Angry Joe LOVED Pillars Of Eternity

[Sordel]

With any YouTuber you have to get a sense of what their personal biases are. A lot will overrate games that stream well, or games that are short and that they can get out of the way easily. AJ's bias is towards multiplayer because that's what he enjoys, but in other respects he's probably the fairest critic on YouTube and certainly the one that I trust most. Had he trashed PoE I would actually have been very worried because it seems like the sort of game he would really get behind.

[CaptainMace]

 

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me !

 

I haven't played Isolation yet but the criticisms I have read about is that you spend too  much time sneaking around and avoiding Aliens than you do killing them, is this is valid ?

 

You can't kill the aliens per say, gameplay-wise the flamethrower is the only way to face the alien, and it only makes it go away. It's indeed a sneaking game overall.

Plus, I don't understand how it's a bad thing unless these people expected a shooter. It's not. It's an alien game

 

Edit : just realized tamerlane already said it all.

Edited February 24, 2015 by CaptainMace

[BruceVC]

 

 

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me !

 

I haven't played Isolation yet but the criticisms I have read about is that you spend too  much time sneaking around and avoiding Aliens than you do killing them, is this is valid ?

 

It, uh... it was a stealth survival horror game. I don't know how "too much sneaking, not enough killing" is even a conceivable problem for such a game.

 

 

 

 

 

Alien Isolation is the best damn thing that happened to Alien since Alien itself. Yeah I don't like AlienS, sue me !

 

I haven't played Isolation yet but the criticisms I have read about is that you spend too  much time sneaking around and avoiding Aliens than you do killing them, is this is valid ?

 

You can't kill the aliens per say, gameplay-wise the flamethrower is the only way to face the alien, and it only makes it go away. It's indeed a sneaking game overall.

Plus, I don't understand how it's a bad thing unless these people expected a shooter. It's not. It's an alien game

 

Edit : just realized tamerlane already said it all.

 

 

Fair enough, thanks for the feedback

[GrinningReaper659]

Imo, if you apply this scheme to PoE it would miss one thing which is important in its particular case: developers' preferences. They knew what kind of games they want to make, Kickstarter helped them to find fanbase of games of this type to fund it. All debatable design decisions Josh made since then aren't going from wish to "broad the audience", but because Mr. Sawyer genuinely thinks it'll make the game better (maybe he's even right, we'll see that yet). There was no "targeting fanbase A/B/C" in this case to begin with, and I sincerely hope there won't be for sequel or expansions.

So, again: why would anyone care how mainstream gamers will like PoE?

 

 

So PoE didn't target the IE fanbase of the IE games? How's that? I already said why people would care. I'm not forgetting developer preferences, I understand that they decide the game, but that doesn't mean that developers aren't building a game with a target audience in mind, you'd have to be blind to think that, especially in the case of PoE.

 

IMO you are not looking at this correctly, I think that most developers don't generally change their games for the worst unless a short sighted greedy publisher forces them to (EA\Activision).

 

If what you typed was true than Obsidian would have already left the RPG bussiness creating only generic teenage FPS with RPG elements. It is more profitable to create both games that appeal to the majority and games that appeal to a certain nische and not to kill the nische related genre by creating an hybrid, and considering that there are so many majority based games and that they cost a lot more to produce  while most of them eventually fail I don't think there is a chance that the POE franchise (if it will  ever become one ) will become dumber or more action oriented if this is what you mean (a la D:A?). It is a big gamble to turn against your devoted fan base even if the game succeeds .

 

Furthermore I don't think that people that will enjoy P:E will want the game to become dumber. Just to appreciate such games you have to be able to understand the mechanics and to get into the story. The casual stupid COD gamers who don't want to waste any mental effort on playing will not be interested in such games, but there are many strategy fans and some MMO fans that plays deeper games and might love this one and won't try to push it to dumber directions if they will join the fan base.

 

Angry Joe for instance is a great fan of the CIV series and of the Total war series. Those games do attract intellectual people and some of them do watch his reviews.

 

Well, publisher's don't have exclusive rights to greed. Explain to me how Bioware goes from making the BG games to making the games it makes now, and you will have proved my point. I don't know which participants are most greedy, I'm sure there's plenty to spread around between the developers as well, they aren't the slaves of publishers. So, again, the fact that it does happen, as in the case of Bioware, proves that it can happen. Just because a developer isn't targeting the most massive fanbase they can today, doesn't mean that they won't be tomorrow. You say they'd be making the highest selling sorts of games today if they were the type of devs to ever do that, but that's not true. I mean, there are only a few top dogs among those massive game markets, so there's really no reason to think you can compete in them until you make a game that draws the attention of those fans. Again, the devs at Bioware or Bethesda or other companies didn't start out making the most popular RPGs available today, they started out somewhere making something smaller and made decisions along the way that got them where they are now.

 

I don't think that Obsidian is gonna release Pillars of Eternity 2: Global Assault! Now with First Person Perspective and Assault Rifles!!! I'm pretty sure that if they release a sequel they will stick to their design vision, but that doesn't make it impossible for small sacrifices to be made to appease a new, expanded fanbase which greatly differs from the original fanbase; and it is not too inconceivable that they might start producing similiar but different games in the future because there is a market for them (why souldn't they?).

 

Somehow you think it's impossible for a dev studio to go from making one type of game to making a more popular type of game that the fans of their original games may not enjoy, despite seeing examples of it all over the place, and I'm not sure why that is. It seems pretty obvious to me that such things can and frequently do happen. I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind those who are uninterested in this game drawing in mainstream gamers.

 

The other thing that may help in the continued development of niche titles is the Kickstarter model which allowed this game to happen in the first place, which will hopefully allow Obsidian to look at its bottom line and say, "Okay, we can make more niche games like these and remain reasonably profitable." In other words, I do want this game to sell well if it means future titles in the same style as this one, but I'm not too excited about the possibility of a massively expanded fanbase for the game.

[ruzen]

8 pages for this?!

U wot m8

[archangel979]

Is an angry joe like a totalbiscuit? I don't follow youtube personalities. I presume from the conversation this is a significantly good thing? Is the demographic for these people that significant?

Nope, TotalBiscuit is actually a fair reviewer that is older and knows and understands how modern games have gone down the drain in last 10ish years. His Dragon Age Inquisition reviews was less than stellar and he often reviews indie games and less AAA games and bashes mercilessly on all AAA games that are bad (Destiny, Watchdogs) without fear of anyone.

He also invested a lot of his own money and time to run his own esports team and help young players from around the world compete in Starcraft 2.

Edited February 24, 2015 by archangel979

[Valmy]

 

Is an angry joe like a totalbiscuit? I don't follow youtube personalities. I presume from the conversation this is a significantly good thing? Is the demographic for these people that significant?

Nope, TotalBiscuit is actually a fair reviewer that is older and knows and understands how modern games have gone down the drain in last 10ish years. His Dragon Age Inquisition reviews was less than stellar and he often reviews indie games and less AAA games and bashes mercilessly on all AAA games that are bad (Destiny, Watchdogs) without fear of anyone.

He also invested a lot of his own money and time to run his own esports team and help young players from around the world compete in Starcraft 2.

 

Are you suggesting that if somebody does not hate everything released in the past ten years you are unfair or biased in some way?

[Elerond]

 

Is an angry joe like a totalbiscuit? I don't follow youtube personalities. I presume from the conversation this is a significantly good thing? Is the demographic for these people that significant?

Nope, TotalBiscuit is actually a fair reviewer that is older and knows and understands how modern games have gone down the drain in last 10ish years. His Dragon Age Inquisition reviews was less than stellar and he often reviews indie games and less AAA games and bashes mercilessly on all AAA games that are bad (Destiny, Watchdogs) without fear of anyone.

He also invested a lot of his own money and time to run his own esports team and help young players from around the world compete in Starcraft 2.

 

 

TotalBiscuit don't review games, which is thing that he constantly repeats, he only gives first impressions. He and Joe have much different way to approach games and they have bit different tastes. And they target their channels bit differently, like for example Total Biscuit looks only PC games and focuses quite lot on indie games and games that he things need more recognizability, where Joe don't focus any specific platform (although he currently favors PC) and he reviews mostly games that he is interested or that are hyped lot. 

 

Reviews and first impressions are always subjective, meaning that one can't be any fairer than another, because they give subjective opinion of the game. Of course one could argue that TotalBiscuits format to show more unedited game video and comment over it is fairer way to do things than Joes way to show gameplay clips that show what he is talking at that moment, but both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. 

 

It should be remembered that when you look reviews and first impressions you should look up what kind games reviewer/critic likes then you have better ability to determine how well reviewer's/critic's opinions correspond with you tastes.

[barakav]

Well, publisher's don't have exclusive rights to greed. Explain to me how Bioware goes from making the BG games to making the games it makes now, and you will have proved my point. I don't know which participants are most greedy, I'm sure there's plenty to spread around between the developers as well, they aren't the slaves of publishers. So, again, the fact that it does happen, as in the case of Bioware, proves that it can happen. Just because a developer isn't targeting the most massive fanbase they can today, doesn't mean that they won't be tomorrow. You say they'd be making the highest selling sorts of games today if they were the type of devs to ever do that, but that's not true. I mean, there are only a few top dogs among those massive game markets, so there's really no reason to think you can compete in them until you make a game that draws the attention of those fans. Again, the devs at Bioware or Bethesda or other companies didn't start out making the most popular RPGs available today, they started out somewhere making something smaller and made decisions along the way that got them where they are now.

 

I don't think that Obsidian is gonna release Pillars of Eternity 2: Global Assault! Now with First Person Perspective and Assault Rifles!!! I'm pretty sure that if they release a sequel they will stick to their design vision, but that doesn't make it impossible for small sacrifices to be made to appease a new, expanded fanbase which greatly differs from the original fanbase; and it is not too inconceivable that they might start producing similiar but different games in the future because there is a market for them (why souldn't they?).

 

Somehow you think it's impossible for a dev studio to go from making one type of game to making a more popular type of game that the fans of their original games may not enjoy, despite seeing examples of it all over the place, and I'm not sure why that is. It seems pretty obvious to me that such things can and frequently do happen. I'm not saying that any of this is going to happen, I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind those who are uninterested in this game drawing in mainstream gamers.

 

The other thing that may help in the continued development of niche titles is the Kickstarter model which allowed this game to happen in the first place, which will hopefully allow Obsidian to look at its bottom line and say, "Okay, we can make more niche games like these and remain reasonably profitable." In other words, I do want this game to sell well if it means future titles in the same style as this one, but I'm not too excited about the possibility of a massively expanded fanbase for the game.

For your first point ,It is obvious that Bioware was heavily influenced by EA to move for the direction of action oriented titles as they created Mass Effect (Which BTW still has an excellent story arc even if it rips off Star Control 2 a bit) and the last Dragon age titles which are hybrids.

 

And I think I haven't made my point clear enough (probably the language gap ). Look at Evolve and how it fails horribly, most FPS players will tell you that it won't survive for a year or two if they won't add more content. Look at the Elder scrolls online and how it failed when Zenimax thought that they could sell their garbage based on the hype of Skyrim alone. It is a great risk to change a winning formula and try to appeal to the masses while you have such a dedicated fan base . If someone in Obsidian will want to create a game that will be popular among the average COD players, it will be best to start a new IP and not to change PE and lose the current fanbase without any promise that the game succeed.

 

I personally think that the gamble that Bioware took with the Dragon Age series in DA 2 wasn't very smart to begin with ,even if it eventually worked ,as you can see in Metacritic ,how many old DA:O fans are now hating their new twist to the series.

 

Also you must accept the fact that even in this community backers don't tend to agree on everything and you can't expect the game to be exactly fit for your taste alone. You might argue that a bigger fanbase means that each individual will have less impact on the development but I believe that in the important things the developers will make their own choices like they always have done.

 

Today ,many game developers are artists and I don't think that they will happily change the bigger vision of their games based on forum posts and this is great! look at Planescape torment for example ,this game su*** as  a game ,but I wouldn't change it as it is perfect only because of its' universe and its' story. Do you think that it would have been so great with the developers trying to answer to every fan whim and wasting precious time and money ?

 

No ,I prefer that the developers of these games will have more resources that will allow them to have the freedom to create the games they envision rather than being restricted to a low budget  and being more influenced by the community,

Edited February 24, 2015 by barakav

[archangel979]

 

 

Is an angry joe like a totalbiscuit? I don't follow youtube personalities. I presume from the conversation this is a significantly good thing? Is the demographic for these people that significant?

Nope, TotalBiscuit is actually a fair reviewer that is older and knows and understands how modern games have gone down the drain in last 10ish years. His Dragon Age Inquisition reviews was less than stellar and he often reviews indie games and less AAA games and bashes mercilessly on all AAA games that are bad (Destiny, Watchdogs) without fear of anyone.

He also invested a lot of his own money and time to run his own esports team and help young players from around the world compete in Starcraft 2.

 

 

TotalBiscuit don't review games, which is thing that he constantly repeats, he only gives first impressions. He and Joe have much different way to approach games and they have bit different tastes. And they target their channels bit differently, like for example Total Biscuit looks only PC games and focuses quite lot on indie games and games that he things need more recognizability, where Joe don't focus any specific platform (although he currently favors PC) and he reviews mostly games that he is interested or that are hyped lot. 

 

Reviews and first impressions are always subjective, meaning that one can't be any fairer than another, because they give subjective opinion of the game. Of course one could argue that TotalBiscuits format to show more unedited game video and comment over it is fairer way to do things than Joes way to show gameplay clips that show what he is talking at that moment, but both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. 

 

It should be remembered that when you look reviews and first impressions you should look up what kind games reviewer/critic likes then you have better ability to determine how well reviewer's/critic's opinions correspond with you tastes.

 

While it is true that his "WTF is .." videos are just him playing a game for 30 minutes while talking about it, he does live twitch shows where he is not afraid to bash games on objective flaws that big sites are afraid to do. And he explains well why.

 

Also he does not hate modern games, but does not love them instantly because of good graphics or similar bull**** that console kiddies buy them for today.

[Luckmann]

I always thought the whole "TotalBiscuit doesn't do reviews"-thing was bollocks. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. Just because it's not called a review doesn't mean that a lot of what he does are de facto reviews, and they fulfil that function far better than most actual "reviews", much because his intent is to actually give you an idea of the game, how it works and what the good and bad sides are, not assign it an arbitrary score.

[Sordel]

Also he does not hate modern games, but does not love them instantly because of good graphics or similar bull**** that console kiddies buy them for today.

Ironic that you would call people who buy games for the graphics 'console kiddies' at the same time as praising the most spec-sheet-obsessed of PC Master-Race Youtubers. Totalbiscuit has never seen a wall he didn't want to lick.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Is an angry joe like a totalbiscuit? I don't follow youtube personalities. I presume from the conversation this is a significantly good thing? Is the demographic for these people that significant?

Nope, TotalBiscuit is actually a fair reviewer that is older and knows and understands how modern games have gone down the drain in last 10ish years. His Dragon Age Inquisition reviews was less than stellar and he often reviews indie games and less AAA games and bashes mercilessly on all AAA games that are bad (Destiny, Watchdogs) without fear of anyone.

He also invested a lot of his own money and time to run his own esports team and help young players from around the world compete in Starcraft 2.

 

 

TotalBiscuit don't review games, which is thing that he constantly repeats, he only gives first impressions. He and Joe have much different way to approach games and they have bit different tastes. And they target their channels bit differently, like for example Total Biscuit looks only PC games and focuses quite lot on indie games and games that he things need more recognizability, where Joe don't focus any specific platform (although he currently favors PC) and he reviews mostly games that he is interested or that are hyped lot. 

 

Reviews and first impressions are always subjective, meaning that one can't be any fairer than another, because they give subjective opinion of the game. Of course one could argue that TotalBiscuits format to show more unedited game video and comment over it is fairer way to do things than Joes way to show gameplay clips that show what he is talking at that moment, but both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. 

 

It should be remembered that when you look reviews and first impressions you should look up what kind games reviewer/critic likes then you have better ability to determine how well reviewer's/critic's opinions correspond with you tastes.

 

While it is true that his "WTF is .." videos are just him playing a game for 30 minutes while talking about it, he does live twitch shows where he is not afraid to bash games on objective flaws that big sites are afraid to do. And he explains well why.

 

Also he does not hate modern games, but does not love them instantly because of good graphics or similar bull**** that console kiddies buy them for today.

 

 

But even his twitch streams aren't reviews but even fresher first impressions of his as he gets familiar with games (if he don't play Dota 2 or Heartstone, which he plays much more, although at late those streams have been quite rare, probably because of his health issues). In review you should have much fuller picture about game (quoting here TotalBiscuit himself). 

 

Objective flaws are bugs or features that don't work (pointing these out isn't any unique feature that TotalBiscuit has, like you can see from Joe's Total War Rome II's review), everything else is more or less subjective flaws. 

 

And I haven't seen Joe give instantly good review for game because it is good looking. And I would point out that TotalBiscuit was quite positive about Watch Dogs (which I count in worst console kiddie hype game in last year) in his WTF, which is probably because he didn't actually played it enough to realize how repetitive it becomes.

[Lephys]

Reviews and first impressions are always subjective, meaning that one can't be any fairer than another, because they give subjective opinion of the game.

Ehhh... first impressions, sure. Reviews? Not so much. The whole point of a review is to be objective. Which is why "*5 stars* I LOVE IT!" doesn't help anyone. Unless you just wanna be like people who like stuff for unknown reasons. "Well, 5 million people love it. Those could be 5 million people who also like to punt kittens in their spare time and love rubbing steel wool on their eyeballs... I really have no clue. But... Better be like them! Don't want to miss out on a complete question mark!"

 

See, people don't necessarily like things because they're good. So, objectivity is the only thing useful in a review, really. So, if you just say "man, the graphics suck," that's useless subjectivity. If you say "The graphics aren't quite as on-par with several other games that have already released, so they aren't pushing the limits of the PS4 or anything," that's helpful. In fact, you can even follow that up with "On the plus side, that means that this game runs, on average, far better on not-top-of-the-line machines, 8D!". Pros and cons. You can't just make up subjective pros and cons. "Pro: this game has lots of blue in it. Con: I can't play this game in my kitchen because I don't have a TV in my kitchen."

 

Subjectivity has its place, but that place is not to rule over objectivity. There's no point in measuring anything with subjectivity. Even if it's not an exact science, reviews measure the quality of games. I can't subjectively measure the length of my hand. "Meh, I think it's 58 feet long." Well, that's great, but that doesn't help anyone to know the length of my hand.

 

And sure, objectivity in reviews doesn't cover everyone's subjective decision-making process of "should I get this game or not? Will I like it?", but that doesn't mean that going with subjectivity is going to do any better. Maybe I like blue in games, and maybe you don't. Telling you the game's good because it has lots of blue doesn't help you at all. Telling you it has lots of blue in it... that's at least a fact. You can use that information to better determine how you will feel about the game. "Blegh, I HATE blue, so I might not like this game." etc.

 

Annnnnnywho...

[Tamerlane]

...

 

Now what in the hell are you even talking about there?

[Lephys]

Obviously subjectivity and objectivity, as they relate to product (in this case, video game) reviewing. With an "annnywhoooo..." thrown in to suggest my own awareness of my rambling. 8P

[Snoozer]

 

Reviews and first impressions are always subjective, meaning that one can't be any fairer than another, because they give subjective opinion of the game.

Ehhh... first impressions, sure. Reviews? Not so much. The whole point of a review is to be objective. Which is why "*5 stars* I LOVE IT!" doesn't help anyone. Unless you just wanna be like people who like stuff for unknown reasons. "Well, 5 million people love it. Those could be 5 million people who also like to punt kittens in their spare time and love rubbing steel wool on their eyeballs... I really have no clue. But... Better be like them! Don't want to miss out on a complete question mark!"

 

See, people don't necessarily like things because they're good. So, objectivity is the only thing useful in a review, really. So, if you just say "man, the graphics suck," that's useless subjectivity. If you say "The graphics aren't quite as on-par with several other games that have already released, so they aren't pushing the limits of the PS4 or anything," that's helpful. In fact, you can even follow that up with "On the plus side, that means that this game runs, on average, far better on not-top-of-the-line machines, 8D!". Pros and cons. You can't just make up subjective pros and cons. "Pro: this game has lots of blue in it. Con: I can't play this game in my kitchen because I don't have a TV in my kitchen."

 

Subjectivity has its place, but that place is not to rule over objectivity. There's no point in measuring anything with subjectivity. Even if it's not an exact science, reviews measure the quality of games. I can't subjectively measure the length of my hand. "Meh, I think it's 58 feet long." Well, that's great, but that doesn't help anyone to know the length of my hand.

 

And sure, objectivity in reviews doesn't cover everyone's subjective decision-making process of "should I get this game or not? Will I like it?", but that doesn't mean that going with subjectivity is going to do any better. Maybe I like blue in games, and maybe you don't. Telling you the game's good because it has lots of blue doesn't help you at all. Telling you it has lots of blue in it... that's at least a fact. You can use that information to better determine how you will feel about the game. "Blegh, I HATE blue, so I might not like this game." etc.

 

Annnnnnywho...

 

 

It's funny you say the point of the review is to be objective yet turn around the next sentence and say that a 5 star rating isn't helpful. That's a standard. Thumbs up or thumbs down. That's another standard. A rating of 83% is objectively better than 82%. These are parsed down from all subjectivity to create an objective score.

 

But I hear you say the reviewer might have said some ridiculous or faulty statements. To which I reply, yes, because all reviews are subjective. Their opinion is molded and influenced from past experiences. This inherent bias gives the review it's "flavour", because there are many reviewers out there, which each their own tastes. The current rubric you seem to elaborate is one where you have clearly defined parameters of graphics/gameplay/control. But that might not be what your audience wants to read/see/hear. I remember hearing from a gaming podcast how there is a christian gaming website that reviews games based off its content only. And that's fine! Will I read it? Hell no. But there's an understanding between the reviewer and reader/listener/watcher that this is what they are looking for. If anything, what you are talking about is giving as much information to the consumer and letting them decide what to do with it. But to review a game, or any product, is to imbue it with your own opinion and share that opinion with someone else. Facts help relate that opinion,

 

Let us take Order 1886. Graphically beautiful game! But working at a lower resolution due to the black bars. Aesthetically pleasing! But it looks drab and lifeless. Cinematic gameplay! But that's boring and hand holding. It has QTEs! But it has QTEs. An objective fact is stale food before subjective seasoning. Let's continue with the QTE analogy; how long is an acceptable QTE? Should I state the acceptable amount of button pushes required for completion of said QTEs? What frame of reference should I use to compare these QTEs with other QTEs from other works? Objectively speaking, what are QTEs?...this can go on forever. Or you can say the game has QTEs and you hate/love them. Are the QTEs obstructive to gameplay? To me they weren't. Maybe. They might be to someone else. And they might hate Galahad. Or they might not. They might enjoy the writing. Or not. To be objective can be as much as a hindrance as being overly subjective.

 

However, the saving grace is the PLETHORA of reviews and opinions. That word is appropriate; there was print and television but now there's blogs, youtube, twitch, let's play, patreon reviewers, gaming websites, specific forums for every eclectic gaming taste. Not to mention the various types of reviews like feminist, christian, PC only, console only, technical specs aficionados, FOV slider quacks, arm chair gaming generals...who spurn the objective model because they have framed the review from a different angle. Is that wrong? Depends who you ask. But one thing I think we can both agree on; declare and state your bias before you begin the review. Let your audience know your perspective and your experience. If they find offense, there's always a dozen other reviewers willing to share their review with you.

 

 

If you want a review completely devoid of subjectivity, read this objective review by Jim Sterling on FFXIII in 2010. He is hamming it up for laughs but it gets the point across.

http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

 

We can aspire to be objective, we can work towards framing every debatable angle as objectively pristine as possible but reviews will not be devoid of all subjectivity.

[Rahkir]

...

 

Now what in the hell are you even talking about there?

I think he made a rather obvious claim and then tried to back it up with an argument. That claim being: Reviews should be objective.

 

That said, I think subjectivity has an important place in reviews, both implicitly and explicitly. The explicit: Statements akin to: "I really enjoy blue, and I really enjoy this game in the same way." (Suppose blue in this instance is not a simply measured objective quality, but rather the general "feel" or "style" of a game.) I say this is important because sometimes the objective measures of a game don't necessarily capture the "fun" of it. It can be a valuable piece of information if someone who has similar preferences to you enjoyed that game. The implicit: A reviewer who loves strategy RPGs is going to be able to review a very complex sRPG in a different way than someone who tends to play casual games. This shouldn't change the objective:subjective ratio of the review, but when I'm looking for a reviewer for some 4X strategy game or an XCOM clone, it will probably be someone who is already biased toward those genres.

 

I prefer a mix of subjective and objective in reviews. Excess either gets you a useless collection of subjective ramblings or a plain of feature list. Not every measure of a game is quantifiable. One last example: Imagine a reviewer writes: "The story in this game is extremely well written. The ending was satisfying and the journey is peppered with engaging banter between your companions." Now suppose you learn that the reviewer's list of other well written stories consists entirely of Tales of... games (a very cliche and typical console JRPG series). Do you think your interpretation of that sentence would change if instead, for example, he listed BG and PS:T?

[Lord Wafflebum]

I think we can all agree that regardless of which of the two you think is best, their reviews will be of a higher quality than Gamespot or IGN.

 

I used to really like GS, but it's getting to the point where AAA games = good, and everything else is mediocre (or worse). The reviews also vary vastly between their reviewers suggesting these sites don't work off the same metrics.

 

Since you guys seem to have a high opinion of these youtube personalities I hope they'll be able to overcome some of the inevitable silliness that comes from the mainstream review sites.

[Diogenes]

If you believe reviews of any type should be objective you are a literal crazy person or possibly a robot. Media is inherently subjective and personal, you can't reduce the experience to objective facts.

[Leferd]

If you want a review completely devoid of subjectivity, read this objective review by Jim Sterling on FFXIII in 2010. He is hamming it up for laughs but it gets the point across.

http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

 

We can aspire to be objective, we can work towards framing every debatable angle as objectively pristine as possible but reviews will not be devoid of all subjectivity.

 

 

Hahaha! This reminds me of Top Gear's "Sensible" review of the Ford Fiesta (Series 12 Episode 6). Classic.

[Karkarov]

Hahaha! This reminds me of Top Gear's "Sensible" review of the Ford Fiesta (Series 12 Episode 6). Classic.

"So now we are at that point where we look at the cars boot, as all cars need good space for storing groceries, sports gear, golf clubs and the like.  To test this we will see if we can fit a stuff moose head in the back of the trunk."

[BruceVC]

I think we can all agree that regardless of which of the two you think is best, their reviews will be of a higher quality than Gamespot or IGN.

 

I used to really like GS, but it's getting to the point where AAA games = good, and everything else is mediocre (or worse). The reviews also vary vastly between their reviewers suggesting these sites don't work off the same metrics.

 

Since you guys seem to have a high opinion of these youtube personalities I hope they'll be able to overcome some of the inevitable silliness that comes from the mainstream review sites.

 

I have to be honest but I use a combination of user reviews and normal gaming website reviews. On Gamespot for example you have the user reviews which I have found to be very consistent in their  accuracy  around what I have found was the quality of the game.

 

I don't see why people think  youtube personalities are automatically immune to the perceived corruption and influence that permeates normal gaming journalism ? 

 

Thats why I prefer user reviews 

[Lord Wafflebum]

I expect I'll ignore everyone's opinions anyway, as I've found that I have the best opinions on things.

 

 

If you believe reviews of any type should be objective you are a literal crazy person or possibly a robot. Media is inherently subjective and personal, you can't reduce the experience to objective facts.

God forbid! How could I ever expect objective journalism??

[Sordel]

I don't see why people think  youtube personalities are automatically immune to the perceived corruption and influence that permeates normal gaming journalism ? 

 

Thats why I prefer user reviews 

I would never base a buying decision on user reviews for a videogame. User reviews tend to be 'five stars, best game ever' or 'one star, worst game ever', and they don't often make clear why.

 

Of YouTubers, other than Angry Joe (who, as I've already said, I think is very fair) I'd recommend ProJared's 1-minute reviews, though he mainly sticks to console releases, often Nintendo or JRPGs. Totalbiscuit is someone I follow closely but he was very vocal about not liking Skyrim and Dragon Age: Inquisition so his taste is just too far from mine to be useful to me.

 

Of course YouTubers can be corrupt, but it tends to be glaringly obvious when they are.