Gaming Journalists tend to hate people who threaten there livelihood
As would I if someone did the same to me. I may not always agree with everything Joe says, but I respect the man because his passion for gaming is very clear, unlike some other reviewers. The guy is legit, and I learn more about a game watching his review, than say Adam Sessler talking and using buzzwords on what a phenominal work of art Gone Home and Bioshock Infinite is.
As would I if someone did the same to me. I may not always agree with everything Joe says, but I respect the man because his passion for gaming is very clear, unlike some other reviewers. The guy is legit, and I learn more about a game watching his review, than say Adam Sessler artistically talking and using buzzwords on what a phenominal work of art Gone Home and Bioshock Infinite is.
Your right we all do, should have just said *people*, My point is though is that his opinion is biased/subjective.
Just because he doesn't resonate with you, doesn't mean he's not a reviewer. He IS a reviewer, in fact he goes into more detail and in depth analysis of a game than most critics do. This is something that's highly valued by a lot of gamers, which is why he gets so many views.
I honestly don't care about the "two sides" thing either. The Angry Joe I know seems like a very cool guy, and has been cool to his fans and fellow gamers. I've been in a few Angry Army guilds and watch a lot of his streams, and I've never seen whatever darker side he may have. But we all have dark sides to us, because we're human. I know when I'm at work I'm a lot crankier and less patient with people. I get annoyed very easily when people get in the way of my job, which can make me moody. But outside of work I'm a different person and extremely nice to people.
And I can say that about almost every other person I know.
Not to be rude or anything, but I really don't care about your opinion too much either. I was simply sharing my own on the guy, which is bias based on experience (in and out of work) but just as valid as everyone who trusts his views.
I will always say he is not really a reviewer first though, not with the shtick he does. That is entertainment that most internet critics tend to fall into a trap on lately. It's why I think Ben Croshaw and John Bain are not reviewers either. Critics maybe, they do criticize, but they are far from reviewers in my mind.
Gaming Journalists tend to hate people who threaten there livelihood
I don't know about that in the end. I never made a living doing game writing to begin with, I teach to make money. In fact, most guys don't make money doing this, it's freelance as a market.
If you are referring to the current stuff going on in the gaming world...that's a whole other discussion.
Not to be rude or anything, but I really don't care about your opinion too much either. I was simply sharing my own on the guy, which is bias based on experience. He was also being a jerk outside of work but that's not here nor there.
But I will always say he is not really a reviewer first. Not with the schtick he does. That is entertainment that most internet critics tend to fall into a trap on lately. It's why I think Ben Croshaw and John Bain are not reviewers either. Critics maybe, they do criticize, but they are far from reviewers.
I said I didn't care about the two sides thing because it didn't bother me. I wasn't saying your opinion was worthless to me. You are entitled to your opinion, as controversial as it may be, since you seem to dictate who is and isn't a reviewer, based on your own definition. It's fair to call him an entertainer, but it's nonsense to say he isn't a reviewer.
He literally just said a few days ago that he intendeds not to rush his DA:I review and play the game through and through so he could give the best analysis on the game as he can. That's not a reviewer to you? I just think you're way off base with this.
I said I didn't care about the two sides thing because it didn't bother me. I wasn't saying your opinion was worthless to me. You are entitled to your opinion, as controversial as it may be, since you seem to dictate who is and isn't a reviewer, based on your own definition. It's fair to call him an entertainer, but it's nonsense to say he isn't a reviewer.
He literally just said a few days ago that he intendeds not to rush his DA:I review and play the game through and through so he could give the best analysis on the game as he can. That's not a reviewer to you? I just think you're way off base with this.
Not really, no. See, the problem is the analysis itself.
Joe can give good analysis like everyone else, but it doesn't mean it's a review either; analysis is book report writing, a listing of praise and/or flaws a game may have. It is also inherently trying to make something objective when it can't be. We can cite bugs and graphical glitches and "bad, unfinished games" that are objectively awful, but mechanics and graphics and story, systems and other machinations are always subjective, and something few writers or video guys really can discuss fully.
Take Inquisition, with some reviewers stating the issues on the main storyline being weak. No one is really discussing why because of spoilers I can only assume, but stating that as an objective part of the review which has people here talking. Can a story be objectively bad? It can have good points, bad points, plot holes and scene changes that make no sense, but if we were to review books and games and movies with that criteria, many beloved stories would fall into that "objectively bad" territory based upon the criteria presented.
Now will Joe do the same thing? I haven't seen the video so I can't judge it yet. But if it is like the videos from his past, which give off blanket statements are criticisms that attempt to give off an "objective" slant on everything, it fails as a reviewer.
Most reviewers are bad at reviewing because a statement like "the main plot is weak" means nothing. It should be a bit more nuanced than that. Maybe saying "the plot has a few major snags within it, giving off a weaker presentation when compared to the rest of the game." or something that can demonstrate that the plot may not be well-liked by everyone, such as a vague example so no spoilers happen or something like that.
The focus on entertainment, which Joe does, maybe can emphasize a point, but that is why they are not reviewers. Entertainment gets in the way of subjective analysis by poking fun at the inherent flaws presented, like how John Stewart is not a credible news source, but satirical criticism of the news of the day.
As for most reviewers out there, they suck at their job really because there is less rigor in discussing a game.
I hope this makes my argument a bit more clear, it's not just Joe really in the end, it's almost all reviewers out there who have a problem.
you also need to review the reviewer themselves.
Do they like playing games? What games do they like?
Personal bias is major thing.
is it fun? Its how far I go 
Love Angry Joe's videos for both entertainment and reviewing. I always check to see if he reviewed a game i want to buy before dishing out the cash for it and it's never failed me personally.
I was speaking of the standard attributes/class-based transition from Oblivion to the more open, accessible system of Skyrim. As well as some other accessibility changes they made from Oblivion to Skyrim, not even just Morrowind. I could never get through more than a few minutes of Morrowind, personally, so I have no idea. It is generally considered less accessible, though, but also touted as "the best one" by those who like inaccessible, oldschool CRPGs.
I never said dumbed down. To me, Skyrim is much more "pick up and play" friendly than any previous TES game. It's also much more friendly for if you want to change playstyle midway through. That is accessible. It helps create wider appeal because it makes it feel more fun and less frustrating, from the start.
We were talking about accessibility, which I see as a good thing. I don't feel like either of your definitions are fair - since you are painting accessibility as a needlessly bad thing, despite it being a positive word with a positive definition. I'm also confused how art style factors into the accessibility of play. (I do prefer DA2 art style to DAO and DA:I to both of them fwiw.) To me accessibility is all about gameplay and cannot be really used to describe fashion or animation (what is there to "access" in that?). To me, accessibility in games aligns with the word's definition - it essentially is about being more playable and more easily pick-up-and-played by a wider audience. The fashion in the game doesn't help or hinder accessibility at all.
I don't think DA2 or DA:I was dumbed down for players any more than I think Skyrim was dumbed down. The character development systems are still rich, but they have become increasingly more balanced. (Now DA2's repetitive levels and wave-based combat was dumb, but I would consider those factors neither accessible, nor dumbed down - rather just rushed and flawed.)
I perfectly understand. But in this case I used 'accessible' in a negative meaning, because it has been used as justifications for changes made to games to more fit a traditional and more common mold. Because someone thinks that's what gamers must want, because all games are like that. Why was DA:O art style at all meddled with, for instance? The only reason was that it wasn't fashionable, since contemporary fantasy art features a lot more spikes, horns, jaggy edges, fluffy white hair, arc-welded 3/8'' plate etc. The reason it should NOT have been changed is pretty clear - because a major game had already established a different feel and atmosphere for the franchise. The irony is that the stated justification was that DA:O art direction was too generic. The opposite is actually true. DA2 is ultra-generic and looks like everything else, games, comics, animated movies, illustrations. I could just vomit all over the most stupid cliche elements. What looks like DA:O? Except maybe LotR? That is not to say that some art in DA2 is not good, I quite liked the double face palm. (And I have a hard time not believing that some artist didn't intentionally sneak in that.)
I do agree that accessible is for good, as long as it does mean that the game is easy to pick up, and does not mean shallow to dive into, or just the same old, common staple food.
I concede to your argument if the word 'accessible' was the focus.
you also need to review the reviewer themselves.
Do they like playing games? What games do they like?
Personal bias is major thing.
is it fun? Its how far I go
Well the reviewer themselves is another thing too.
A good reviewer should be able to play a lot of genres, not be an expert in one or two. They should also make personal bias known, so if they review a game from a genre they don't like, or a game from a publisher they hate, that should be a part of the discussion. Some reviewers and entertainers do this now, but it is still an issue of analysis being off-base, and we get folks criticizing the reviewer for "not understanding the genre" in that form, which I feel is due to the analysis being the inherent problem with game reviews to begin with.
Same with political leanings now. That Bayonetta 2 review from Polygon got a lot of criticism because of personal politics being injected into it. That reviewer now needs to continue such standards and will have to justify different scores for games because of that opinion.
Not really, no. See, the problem is the analysis itself.
Joe can give good analysis like everyone else, but it doesn't mean it's a review either; analysis is book report writing, a listing of praise and/or flaws a game may have. It is also inherently trying to make something objective when it can't be. We can cite bugs and graphical glitches and "bad, unfinished games" that are objectively awful, but mechanics and graphics and story, systems and other machinations are always subjective, and something few writers or video guys really can discuss fully.
Take Inquisition, with some reviewers stating the issues on the main storyline being weak. No one is really discussing why because of spoilers I can only assume, but stating that as an objective part of the review which has people here talking. Can a story be objectively bad? It can have good points, bad points, plot holes and scene changes that make no sense, but if we were to review books and games and movies with that criteria, many beloved stories would fall into that "objectively bad" territory based upon the criteria presented.
Now will Joe do the same thing? I haven't seen the video so I can't judge it yet. But if it is like the videos from his past, which give off blanket statements are criticisms that attempt to give off an "objective" slant on everything, it fails as a reviewer.
Most reviewers are bad at reviewing because a statement like "the main plot is weak" means nothing. It should be a bit more nuanced than that. Maybe saying "the plot has a few major snags within it, giving off a weaker presentation when compared to the rest of the game." or something that can demonstrate that the plot may not be well-liked by everyone, such as a vague example so no spoilers happen or something like that.
The focus on entertainment, which Joe does, maybe can emphasize a point, but that is why they are not reviewers. Entertainment gets in the way of subjective analysis by poking fun at the inherent flaws presented, like how John Stewart is not a credible news source, but satirical criticism of the news of the day.
As for most reviewers out there, they suck at their job really because there is less rigor in discussing a game.
I hope this makes my argument a bit more clear, it's not just Joe really in the end, it's almost all reviewers out there who have a problem.
I get what you're saying but I just don't agree with it. It sounds like a youtuber named Archengeia is more of your speed, although he calls his reviews "Ruminations", and they range from 30 minutes up to 2 hours long.
Right now the Analysis vs. Review thing is sounding like it's gonna be a battle of semantics. In my view, and the views of others, Joe does both, and is rather good at it. Archengeia believes you can't really sum up a game in a review, since saying "the story is weak" is simplifying the issue. This is why he discusses the game in depth for long periods of time with his ruminations series. But here's the thing. When asked on a twitch session if there was any reviewers he liked, the one guy he mentioned was Angry Joe.
On the subject of Angry Joe, I vastly prefer him to any other reviewer I'm aware of.
The reason is simple. He resonates with me and is able to communicate if I'm going to like the game or not, better than anyone else.
That does not mean that we have exactly the same taste, but I'm able to discern where the differences are between his taste and mine, and how that affects his take on the game.
And he's honest.
LinksOcarina, otoh, doesn't usually resonate much with me. The later posts here by LinksOcarina are quite good and clear though, and makes sense.
What doesn't resonate with me is the opinion that Angry Joe was at fault for giving Skyrim a golden rating. While it may not be to some people's taste, Skyrim is definitely one of the very few most important games ever released, and one of the very few best games. So why shouldn't Angry Joe give the game gold?
Because of some bugs on the PS3 platform?
Here's what I think: The other bugs which Skyrim had/have, are normal and represent more or less what is normal in all games.
And bugs are much less important than the enjoyment/entertainment-factor for a game. ...Unless the bugs are so serious that they break the game and make it nonfunctional. ...And when they do that, the game has lost its enjoyment/entertainment anyway, so that's still what should be mainly considered.
Some bugs deserve to be mentioned, but most bugs do not deserve to influence a verdict of a game much. If you let them do that, we'll soon only have utter crap to play.
I purchased VtM:Bloodlines when it was released. A lot of thieves, pirating the game, quickly spread the gospel on internet that the game was disastrously bugged. As a direct consequence the game originally sold only 70,000 copies. Is that fair?
The pirates' problem was partly that their copy of the game was particularly dysfunctional (which is 95% the case with cracked games), and partly that they couldn't register their games and download the many patches as they were quickly released.
Me, I did find the game somewhat buggy in the beginning, but also phenomenally entertaining - and perfectly playable, as long as you saved often. Today, bugs is no longer any issue at all. Bloodlines is one of the best RPGs ever. Do the original bugs deserve to be considered in that context? - No! they're infinitesimally small on that yardstick.
P.S. I'm totally with LinksOcarina on the case with the reviewer who thought the "main story plot was weak". That's ridiculous. But I have myself already commented that.
I have nothing against Angry Joe, but he always seem pretty late with his reviews and when they're finally there he usually just states what's been said on message boards for the last week or so. And he really needs to give the skits a break.
I get what you're saying but I just don't agree with it. It sounds like a youtuber named Archengeia is more of your speed, although he calls his reviews "Ruminations", and they range from 30 minutes up to 2 hours long.
Right now the Analysis vs. Review thing is sounding like it's gonna be a battle of semantics. In my view, and the views of others, Joe does both, and is rather good at it. Archengeia believes you can't really sum up a game in a review, since saying "the story is weak" is simplifying the issue. This is why he discusses the game in depth for long periods of time with his ruminations series. But here's the thing. When asked on a twitch session if there was any reviewers he liked, the one guy he mentioned was Angry Joe.
I don't follow most you tube folks so I can't comment on them in the end. If that's the case I should check him out, see if I like him too.
I will say this, while it can be an issue of semantics, the problem has been present for a while. I remember those guys from Extra Credits do a video on game reviewing which was fairly spot on, and even Erik Kain has done editorials on the subject on how we need to be a bit more cognizant of what we say in a review so we don't fall into that trap.
LinksOcarina, otoh, doesn't usually resonate much with me. The later posts here by LinksOcarina are quite good and clear though, and makes sense.
What doesn't resonate with me is the opinion that Angry Joe was at fault for giving Skyrim a golden rating. While it may not be to some people's taste, Skyrim is definitely one of the very few most important games ever released, and one of the very few best games. So why shouldn't Angry Joe give the game gold?
Because of some bugs on the PS3 platform?
Here's what I think: The other bugs which Skyrim had/have, are normal and represent more or less what is normal in all games.
And bugs are much less important than the enjoyment/entertainment-factor for a game. ...Unless the bugs are so serious that they break the game and make it nonfunctional. ...And when they do that, the game has lost its enjoyment/entertainment anyway, so that's still what should be mainly considered.
Some bugs deserve to be mentioned, but most bugs do not deserve to influence a verdict of a game much. If you let them do that, we'll soon only have utter crap to play.
I did a whole editorial that I regret on Skyrim once in response against Joe, pretty much mapping out a lot of problems I had with Skyrim when compared to their predecessors. I liked the game but I was disappointed when I played it, and yet almost everyone else on the site was gushing over Skyrim.
I mostly regret it now, because I was being to esoteric in the response, wishing for a nostalgia trip like Morrowind (which I still maintain is the best Elder Scrolls Game overall) and scratching my head against the same "accessibility" issues you were discussing before.
My stance on Skyrim has changed over time, though.My stances changed and I realized that the new way of doing things was fine, and valid with the mechanics involved in some cases, but is the fact that is still imperfect. My biggest gripes being how the class-less system leads to less role-playing at the time, I still say is valid now. Not to mention some character builds for a classless game are almost invalidated because of how the mechanics of Skyrim treat equipment and spells. For me, Joe in his video did not make that point, which again is skewed because of a weird sense of subjective/objective analysis.
I will say this, it is an important game because it made RPG's mainstream for once. But it is still a flawed game that needs to be present as well, even if you like it, and it's not even an issue with just bugs in that case, although I found that to be another missing piece that should have been included for information sake, even when it was present on the 360 as well in some instances. Anyone who has done a review before, including Joe, have decimated some games for that and less when they experience it first hand. New Vegas comes to mind as a game that suffered because of it, but I feel is a better game than Skyrim in most cases if you ask me.
That said, I get where people are coming from in the end. I guess that is my own shortcoming really, I don't have the ability to resonate with people. You pretty much hit the nail on the head there, dude.
I do apologize if i'm being pushy, but we do need to have these type of conversations I feel if we want to go forward in how reviews are presented.
I perfectly understand. But in this case I used 'accessible' in a negative meaning, because it has been used as justifications for changes made to games to more fit a traditional and more common mold. Because someone thinks that's what gamers must want, because all games are like that.
OK, so let's not worry about the word, since now we know what we're talking about (we were essentially talking about 2 different areas of the game). I will address your actual topic here:
Why was DA:O art style at all meddled with, for instance? The only reason was that it wasn't fashionable, since contemporary fantasy art features a lot more spikes, horns, jaggy edges, fluffy white hair, arc-welded 3/8'' plate etc. The reason it should NOT have been changed is pretty clear - because a major game had already established a different feel and atmosphere for the franchise. The irony is that the stated justification was that DA:O art direction was too generic. The opposite is actually true. DA2 is ultra-generic and looks like everything else, games, comics, animated movies, illustrations. I could just vomit all over the most stupid cliche elements. What looks like DA:O? Except maybe LotR? That is not to say that some art in DA2 is not good, I quite liked the double face palm. (And I have a hard time not believing that some artist didn't intentionally sneak in that.)
I do agree that accessible is for good, as long as it does mean that the game is easy to pick up, and does not mean shallow to dive into, or just the same old, common staple food.
I concede to your argument if the word 'accessible' was the focus.
1. Honestly, I don't think DA2 or DA:I better fits a "generic fantasy" look than DA:O. (I will admit - It's hard to say in many ways, especially with DA:I, because of graphical improvements over time.) I thought DA:O did look generic. It had small twists, but very unique. In terms of actual art, I think DA2 only really screwed up with elves. It improved upon the Qunari (I really thought Sten was just a big, bald human - I didn't even realize the Qunari were a different race; I thought Qunari was like a nationality) and humans basically look the same. Gear doesn't look that different to me - maybe a little more interesting, but that could easily be the difference in setting. Kirkwall and Ferelden have different cultures, architecture, art, etc. The biggest problem with DA:O gear was the lack of visual variety. It all looked the same - that was a limitation of the time that has since been improved in both DA2 and (much more so) in DA:I.
2. I don't think DA:O really established a "look" - I didn't even notice anything but elves and qunari were different in DA2 when I first played (without reading opinions). I thought it was just updated graphics. Both games look kind of terrible for their time, even, and DA:I is refreshing compared to that.
3. What else looks like DA2 that bothers you? I really can't think of anything. Edit: I mean, all fantasy settings look a little alike, but I cannot find any that look significantly more like DA2 than DA:O.
As to art style, it's not really an area that bothers me in DA games because it's always been sub-par due to the games looking old even when they came out. (Inquisition appears to be better about this.)
I did a whole editorial that I regret on Skyrim once in response against Joe, pretty much mapping out a lot of problems I had with Skyrim when compared to their predecessors. I liked the game but I was disappointed when I played it, and yet almost everyone else on the site was gushing over Skyrim.
I mostly regret it now, because I was being to esoteric in the response, wishing for a nostalgia trip like Morrowind (which I still maintain is the best Elder Scrolls Game overall) and scratching my head against the same "accessibility" issues you were discussing before.
My stance on Skyrim has changed over time, though.My stances changed and I realized that the new way of doing things was fine, and valid with the mechanics involved in some cases, but is the fact that is still imperfect.
The worst horror is that one realizes that they will never go back to a Morrowind system. 
They will change again, but never go back.
I think I will just chime in real quick and throw my vote in for Angry Joe. I have a great time watching his reviews.
I don't trust someone who has played the previous games and then completely forgets about the most powerful nation in the setting. I'll say that much. (So many reviewers are baffled by the Orlesians it's hilarious.)
I don't trust someone who has played the previous games and then completely forgets about the most powerful nation in the setting. I'll say that much. (So many reviewers are baffled by the Orlesians it's hilarious.)
forgetting about the orlesians is laughable, but as far as knowing they are the most pwerful notion in the setting? thats forgiveable, cuz honestly, unless youre immersed in the lore its not really something thats brought up 
I've pre-ordered the game a while back based on my experience with DA:O and DA2 and the Mass Effect series....plus some early PAX info. Then, again, The last official trailer "The Breach" is
totally CGI. It is beautiful, awsome and I like it but the last screen information says and I quote:
"imagaes are not representative of actual gameplay"
Pure PR in my view
Yes, it's just launch week PR fluff. Interesting that they focused again on Vivienne, Bull and Varric - market research favourites maybe?
But BioWare have been straight showing real gameplay and gameplay trailers from the start, I don't believe anyone is being misled here.
I don't trust someone who has played the previous games and then completely forgets about the most powerful nation in the setting. I'll say that much. (So many reviewers are baffled by the Orlesians it's hilarious.)
Its worth remembering that most people aren't nearly as immersed in the lore as us here on the BSN.
A focus on entertainment of the public while writing a review doesn't make anyone less of a reviewer. Even the most critical film reviewer I know tries to write his pieces in a delectable and entertaining format, otherwise no one would read them.
A review is an evaluation of a product which contains at least a description of that product, some sort of analysis and an appreciation.
Other than that i't's completely up to you whose opinion you value more or less. Not appreciating them does not mean that they're suddenly not reviewers any longer however.
last 3 pages are about angry joe and his review isn't even up.
If u are able to understand German, here's a video about what's bugging the author about DA: I.
http://www.gamestar....tion,79244.html
Essentially it's the fact that Bioware didn't care to make a proper PC UI and the controls of the UI / inventory / tactical view / loot grabbing leaves to be desired.
Guest_john_sheparrd_*
If u are able to understand German, here's a video about what's bugging the author about DA: I.
http://www.gamestar....tion,79244.html
Essentially it's the fact that Bioware didn't care to make a proper PC UI and the controls of the UI / inventory / tactical view / loot grabbing leaves to be desired.
yeah I know the site and I was very disappointed in their review
sure there are definitely things to criticize but to just claim that it isn't a real Dragon Age seems just like a butthurt pc gamer/DAO fanboy talking (no offense to any pc gamers)
I mean they even gave freaking DA2 a higher score
Retour en haut
