
That's just generational, which is why I'm sure the GB guys get excited over River Raid coming to Game Room rather than the Scott Pilgrim game. Most North Americans in their late 20s/early 30s are Nintendo fans though.
hamchan said:
uncharted2 was a fantastic game that received critical acclaim, sold a lot, was a hit, a lot of people enjoyed it. so when other good games came out people compared it to other video games
who and what is scott pilgram? why should everyone like it? unlike uncharted 2, its forced durr hurr vidya games references are targeted towards a specific audience. not the mainstream. so why should a mainstream site like giantbomb be forced to like it? they arent a comic book site in the first place. you said, "there are a few people doing it," well the hate from everyone else is obviously towards them since they soured this scott pilgrim even more than before with their "its our duty as gamers" crap, and now theres a backlash
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think you're taking the whole Scott Pilgrim thing too personally. :lol
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
We get It: you don't care for Scott Pilgrim. It's ok, we'll get over your dislike of it soon enough.Lunchbox said:
Lunchbox said:
But... the film is out. And covers the entire six volumes. What does this mean? There was never going to be a sequel because the entire story has been told. :lol
I realize that this is the least of your concerns right now since you seem pretty busy handling the Scott Pilgrim menace's affront to the very fabric of our society, but if you could clarify what your epic burn there was supposed to mean, would be cool.
Man you don't have to like it but you don't have to be an ass to the fans. I've never read any Scott Pilgrim. I haven't played the game or plan on seeing the movie. Although I have been interested the franchise I don't think I would qualify as a fan.
So going with that I obviously have very little connection to the franchise and even now I can see you're like a dick. I could see myself being even more offended if I was a fan.
So there. :|
So going with that I obviously have very little connection to the franchise and even now I can see you're like a dick. I could see myself being even more offended if I was a fan.
So there. :|
Stabby McSter
Member
i didn't know this was a screened.com thread!
untoldhero
Member
*shrugs* My mate read and loved all the volumes of Scott Pilgrim and he didn't even get the game references that were in it.
Maybe you guys should actually look at what makes the property good and not what you have been told.
You are right though about them shitting on the game. I don't see why, I mean it is amazing. But from what I can tell they usually complain if the game is too hard.
Maybe you guys should actually look at what makes the property good and not what you have been told.
You are right though about them shitting on the game. I don't see why, I mean it is amazing. But from what I can tell they usually complain if the game is too hard.
I feel like I watched a different quicklook than the rest of you. Jeff's criticisms of the winks and nods throughout the game were pretty minor IMO, and his main criticism that he spent half the quicklook talking about was that it is a pretty direct ripoff of a great NES game. I think that was perfectly legit. He also constantly reminds you that he hasn't read any of the books. He's not saying that as a defense for his criticism, he's saying it specifically for you angry folks out there to let you know that he might not be the best judge for the game and that his opinions of the franchise aren't going to be very fleshed out. Remember, this is a quicklook, not a 'review.' There's a big difference!
obonicus said:
No. The argument is "you should at least KNOW about Scott Pilgrim because you love video games". It's something akin to those librarians in the midwest who were calling on banning Harry Potter books because they heard that they were "anti-christian". Ignoring what is popular without looking into why it's popular doesn't lead to a greater knowledge of anything. It leads to ignorance. The irony being that people are discarding the Scott Pilgrim IP as some sort of "hipster" property, yet the real "hipsters" are those who are dismissing it without question.
The point I was making in the last page (if anyone bothered to read what I actually wrote) was that, regardless of whether they care about Scott Pilgrim is up to them, but they should at least know SOMETHING about its background before judging on its game. The SHOULD's that everyone highlighted weren't pertaining to people who "SHOULD" like the game. It's that people on the site "SHOULD" like/love video games and therefore "SHOULD" at least know about the hottest video game related property currently in the hands of the mainstream media.
I never wrote that Jeff or Brad or anyone SHOULD like Scott Pilgrim, because that's not right under any situation. People should like what they like, people that just casually dismiss what other people like without looking into it are ignorant. Not bad, but literally ignorant.
That being said, GB are still awesome in my book and I have no beef with them. I mean any site that creates GameCop is aaaaallllright in my book.
Hot Coldman
Banned
I blame the people who asked for a Scott Pilgrim QL in the first place. You all knew what was going to happen.
Anyway, I'll prolly watch the movie, enjoy it, enjoy Giant Bomb, Lunchbox and co. will continue enjoy trolling people, I'll continue just about managing not to care and this thread will hopefully get away from this BS.
Anyway, I'll prolly watch the movie, enjoy it, enjoy Giant Bomb, Lunchbox and co. will continue enjoy trolling people, I'll continue just about managing not to care and this thread will hopefully get away from this BS.
elrechazado
Banned
Giving orders to jeff is ok though. Because you're not nobody.Curufinwe said:
This topic changes depending on what they Quick Look. I suppose your version of on topic is:Myomoto said:Oh boo fucking hoo for me showing some interest in keeping this thread on topic. Obviously I'M the villain here.
"New Quick Look:_______ !"
"Well that was funny"
"Yep"
"..."
"New Quick Look:_______!"
Repeat until Giant Bomb shuts down.
hamchan said:
So I guess a major shitstorm about how a group of people likes something, vaguely related to a quick look, that another group dislikes, is somehow relevant to the topic of giant bomb quick looks?
I don't care about Scott Pilgrim, but I'd honestly prefer that this topic doesn't devolve into a bunch of angry people throwing their shit at each other, because somebody dares have a different opinion than them. If you're going to have the discussion, fine. But for the love of God stop acting like 5 year-olds like Lunchbox is so obviously doing/trying to make people do.
- Status