I do agree that GB has seemingly become more and more prejudice towards genres and games. Sonic is a prime example because Jeff has stated that he needs to be taken out behind the barn, and yet he did the quicklook. I think that was a bad call. Also, he really like 50 Cent Blood on the Sand, but finds faults in other, better games that he dings hard. I mean it's hard because it's THEIR opinion, and you really can't argue with that sadly.
"Videogame design isn't something to be "figured out". "
What about that entire period of time when the industry was doing 3D? What was it called? The mid to late 90s? I'm pretty sure they had to figure that out.
" Giant Bomb, particularly Jeff, has always been very opinionated. Their weekly exaggeration of games on WiiWare/DSiWare comes off as a little childish, and there's many quick looks where they have shut the game down already before even starting it. I remember on an E3 podcast when Johnny V said Goldeneye looked cool, Jeff went on a little bitch-fit asking how he can like such a game. Fast forward to a recent quick look of the game where Jeff is hanging with the developers and has nothing negative to say. Yes, it's annoying, but as another poster said, their opinion is no more validated than your own. "
No one is going to shit on a game when the developers are literally right next to them while playing it.
I somewhat agree with your points there. I feel as though Jeff and Ryan particularly may at times let their predisposition towards a game get in the way oh how they review it. I don't think it renders every review they've written as illegitimate, but it's for those reasons why GB isn't my primary site for reviews. I'll often get a second opinion from another site.
as i alluded to earlier, i didn't like how this one came out but on the other hand some of the best moments of quicklooks come from the staff making fun of the game. the game room stuff is the best example of that. it ends up sometimes just being a "you have to take the good with the bad" type of thing
*Sigh*. Another one of these "YOU'RE PLAYING IT WRONG! DO IT RIGHT!" posts.
Jeff said multiple times in podcasts and quicklooks that he just doesn't have room in his heart for a Sonic game anymore. That's his personal opinion. Does that opinion make it's way into the quicklook? Sure it does and there is no reason it shouldn't. Personally I want to hear what a game reviewer's actual opinions are and the reasons behind those opinions. At least he gave the game a chance by doing the quick look in the first place.
I think Sega should just give up on Sonic and let him die. I don't think Sonic is relevant anymore in today's culture. Let's be honest, the first three Sonic games weren't popular just based on game-play alone. It was the character that sucked kids in. Sonic was a product of the 90's. The character appealed to kids because he was edgy and had attitude. That made him "cool" which made kids want to play as him. With all the other bad-ass game characters out there today does Sonic even have a chance?
Also, with all the game-play innovation that has occurred over the past 15 years does the old formula still hold up? For some people it does for nostalgic reasons but I don't consider it to be fun for any more than a few minutes at a time. But that's just my personal opinion.
The only thing that made sonic appealing to me (as a nintendo owner/fan/kid) was the graphics and speed. Whenever I played it it felt like a poor platformer compared to the SMB3's and SMW games I enjoyed.
I deleted the Sonic 4 demo before i even finished it. It was super boring.
" The advantage I feel Giantbomb has over other video game sites is because it is so personality driven, you know what the tastes of the guys are so when Jeff doesn't like Sonic 4, you should see why that is and relate it to how you feel about games. Just because I agree with them on this QL doesn't mean I agree all the time but that doesn't mean I bitch when, for example, Jeff wasn't into Red Dead Redemption. "
" It was god damn painful seeing Jeff being unable to get out of that Casino bowl. Its been a feature since, Spring Yard Zone in Sonic 1- you're supposed to build up momentum. I knew to do that when I was five, why can't Jeff figure it out? "
Whether it's worth anything or not, I wasn't sure how he would get out of there either.
"less than a minute in, Jeff explains how its "not for me" and that he's not able to care about Sonic any longer. Brad tries to clarify that "its just a matter of taste, right?" and Jeff agrees. I don't think anyone is dismissing it as garbage and that no one will enjoy Sonic 4, and they even say that a lot of the latter titles were geared towards kids. I guess I'm not quite sure what your issue is with the quick look? I think part of the problem with Sonic games as some of them simply are poorly rushed games that have not identified their target audience. A lot of us grew up with Sonic, whether we had a Sega or had a friend that had one he was very much a character of our childhood. As adults, we have since moved on (this is a generalization, but I think it's fairly accurate). Since Sonic began to target kids, I think they failed at marketing it as such in that children are probably more attracted to what they know, like cartoon shows or known properties they are familiar with. I'm making a lot of general assumptions but a company that continually churns out games that play on the exact same game mechanic, begs the question of why create a new game that does the exact same thing, so many times. Side scrollers became passe for awhile and made way for polygonal games and shooters. Those genres become tired as well and the market moves on. Side scrollers have seen a return on hand-helds and are doing well. Look at how Fighting games eventually became tired and are now seeing a renaissance. There was a time period of rest when you didn't see certain genres and specific games, but there has been no rest for Sonic.. just churning out the same tired formula without any sort of variance aside from going polygonal. "
I agree that jeff did explain it is not for him and it's a matter of taste by brad which was a relief but they don't normally do that and having a quicklook with such a strong stance like that can get people upset when it seem the QL goes out of the way in saying that if you like this game then your crazy. I just think they can save all that for the review and stick to the more witty joke making if they don't like it.
Why must people get so butt hurt when someone voices their negative opinion on a game/series that they are a fan of. Guess what, it's my opinion that Sonic games were never fun from day one, does that statement require you to go on a multi-paragraph rant???
"Why must people get so butt hurt when someone voices their negative opinion on a game/series that they are a fan of. Guess what, it's my opinion that Sonic games were never fun from day one, does that statement require you to go on a multi-paragraph rant??? "
Why must you get butt hurt that there is a multi-paragraph rant? why do i get butt hurt by people who write comment about why people get so butt hurt? We could do this all day but the point is it happens.
My main beef with the GB crew's outlook on games is that a) they're really bad at them, so how are they in a position to judge pacing, difficulty etc. and b) half the time they don't properly justify their conclusions in reviews (e.g. positive positive positive...4 stars, then in another review positive positive positive...5 stars). I think this site is as much of an entertainment venue as a game journalism venue, possibly even more so.
"Why must people get so butt hurt when someone voices their negative opinion on a game/series that they are a fan of. Guess what, it's my opinion that Sonic games were never fun from day one, does that statement require you to go on a multi-paragraph rant??? "
Why must you get butt hurt that there is a multi-paragraph rant? why do i get butt hurt by people who write comment about why people get so butt hurt? We could do this all day but the point is it happens.
I commented under that quick look that is was pretty pointless. By his own admission the only way Sega could have made a Sonic game Jeff liked was if they found a way to make it 1993 again. I am completely indifferent to sonic as a franchise and a character, and while I understand that opinions have their place, the point of a 'review' is to explore and examine a subjects contents and purpose, several paragraphs of opinion isn't journalism. Same for other games the Giant Bomb crew don't like, review something for what it is, not what it isn't.
More and more I find myself comparing these guys to John Cussack and Jack Black in High Fidelity, funny and entertaining but pretty snobbish.
" Brad makes a ridiculous point about how Sonic used to be fun because "that's all there was" and "nobody had figured out how to make a character action game".
It was simply NEVER good game design. It was all fluff and no substance. "
I think you are both trying to make the same point. Brad was saying that people thought Sonic was fun because that's all there was. Aside from Mario, Sonic was the best thing around. Now that there are other good games in that genre, nobody has a need for Sonic anymore, because he's been clearly outmatched -- at least, without a major overhaul.
And honestly? I grew up with a Genesis. Sonic was my favorite series at the time. Now, I can't stand playing any of those old Genesis Sonics. They're boring and some of the design choices are just frustrating. I tried to play the series again, driven by nostalgia, but I just couldn't do it. It wasn't fun. Yet, I can still go back and play any Super Mario game and have a blast. I think that's telling.
Look Giant Bomb is Giant Bomb if you don't like it then don't eat. These guys have opinions and they are going to state them (and remember they are just that, opinions) they aren't hung up on thinking that they might offend a game developer or that they aren't building up enough hype for a game. They aren't going to sit there in a Quick Look an pretend they like a game that they don't and that's what Giant Bomb was built on, honesty. SUCK IT UP FOOLS!
But are quicklooks supposed to be focused on skill and how well the staff member running the quicklook can play the game? I think skill level of the presenter is irrelevant to the quicklook itself.
" But are quicklooks supposed to be focused on skill and how well the staff member running the quicklook can play the game? I think skill level of the presenter is irrelevant to the quicklook itself. "
It's the same thing everyone says when GB doesn't like their game of choice. "Thats coz u suck at it! Ur doing it rong!@1!!" People can't imagine that not everyone cares about the same things. If they're "playing it wrong" it's because that's how they want to play it, and odds are "playing it right" will be unnatural for them or disinterest them just as much.
If a game is something they're going to like, they'll wind up liking it no matter what, in most cases. Jeff and Vinny went into Persona 4 with a mild interest in the idea, but fully expecting to hate it, and they wound up loving it, even when they were "playing it wrong".
" I only agree with the Jeff part. Must be me, but lately he's shown little restraint for things, or just a lack of interest/skill maybe, but then let someone else review/quicklook it. "UGH I HAVE TO USE BUTTONS TO PLAY THIS GAME? HOW LAME!" "
No it's not just you. It's pretty clear he isn't really into any of the recent games or he's not really interested in QLs at the moment. Hell of a lot of negativity going on at the moment
I must say that I kinda agree with the original poster. I have great respect for the GB team, but sometimes, Jeff in particular, they can be a bit cynical and downright stubborn towards games in general. It could be that they're getting kinda "old" and are growing into the "Ahh, kids these days" mentality, or it could just be something else, I dunno.
It's not that I'm ragging down on Giant Bomb cause they are doing a great job with this website and gaming related news in general, but they can seem a bit obtuse at times, something they weren't in the good old Gamespot days. Maybe it's the industry getting them down sometimes, I dunno, but they should always remember that games are about having fun. Once you start getting too judgmental and biased, maybe it's time to go back and find out what it what was that made you fall in love with games in the first place.
@JazGalaxy: but what are they meant to do, they can only give their personal opinions right? either that or just not talk about the games and just list the facts, and thats going to get rather dull.
People, they didn't enjoy the game. They were negative about a game they didn't enjoy. What are they supposed to do? Say nice things to appease it's fans, even if they're half-hearted? They did that. They said that some people might enjoy the game. They mentioned some good design choices, e.g. choosing your own level and things like that. Get over it. Watch a Quick Look where they play a game they enjoy. They're super positive in the Guilty Party QL, for example. It sounds like a lot of you are just mad that they weren't too impressed with Sonic. Sorry 'boutcha.
@endless_void: Quick Looks are more or less akin to an editorial in a newspaper. This is not a review, this is just us giving our personal opinions and experiences with the game.
Saying that you want them to talk shit to the developers in person shows that you have no understanding of professionalism. Even if you don't like the game you don't rip into the people working on it to their face, you can ask questions about why they did some of the choices they did, "Why did you go this route with the story? You're not afraid that long-time fans might not like that?" for example, but you don't just tell them that their game is dumb.
And at the end of the day, the developers will know what you thought of in your review. A good dev won't hold grudges either if you don't like it, because they know that they did their job, and you're just doing yours.
And say what you will about GB being "Unprofessional" but these guys have been in the industry a lot longer than most people so they know more about what to do with covering a bad game than either you or I.
@CocoRodriguez: Exactly. That's like Jay Leno doing an interview with Tom Cruise, and asking him why Mission: Impossible 2 was a piece of horseshit. What was he thinking when he made that movie? Was he high? Why didn't he just try harder?
" But are quicklooks supposed to be focused on skill and how well the staff member running the quicklook can play the game? I think skill level of the presenter is irrelevant to the quicklook itself. "
It's the same thing everyone says when GB doesn't like their game of choice. "Thats coz u suck at it! Ur doing it rong!@1!!" People can't imagine that not everyone cares about the same things. If they're "playing it wrong" it's because that's how they want to play it, and odds are "playing it right" will be unnatural for them or disinterest them just as much.
If a game is something they're going to like, they'll wind up liking it no matter what, in most cases. Jeff and Vinny went into Persona 4 with a mild interest in the idea, but fully expecting to hate it, and they wound up loving it, even when they were "playing it wrong". "
I find this kind of quote baffling.
I don't even know how to apprach the concept of someone believing in the idea that there is NOT a right and wrong way to do things.
I mean, look, if you shove a hotdog up your butt, then there is a great possiblity that you are NOT going to enjoy that hotdog in the same way the rest of america does. To then say you "don't like it" and other people should accept your opinion as valid? Really?
"I don't like hotdogs. I shoved one up my butt and I found the whole experience distasteful. And dont' tell me I'm doing it wrong because I don't want to hear that!"
If you rent a four wheeler and only drive it at 3 miles an hour... you're probably not going to enjoy it in the same way the rest of america does because you're not experiencing it the way it's meant to be experienced. Sure you might wind up having sex on that very same 4 wheeler going that same speed and come away saying it was amazing, but that doesn't discount the fact that you didn't do it right. You might have found another way to have fun on it, but the actual experience still needs to be respected.
It's just that they're far too lenient and reluctant to ask critical questions to the devs when they show off their game. Edit: Is talking crap behind their backs so much better?
You can't just slap a new coat of paint on a game and call it good. "
That is true, but they've already tried to reinvent the franchise a number of times. I guess Sonic is a lost cause. "
I wouldn't even call it "reinventing". The Adventure games were an admirable effort, but apart from that they've moved it to 3D and made a full bullshit knock-offs. I really think it's just time for the franchise to die. It existed in an era when it was beloved, and it will be remembered for that, but it needs to stop soiling the good memories.
" It's just that they're far too lenient and reluctant to ask critical questions to the devs when they show off their game. Edit: Is talking crap behind their backs so much better? "
For being too "lenient when devs show off their game" you'll pretty much find that at every gaming journalism publication/website. They have to strike a balance with them. If they're very openly critical during a meeting with a developer, there's a good chance that developer will just stop inviting them to events or sending out review copies. The developers will easily stop working with them if all the publication does is give them bad PR before the game is even released. Which, in turn, will hurt the coverage of that gaming pub/site.
At the same time though, this "talking crap behind their backs" is just the journalists doing their job. During the QL, yeah Brad and Jeff were harsh on Sonic, but they both prefaced it by saying it was their opinion and that they're might be other people who think differently. And by looking at reviews that have come out since the release there seems to be a great deal of people who do.
It's pretty simple. I would say that, as a whole, the Giant Bomb staff is pretty damn jaded and cynical when it comes to games. While this definitely has it's perks, it means that they are far, far, far more likely to dismiss something out of hand that doesn't conform to their tastes. Sonic fits into this category.
@DrPockets000: Yeah, that was a bad word choice on my behalf. I've actually never cared much for Sonic, having only played the Sonic 3 & Knuckles demo on PC. I can understand the first game's appeal when it first was released. It had speed seldom experienced in a video game, it had an angry blue hedgehog as protagonist, and it had great music. But because the gameplay forced you to finish levels quickly, you never really got to admire the level design.
Log in to comment