@Crushed said:

Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse is actually funny (at times). The cutscenes read like they could be part of the show, with the exception that they look bizarre in 3D, and the sight gags in the levels are good for a chuckle. Packing a Mature rating, the game even gets crasser than the TV show in a few sections, notably in the frat boy level where a drunken Lois asks “Any of you boys ever finish on a C-section scar?” and follows up with “I can’t have babies anymore, so fill me up, fellas!”

There’s a lot to enjoy, but none of it will knock your socks off.

-IGN.com, pinnacles of professional criticism

What the fuck, man.

If reviews like this mean that you have to play bad games then I'm all for it.

I wonder if whoever decides what games Alex has to review will enjoy Back to the Multiverse. It seems pretty obvious that whoever he is, he's a terrible person.

The graphics are quite nice? But then again, the Koreans who do the CG bits every week achieve the same quality. And they're not even paid.

@anotherfluke: I see your point, but also consider that sometimes, a game's mechanics simply don't matter as much as the content. In this case, the mechanics are merely functional delivery methods for garbage humor. There's not much to report on how the game plays beyond what I already said, because it's so inconsequential when put up against the torrent of bullshit the script/design throws at you.

the funniest thing about this game is that @Alex actually played this

Quicklook or I don't believe a word.

That's just Duke being Duke.

See, referential humor. I ruined it by having to explain it. Fuck it. Nevermind.

@Alex: Sorry you keep having to review the terrible games Alex, but maybe now you can give us more video reviews like your Charlie's Angels review:

I love a bad game because the reviews are always so much more fun to read. I feel like the review is more fun than the game. Of course, I'll never know for sure since I don't plan on ever playing this.

Shouldn't someone who enjoys Family Guy review the Family Guy game? Sure the game is terrible anyway but still would make for a little less of a bias review..

Even though I knew it would be bad, I still had some hope.

@PhilipDuck said:

Shouldn't someone who enjoys Family Guy review the Family Guy game? Sure the game is terrible anyway but still would make for a little less of a bias review..

The fact I think nobody who works for giantbomb likes Family Guy makes me enjoy this website even more.

Forget about this shitty game @Alex and let me ask you about Goty stuff. Are you going to have the usual top10 list video like previous years or will it be something more elaborate this time? Also, do you intend on doing a top list for music? If so, where could we find it this time around? I always love reading those.

"Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse is the video game for you."

There you go Activision, a box quote for you.

Alex earning his keep once again as the most talented writer on GB.

The only thing that makes me feel less weird about his talent being directed toward shit like Family Guy, is the fact that he also reviewed The Walking Dead.

Alex Navarro may be my favorite deliverer of written vitriol. It's a pity that it's relegated to only a few unabashedly terrible video games per year, as opposed to one movie per week, but I'll take what I can get.

i wanna see a quick look of this i can imagine jeff getting a black eye from all the facepalming

Quick look! Quick look!

If this guy has to review one more shitty game like this, he's going to snap. Please give him a AAA title.

@Gunrun said:

"Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse is the video game for you."

There you go Activision, a box quote for you.

"if you are a fun... person on every imaginable level, Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse is the video game for you."

that's a better one, because everyone likes to think they are fun persons.

@Alex: Agreed, content matters a great deal with games. Licensed IP I think lives in a slightly different world though, because it has a built in fanbase who will enjoy the game no matter how many hookers you run over or regardless of the gross hypersexualization of the protagonist The fans who look past a game's transgressions (or who revel in them) do have the parts of your review that discuss how the game actually plays, but if I was one of those fanboys, I'd feel like what criticism is there feels tainted by the sheer volume of vitriol leading up to it.

Having said all that, I realize that if I want clinical "objective" reviews, there are other outlets for that. This review was fun to read after all. But coming into it as a fairly neutral third party, I finished the review feeling like I still didn't know if there were interesting aspects of the game that got sandblasted away in the reviewer's mind by all the content, and I am forced to leave the review feeling like I still don't know the game. I am familiar enough with you as a reviewer to trust your criticisms are accurate, but I still wonder. This is only food for thought, I do think you do great work!

I'm glad this game was terrible, because this review is fantastic. Although, I can just imagine a hypothetical where the developers decided not to make a steaming pile of garbage and released, at least, a modestly mediocre game instead. Mark one up for Family Guy for finally belonging to the club of adult cartoons with shitty action games (Simpsons, South Park, Futurama, etc...).

@PhilipDuck said:

Shouldn't someone who enjoys Family Guy review the Family Guy game? Sure the game is terrible anyway but still would make for a little less of a bias review..

What makes you think he doesn't enjoy it? The only mention of it is this:

Sure, you get some of that stuff on the Family Guy TV series, but there, Seth MacFarlane's tendency toward offensive humor is too often slathered in that dicey concept known as "parody." Sometimes you just want to laugh at hateful words being used to demean others without all the bullshit, you know?

Which, while not inherently positive, does clearly set the TV show apart from the game.

@Alex: Does it make me a bad person that I get happy every time I see a review from you of an awful game?

Why does Alex review bad games? Has he become addicted?

Fair enough, the family guy licence might not merit the greatest game crossover but god damn if they cant even get the humor right then there is absolutely no point in acquiring the licence in the first place.

@Johnnybombazini said:

Worst thing about this is that it'll probably sell okay

By oblivious people who don't read gaming websites or have good people around them to tell them to not buy horrible games.

Endurance Run.

What the hell? This game started in development in 2008, right? In the Love, Blactually and The Former Life of Brian period, right? I refuse to believe that this was written alongside Family Guy episodes that don't suck steaming piles of ass.

@jsnyder82 said:

If this guy has to review one more shitty game like this, he's going to snap. Please give him a AAA title.

Alex does get the crap games but he reviews good games as well. He just reviewed the Walking Dead for the site.

@evanbower said:

Only just now do I appreciate that The Simpsons Game was a kind of funny, well-written, decent couch co-op game.

Agreed. That and The Simpsons: Hit and Run. Amazing how these two games have risen in esteem as the years have gone by.

@Swifdemon said:

Why does Alex review bad games? Has he become addicted?

jeff made him review it because jeff is a mean person

@PhilipDuck said:

Shouldn't someone who enjoys Family Guy review the Family Guy game? Sure the game is terrible anyway but still would make for a little less of a bias review..

I would not be surprised if Alex likes Family Guy the most out of the g-bomb staff.

@Alex said:

@anotherfluke: Actually, if you read carefully, you'd note that I specifically say this game is horrendous completely outside the normal bounds of Family Guy. I don't even have a problem with Family Guy or MacFarlane. I think he is capable of being clever at times. This game exudes absolutely none of that cleverness, and just goes for the cheap giggle from every douchebag who thinks calling things 'gay' is hilarity incarnate. And I specifically said as much up front and in one of the captions.

@RonnieBarzel said:

@evanbower said:

Only just now do I appreciate that The Simpsons Game was a kind of funny, well-written, decent couch co-op game.

Agreed. That and The Simpsons: Hit and Run. Amazing how these two games have risen in esteem as the years have gone by.

Hit and run was fantastic. I played it at the height of my obsession with the show so it resonated even more then it would have otherwise. Road rage wasn't too bad either if I remember correctly although not as good as Hit and run.

My review of Alex's review:

Alex's written reviews of bad games transcend the realm of mere purchasing advice and are instead extremely entertaining in their own right.
4 Stars

Poor Alex, seriously poor duder. He's awesome, he doesn't deserve to go through this.

Reflecting on all the bad TV video games, I remembered the Futurama one for xbox. That was awesome from what I recall.

I love the one family guy hardcore fanboy who shows up in the thread and thinks Bias is a proper noun. Good stuff

@BenderUnit22 said:

Quicklook or I don't believe a word.

There is hope! Fingers crossed.

via Mr. Alex Navarro's twitter:

I've agreed to do a Family Guy Quick Look when I arrive in SF, but only if @jeffgerstmann does it with me. Awaiting a response.

You know, as much as laughing at or pointing out bad games is important, was it really worth it to commit a review for this game? For the time spent playing and writing about this game, I think I would have much preferred a review of any of the small/indie games that only got a Quick Look on the site. Who else wouldn't have liked a review follow-up for Hell Yeah!, Closure, Snapshot, Karateka, or Retro City Rampage? I feel like Alex's time would have been better served giving him this than reviewing a game that a QL would have immediately made apparent is dog shit.

This game seems like it was specially made so that reviewers could use the lower end of the review scale. Based on some of the reviews it wouldn't even make a good Family Guy episode better yet an entire game.

@anotherfluke said:

But coming into it as a fairly neutral third party, I finished the review feeling like I still didn't know if there were interesting aspects of the game that got sandblasted away in the reviewer's mind by all the content, and I am forced to leave the review feeling like I still don't know the game.

You have a point. However, I think the fact that Alex didn't spend too much time describing gameplay is reflective of the idea that there isn't much of a game here. The game seems more like an alternate delivery method for Family Guy jokes that have interactive content thrown between them. This has been the case with many licensed games in the past.

Alex pretty much sums up what he thinks the game is here:

The mechanics function more like a lousy arena shooter than a typical third-person adventure, so there's a lot of running and shooting, and not much else. If we were talking about a game with a challenge level similar to, say, Serious Sam, that might have worked out better. But Back to the Multiverse isn't interested in challenging you so much as it is killing time until its next offensive one-liner.

I demand a quick look of this game.

Though- that would probably give it more exposure than it deserves. But Operation: Quick Look Everything must go on.

im glad this game came out because it led to this hilarious review

Alex has perfected video game criticism as an art.

Awesome review of what looks to be a terrible game.

@BaconGames said:

You know, as much as laughing at or pointing out bad games is important, was it really worth it to commit a review for this game? For the time spent playing and writing about this game, I think I would have much preferred a review of any of the small/indie games that only got a Quick Look on the site. Who else wouldn't have liked a review follow-up for Hell Yeah!, Closure, Snapshot, Karateka, or Retro City Rampage? I feel like Alex's time would have been better served giving him this than reviewing a game that a QL would have immediately made apparent is dog shit.

Yeah, there probably should have been like, a good 30 or so minute Quick Look devoted to this game and an actual review to some really good stuff like RCR, Hell Yeah!, Closure, and Snapshot. But yeah, the way the GB is structured usually works well, but sadly stuff falls through the cracks that is really good too. Like RCR, which they wrote off as a cute, decent reference-based game which while it does that well, I feel it pulls off a lot more and is just a solid, great straight-up game too.

It feel kinda old school having Alex review a terrible game. I like it.

Alex was the perfect guy for this review. :)

@ArtisanBreads said:

@jsnyder82 said:

If this guy has to review one more shitty game like this, he's going to snap. Please give him a AAA title.

Alex does get the crap games but he reviews good games as well. He just reviewed the Walking Dead for the site.

And just because he reviews shitty games doesn't mean he doesn't play all the great games as well.