MasterBrief's forum posts

#1 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -
#2 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@cornbredx: I agree with you. That was my main problem was that it focused on Dan's hate of the game and didn't give much info about the game and differences from the original releases.

#3 Edited by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@bargainben: lol I'm a big Halo fan by the way. I also prefer Arbiter over Chief.

#4 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@zeroregistry: Exactly the question I was asking and I'm not sure there is a solid answer.

#5 Edited by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@joshwent: Very true and I'll echo another user saying this would've been better as a UPF game then a QL. I would encourage going in blind for that but there were parts in this like when Dan died because he didn't stay in the shadows and he got mad at the game yet it was his fault because he didn't pay attention, which to his credit he did say soon after but its stuff like that where I think they shouldn't go in completely blind for QL.

#6 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@a_e_martin: really? Honestly didn't know that. I rarely use the word to be fair.

#7 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@jesus_phish: That is actually a really cool idea. I'm always up for having the different views or tastes meld so you get all sides like that. Might have to check that out.

#8 Edited by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

I've always wondered about what the best scenario for review games is in regards to who you have reviewing them. You don't want someone who is a diehard Halo fan reviewing Halo 3 ideally but you also don't want a hater either. I guess that is where journalist trust comes in. I recently watched the Metro Redux quick look and was stunned at how Dan slammed the game a lot and even more so that he didn't know some controls or mechanics, specifically how to put the mask back on. Now this isn't a review and it's his opinion. I've got no issue with that and I love Dan but my main concern is pitching these quick looks while you're not really familiar with the controls or concepts. So to me these videos are kind of like demos to see if your interested in the game and this one was awful, not because Dan hated it but because they didn't really do much in the game or go over anything much about it.

This isn't meant to throw wood on the big comment outrage about it but I want opinions on what the true purpose of a quick look is as well as how familiar you should be with a game before playing/ how far you should be in the game before filming and also how that same practice ties into review games and being bias. For example, would it have been better to have had Brad at the reigns and have Dan giving his opinions and feedback in the passenger seat? An example of review bias I have is back when I paid attention to IGN at all I watched a review of Lost Planet 2 and all the guy did, Arthur I believe, was bash on the mechanics and gameplay all while getting his ass kicked in the footage and looking like he had no idea what he was doing. Should mention I believe there was only two areas in the footage so it would seem he didn't get far in the game. Just want some constructive debate. Thanks guys.

#9 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@i_stay_puft: Never heard of that. Im not sure how I could express stuff without it being just like bitching since my concerns are so bluntly employee mistreatment and complete lack of getting things done/doing their job.

#10 Posted by MasterBrief (225 posts) -

@i_stay_puft: I think I have that bookmarked. I'll try that out.