250 réponses à ce sujet

[Rotward]

eluvianix wrote...

Veruin wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Even so, he does a damn better job than some "professional reviewers"

Is that seriously a profession?

Not really, but doesn't stop some people from trying to make it so.

Actually, it is. There are professional critics of every other media, there's no reason to put video game reviewers on a lower tier, just because reasons. 

[dreamgazer]

The very nature of perspective renders all "reviews", of anything, into subjective opinions.

The most objective review you'll get of a game is the strategy guide, the technical specs, and perhaps some live gameplay footage.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Starsyn wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

Viktoria Landers wrote...

Angry Joe Show.

This right here. Joe tells the truth about all.

I checked his review of DA2 after I played the game.  He didn't just randomly bash and hate on it; he was fair and brought up some good points.  AJ didn't give the game an overwhelming glowing review, but he did recommend fans to go check it out.

If anyone is curious about Joe, that review isn't a bad place to start.  

Joe also gave a game like Skyrim a perfect score, a game with more glitches and arguably narrative problems than Dragon Age II. 

Joe is not perfect, and frankly I would argue hes not even a reviewer, since it is all personality based to put on a show for entertainment purposes only. After working with the guy, that is his goal in the end as well. Presuming hes an objective reviewer, when such things don't exist, is a bad idea. 

Yes, but he knows his audience. If you identify with his persona and his perspetives presented, then chances are you will trust that when he rips on a game, it is because he thinks that you (his audience) plays it, they will rip into it as well and find kindred concepts with his review.

There is value in people who say what others want to hear. 

There is also danger in that too, because then people are closed to differing opinions, the stuff they don't want to hear, but need to. 

Real world example, why is Fox News and MSNBC so popular? They have an audience that trusts them. But, do they always tell the truth? They know what their audience likes, so they play into that heavily, truth or not, which eventually leads to a highly politically charged enviorment, when in reality, both news networks are little more than entertainment hotspots. 

[AresKeith]

People trusts Fox News?

[Billy-the-Squid]

spirosz wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...
DA2 was a crock of ****. That's where your hate came from. 

DA][ did a lot of things better than Origins, but you're just going to keep a broad statement about it?  Fair enough.  It's not a great game, but it did do certain things right and I hope that continues with DA:I, but I'm not one to not point out the obvious rushed flaws of the game.  

It did very little right, and I'm certainly not going to dredge up all the issues with everything from corner cutting, gameplay, the story and characters themselves over 2 years after release. Suffice to say I, and by the look of it, quite a few other people thought it was crap for various reasons. Some people like to come up with conspiracy theories to sooth their broken feels as to why it recieved such a kicking from various sections of the market, I prefer to call it as I see it.

[Br3admax]

AresKeith wrote...

People trusts Fox News?

E'eryday e'ery way. 

[Hellion Rex]

AresKeith wrote...

People trusts Fox News?

People still watch that?

[LinksOcarina]

AresKeith wrote...

People trusts Fox News?

Oh yes. Its a ratings bonanza in the Southern U.S for the most part. Up here in NY, not as much. 

My point is the same, if you watch only one news station that caters to your beliefs or ideals, and knows how to give you what you want, you lose perspective and objectivity of the whole picture. It makes it seductively easy to ignore CNN or BBC or Al-Jazeera or MSNBC then, because of that. 

That is a problem. 

The Night Mammoth wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Joe also gave a game like Skyrim a perfect score, a game with more glitches and arguably narrative problems than Dragon Age II. 

Joe is not perfect, and frankly I would argue hes not even a reviewer, since it is all personality based to put on a show for entertainment purposes only. After working with the guy, that is his goal in the end as well. Presuming hes an objective reviewer, when such things don't exist, is a bad idea. 

Who's presuming Angry Joe is an objective reviewer?

A lot of people in this thread appaently. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 janvier 2014 - 09:25 .

[Veruin]

eluvianix wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

People trusts Fox News?

People still watch that?

Just like how people watch MSNBC.  Both are biased out of the ass.

I just hope people only watch it because it's more convienent and not simply because they follow them to the last letter.

Modifié par Veruin, 23 janvier 2014 - 09:25 .

[spirosz]

This thread though.

<-------

[Rotward]

AresKeith wrote...

People trusts Fox News?

As much as I hate fox news, I haven't really seen objective journalism anywhere else. It's just that fox news is more transparent in their bias. 

Really, trusting news is taking whatever the wealthy want you to hear, and believing it without question. Genius! 

[AresKeith]

LinksOcarina wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Joe also gave a game like Skyrim a perfect score, a game with more glitches and arguably narrative problems than Dragon Age II. 

Joe is not perfect, and frankly I would argue hes not even a reviewer, since it is all personality based to put on a show for entertainment purposes only. After working with the guy, that is his goal in the end as well. Presuming hes an objective reviewer, when such things don't exist, is a bad idea. 

Who's presuming Angry Joe is an objective reviewer?

A lot of people in this thread appaently. 

They really aren't

[Billy-the-Squid]

Rotward wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

People trusts Fox News?

As much as I hate fox news, I haven't really seen objective journalism anywhere else. It's just that fox news is more transparent in their bias. 

Really, trusting news is taking whatever the wealthy want you to hear, and believing it without question. Genius! 

The Times and the FT. Only newspapers (broadsheets) I will read.

BBC is publically funded, so largely impartial ie: read boring for most people. Although it maintains a somewhat left leaning slant on social issues, but remains fairly central in terms of business, economic and political reporting most of the time. 

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

There is also danger in that too, because then people are closed to differing opinions, the stuff they don't want to hear, but need to. 

Yes, but people don't have a reason to believe the next Call of Duty will be terrible. Or, if they do, they likely won't be buying the game anyway.

If AngryJoe plays a game and enjoys it for what it is, but knows all of his fans would HATE certain aspects of the game, he's going to call out those aspects heavily in his review. Which would mean his fans would be served to follow his reviews. And if you could care less about the random things he is nerd raging about and think he is just a silly fool, then maybe you also enjoy the entertainment for its own sake and watch his videos anyway.

I'm not saying it's a foolproof system or even one that should be emuiated... but it isn't (inherently) bad to have a known bias for something as subjective as video game reviews.

I don't want to touch your news channel topic with a forty foot pole, but video game reviews are, in no way, as damagingly influenced by bias as news events happening in the world.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

There is also danger in that too, because then people are closed to differing opinions, the stuff they don't want to hear, but need to. 

Yes, but people don't have a reason to believe the next Call of Duty will be terrible. Or, if they do, they likely won't be buying the game anyway.

If AngryJoe plays a game and enjoys it for what it is, but knows all of his fans would HATE certain aspects of the game, he's going to call out those aspects heavily in his review. Which would mean his fans would be served to follow his reviews. And if you could care less about the random things he is nerd raging about and think he is just a silly fool, then maybe you also enjoy the entertainment for its own sake and watch his videos anyway.

I'm not saying it's a foolproof system or even one that should be emuiated... but it isn't (inherently) bad to have a known bias for something as subjective as video game reviews.

I don't want to touch your news channel topic with a forty foot pole, but video game reviews are, in no way, as damagingly influenced by bias as news events happening in the world.

I can't enjoy it because its entertainment masked as a serious review. It is like saying Croshaw is an authority in gaming journalism; hes not in the least, he just makes his biases known and has good delivery.  It's the video game equivalent of the Daily Show; they may have a point, but they are far from an authority on anything and at face value, just point out the logical fallacies presented, at least, most of the time.  

It also doesn't help I am biased myself because ive been to the other side and done reviews for websites. It's not as complex as everyone makes it honestly, its based on persons tastes and their writing ability. I keep saying it, we need better writers in journalism to communicate what they are trying to say, it would alleviate a lot of these issues of mistrust people seem to have. That, and maybe eliminate the scoring system. 

AresKeith wrote...

They really aren't

People in this thread have said his reviews are "spot on" and hes basically trustworthy, which implies hes not wrong. How is that not heavily implying hes objective? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 janvier 2014 - 09:47 .

[dreamgazer]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

They really aren't

People in this thread have said his reviews are "spot on" and hes basically trustworthy, which implies hes not wrong. How is that not heavily implying hes objective? 

I agree with most of what you're saying, but yeah, this doesn't classify as objective.  That just means a lot of people exist on the same subjective wavelength as AJ. I'm sure they're aware of this, too. 

[Billy-the-Squid]

Rotward wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

AutumnWitch wrote...

They were not all paid off.

And all companies pay people to put a positive light on their products in social media now days.

IMO it is fair because there are people out there who will HATE anything about a franchise just because it exists esp games like Dragon Age.

Because of its liberal views on certain social issues and their irrational hate of DA2 a lot of people have a real agenda of "let's bring down Dragon Age" and EA because of some of its anti-customer policies. The truth is there is A LOT of hate out there directed at EA and Dragon Age that has nothing to do with the quality of the games and this is one way they can turn back the tide.

Hopefully DAI will be so good that all the negative crap will go away anyway.

DA2 was a crock of ****. That's where your hate came from. 

Exactly. It doesn't matter why DA2 was poorly received: it was poorly received. Thus, any positive review was probably paid off, and is definitely not worth listening to. If you buy a game because of positive reviews, and it turns out to be ****, EA is guilty of false advertising. 

Positive reviews which gloss over the glaring issues *cough* PC gamer *cough* rendering them journalistic hacks with no ability to string together a coherent thought or bought out ****s tends to earn the ire of the market. Either their incompetent or liars, neither one is a resounding accomplishment. 

Positive reviews which actually explain why and coherrently convey the reasoning behind the review's stance are few and far between, from what I have seen, in the little time I have to skim through the sea of tripe which abounds within the "game journalism" arena. 

[The Night Mammoth]

LinksOcarina wrote...

A lot of people in this thread appaently. 

I haven't seen a single person in this thread presume, assume, or assert that Angry Joe is an objective reviewer.

[Billy-the-Squid]

LinksOcarina wrote...

People in this thread have said his reviews are "spot on" and hes basically trustworthy, which implies hes not wrong. How is that not heavily implying hes objective? 

Who said he was objective? You're doing some mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion.

He says what he thinks of the game; even if he likes it he points out the problems and often makes fun of them. It's fairly transparent and doesn't beat about the bush, if he doesn't like something he says so and why. I don't agree exactly more often than not, but he's usually in the right area. Hence trustworthy ie: he's not going to lie to people's face, at least not yet.

Look at the Rome 2 review, 45 minutes of pulling that pile of rubbish apart. What were the other reviewers doing? Giving it a pass and a good score, despite the fact it was utterly broken.

Bravo, one more notch on the proverbial belt for "journalistic integrity"

Edit: 

And never use "implying" without sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is an implication, or it appears lazy. 

Modifié par Tequila Cat, 23 janvier 2014 - 10:07 .

[Savber100]

I trust myself and the common reviewer on YT.

Gather 10 and see if overall what they say is something I can get behind.

Guys, we live in the age of the internet. It's not that hard to make your own informed decisions.

[AresKeith]

dreamgazer wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

They really aren't

People in this thread have said his reviews are "spot on" and hes basically trustworthy, which implies hes not wrong. How is that not heavily implying hes objective? 

I agree with most of what you're saying, but yeah, this doesn't classify as objective.  That just means a lot of people exist on the same subjective wavelength as AJ. I'm sure they're aware of this, too. 

And I'm sure everyone who mentioned Joe doesn't agree with all of his reviews but still consider him trustworthy

[Hazegurl]

spirosz wrote...

To be fair on Joe though, he does tend to go overboard on both positive and negative aspects of a game, but he's not one to shy away from bringing up certain bad features in a well done game, so I like that about him. Though, I prefer when he just rips on a game, like Ride to Hell - shit was hilarious, lol.

True, that's why I like Joe. Even if I disagree with some of scores I can at least walk away understanding his point.

The Ride to Hell review was the best!

@LinksOcarina, AJ is a reviewer who entertains. There's no art or proper format to giving a review. You're just telling others what your opinions are. If a person considers his reviews trustworthy, then it is only because he has reviewed multiple games that they themselves have most likely played and agree with him on.

Ex: I consider his Dragon's Dogma review "spot on" but I had played the game long before watching his review. 

Modifié par Hazegurl, 23 janvier 2014 - 11:39 .

[ToJKa1]

ruggly wrote...

I quite enjoyed DA2.


No, I'm not leaving.

Wait, one can say things like that in public here now?   Well, let's test: i did too.

[Naesaki]

ToJKa1 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I quite enjoyed DA2.


No, I'm not leaving.

Wait, one can say things like that in public here now?   Well, let's test: i did too.

I enjoyed DA II for what it was, and considering they only had 16 months development it turned out as well as it could have done in retrospect

[Fuggyt]

Naesaki wrote...

ToJKa1 wrote...

ruggly wrote...

I quite enjoyed DA2.


No, I'm not leaving.

Wait, one can say things like that in public here now?   Well, let's test: i did too.

I enjoyed DA II for what it was, and considering they only had 16 months development it turned out as well as it could have done in retrospect

I hated DA:2 at first because it was so egregiously inferior to DA:O.  But as I replayed it--you gotta  try out all the character classes, right?--it grew on me.  I came to realize that I'd set the bar pretty high.  DA:O was far and away the best single-player RPG I'd ever seen, so naturally it would invite invidious comparison.  DA:2's flaws, however abject next to its predecessor, made it mediocre, not lousy.  At the very least, things blow up real good.  I even came to enjoy the way the trash mobs drop out of the sky in random waves, a feature almost everybody else howled about.  I think it's fun to ambush the bastards before they even hit the ground. 

Modifié par Fuggyt, 24 janvier 2014 - 01:19 .