Best Interview of E3 2012

  • 123 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by Ramone (2975 posts) -

Literally had to stop watching because I wanted to throttle McShea so hard.

#52 Posted by Pezen (1632 posts) -

That was hard to watch and not consider breaking something.

Makes me sort of want to buy Warfighter out of spite.

#53 Posted by Chicken_Pants (19 posts) -

@hoossy said:

Just because you conduct interviews and write articles for gamespot does NOT make you a journalist. Personally, I don't consider most video game commentators/reviewers to be journalists. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but the evolving view of what a journalist is, both in games and in the media at large, is disturbing.

Agreed.

The two groups in videogame 'journalism' that annoy me most:

1. The Yoshi t-shirt wearing press release copy and pasting mouth-breathing variety that experience multiple orgasms at the very mention of Zelda/Halo/Smash Bros at an E3 press conference.

2. The chin-scratching pseudo-intelectuals that breed the shit like we see in this video and walk around thinking their the Roger Ebert of videogames.

It's why I tend not to venture beyond Giant Bomb a majority of the time. The guys here can have cool high concept talks about videogame but accept that what they do isn't really journalism.

That being said I thought Gamespot's coverage as a whole was pretty good. They have some good people over there .eg John Davison and Danny O'Dwyer.

#54 Posted by PandaBear (1377 posts) -

@OneManX:

So reading your replies I get that military people are probably as indifferent about how war games are marketed as regular gamers are... which is fair enough because what makes these games good is that they are fun.

I think McShea's problem is that calling it realistic (authentic, if you will) is dangerous for more impressionable gamers. I'm not screaming "think of the children!!" but maybe more "make it real or shut up". NOT really real as such, but not so 80s action movie either. I mean there's no video game equivilent of Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line... (I do think McShea could have handled that interview better though...)

...and it's strange that Goodrich says the series has always been a "thank you" to the soldier when the 2010 Medal of Honor was banned from army stores becasue you could orignally play as the Taliban. That doesn't seem like much of a "thank you" to me.

Anyway, thanks for the replies guys... food for thought from a side I never really see.

#55 Edited by Binman88 (3689 posts) -

Great interview, I really like Greg's demeanour. I thought it was awesome how he put their presence at E3: "to really punch through and to get noticed, from the Gamespots or the IGNs or the G4s, you gotta have those bullets and bombs for the dudebros". Thought that was pretty funny.

Edit: Oh god, McShea's rant about "fun" towards the end is fucking horrendous.

#56 Posted by Gutterkisser (210 posts) -

Everyone's already said it, but this guy is positively awful. How can someone employed in the games industry so fundamentally miss the point?

#57 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

At the end Mario shows up and gives him a little talk about life.

#58 Posted by Jayzilla (2567 posts) -

It's like watching a car wreck.

#59 Edited by TheSlothKing (333 posts) -

He writes about and works in the games industry ,and yet it seems that he know nothing about it.

#60 Posted by Carryboy (717 posts) -

You heard the man games don't need to be fun that must be a huge relieve for developers to hear, sorry excuse of a games "journalist".

I thought Greg Goodrich came across very well mind.

#61 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

I had to stop watching as well. Can this guy not show up anywhere in the industry again?

#62 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

@Dourin said:

The worst part about it is, I can see what Tom was trying to argue, but it's obvious he's the kind of guy who has to really contemplate every word of his articles when he's writing them, because when faced with the task of having to defend his editorial and argue his point, he completely falls apart. Throughout the entire 20+ minute interview, he never comes right out and says what his argument is, he just keeps referring back to the regenerating health issue. I feel like what he was trying to argue was the idea that the developer is, in his eyes, falsely advertising Medal of Honor as being an "authentic" war game based on real people's experiences when it includes unauthentic "gamey" mechanics such as regenerating health and respawns.

Greg tried to defend his point against Tom, but also had a hard time doing so, I feel, because I don't think he really understood exactly what Tom was trying to argue in the first place (because Tom argued it poorly). Tom repeatedly used the term "realism," which was easy for Greg to write off since it was not the exact word the studio was using, but instead "authentic." Greg was right in saying that it was a matter of semantics between them, but that was never the argument in the first place. To say that a game is "authentic," and to name off all the ways in which it is, but conveniently leave out the ideas of pain and death on the battlefield, is misleading. If they wanted to be true to their fans and the people they claim to "honor" by making these games, they would need to list off the ways in which the game is "authentic," since there are clearly aspects of the game, small as they might see them, that are absolutely without question not authentic. Obviously no marketing team is going to do that, so instead they just say that their game is "authentic" and not going for "realism," since that term is much easier to argue for.

tl;dr

Tom McShea had a valid point that could've lead to an interesting debate between himself and Greg but is bad at debate, it seems.

Well, in the world of game design, there is a distinction between "authenticity" and "realism." Authenticity usually refers to aesthetics. In this games case, that refers to weapons, weapon systems, clothing, jargon, environment, context etc. Realism pertains to "feel". That can mean tactics, consequences, physics, weapon handling, procedure, A.I. etc.

Simulations go for realism. War fighter is not a simulator, nor does it even try to be so. I'll use the demo as an example. In the demo, the special operations unit is doing a covert insertion in the middle of the day in an urban environment. In real life that would never happen, it would be pretty much a night insertion in that scenario in order to mask movement. Not only that but they get compromised as soon as they enter environment. Well guess what, in real life, missions over. You just sacrificed the one element you had, which is surprise. For a squad level unit, which has limited firepower, they are not going to stay around and fight to the objective. They are turning around and leaving. In no way shape or form is that realistic irregardless of regenerative health or whatever. Tactics, consequences, procedure are already unrealistic.

But aesthetically, the game is probably dead on. Those dudes look the part, the boats they use are probably real weapon systems. The weapons they use are probably what it is in real life. I am sure they are throwing around authentic terminology. The environment is pertaining to current events etc.

#63 Posted by Nicked (256 posts) -

@flindip said:

@Dourin said:

The worst part about it is, I can see what Tom was trying to argue, but it's obvious he's the kind of guy who has to really contemplate every word of his articles when he's writing them, because when faced with the task of having to defend his editorial and argue his point, he completely falls apart. Throughout the entire 20+ minute interview, he never comes right out and says what his argument is, he just keeps referring back to the regenerating health issue. I feel like what he was trying to argue was the idea that the developer is, in his eyes, falsely advertising Medal of Honor as being an "authentic" war game based on real people's experiences when it includes unauthentic "gamey" mechanics such as regenerating health and respawns.

Greg tried to defend his point against Tom, but also had a hard time doing so, I feel, because I don't think he really understood exactly what Tom was trying to argue in the first place (because Tom argued it poorly). Tom repeatedly used the term "realism," which was easy for Greg to write off since it was not the exact word the studio was using, but instead "authentic." Greg was right in saying that it was a matter of semantics between them, but that was never the argument in the first place. To say that a game is "authentic," and to name off all the ways in which it is, but conveniently leave out the ideas of pain and death on the battlefield, is misleading. If they wanted to be true to their fans and the people they claim to "honor" by making these games, they would need to list off the ways in which the game is "authentic," since there are clearly aspects of the game, small as they might see them, that are absolutely without question not authentic. Obviously no marketing team is going to do that, so instead they just say that their game is "authentic" and not going for "realism," since that term is much easier to argue for.

tl;dr

Tom McShea had a valid point that could've lead to an interesting debate between himself and Greg but is bad at debate, it seems.

Well, in the world of game design, there is a distinction between "authenticity" and "realism." Authenticity usually refers to aesthetics. In this games case, that refers to weapons, weapon systems, clothing, jargon, environment, context etc. Realism pertains to "feel". That can mean tactics, consequences, physics, weapon handling, procedure, A.I. etc.

Simulations go for realism. War fighter is not a simulator, nor does it even try to be so. I'll use the demo as an example. In the demo, the special operations unit is doing a covert insertion in the middle of the day in an urban environment. In real life that would never happen, it would be pretty much a night insertion in that scenario in order to mask movement. Not only that but they get compromised as soon as they enter environment. Well guess what, in real life, missions over. You just sacrificed the one element you had, which is surprise. For a squad level unit, which has limited firepower, they are not going to stay around and fight to the objective. They are turning around and leaving. In no way shape or form is that realistic irregardless of regenerative health or whatever. Tactics, consequences, procedure are already unrealistic.

But aesthetically, the game is probably dead on. Those dudes look the part, the boats they use are probably real weapon systems. The weapons they use are probably what it is in real life. I am sure they are throwing around authentic terminology. The environment is pertaining to current events etc.

I didn't watch the video because uncomfortable videos in turn make me uncomfortable, but it seems like the larger issue is about propaganda and not authenticity/realism. I don't think it's too bold of an assertion to say that modern military shooters are effectively war propaganda, even if they aren't state sponsored. The bad guys are evil and faceless, and the player character is wholly justified in his killing. The word "consequence" is interesting because even in simulation games, there really isn't any. Non-regenerating health doesn't make a video game "more real".

On either side of the semantic argument, I think there's something to be said about how games present war and whether or not that presentation is healthy.

#64 Posted by mnzy (2916 posts) -

I couldn't watch all of that. Tom made a fool of himself if you ask me.

#65 Edited by avantegardener (1130 posts) -

I came here for Kid Rock and I get this! Goodrich handles himself extremely well.

#66 Edited by flindip (533 posts) -

@Nicked said:

I didn't watch the video because uncomfortable videos in turn make me uncomfortable, but it seems like the larger issue is about propaganda and not authenticity/realism. I don't think it's too bold of an assertion to say that modern military shooters are effectively war propaganda, even if they aren't state sponsored. The bad guys are evil and faceless, and the player character is wholly justified in his killing. The word "consequence" is interesting because even in simulation games, there really isn't any. Non-regenerating health doesn't make a video game "more real".

On either side of the semantic argument, I think there's something to be said about how games present war and whether or not that presentation is healthy.

Well Propaganda is pertaining to PR people, not really game designers. If the dude wanted to get into a discussion with game marketing people, that may be a more appropriate conversation. But his beef was about game mechanics as well. As far as representing moral ambiguity, that is an issue with ALL video games/movies/media. Most of time, even in our news coverage, we get simple "black and white" representations. But since the game is about a solider, a soldier doesn't make policy nor should he care. They are told to do a job, they do it.

In terms of consequence, you will never have TRUE consequence in a video game. However you can simulate operational consequences. You lose a man in your squad, you lose another rifle to fight. You give away your position, all hell can breaks lose and you die. There is a game from 1993 by EA called SEAL team which simulated that fairly well. Even the original Rainbow Six games were brutal if you did not execute properly.

As far as war presentation being healthy or not. Well the reality is there is a duality to warfare. On one hand its horrific, showing one man's inhumanity to another man etc. On the other hand( and something that gets shoved under the rug due to "PC" thinking)warfare is extremely exciting. Adrenaline dumping, putting yourself in a scenario where you are constantly facing life and death. For certain individuals, that is something they actively seek out.

That is where a lot of the bravado and bullshit element is birthed from. That is why war fighting will always be, on some level, glamorized.

#67 Edited by Sergio (2160 posts) -

I give Tom Mcshea zero credit for meeting with Greg Goodrich. This was a terrible "journalist" who tried to come up with a sensationalist spin while reporting on a game to try to drive up page views. Of course he would meet with Greg, who I do give credit for getting in touch with Tom to set the record straight.

I found it funny during this interview that Greg tells him that there is a hardcore mode that is essentially what Tom was whining for. That should have been the end of it, but Tom ends up trying to save face like a little kid on the school yard who's been proven wrong by asking why isn't that the default. He seems too dumb to realize most people wouldn't want to play that as the default, and the game wouldn't demo very well in the middle of E3 with that as the default. Regarding why make the game fun? Because it's a game, most people play games to have fun.

It seems Tom Mcshea may be in the wrong industry.

#68 Posted by TentPole (1858 posts) -

@Nicked: If you aren't going to watch the video then please don't make shit up.

#69 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

Tom Mcshea is, has and always will be a complete fucking goon in my eyes.

He does a disservice to his fellow colleagues at Gamespot with the poor performance he conveys at his job.

#70 Edited by wardcleaver (173 posts) -

This is why some critics are so hated.  Tom criticized the game but when asked how he would improve it, he just reverted to, "Uh,I am not a game designer."   There is also the fact that he admitted to never playing any of the MOH games.   
 
His whole article came across as something a 13 year old fanboy would write.   
 
I can tell the difference between "realistic" and "authentic", why couldn't he?
#71 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6399 posts) -

Tom McShea seems incredibly dense in this interview. It's hard to believe that he doesn't understand that this first-person shooter is not a simulation of actual war and asking for 100% realistic health damage is a completely ridiculous request (as is the request to literally feel loss when a person in a game dies), and way beyond the scope of what the game is attempting to do. How did he not figure out that the "authenticity and respect" is just marketing speak and the arcady gameplay is arcady because it's a modern first-person shooter and not a war simulator?

#72 Edited by Apathylad (3067 posts) -

My biggest problem with McShea's argument is how he rants about how inappropriate these games are, but then admits he hasn't played any of them. That weakens his argument right off the bat, and instead makes him come across as informed as the angry parent who thinks video games are corrupting the youth.

I agree with the sentiment that a game doesn't necessarily have to be "fun", at least not in the traditional sense, but that's a totally different argument. Medal of Honor isn't trying to be a war simulator, like Goodrich said.

#73 Posted by blacklab (1569 posts) -

Not very impressive, McShea.

#74 Posted by Kedi2 (252 posts) -

I can't believe he actually said he would like the game to not be fun.

#75 Posted by iAmJohn (6128 posts) -

@PandaBear said:

@OneManX:

So reading your replies I get that military people are probably as indifferent about how war games are marketed as regular gamers are... which is fair enough because what makes these games good is that they are fun.

I think McShea's problem is that calling it realistic (authentic, if you will) is dangerous for more impressionable gamers. I'm not screaming "think of the children!!" but maybe more "make it real or shut up". NOT really real as such, but not so 80s action movie either. I mean there's no video game equivilent of Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line... (I do think McShea could have handled that interview better though...)

...and it's strange that Goodrich says the series has always been a "thank you" to the soldier when the 2010 Medal of Honor was banned from army stores becasue you could orignally play as the Taliban. That doesn't seem like much of a "thank you" to me.

Anyway, thanks for the replies guys... food for thought from a side I never really see.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to imply with that statement? That EA was doing the soldiers a disservice by calling the enemy soldiers you have to play as by virtue of it being a multiplayer game (thus it making no sense for you to have AMERICA DUDES VS. AMERICA DUDES) by name? That they deserved to have the game banned from army stores even after they backed down and changed "Taliban" to "OpFor"? This sounds like you're making the exact same baseless strawman argument that Tom McShea was.

#76 Posted by ShaneDev (1696 posts) -

I had to pause that a couple of times when Tom McShea spoke but eventually finished it. What a train wreck, huge credit to the EA guy for not getting agitated and for bypassing the PR talk. They should have called time about 10 minutes in when the Gamespot guy quite clearly had no idea what they were even arguing about. No wonder games journalism is considered such a joke when that guy can be considered part of it.

#77 Posted by wumbo3000 (989 posts) -

Tom actually has a valid point, but he just isn't saying it right. I think what he's talking about is: Don't claim your game is authentic and realistic when people who get shot regenerate health in a matter of seconds. If he had just said that, I think he makes an okay argument. Rather than labeling Medal of Honor: Warfighter as authentic, just call it an exciting military themed first person shooter. I think the part Tom gets stuck up on is when developers start saying the game is realistic, when in actuality, it really isn't.

#78 Posted by wardcleaver (173 posts) -

What gets most about that video is Tom's complete lack of professionalism.  I can respect that he had a different opinion, but he seemed not to show that  same courtesy to Greg.
#79 Posted by DeadDorf (388 posts) -

McShea is saying that the whole development team should be ashamed and doesn't respect the troops. Now he has to own up to his writing, and realize that it's not anonymous. He needs to issue a public apology to the development team.

#80 Posted by Doctorchimp (4078 posts) -

So that's what it looks like when a random troll gets a paying job?

I also loved the part where Greg shares a small anecdote of how a veteran father opened up to his son as they casually played MoH 2010, and Tom's immediate response was "HEADSHOT COUNTERS!!!"

Like the dude has no sense of logic, that's the fucking point Greg was making. EA makes toys, there is no emotional weight to them.

#81 Posted by BrockNRolla (1702 posts) -

This interview is interesting...

But i still don't like Gamespot.

#82 Posted by Flyinnmunkee (28 posts) -

This wasn't an interview, it was the developer confronting the press for a story he didn't like. The whole thing would have been solved if the developer had just said, its a arcade shooter like COD. Don't blame McShea he's just speaking hes mind.

#83 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

@Flyinnmunkee said:

This wasn't an interview, it was the developer confronting the press for a story he didn't like. The whole thing would have been solved if the developer had just said, its a arcade shooter like COD. Don't blame McShea he's just speaking hes mind.

McShea acted like a bitch and got called out on it. Then he acted like a child. He should be fired.

#84 Posted by Flyinnmunkee (28 posts) -

@algertman: Yeah, I agree with most things that have been said, but calling him names and saying he should be fired. McShea has always had a big mouth, He has an opinion just like you and me. I think its freaking stupid that the dude confronted him cause of what he wrote though.

#85 Posted by PandaBear (1377 posts) -

@iAmJohn said:

@PandaBear said:

@OneManX:

So reading your replies I get that military people are probably as indifferent about how war games are marketed as regular gamers are... which is fair enough because what makes these games good is that they are fun.

I think McShea's problem is that calling it realistic (authentic, if you will) is dangerous for more impressionable gamers. I'm not screaming "think of the children!!" but maybe more "make it real or shut up". NOT really real as such, but not so 80s action movie either. I mean there's no video game equivilent of Saving Private Ryan or The Thin Red Line... (I do think McShea could have handled that interview better though...)

...and it's strange that Goodrich says the series has always been a "thank you" to the soldier when the 2010 Medal of Honor was banned from army stores becasue you could orignally play as the Taliban. That doesn't seem like much of a "thank you" to me.

Anyway, thanks for the replies guys... food for thought from a side I never really see.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you trying to imply with that statement? That EA was doing the soldiers a disservice by calling the enemy soldiers you have to play as by virtue of it being a multiplayer game (thus it making no sense for you to have AMERICA DUDES VS. AMERICA DUDES) by name? That they deserved to have the game banned from army stores even after they backed down and changed "Taliban" to "OpFor"? This sounds like you're making the exact same baseless strawman argument that Tom McShea was.

Seriously, use your head. So in Medal of Honor, a series that the executive proiducer Greg Goodrich said is supposed to be a thank you letter to soldier, you can play as Taliban soldiers and kill Americans. He talked about soldiers playing the campaign with their kids to help them understand the most recent Iraq/Afghanistan war and also how it provides an authentic experience to educate as well as entertain. But imagine being a US soldier, coming back from the war where friends of yours died at the hands of the Taliban and having to play as them in multiplayer and hunt down US Army troops. Yeah, that's a real big thank you to the soldiers. Authentic would be the Taliban not being obvious, but potentially being anyone in the game and using roadside bombs and indirect attacks agains tthe soldiers (I don't want this, but modern warfare is different to what it used to be from what I understand). 24vs24 multiplayer with unlimited respawns where you can play as a Taliban soldier and kill American troops to get XP rewards and earn unlocks doesn't sound very authentic or respectful to the men they want to honour.

The thing is, don't agree with me, it doesn't matter. The US Army and Air Force found this game offensive (they allowed Call of Duty though) and that's my point - how can it be respectful of the same people who called it offensive and banned it? I don't think the deserved to get banned, not once did I say that, but they did trivialise a serious subject that they apparently care about thus doing a disservice to the troops in the eyes of the men they wanted to impress...

#86 Posted by wardcleaver (173 posts) -
@Flyinnmunkee said:


                   

This wasn't an interview, it was the developer confronting the press for a story he didn't like. The whole thing would have been solved if the developer had just said, its a arcade shooter like COD. Don't blame McShea he's just speaking hes mind.



                   

               

This was Tom trying to get hits on the GS website.  He clearly was not prepared to debate the developer and got called out on it.  
 
He might have had a point, but that all got lost in his complete lack of professionalism. 
#87 Edited by laserbolts (5331 posts) -

Wow I have to commend the dude for sitting there and talking to Tom for so long. Tom McShea should not have even gotten an interview with him from how thick headed and stubborn he is. Seriously Tom made me a little angry watching this because the dude is so stupid it makes me want to shit myself. It's as if this medal of honor game is the first game to talk about authenticity and realism when pretty much every war game toots the same horn. It's almost like he is bullying the warfighter guys for some attention.

#88 Posted by kinnonyee (33 posts) -

I understand where McShea's coming from, but he should take a page from people like David Mamet and Lynn Mamet (Writers on the excellent "The Unit" TV show) and actually talk to those soldiers he feels are being exploited. It was always interesting to hear Lynn Mamet say that she used to be an anti-war chick until she started writing on "The Unit" with her husband and her views changed quite drastically. On many different levels, games like MoH are recruiting tools for the army just like films such as Blackhawk Down are. You can talk about the exploitive nature from a lot of different angles. Just wish McShea was more articulate and educated in his defense of his editorial.

#89 Posted by TentPole (1858 posts) -

@Flyinnmunkee said:

@algertman: Yeah, I agree with most things that have been said, but calling him names and saying he should be fired. McShea has always had a big mouth, He has an opinion just like you and me. I think its freaking stupid that the dude confronted him cause of what he wrote though.

What has Tom McShea done in your eyes to earn the right to acuse people of disrespecting and taking advantage of fallen soldiers without them getting a chance to defend their names? No one has that right much less a Gamespot reporter as shitty as McShea. Don't be an idiot.

#90 Posted by Flyinnmunkee (28 posts) -

@TentPole: Your right man, I like McShea for his big mouth, I think he has a point an extremely small point, but in the end I would have agreed with him a hole lot more if he didn't target any games in the story, and this is also getting the Game and Gamespot a shit ton of veiws!

#91 Edited by Godlyawesomeguy (6399 posts) -

@kinnonyee

I think you're right, but Tom obviously didn't communicate what he was trying to say well at all. If he would have just said: "Oh, so this 'respect and authenticity' talk is just marketing speak for your explody first-person shooter? Okay." Interview over right there. However, the developer knows he can't say that so he dances around it by saying what is authentic and that it's not Arma and then Tom stupidly goes back to say that somehow he expects Danger Close to make an unfun war game where you feel sad to your very soul when some AI partner dies. McShea has a point somewhere in there but he got nowhere with his arguments, and the developer smartly played the whole situation and I wouldn't put it past some people that they go out and buy MOH: Warfighter because of this.

#92 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@kinnonyee

I think you're right, but Tom obviously didn't communicate what he was trying to say well at all. If he would have just said: "Oh, so this 'respect and authenticity' talk is just marketing speak for your explody first-person shooter? Okay." Interview over right there. However, the developer knows he can't say that so he dances around it by saying what is authentic and that it's not Arma and then Tom stupidly goes back to say that somehow he expects Danger Close to make an unfun war game where you feel sad to your very soul when some AI partner dies. McShea has a point somewhere in there but he got nowhere with his arguments, and the developer smartly played the whole situation and I wouldn't put it past some people that they go out and buy MOH: Warfighter because of this.

The problem with McShea's argument is less that it was on point and more that he was essentially accusing the developers of being terrible people for making a game about modern conflicts with regenerating health. I'm not sure that McShea even understood what his own point should have been because he has clearly proven his incompetence as a debater. I'm not a fan of first-person shooters or modern military games, but McShea managed to put the developer in such a situation where it was easy to sympathize with him, as he was easily far more articulate and on point, both when he was and wasn't using marketing speak for his points.

McShea was clearly using his soapbox to make a social statement, but he's too much of a fool to understand how to stand on it.

#93 Posted by beeftothetaco (425 posts) -

There is something to what Tom was saying, but it's kind of a moot point; it's impossible to truly educate buyers about the horrors war while keeping them inclined to play.

#94 Edited by Mattalorian (594 posts) -

The developer was calm and diplomatic, and frankly I'm impressed that he was able to deal with Tom for so long. I figured that perhaps Tom was just being sensationalist and controversial in the original article in an attempt to get hits, but the interview indicates that he's just incredibly stupid. He ignores the developer's comments and brings up increasingly thickheaded and arrogant points. It really does feel like an adult talking to a child.

#95 Posted by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

Reminds me of the very similar interview that the guy at the verge did with Damon Lindelof in that the interviewer totally makes a fool of himself. I suppose this isn't the first time for Tom. Wasn't too long ago when he reviewed Zelda and totally missed certain control aspects of the game.

#96 Posted by ColinWright (741 posts) -

I think people are missing that McShea states he is okay with these games existing, just doesn't like the way their marketed as "authentic". I agree with him to a point, he just argued it poorly.

#97 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6399 posts) -

@Mattalorian said:

Tom McShea is a real human piece of shit.

An overreaction, perhaps?

#98 Edited by ArbitraryWater (11910 posts) -

Isn't Tom McShea the guy who gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 as basically a way to top Jeff's whole 8.8 kerfuffle? Yeah. I couldn't finish the video. He's so obnoxious, even if he does have a point buried somewhere underneath being an unprofessional retard.

That being said, I do think Gamespot on the whole is actually not that bad. I think Danny 'O Dwyer's videos are pretty amazing, and think that Kevin van Ord is a good writer, if perhaps a bit flowery.

#99 Posted by Blackout62 (1356 posts) -

Well if anything I'm more intrigued by Medal of Honor: Warfighter. I want my story about disheartened men ravaged by prolonged war.

#100 Posted by wjb (1674 posts) -

I'm a piece of shit for saying this, but I couldn't get past the first few minutes because of McShea's speech impediment. I had it when I was a kid, and I can't imagine being an adult with a full-time job and not do something about it.

Rorie did it, and Rorie is the coolest.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.