I don't think I like movie or video game critics...

I liked every episode of the walking dead and it is one of my favorite games.

It is so good that it actually has me questioning whether I want to read video game journalist articles anymore or listen to podcasts. Every time I saw something (not necessarily on this site) that was negative about the game, it just seemed so petty most of the time. And because of my fear of sites spoiling the story, I never read an article before I played the game. I avoided all information and forms and played the game at my leisure without bias.

AND I LOVED THE GAME. Something I wasn't able to say for a long time about video games.

I think there is too much negativity and (more importantly) subjectivity in video game journalism. I think it is hurting my experience with some video games. I don't know if I want to continue to read or listen to podcasts pertaining to video games anymore... which is a shame because I like the bombcast. Also, half the joy of playing video games is discovering what is in them. I don't need someone to tell me what AWESOME thing happens in it.

I have the same problem with movie critics. They suck. There were thousands of movie critics that said forrest gump was a bad movie for all these different reasons. But I watched that movie with no bias and no knowledge and I enjoyed it a lot. I still enjoy the quotes. I still enjoy going on runs and hearing ignorant fat people say "Run forrest, Run!" out their car windows.

I started going to video game journalists to avoid buying BAD games. But if by going to them I am harming my experience with all games including good ones, than I rather just stop.

By the way, sort of unrelated... I never experienced any bugs with TWD on PC. No save game issues or anything. And it sounds like neither did the bombcast, they were just relaying information they heard/read about themselves.

49 Comments
51 Comments
  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by DG991

I liked every episode of the walking dead and it is one of my favorite games.

It is so good that it actually has me questioning whether I want to read video game journalist articles anymore or listen to podcasts. Every time I saw something (not necessarily on this site) that was negative about the game, it just seemed so petty most of the time. And because of my fear of sites spoiling the story, I never read an article before I played the game. I avoided all information and forms and played the game at my leisure without bias.

AND I LOVED THE GAME. Something I wasn't able to say for a long time about video games.

I think there is too much negativity and (more importantly) subjectivity in video game journalism. I think it is hurting my experience with some video games. I don't know if I want to continue to read or listen to podcasts pertaining to video games anymore... which is a shame because I like the bombcast. Also, half the joy of playing video games is discovering what is in them. I don't need someone to tell me what AWESOME thing happens in it.

I have the same problem with movie critics. They suck. There were thousands of movie critics that said forrest gump was a bad movie for all these different reasons. But I watched that movie with no bias and no knowledge and I enjoyed it a lot. I still enjoy the quotes. I still enjoy going on runs and hearing ignorant fat people say "Run forrest, Run!" out their car windows.

I started going to video game journalists to avoid buying BAD games. But if by going to them I am harming my experience with all games including good ones, than I rather just stop.

By the way, sort of unrelated... I never experienced any bugs with TWD on PC. No save game issues or anything. And it sounds like neither did the bombcast, they were just relaying information they heard/read about themselves.

Posted by triviaman09

Dude, reviews are opinions. If you can't handle that, then yeah you should stop paying attention to media journalism. Also, if anything the coverage of TWD is overwhelmingly positive.

Posted by SethPhotopoulos

You mean the game that received numerous GOTY awards as well as numerous positive reviews? The game the industry's press showered praise on?

And you mean Forest Gump? The film that also had a very positive reception? The movie that swept the oscars?

Here's the thing. Find reviewers that share your tastes in films and/or games. There is no such thing as an objective review and it's folly to expect that.

Posted by TheHBK

You mean the game that received almost universal praise but I still think is fucking stupid because I don't like the walking dead and thought the gameplay was nonexistant to I only finished the first part? It works both ways. The super positive opinions don't sway me or make me enjoy a game that I otherwise would not. Or how movie critics think Zero Dark Thirty was a good movie and I didn't? Or that Beasts of the Southern Wilde is so good but I thought it was boring as fuck? Opinions man, everyone has one, and for you I would say, have your own.

The negativity can be fun in games if it is well deserved.

Posted by Baillie

@DG991: Guess what? Season 2 of The Walking Dead was terrible. I'm surprised it made it to a season 3, which is much better, but still not as great as it once was.

Posted by Gamer_152

I don't think critics are particularly negative, they hold things to a high standard, which I think is entirely a good thing, but it's generally regarded by the critics that many great games and movies come out every year, and that there's always something to look forward to. They also tend to give far more attention to good works than bad ones, especially over longer periods of time. In fact, The Walking Dead is just one example of the overwhelming positivity of the critics in the fact of a game they enjoyed. Likewise Forrest Gump is an example of a pretty damn well-acclaimed movie. You may be able to find reviewers who don't like these things, but the reception on the whole has been very positive.

As for the argument that critics are too subjective, I just don't think that works. Critics treat entertainment subjectively, because opinions on entertainment are subjective. It's not the critics choice that this is the nature of these opinions, it's just how the world works. Any attempt to pretend these opinions aren't subjective would fall apart pretty quickly, produce broken criticism, and only lead to the kind of "My tastes are right and yours are wrong" elitism we'd do well to stay away from.

I don't entirely understand why someone having a different opinion on movies or games than you is damaging your enjoyment of them, but if it is, then I entirely understand why you'd want to stay away from criticism, the important thing is you're getting the most enjoyment out of these mediums you can. However, this doesn't mean that the critics "suck", they do an important job in exploring and furthering these art forms, helping people better understand them, and helping people have the best experience they can with them. The fact that two people can look at the same work and have an entirely different experience with it shouldn't be seen as a bad thing, it's a good thing, it means we can see the same thing approached from various different perspectives, it allows us to explore other viewpoints to our own, and it makes our world more diverse.

Moderator
Posted by IzzyGraze

I can see what you mean a bit with The Walking Dead on the GOTY podcasts. It kind of takes the shine off the apple.

I generally find the best way to go about things is to watch quicklooks or some let's plays to see if you'll like the game. I only really look at reviews if there's a game I was super excited about then it gets a low review. It usually turns out the game came out broken or it wasn't what people were expecting it to be. I find reviews helpful in those cases.

But yeah reviews don't really account for YOUR tastes. I hate racing games. There are a lot of racing games with 4+ star reviews.

Posted by Itwastuesday

The key is to play games you enjoy, rather than watching videos about games or reading forums about games.

Posted by Kerned

So basically you want critics to all agree to like the things that you like, and to not like the things that you don't like. Got it.

Posted by believer258

All up to you, dude.

I think that criticism is a great thing, and I think it's especially needed in video games. I do tend to notice things I don't like in games but I can still enjoy them. Hell, I gave Borderlands three and a half stars but I still think the game is very fun. It's just some things surrounding it that I thought were not good, like the lack of variety for instance.

Just because a game might have some real issues doesn't mean it's bad. Far Cry 3, Halo 4, Borderlands 2 - all games I can point out some issues on but at the end of the day they are all still pretty good games. I think I'd even give Mass Effect 3 a pass as a "good game" despite really disliking some of its missteps.

What I'm saying is that the ability to scrutinize and criticize the issue with a game does not mean that I can't enjoy it, and hearing another person criticize something, or even hearing another person's reasons for disliking something that I like, doesn't mean that I can't enjoy it.

Posted by Krisgebis

I sort of see your point, but I think it's the video game communities that are largely negative and not professionel reviewers/journalists.

Sometimes I don't want to associate myself with other "gamers", because they are so often ass holes or selfentitled babies.

Posted by gamefreak9

FYI my save files disappeared from the walking dead. And since I find there is practically no replay value, and very little way to rush through the game it meant I had to replay the game 3 hours to get back my choices. Which is why I still haven't finished.

Edited by Bollard

I don't know, there were plenty of things about TWD that were objectively bad if you want to get into that discussion.

And before anyone replies, I'm not saying the game is bad. In fact it was the 2nd best game of last year for me.

Posted by Milkman

What you're pretty much saying is that you don't like critics because sometimes they don't like things that you like.

Posted by project343

Criticism ascends a medium from frivolous entertainment into something significantly more intelligent and nuanced.

Posted by Rainbowkisses

@Chavtheworld said:

I don't know, there were plenty of things about TWD that were objectively bad if you want to get into that discussion.

Are you referring to the technical issues, because aside from that I don't think you could call anything objectively bad.

Posted by habster3
Posted by FlarePhoenix

If something you like can be spoiled by someone else not liking it, you obviously don't like it as much as you think you do. If you can't handle other people's opinions, the internet might not be the best place for you.

Posted by TaliciaDragonsong

It's more like people have a hard time accepting the fact everyone likes their own thing.

Edited by DG991

@Kerned said:

So basically you want critics to all agree to like the things that you like, and to not like the things that you don't like. Got it.

Well, not really... I also said this.

Also, half the joy of playing video games is discovering what is in them. I don't need someone to tell me what AWESOME thing happens in it.

You know the shocking thing that Lilly did in the walking dead ep. 3? Well I experienced that on my own because I ignored ALL media regarding TWD. I didn't see it coming... it was awesome. I didn't even have to see a single "HOLY SHIT WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT HAPPENS". I was clueless and that made the experience better.

A better example was in Portal 2... I just jumped into that game and ignored all the media related to it because I didn't want a single bit of the experience to be familiar to me.

I felt that in part Skyrim, Darksiders, and Assassins Creed: Brotherhood were spoiled for me because I didn't jump into them right away.

Skyrim had so many memes and fosrodah shit all over the internet and in reviews and podcasts that when I started playing it I felt like it wasn't "my" game. Everyone else was doing the same thing. It just didn't feel like I was discovering anything like when I played Morrowind or oblivion. I still enjoyed Skyrim, but not as much as I should have probably.

AC: Brotherhood.... I totally knew about a lot of the gameplay because Ryan Davis talked about it so much. He was right, it was pretty cool. I suspect I would have liked it more if I discovered it on my own. I really enjoyed experimenting with the gameplay in AC1 by myself and it felt unique to me.

Darksiders... I found out that they basically copied a bajillion other games for the gameplay and that it was a zelda clone. If I had just played it without any interference I suspect I would have enjoyed it more.

This is what I mean! No, I don't want critics to just say what I want to hear. I am telling you that I had an epiphany. Video game journalism is not helping me have fun when I play games, it is hurting my experience. I would be better off with these single player experiences if I just played the game without reading a single word of a review or watching a single quick look or anything.

@SethPhotopoulos said:

And you mean Forest Gump? The film that also had a very positive reception? The movie that swept the oscars?

Here's the thing. Find reviewers that share your tastes in films and/or games. There is no such thing as an objective review and it's folly to expect that.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/forrest_gump/

  • For all its ambition, the movie ends up using great historical events in the service of a dubious sentimentality.
  • Judging by the the movie's enduring popularity, the message that stupidity is redemption is clearly what a lot of Americans want to hear.
  • Forrest Gump has the elements of an emotionally gripping story. Yet it feels less like a romance than like a coffee-table book celebrating the magic of special effects.

This is what I mean in regards to Forrest Gump... it just seems like negativity. I often see a similar thing when it comes to video games.

I am not asking for video game journalism to change. The nature of it is to be subjective. I am just saying that I may no longer consume video game journalism content because I don't think it offers a valuable service to me anymore (perhaps it never did). I find myself listening to the podcast for stories about fried chicken more than for any video game related content. I really enjoy the discussions about console hardware or the old days of video games that Jeff gets crazy about. But I think I no longer will listen to the new video game parts.

Also, to the people linking me to positive reviews of TWD... I never said the game earned many bad reviews. I said the negative things about the game that people complained about sound petty and I am glad I just played the game before reading anything about it. Even some of the stuff that Patrick said about episode 4 on the podcast, "IT IS THE WORST OF ALL THE EPISODES!" or the people saying "EPISODE 5 IS ONLY 2 HOURS!".... I am so happy I just played the game without ever having to have those negative comments in the back of my mind. I played Episode 4 and 5 and I personally ended the game with my own thoughts thinking "WOW! What a fantastic game!"

So I guess what I am saying about game journalism and information prior to playing a game is...

1. It spoils the joy of discovering what is in a game for yourself (like a good story beat or a cool game mechanic)

2. It spoils the fun of judging the game yourself without any interference from prior negative (or positive) comments on it.

Similar to movies.... movie critics suck worst of all.

Posted by ImmortalSaiyan

If you ask me there is not enough negativity and subjectivity in games Journalism. Just recently does it feel they are getting past the whole writing consumer reviews instead of critiquing the game. If anything I want more critcism as that is a good way to spark meaningful conversation about games.

Posted by 4outof5

Yes I agree with you. You should cut your line internet or at least never go to a video game related website again. This will be good for you and good for the rest of us. You don't want to read things that might upset you about meaningless things in your life and we don't want to watch you stick your fingers in your ear and hop foot to foot shouting "neener neener neener I can't hear you!"

Posted by PandaBear

@triviaman09 said:

Dude, reviews are opinions. If you can't handle that, then yeah you should stop paying attention to media journalism. Also, if anything the coverage of TWD is overwhelmingly positive.

QFT. Nothing more to say.

Posted by DarthOrange

You think the games you like have problems? Try being someone that loved Resident Evil 6 and PlayStation All-Stars as critics from around the world shit on them. You have to learn to ignore assholes and enjoy what you enjoy duder.

Posted by SethPhotopoulos

@DG991 said:

@SethPhotopoulos said:

And you mean Forest Gump? The film that also had a very positive reception? The movie that swept the oscars?

Here's the thing. Find reviewers that share your tastes in films and/or games. There is no such thing as an objective review and it's folly to expect that.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/forrest_gump/

  • For all its ambition, the movie ends up using great historical events in the service of a dubious sentimentality.
  • Judging by the the movie's enduring popularity, the message that stupidity is redemption is clearly what a lot of Americans want to hear.
  • Forrest Gump has the elements of an emotionally gripping story. Yet it feels less like a romance than like a coffee-table book celebrating the magic of special effects.

This is what I mean in regards to Forrest Gump... it just seems like negativity. I often see a similar thing when it comes to video games.

I am not asking for video game journalism to change. The nature of it is to be subjective. I am just saying that I may no longer consume video game journalism content because I don't think it offers a valuable service to me anymore (perhaps it never did). I find myself listening to the podcast for stories about fried chicken more than for any video game related content. I really enjoy the discussions about console hardware or the old days of video games that Jeff gets crazy about. But I think I no longer will listen to the new video game parts.

Also, to the people linking me to positive reviews of TWD... I never said the game earned many bad reviews. I said the negative things about the game that people complained about sound petty and I am glad I just played the game before reading anything about it. Even some of the stuff that Patrick said about episode 4 on the podcast, "IT IS THE WORST OF ALL THE EPISODES!" or the people saying "EPISODE 5 IS ONLY 2 HOURS!".... I am so happy I just played the game without ever having to have those negative comments in the back of my mind. I played Episode 4 and 5 and I personally ended the game with my own thoughts thinking "WOW! What a fantastic game!"

So I guess what I am saying about game journalism and information prior to playing a game is...

1. It spoils the joy of discovering what is in a game for yourself (like a good story beat or a cool game mechanic)

2. It spoils the fun of judging the game yourself without any interference from prior negative (or positive) comments on it.

Similar to movies.... movie critics suck worst of all.

I went to that page and was able to find a lot of critics praising that film too. You actively ignored the positive ones. Nothing is ever truly unanimous. You'll have the popular opinion sure but there will be detractors, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not.

My problem I have with your statement is that critics suck because of their differing opinions and/or for pointing out the negative aspects of a work. You don't word it that way but the intent is there. Actually you do word it that way when you refer to film critics. They're doing their job, not just for consumers but for the people responsible for the consumed. It helps to improve themselves. Giving a thumbs up and saying "Goodjob" doesn't do anyone in the world good.

Another reason critics are important is because both movies and games are expensive. To not pay attention to reviews or not have any information on the subject is like walking through a landmine. I don't think most people have fun discovering a shitty movie or game on their own. "WOOOO! I had a terrible experience that wasted my money! Throw that $60 down the drain!"

It's fine that you want to take the risk-reward approach to entertainment if that's the way you feel you'll most enjoy something (not everyone enjoys things for the same reason). But don't insult the people doing their jobs for the people that need that service.

Posted by kgb0515

I can kind of see where the OP is coming from, but I also agree that you need to find critics that you respect the opinions of and who you can align your own interests with. The reason I come to this site so often is that I often agree with most of the reviews on here. I haven't really found a movie critic that I agree with, but I go to rottentomatoes.com because I usually agree with the consumer ratings that get posted there.

Sometimes it's best to filter out most of the stuff floating around out there.

Posted by DG991

@SethPhotopoulos said:

I went to that page and was able to find a lot of critics praising that film too. You actively ignored the positive ones. Nothing is ever truly unanimous. You'll have the popular opinion sure but there will be detractors, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes not.

My problem I have with your statement is that critics suck because of their differing opinions and/or for pointing out the negative aspects of a work. You don't word it that way but the intent is there. Actually you do word it that way when you refer to film critics. They're doing their job, not just for consumers but for the people responsible for the consumed. It helps to improve themselves. Giving a thumbs up and saying "Goodjob" doesn't do anyone in the world good.

Another reason critics are important is because both movies and games are expensive. To not pay attention to reviews or not have any information on the subject is like walking through a landmine. I don't think most people have fun discovering a shitty movie or game on their own. "WOOOO! I had a terrible experience that wasted my money! Throw that $60 down the drain!"

It's fine that you want to take the risk-reward approach to entertainment if that's the way you feel you'll most enjoy something (not everyone enjoys things for the same reason). But don't insult the people doing their jobs for the people that need that service.

The point of me linking to that page was to show that even a film like Forrest Gump, which I've only ever heard good things about besides from critics, has people who love to be negative about it. Which is fine. But if I had read any negative comments about it before hand I probably would have gone into the movie looking for things to pick apart instead of just going into a movie with an unbiased open mind.

If I am on the edge about a game and I am not sure if I might be wasting my money, I would be better served by simply looking at a 1-5 star rating than reading ANYTHING about the game. It will corrupt the experience.

@DarthOrange said:

You think the games you like have problems? Try being someone that loved Resident Evil 6 and PlayStation All-Stars as critics from around the world shit on them. You have to learn to ignore assholes and enjoy what you enjoy duder.

I feel like your post implies you actually understood at least a part of my blabbering. But I am not even saying that the critics shitting on a game is a bad thing, I am saying them even talking about it makes it bad. I finished Mass Effect 3 early on enough that I know the ending would have pissed me off either way. But people shat all over Borderlands 1's ending so much before I finished it that I almost didn't bother finishing it. When I finally did I felt it was a chore trying to finish the game and I was like "really? That is the awful ending? That wasn't really that bad.... "

I just think I enjoyed games more before I had access to all this video game journalism. I would go to bestbuy, gamestop, toys r us or something back in the day and just look at PC games and pick them up based on if they looked any good and most of the time I found enough enjoyment in them.

I bought Braid in a steam deal a few years ago and never knew anything about the great indie game or the story of its creation or anything like that. I think it was part of a bundle. I just played the game and it was a journey for myself and it had its own meaning to me because I wasn't reading some review or comments about a game. I talked about how awesome it was to one of my friends and he was like "Yea that was on the xbox forever ago.... blah blah blah, artsy indie game blah blah blah." And I was just like, huh, well it felt special to me because I didn't know. Limbo on the other hand didn't feel very special... whether that is because I was biased or if it isn't as good is debatable.

I rather have unbiased open minded views when going into my games I suppose.

Posted by Bigandtasty

It's hard to talk about why a game is bad without explaining your reasoning, whether that is a reaction to an ending or significant story event, a frustrating boss fight, or the presence of a "secret" inverted castle.

Sounds like you should just avoid looking into games so much, which I do too.

Posted by DG991

@Bigandtasty said:

It's hard to talk about why a game is bad without explaining your reasoning, whether that is a reaction to an ending or significant story event, a frustrating boss fight, or the presence of a "secret" inverted castle.

Sounds like you should just avoid looking into games so much, which I do too.

This guy gets it.

Btw, I am having a hard time starting AC3 after the crazy amount of negativity surrounding the game after the GOTY deliberations.

Posted by Aetheldod

Well without game critique I would never found out about Demons´ Soul etc. You just need to stay away from podcasts as they are obviously spoleric in many ways (not just in terms of story). Also what I like to do is to see youtube videos of games were they tend to show gameplay and make my desicion around that. There are ways to stay informed without the need to read criticisms.

Posted by ImmortalSaiyan

@DG991 said:

@Bigandtasty said:

It's hard to talk about why a game is bad without explaining your reasoning, whether that is a reaction to an ending or significant story event, a frustrating boss fight, or the presence of a "secret" inverted castle.

Sounds like you should just avoid looking into games so much, which I do too.

This guy gets it.

Btw, I am having a hard time starting AC3 after the crazy amount of negativity surrounding the game after the GOTY deliberations.

Sure, A lot of people don't like Assassin's Creed 3 put that hardly means you can't. I know where you are coming from in preferring not knowing about something before going in. In fact I try to do this as much as possible, like not watching trailers for games as so on. You can still like the game, just know that regardless of how many people dislike the game, those people may not share the same opinion of it as you. Some people do like Assassin's Creed 3. I really like Final fantasy 13 for example, it happens.

Posted by WilliamHenry

I understand where the OP is coming from, but its a critics job to critique whatever game they're playing or movie they are watching. If they just universally praised everything or only commented on things they liked, they would be fired for not doing their job. A lot of people who make these complaints also don't factor in the sheer amount of games video game critics have played/reviewed. The GB guys have played/reviewed thousands of games. So its no surprise they're more critical or have a higher standard than you. Same goes for film critics. A film critic that says negative things about Forrest Gump has probably seen thousands and thousands of movies so they are more easily able to point out its flaws, where you don't have those experiences so you don't notice the flaws.

Not to mention that everyone has their own opinion. Nothing is universally liked by everyone.

Posted by Everyones_A_Critic

MY USERNAME, RIGHT GUYS? EH? EH?

Posted by Bollard

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Chavtheworld said:

I don't know, there were plenty of things about TWD that were objectively bad if you want to get into that discussion.

Are you referring to the technical issues, because aside from that I don't think you could call anything objectively bad.

The technical issues is one, yes. I personally didn't experience them but that doesn't mean I give the game a free pass.

Also the parts of the game where they made you click on a moving dot was absolutely horrendous. I died like 5 times in a row cause of one of those scenes and that shattered any sense of immersion. It's like being whacked in the face with a giant "YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME" bat. There are other issues I feel the bombcrew have also touched on already.

Edited by NTM

I thought Resident Evil 6 was really great, and Patrick liked Zombie U, but others thought it was below average. Furthermore, I agree with those that say you need to find critics that share the same viewpoints, but that's also hard, 'cause for me, not any one individual will share the same opinion of a game every time, so you have to pick and choose. For instance, I agree with the Tim Turi over at GameInformer and Shane Satterfield at GameTrailers about Resident Evil 6, but I could agree with Kevin VanOrd and Brad Shoemaker about other games while I don't agree with the former two.

Posted by DG991

@Chavtheworld said:

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Chavtheworld said:

I don't know, there were plenty of things about TWD that were objectively bad if you want to get into that discussion.

Are you referring to the technical issues, because aside from that I don't think you could call anything objectively bad.

The technical issues is one, yes. I personally didn't experience them but that doesn't mean I give the game a free pass.

Also the parts of the game where they made you click on a moving dot was absolutely horrendous. I died like 5 times in a row cause of one of those scenes and that shattered any sense of immersion. It's like being whacked in the face with a giant "YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME" bat. There are other issues I feel the bombcrew have also touched on already.

How did people die during the shooting bits or any part of the walking dead for that matter?

I thought it was perfectly fine...

Posted by Christoffer

I can relate to some degree. The "new car smell" of a game tends to disapear the more people talk about it, be it positive or negative. There's something adventurous to start a game without knowing a whole lot about it. It can make the experience to feel more like your own, and you might even look past some flaws because of it.

I don't think that's limited to reviews and critics. All kinds of mention can do this to a game. Forum threads, friends talking, twitch streams, podcasts, trailers. But I would say this is a problem mostly with story based games. If it's a heavily multiplayer focused game, hell, please do talk about it.

Posted by RedCream

Reviews is there to give you an overview of the game. There are many game critics who actually gives valid information without spoiling much (e.g basic mechanics, synopsis of the story etc.) and its purpose is to inform the consumers of games they might like. A fair assessment before buying the product. However I can see your point that reviewers sometimes pick on things that others can get by. This goes double for movie critics.

Podcasts on the other hand is a different issue because sometimes they talk about things that ruined the surprise.One such example is the burning of marijuana fields in Far Cry 3. My only consolation is that I don't know the context of the mission yet but seeing it coming from a mile away will definitely damp the impact of that sequence. But I wouldn't have otherwise tried The Walking Dead or even Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors if it hadn't been for Patrick giving a good word for it on the Bombcast as I am not a big fan of adventure games myself.

Posted by Bollard

@DG991 said:

@Chavtheworld said:

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Chavtheworld said:

I don't know, there were plenty of things about TWD that were objectively bad if you want to get into that discussion.

Are you referring to the technical issues, because aside from that I don't think you could call anything objectively bad.

The technical issues is one, yes. I personally didn't experience them but that doesn't mean I give the game a free pass.

Also the parts of the game where they made you click on a moving dot was absolutely horrendous. I died like 5 times in a row cause of one of those scenes and that shattered any sense of immersion. It's like being whacked in the face with a giant "YOU'RE PLAYING A GAME" bat. There are other issues I feel the bombcrew have also touched on already.

How did people die during the shooting bits or any part of the walking dead for that matter?

I thought it was perfectly fine...

It was actually the bit where you were hiding in the barn in Episode 2 and had to get the dude as he went past. It was brooooken. Also were you using a mouse? With a controller it was awful because of the terrible acceleration.

Posted by Veektarius

Your examples are terrible. Game reviews are supposed to advise you on whether to buy a game, movie reviews, whether you should watch a movie. In both of the examples you gave, the overwhelming advice was "Yes, do this", which you did. Possibly not because you saw the reviews, but nevertheless, if you had, and were using them for purchasing advice rather than for entertainment, the result would have been the same. Do you have a more reliable source upon which to base your purchasing/viewing decisions than reviews? Personally, I think critics, especially in aggregate (as in Metacritic or Rottentomatoes) are pretty good, and much better than user reviews. (Especially on metacritic, but everyone knows that's broken.)

Also, I don't blame you for not liking the GOTY podcast. I stopped listening to that a couple years ago. When they whittle the lists down to 2 or 3 games, their reasoning is good and interesting, but the final brawl between the main contestants is dominated by inarticulate and petty arguments.

Posted by McLargepants

@Baillie said:

@DG991: Guess what? Season 2 of The Walking Dead was terrible. I'm surprised it made it to a season 3, which is much better, but still not as great as it once was.

Come on... season 1 of The Walking Dead was pretty awful too, it just had an amazing pilot. The rest of it was incredibly poorly paced and poorly written. Season 3, while not one of the TVs greatest shows, is at least fun to watch, and incredibly consistent.

Edited by fox01313

I think that unless you go to Arrow in the Head or Rue Morgue Magazine (for example) that specialize in sci-fi/horror film reviews, most film reviewers especially with horror films will find themselves lost as they only watch the 2-3 horror/sci-fi films out to not quite see things that fans of the genre will immediately catch on (or know what the director was trying to do). Horror is especially marred by this when they start lumping all the horror films together in one bucket so you wind up with some idiot who's favorite horror movies are some stupid remake done last year, twilight & Troll 2 while ignoring classic horror films; just because they don't enjoy the genre or watch enough to know any better (or they're just mental).

The trick with people who review games or movies is to read a lot of the reviews from one person, see if you are close enough to them in what they like then stick with those people & screw the opinions of the rest of them.

edit-after reading the review (if doing that before playing the game or watching the film/show), go play it or watch it for yourself. Regardless on what a reviewer might say about something, it's what you think about it that matters most to you.

Posted by DG991

@RedCream said:

Reviews is there to give you an overview of the game. There are many game critics who actually gives valid information without spoiling much (e.g basic mechanics, synopsis of the story etc.) and its purpose is to inform the consumers of games they might like. A fair assessment before buying the product. However I can see your point that reviewers sometimes pick on things that others can get by. This goes double for movie critics.

Podcasts on the other hand is a different issue because sometimes they talk about things that ruined the surprise.One such example is the burning of marijuana fields in Far Cry 3. My only consolation is that I don't know the context of the mission yet but seeing it coming from a mile away will definitely damp the impact of that sequence. But I wouldn't have otherwise tried The Walking Dead or even Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors if it hadn't been for Patrick giving a good word for it on the Bombcast as I am not a big fan of adventure games myself.

The example you just listed for Far Cry 3 is perfect. I plan on playing that game soon and I am a little bummed that I won't be surprised by that particular event. Also, I won't be able to have an unbiased view of whether or not the ending is good or not.

Posted by Grog

@DG991 said:

Also, I won't be able to have an unbiased view of whether or not the ending is good or not.

Why not? I realize that the Giant Bomb crew have stated multiple times that they think the ending was done poorly, but just because it's true for them doesn't mean it necessarily has to be true for you going into it. Is it that hard to just take the experience on its own merits and analyze it yourself as you play through it? Why do their opinions need to taint it for you before you even have a chance to see it play out yourself?

Posted by DG991

@GenocidalKitten said:

It sounds like you are WAY to easily swayed by other people's opinions.

Not exactly.

@Some_dillweed said:

@DG991 said:

Also, I won't be able to have an unbiased view of whether or not the ending is good or not.

Why not? I realize that the Giant Bomb crew have stated multiple times that they think the ending was done poorly, but just because it's true for them doesn't mean it necessarily has to be true for you going into it. Is it that hard to just take the experience on its own merits and analyze it yourself as you play through it? Why do their opinions need to taint it for you before you even have a chance to see it play out yourself?

Because I will be going into the ending thinking the same thing Brad was thinking when he played Mass Effect 3 months later.

"Oh boy, what is it about this ending that they fuck up..."

I will be waiting for it. I can't just pretend like I never heard Jeff say a million times that the ending was shit. And yea for the most part I think Jeff knows what he is talking about. I played ME3 with a mostly unbiased view and I agreed with most of what he wrote in his review if IRC.

Posted by rentfn

There are only a couple of Movie Critics I follow. I still don't agree with them very often but I like what they have to say most of the time.

Posted by Grog

@DG991 said:

I can't just pretend like I never heard Jeff say a million times that the ending was shit.

Well, that's generally what I do (or at least try to do) when I'm playing games. I mentally block out everything else except just playing it, and avoid reading or listening to anything that has to do with the game while I'm still in the process of playing through. Even if I've heard things about it before, usually the game is enough to ignore those memories and just take it at face value. If you don't constantly question other people's opinions while you're still ignorant on a subject (games or otherwise), you're not going to be able to form your own opinion without that outside bias creeping in.

Edited by CptBedlam

@DG991 said:

Also, half the joy of playing video games is discovering what is in them. I don't need someone to tell me what AWESOME thing happens in it.

So true. That is why the bombcrew's stance towards spoilers (especially Jeff's) is fucking BULLSHIT.

I love the bombcast but listening to it also ruined a few games for me. I'm fine with a spoilercast that I can avoid but dropping the occasional spoiler during a normal podcast just sucks (Patrick is the worst offender in this regard).

Also, I found Jeff's comment at the beginning of the GOTY bombcasts mildly insulting. We are "normal" gamers. We can't play every game when it comes out because playing games is not our job. You'd think he'd take this into consideration but apparently he doesn't give a fuck.

Posted by GreggD

@CptBedlam said:

@DG991 said:

Also, half the joy of playing video games is discovering what is in them. I don't need someone to tell me what AWESOME thing happens in it.

So true. That is why the bombcrew's stance towards spoilers (especially Jeff's) is fucking BULLSHIT.

I love the bombcast but listening to it also ruined a few games for me. I'm fine with a spoilercast that I can avoid but dropping the occasional spoiler during a normal podcast just sucks (Patrick is the worst offender in this regard).

Also, I found Jeff's comment at the beginning of the GOTY bombcasts mildly insulting. We are "normal" gamers. We can't play every game when it comes out because playing games is not our job. You'd think he'd take this into consideration but apparently he doesn't give a fuck.

That's actually pretty spot-on, even though I could never articulate it myself.

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2