As annoying as this guy can be, he tends to make some pretty good points. And this review somes up Dogma pretty perfectly. If you are still on the fence about trying it out...this video kind of says it all..

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

I like Angry Joe -he's passionate and knowledgeable about games (esp RPGs) and I don't sense he's faking his enthusiasm. I have Dragon's Dogma in my backlog; haven't played it for months but would like to get back into it. It's certainly a different RPG experience than what I'm used to, coming from ARPGs mostly as well as the Elder Scrolls series. It takes some patience, and it has its problems, but does have interesting concepts if you're willing to push through some of the hiccups.

I watched some of his stuff simply because YouTube started drowning me in recommends for it and I have to agree with both your assessments: he is pretty annoying, and he makes some good points. Unfortunately one outweighs the other a little too much.

@Winternet said:

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

GB has hour long quicklooks, which are sometimes basically reviews, whats the difference?

@vikingdeath1 said:

@Winternet said:

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

GB has hour long quicklooks, which are sometimes basically reviews, whats the difference?

You're asking me the difference between a Quick-Look and a review? Really?

@Winternet said:

@vikingdeath1 said:

@Winternet said:

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

GB has hour long quicklooks, which are sometimes basically reviews, whats the difference?

You're asking me the difference between a Quick-Look and a review? Really?

Yeah, quick looks and reviews are different things. But wouldn't you love a 20 minute review from Jeff where he explains all the aspects he liked and hated in a game?

@Rappelsiini said:

@Winternet said:

@vikingdeath1 said:

@Winternet said:

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

GB has hour long quicklooks, which are sometimes basically reviews, whats the difference?

You're asking me the difference between a Quick-Look and a review? Really?

Yeah, quick looks and reviews are different things. But wouldn't you love a 20 minute review from Jeff where he explains all the aspects he liked and hated in a game?

Thats what the 3 hour bombcasts are for.

@Rappelsiini said:

@Winternet said:

@vikingdeath1 said:

@Winternet said:

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

GB has hour long quicklooks, which are sometimes basically reviews, whats the difference?

You're asking me the difference between a Quick-Look and a review? Really?

Yeah, quick looks and reviews are different things. But wouldn't you love a 20 minute review from Jeff where he explains all the aspects he liked and hated in a game?

As a review? Not really. There's a certain quality to a review that demands it to be concise, coherent and to have a logical and aesthetically pleasing order to it. These traits can't possible be maintained for so long. Now, if you ask me if I wouldn't love Jeff talking about a game for 20 minutes, I'd say hell yeah. Hours even.

So, are we here to discuss this video, or are we here to discuss what's different about a video review & a Quick Look?

I'm so confused.

Really don't like that guy

Guys im going to review game son Youtube BUT GET THIS my angle is that I am totally Pleasant and Even Keeled. I will nether be Irate nor Angry.

Thoughts?

I like Angry Joe *cries in a corner*

That guy can be knowledgeable as all heck, but his shtick feels so forced that I can't stand watching him for more than a couple minutes.

I also think that the angry gamer YouTube personalities are over. He should just be himself, and talk frankly.

I have never seen this guy before, thanks. His Assassin's Creed review really made me laugh.

@Zippedbinders: I didn't really suggest 20 minute reviews to be a thing but okay I've never heard about this Bombcast thing I'll check it out.

@Winternet said:

As a review? Not really. There's a certain quality to a review that demands it to be concise, coherent and to have a logical and aesthetically pleasing order to it. These traits can't possible be maintained for so long. Now, if you ask me if I wouldn't love Jeff talking about a game for 20 minutes, I'd say hell yeah. Hours even.

I think that you forget the fact that 20 minutes of video is much easier to digest than comparable amount of text. More of a problem with these reviews would be production of them. Cutting, editing, gameplay, Jeff's face etc. And they wouldn't give as much as they take to a site like GB. That said, I'd say 20 minute breakdowns of games are also valuable and if Angry Joe is willing to do that, let him. It's not wrong, it's different.

@Viking_Funeral: He's only angry with bad games, mostly Kinect games. He's pretty himself most of the time, not angry at all, which I like. The Angry personality came from him in the early days when he used to have slideshows instead. Today the only thing left, mostly, is the outro expressing this.

@RenMcKormack said:

Guys im going to review game son Youtube BUT GET THIS my angle is that I am totally Pleasant and Even Keeled. I will nether be Irate nor Angry.

Thoughts?

BUT I LIKE THOSE THINGS YOU JUST SAID! THIS SOUNDS LIKE A HORRIBLE IDEA!

I got about 10 or 11 hours into Dragon's Dogma earlier in the year but had to put it down in favour of other stuff that was coming out. After coming back to it, I'd say his main criticisms were exactly what pushed me away from the game in the first place, but once I got deeper into the vocation system, I started to see where the fun lay. I'm at the tail-end of Act I now and seem to have a better feel for Dragon's Dogma. Really looking forward to plowing through the rest of it, especially because the endgame sounds fucking awesome. For me, this seems like he's created a video version of a long-form review. Nothing wrong with that, really. If you really only cared about his main points, watch the first couple minutes and maybe fast-forward to the last few minutes for his conclusion. (Just as if you were scrolling down to read the conclusion/score on a written review.) If you're there to absorb the more "entertaining" aspects of the critique/performance, then that's also a viable choice.

10 seconds in and zzzzzz

If you have to use an adjective like angry to bill yourself and you aren't the AVGN, I'm more inclined to avoid than to watch.

Kinda how i thought about the game except i couldn't put the flaws and really stupid annoying stuff like talking pawn behind me because it was so frustrating, he can seem a bit over the top at times but his reviews give good time to explain a point properly in a simple and totally honest way.

@Rappelsiini said:

@Zippedbinders: I didn't really suggest 20 minute reviews to be a thing but okay I've never heard about this Bombcast thing I'll check it out.

@Winternet said:

As a review? Not really. There's a certain quality to a review that demands it to be concise, coherent and to have a logical and aesthetically pleasing order to it. These traits can't possible be maintained for so long. Now, if you ask me if I wouldn't love Jeff talking about a game for 20 minutes, I'd say hell yeah. Hours even.

I think that you forget the fact that 20 minutes of video is much easier to digest than comparable amount of text. More of a problem with these reviews would be production of them. Cutting, editing, gameplay, Jeff's face etc. And they wouldn't give as much as they take to a site like GB. That said, I'd say 20 minute breakdowns of games are also valuable and if Angry Joe is willing to do that, let him. It's not wrong, it's different.

Oh believe me, I will do absolutely nothing to prevent whoever he is from doing whatever he does. I'm just saying, that for me a 20min review loses his value due to his length.

@wjb: THERE IS NO TURNING BACK NOW. The time for reasonable fan reviews has come.

I like how everyone's hating on him just because. I have my reason for partly disliking him, but that video was informative and enjoyable enough, the man does a good job. Lastly, I wouldn't say his bits were good but they certainly weren't cringeworthy enough for me to be unable to deal with them.

@The_Ruiner said:

As annoying as this guy can be, he tends to make some pretty good points.

Correct on both accounts.

I can't stand Angry Joe's shtick, do have to admit his review was very fair though.

Better than most QL's, honestly

@Slag said:

@The_Ruiner said:

As annoying as this guy can be, he tends to make some pretty good points.

Correct on both accounts.

I can't stand Angry Joe's shtick, do have to admit his review was very fair though.

If the guy did three simple things he'd be so much more likable: take gel out of hair, change up facial hair, change outfit. As he stands, the dude's like a Nickelodeon VJ that's gone off script.

I love Angry Joe. Why the hate?

@development said:

@Slag said:

Correct on both accounts.

I can't stand Angry Joe's shtick, do have to admit his review was very fair though.

If the guy did three simple things he'd be so much more likable: take gel out of hair, change up facial hair, change outfit. As he stands, the dude's like a Nickelodeon VJ that's gone off script.

That would make no difference to me, although yeah the Nick VJ comparison is fairly apt.

It's his mannerisms and loud over the top exaggerations that annoy the crap out me. And especially the way he needlessly repeats himself over and over. It was driving me crazy, there's a reason that video was 19 minutes long. Even without video this guy is just a chore to listen to.

He clearly knows games, has a good eye for what works and doesn't, but his act gets in the way of that.

so why are we talking about this now?

@FancySoapsMan said:

so why are we talking about this now?

@Slag said:

@development said:

If the guy did three simple things he'd be so much more likable: take gel out of hair, change up facial hair, change outfit. As he stands, the dude's like a Nickelodeon VJ that's gone off script.

That would make no difference to me, although yeah the Nick VJ comparison is fairly apt.

It's his mannerisms and loud over the top exaggerations that annoy the crap out me. And especially the way he needlessly repeats himself over and over. It was driving me crazy, there's a reason that video was 19 minutes long. Even without video this guy is just a chore to listen to.

He clearly knows games, has a good eye for what works and doesn't, but his act gets in the way of that.

I don't even know what a Nickelodeon VJ looks like, but I imagine he would look like Angry Joe. (I don't think Nickelodeon had VJs when I was a kid. Does Donnie Jeffcoat from Wild & Crazy Kids count?).

I have no issue with people liking him, but he just comes off like a cartoon character to me, like most of YouTube. Not that I don't like humor in my video game coverage, but I prefer the organic chemistry between the Giant Bomb guys as opposed to forced skits, bullshit pantomiming, and edits after every sentence.

@wjb said:

@Slag said:

@development said:

If the guy did three simple things he'd be so much more likable: take gel out of hair, change up facial hair, change outfit. As he stands, the dude's like a Nickelodeon VJ that's gone off script.

That would make no difference to me, although yeah the Nick VJ comparison is fairly apt.

It's his mannerisms and loud over the top exaggerations that annoy the crap out me. And especially the way he needlessly repeats himself over and over. It was driving me crazy, there's a reason that video was 19 minutes long. Even without video this guy is just a chore to listen to.

He clearly knows games, has a good eye for what works and doesn't, but his act gets in the way of that.

I don't even know what a Nickelodeon VJ looks like, but I imagine he would look like Angry Joe. (I don't think Nickelodeon had VJs when I was a kid. Does Donnie Jeffcoat from Wild & Crazy Kids count?).

I have no issue with people liking him, but he just comes off like a cartoon character to me, like most of YouTube. Not that I don't like humor in my video game coverage, but I prefer the organic chemistry between the Giant Bomb guys as opposed to forced skits, bullshit pantomiming, and edits after every sentence.

at least he doesn't do the constant edit thing, though.

So why are you posting this? And why that dude? The games is months old and this is borderline youtue spam isnt it?  
 
I cant flag anymore. 

@The_Laughing_Man said:

So why are you posting this? And why that dude? The games is months old and this is borderline youtue spam isnt it? I cant flag anymore.

@FancySoapsMan said:

so why are we talking about this now?

Yeah..why the hell would anyone ever talk about the games that came out this year in mid December....craaaazy.....

@murisan said:

I love Angry Joe. Why the hate?

Because it is a video review of a guy who doesn't work for Giant Bomb and isn't known to be a friend of the Giant Bomb staff.

I can see how Angry Joe could be annoying but I find most of his stuff funny enough and he knows more about RPG's than anyone on GB's staff. Sorry, it's true. Personally I always check him out when he reviews a game I am interested in because over the top or not I find 75% of the time I agree with him.

@Karkarov said:

@murisan said:

I love Angry Joe. Why the hate?

Because it is a video review of a guy who doesn't work for Giant Bomb and isn't known to be a friend of the Giant Bomb staff.

I can see how Angry Joe could be annoying but I find most of his stuff funny enough and he knows more about RPG's than anyone on GB's staff. Sorry, it's true. Personally I always check him out when he reviews a game I am interested in because over the top or not I find 75% of the time I agree with him.

I guess. I like his little acts. The one in this particular video about summoning friends actually made me laugh out loud. Plus, he seems like a really nice guy who knows his shit. Meh.

Can't stand Angry Joe.

@Hailinel said:

If you have to use an adjective like angry to bill yourself and you aren't the AVGN, I'm more inclined to avoid than to watch.

Most accurate review? The hell does that even mean?

He needs to revaluate himself and change his direction. He's knowledgeable but he comes off as a kids act.

The young kids that might find this entertaining won't (on average) appreciate his points, and those who would find his views insightful can't get over his annoying presentation.

Then again he's lasted this long so who the hell cares.

@The_Ruiner: calm down cuz

I wasn't criticizing you, I just thought it was a strange time to bring this up.

@Rappelsiini said:

@Winternet said:

@vikingdeath1 said:

@Winternet said:

A 19 minute review? He's already doing something wrong.

GB has hour long quicklooks, which are sometimes basically reviews, whats the difference?

You're asking me the difference between a Quick-Look and a review? Really?

Yeah, quick looks and reviews are different things. But wouldn't you love a 20 minute review from Jeff where he explains all the aspects he liked and hated in a game?

I can listen to that kind of thing on a podcast, but no 20 minutes of video content that is review oriented is just to much (to me anyway - and I have a HTPC setup so I could watch that on living room TV even).

I don't really find this guy funny but I do think he does a good job showing games off and is good at describing what he likes and doesn't like. That being said I just started this game up the other day and am looking forward to progressing a bit further. I will say that the aspect ratio annoys me quite a bit.

@murisan said:

I guess. I like his little acts. The one in this particular video about summoning friends actually made me laugh out loud. Plus, he seems like a really nice guy who knows his shit. Meh.

Oh I agree. His act in the dragon age 2 video review is particularly hilarious.

@Giantstalker: I agree i think that a 20 minute review gives time to explain every aspect and tell you why he does or doesn't like it.

Most 5 minute reviews are like: The graphics are good story is fantastic and gameplay is solid: 9.0

I really like the review videos he does. I could care less for some of the "funny" bits but at least with him you get the feeling he actually plays these games because he wants to.

Wasn´t something like this the original idea behind Giantbomb?! Anyway, these reviews go into a lot of detail and are clearly meant for people who are excited about GAMES and not just interactive storytelling. If anything, he can be a little too enthusiastic, but I take that over "I just finished Halo 4.... meh" any day of the goddamn week. He´s actually able to voice his concerns and his excitement about certain features without literally taking an hour talking in circles, which the bombcrew likes to do. A lot. So, yeah I take a 20 minute "review" if it is well done.

You guys should give him a break, even if you don´t think he´s all that funny. Though his Corporate Commando and "4 Hours!" running gags are pretty fucking funny.

I really dislike this guy and the people he's affiliated with. Talentless, moneygrubbing people.

@wjb said:

, but I prefer the organic chemistry between the Giant Bomb guys as opposed to forced skits, bullshit pantomiming, and edits after every sentence.

+1 to that