Kevin Pereira in defense of Too Human

  • 73 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by MarkMarini (27 posts) -
http://api.seesmic.com/#/video/bC3G2bh7jy/watch



#2 Posted by Irishjohn (581 posts) -

Dude, I can't stand that guy.  Attack of the Show is complete rubbish.  I don't know why anybody would get upset that Too Human is apparently not great, but I am disappointed myself.  And if the demo is representative of the full game (which it may not be) he's just plain wrong.  

I think there are lots of cool ideas attached to that game in one way or another, I hope the sequel is actually decent. 
#3 Edited by pause422 (6172 posts) -

the demo is representative of the game, because all you do is the combat and loot, and the demo shows it.
and Kevin Pereira is a completely sack of shit who knows nothing, fucking G4 is scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to tv stations.

#4 Posted by suneku (2997 posts) -

embedded

  Too Human: Screw the HatersMy two pennies concerning the negative reviews Too Human has been receiving. Relax: The game is FUN!
#5 Posted by MB (11956 posts) -

Haha...he does have a point.  Kung Fu Panda 6.5...Too Human 5.5?

Moderator
#6 Posted by suneku (2997 posts) -
MB said:
"Haha...he does have a point.  Kung Fu Panda 6.5...Too Human 5.5?"
lol yeah.. "fucking kung fu panda"
#7 Posted by Soap (3563 posts) -

Dude is wrong, game sucks.

#8 Edited by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

Wow. It seems to me that GameSpot spawns attention.

#9 Edited by brukaoru (5079 posts) -

I really like Kevin Pereira... I also like Adam Sessler. I think too many people base their feelings on the two due to the script they have to read on G4 everyday. I know they chose to work at G4 and you could blame it on themselves, but I think those two could be really awesome journalists if they worked somewhere else that let them speak their minds freely.

#10 Posted by SonicBomb (686 posts) -

Wow! What a bad review.

#11 Edited by Keyser_Soze (1186 posts) -

Damage Control. Game flopped. Let's all move on now.

GS also uses a full 1-10 scale which most other sites do not. They use a full scale, whereby 5.5 means "Mediocre" NOT a terrible game. Again if you happen to think 5.5 means terrible that is because of your experiences with most other 7-10 point review sites that have created this perception that a 5 out of 10 game is bad.

#12 Posted by dabada (109 posts) -

I really can't fault someone for liking a game. I also can't fault him for posting a video about it.

Jeff G. likes the NES Strider. That's fine... I guess.

Too Human sounds like a Diablo game...I like Diablo. I guess I'll have to give it a try. I'll try the demo.

#13 Edited by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -
Keyser_Soze said:
"Damage Control. Game flopped. Let's all move on now.

GS also uses a full 1-10 scale which most other sites do not. They use a full scale, whereby 5.5 means "Mediocre" NOT a terrible game. Again if you happen to think 5.5 means terrible that is because of your experiences with most other 7-10 point review sites that have created this perception that a 5 out of 10 game is bad."
While GameSpot may technically USE a 1-10 rating scale they do not actually USE it the way you say. If you check, only games that are pretty bad are lower than a six. I would not even consider a game that is a 5 or below. Most games released are within  6-10 on GameSpot just like any other gaming site with a 1-10 scale.
#14 Posted by Kush (8889 posts) -

I actually have to agree with him on a lot of the points he made...Operation Darkness better than Too Human!? ...I played OD...and that shit was bad.

#15 Posted by pause422 (6172 posts) -
brukaoru said:
"I really like Kevin Pereira... I also like Adam Sessler. I think too many people base their feelings on the two due to the script they have to read on G4 everyday. I know they chose to work at G4 and you could blame it on themselves, but I think those two could be really awesome journalists if they worked somewhere else that let them speak their minds freely."
Adam more so than Kevin, and since it appears he'll only ever host AOTS, he'll always be seen the way he is now the way it looks...g4 is so terribly scripted that its rediculous, extended-play/x-play when it started on techtv was actually barely written at all other than the plan they had for the episode, they were way better to watch and you could tell they had fun making them, the way it is now, every single line they read from a prompter except probably  3 seconds as the show is about to end...its just dumb.
#16 Edited by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -
Keyser_Soze said:
"Damage Control. Game flopped. Let's all move on now.

GS also uses a full 1-10 scale which most other sites do not. They use a full scale, whereby 5.5 means "Mediocre" NOT a terrible game. Again if you happen to think 5.5 means terrible that is because of your experiences with most other 7-10 point review sites that have created this perception that a 5 out of 10 game is bad."

Actually, yes a 5.5 is a terrible review. It might say "mediocre," but anything below a 7 is basically a bad game.

Edit: Anyway, who cares? It's GameSpot. They suck.
#17 Posted by Irishjohn (581 posts) -
brukaoru said:
"I really like Kevin Pereira... I also like Adam Sessler. I think too many people base their feelings on the two due to the script they have to read on G4 everyday. I know they chose to work at G4 and you could blame it on themselves, but I think those two could be really awesome journalists if they worked somewhere else that let them speak their minds freely."
Yeah, I think that's a fair point, but I honestly just don't like Pereira.  He's central to a terrible TV show that propagates the stereotype of video game lovers being adolescent (or adolescent-minded) semi-moronic wasters who do nothing put play games, watch people injure themselves on youtube, and boobs.  All while appealing to the people who do fulfill that stereotype.
#18 Edited by Keyser_Soze (1186 posts) -
SpikeSpiegel said:
"Keyser_Soze said:
"Damage Control. Game flopped. Let's all move on now.

GS also uses a full 1-10 scale which most other sites do not. They use a full scale, whereby 5.5 means "Mediocre" NOT a terrible game. Again if you happen to think 5.5 means terrible that is because of your experiences with most other 7-10 point review sites that have created this perception that a 5 out of 10 game is bad."
While GameSpot may technically USE a 1-10 rating scale they do not actually USE it the way you say. If you check, only games that are pretty bad are lower than a six. Most games released are within  7-10 on GameSpot just like any other gaming site with a 1-10 scale."
Most games released are most certainly not within 7-10 points, you're conflating the big budget releases and high profile games for all games. Most games get reviewed on GS without any fanfare or publicity. It's usually the bigger games and more high budget, thus the better made games that get higher reviews, which goes hand in hand really with an industry which relies heavily on technical ability which is dictated usually, though not always, by the amount of money you have.

Games that I have encountered, just from a quick GS search, which scored below a 7 and are thoroughly playable and not "broken" per se are:

Shadowrun 6.9
Alone in the Dark 6.5
Viking: Battle of Asgard 5.0
Army of Two 6.5
Kane and Lynch: 6.0
Blue Dragon 6.0
TimeShift: 6.5
Tiger Woods 08: 6.5
Clive Barkers Jericho: 6.5
Prizefighter: 5.5
Final Fantasy XI: 6.0
Universe at War: 6.5
Ninety-Nine Nights: 5.9
Enemy Territory Quake Wars: 6.5
TH Proving Ground: 6.5
Bullet Witch: 5.5

There were plenty more. None of these games are broken at all. They are all examples of mediocre games that really could have been better. Most suffer from either a few smaller problems, or one or two major ones. They are all enjoyable to some extent, and all thoroughly playable, though I would not want to exactly pay money for most of them. Like Too Human they suffer from problems.

I'm still playing Shadowrun right now and it's awesome, one of the best FPS games on the 360, but it lacked a single player and had few maps and modes in multilayer which is why I personally reviewed the game as a 7.5 on GS. Not much higher than the original score.



#19 Edited by SymbolliC (260 posts) -

I'm also a big of Kevin and Adam, and when they're not scripted and have their own thoughts towards games and such, they're great to listen too. I agree with Kevin on this, and he brings up some great points. Games are meant to be fun, and not based upon technical issues and flaws and what really matters is the fun in it, professional gaming sites which I'm not going to name any sites... are too much their ass to try games for what they're for

#20 Posted by Oni (2094 posts) -

I love how spirited he is, kinda reminds me of myself. But his perception of scores (a 5.5 being a broken game) is horrible and represents everything that's wrong with the review industry (GB excluded).

#21 Posted by Warfare (1632 posts) -

From the look of it G4 doesn't pay well.

#22 Posted by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -
SymbolliC said:
"I'm also a big of Kevin and Adam, and when they're not scripted and have their own thoughts towards games and such, they're great to listen too. I agree with Kevin on this, and he brings up some great points. Games are meant to be fun, and not based upon technical issues and flaws and what really matters if the fun in it, professional gaming sites which I'm not going to name any games.. are too much their ass to try games for what they're for.
"

Very true, even though the topic of this thread is Too Human. Based on the coverage I have seen the game looks crappy. I'm also not interested in Diabloe-esque game. I'm also not a fan of any of the reviewers left at GameSpot.

What I do agree with is section of your quote in bold. GiantBomb does a great job with this and will give 5 stars to any game that is that much fun to play. Look at Condemned 2, for example. Technical issues and other drawbacks to the game would cause it to get som ewhere around an 8.0 at a website which adheres to a 1-10 scale.

But Ryan gave it 5 stars and deservedly so. I just finished the game yesterday and god damn that game was awesome.
#23 Posted by whackmypinata (941 posts) -

Haha, it got the same score as Prizefighter. Really? Really?
It scored a 5.5 on GameSpot because not everybody on there is the same person. They have different opinions.  I bet if someone else reviewed it they would have given it at least a 7.0.
Kevin VanOrd knows how long this game has been in development, and thinks it sucks for what it is. He obviously thought it was over-hyped.

#24 Posted by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -

Kevin VanOrd is a terrible reviewer.

I'm not defending Too Human, by the way. It looks like crap. I'm just attacking GameSpot.

#25 Posted by whackmypinata (941 posts) -
BiggerBomb said:
"Kevin VanOrd is a terrible reviewer.

I'm not defending Too Human, by the way. It looks like crap. I'm just attacking GameSpot."
Deservedly so. I'm sure most people here hate GameSpot for a very evident reason..
#26 Posted by Kohe321 (3522 posts) -

Looks like he has practiced this rant in front of the mirror ten times before he dared to shoot it on camera. "Pink wings on them - yeah I said it". Come oooon....

#27 Posted by MB (11956 posts) -
dabada said:
Jeff G. likes the NES Strider. That's fine... I guess.

That was one of my favorite NES games ever.  :'(
Moderator
#28 Posted by Kohe321 (3522 posts) -
MB said:
"Haha...he does have a point.  Kung Fu Panda 6.5...Too Human 5.5?"
Haha yeah I'll give him that, that was a valid point.
#29 Edited by ZimpanX (420 posts) -

Even though I'm not a fan of G4 at all, the guy does have a few valid points.

#30 Posted by zitosilva (1838 posts) -

It's weird how "badass" for him is so cool, while to me it just sound ridiculous.

#31 Posted by Vaxadrin (2297 posts) -

Dude, using the word badass is totally tubular.

#32 Posted by Solid_SnakeXx (1771 posts) -

I wonder how much he got paid for posting that video :S

#33 Posted by Adam_West (50 posts) -

the guy has a point

#34 Posted by BiggerBomb (6944 posts) -
Adam_West said:
"the guy has a point"

I loved you in Family Guy.
#35 Posted by wafflestomp (247 posts) -

+2 points to Kevin.

Moderator
#36 Posted by MarkMarini (27 posts) -

I think the point is that people need to relax. At the end of the day Too Human seems to be a genuinely fun game that isn't without its faults. The more a game gets media attention, the more that is expected out of it. So I think in the end it's more accurate to say that Too Human did not meet up to expectations rather than flat out calling it a giant bomb.

#37 Posted by brukaoru (5079 posts) -
pause422 said:
"brukaoru said:
"I really like Kevin Pereira... I also like Adam Sessler. I think too many people base their feelings on the two due to the script they have to read on G4 everyday. I know they chose to work at G4 and you could blame it on themselves, but I think those two could be really awesome journalists if they worked somewhere else that let them speak their minds freely."
Adam more so than Kevin, and since it appears he'll only ever host AOTS, he'll always be seen the way he is now the way it looks...g4 is so terribly scripted that its rediculous, extended-play/x-play when it started on techtv was actually barely written at all other than the plan they had for the episode, they were way better to watch and you could tell they had fun making them, the way it is now, every single line they read from a prompter except probably  3 seconds as the show is about to end...its just dumb."
Yeah, I used to love X-Play and Attack of the Show wasn't too bad either. It seemed when they changed the set designs for both shows, around E3 2007, they also changed the whole format of each show to allow less off-script talking... Really lame.

Irishjohn said:
"Yeah, I think that's a fair point, but I honestly just don't like Pereira.  He's central to a terrible TV show that propagates the stereotype of video game lovers being adolescent (or adolescent-minded) semi-moronic wasters who do nothing put play games, watch people injure themselves on youtube, and boobs.  All while appealing to the people who do fulfill that stereotype."
I certainly agree to that, but unfortunately it's just G4's mentality with every show, not only Attack of the Show. It's just so disheartening to see, G4 was so good back in the day...  R.I.P G4.
#38 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -
Keyser_Soze said:
"SpikeSpiegel said:
"Keyser_Soze said:
"Damage Control. Game flopped. Let's all move on now.

GS also uses a full 1-10 scale which most other sites do not. They use a full scale, whereby 5.5 means "Mediocre" NOT a terrible game. Again if you happen to think 5.5 means terrible that is because of your experiences with most other 7-10 point review sites that have created this perception that a 5 out of 10 game is bad."
While GameSpot may technically USE a 1-10 rating scale they do not actually USE it the way you say. If you check, only games that are pretty bad are lower than a six. Most games released are within  7-10 on GameSpot just like any other gaming site with a 1-10 scale."
Most games released are most certainly not within 7-10 points, you're conflating the big budget releases and high profile games for all games. Most games get reviewed on GS without any fanfare or publicity. It's usually the bigger games and more high budget, thus the better made games that get higher reviews, which goes hand in hand really with an industry which relies heavily on technical ability which is dictated usually, though not always, by the amount of money you have.

Games that I have encountered, just from a quick GS search, which scored below a 7 and are thoroughly playable and not "broken" per se are:

Shadowrun 6.9
Alone in the Dark 6.5
Viking: Battle of Asgard 5.0
Army of Two 6.5
Kane and Lynch: 6.0
Blue Dragon 6.0
TimeShift: 6.5
Tiger Woods 08: 6.5
Clive Barkers Jericho: 6.5
Prizefighter: 5.5
Final Fantasy XI: 6.0
Universe at War: 6.5
Ninety-Nine Nights: 5.9
Enemy Territory Quake Wars: 6.5
TH Proving Ground: 6.5
Bullet Witch: 5.5

There were plenty more. None of these games are broken at all. They are all examples of mediocre games that really could have been better. Most suffer from either a few smaller problems, or one or two major ones. They are all enjoyable to some extent, and all thoroughly playable, though I would not want to exactly pay money for most of them. Like Too Human they suffer from problems.

I'm still playing Shadowrun right now and it's awesome, one of the best FPS games on the 360, but it lacked a single player and had few maps and modes in multilayer which is why I personally reviewed the game as a 7.5 on GS. Not much higher than the original score.



"
You do have a point. I'm still just dumbfounded by the score ya know? It should have least been a seven in my opinion.
#39 Posted by pyromaniac (1703 posts) -

Gamespot is one of the most BIASED sites on the internet, I wouldn't be surprised if he gave it a bad review just to make some people happy *cough cough epic*

#40 Posted by Eli (334 posts) -

5 words: Kevin Periera is not funny. Although, he does know games. I'll give him that. He seriously needs to put a cork in house mouth to plug up the mouth diarrhea, though. Other than that, he is knowledgeable. But seriously, Alex Albrecht FTW!

#41 Posted by DARKIDO07 (876 posts) -

Kevin is right, the game isn't as bad as everyone says it is, the only reason I'm not getting it was becuase I hated the controls, thats it. If I could pan the camera I would buy it but I can't and I just can't seem to play a TPS/RPG without that.

#42 Posted by slint (57 posts) -

I generally find this dude really annoying but have gained a TONNE of respect after watching this.  He nails his rant perfectly. 

#43 Posted by NateDogg (465 posts) -

I never watched G4 before but I currently do for the past few months... so I don't have the benefit of knowing how it was in the past.. but the show seems to be a decent enough for an actual video game show on TV. I do notice alot of reruns however... I guess they can't pump out new stuff all the time. I was impressed with their E3 show this year... I enjoyed the Microsoft presentation and how there were no commercials.

Sorry I was off topic for so long.. Anyway, Kevin does make many valid points and I wish more people can hear his words.

#44 Posted by dabada (109 posts) -
MB said:
"dabada said:
Jeff G. likes the NES Strider. That's fine... I guess.

That was one of my favorite NES games ever.  :'("
Well...I played NES Strider. I even got to the end, but the whole time I was wishing it was the arcade version. The arcade Strider didn't need a triangle jump, he can climb on ALL surfaces.

Anyways...

The point is, some people like the flashy combat and never ending loot of Too Human. It's true that games have evolved since Diablo, but that doesn't mean that grinding loot doesn't have its place. That might not afford it a perfect score, but the reactions to the game have seemed overly negative. Perhaps we shouldn't judge it against expectations? I don't know...

I'm not going to overly defend a game I haven't played yet. I'll just say that I'm still interested.
#45 Edited by Supreme (38 posts) -

This game is not garbage. You children need to learn how to read and actually read the review and not look at a number or symbols. By READING (I know, extremely tough to do) reviews, the game is average. It's not mindblowing experience that will be labeled as garbage a few hours later (COD4, Crysis, GTA4, the usual big hitters which have a bunch of nerds who hate to be "different") but it's not horrible either. You nerds act like playing a decent game is a sin. You do know that good and bad aren't the only two categories right?

I bet you guys are the same people that go on Xbox Live and think there are only two races, black and white. Calling everyone a n***** who has a deep voice.
#46 Posted by cepwin (36 posts) -
ZimpanX said:
"Even though I'm not a fan of G4 at all, the guy does have a few valid points."
I agree.  I actually really liked the demo...the story grabbed me right in. (I have my pre-order sitting on the kitchen table to be played tonight.)  Heck, even Jeff G. said on the podcast he's not a hater and intends to play more of it.  If you check the reviews they were quite mixed.
#47 Posted by rerty (105 posts) -

Completely agree with this guy, The gamespot review seemed so negatively written. A 5.5 is something with no production values that is just strung together. If gamespot actually used their scale properly I might accept the 5.5.  Two Worlds got above a 7.0 ..... nuff said.

#48 Posted by MetalGearSunny (6986 posts) -

He really does have some points but get over it. If you love it, fine. You love it. End of story, noob.

#49 Posted by dabada (109 posts) -
Supreme said:
"This game is not garbage. You children need to learn how to read and actually read the review and not look at a number or symbols. By READING (I know, extremely tough to do) reviews, the game is average. It's not mindblowing experience that will be labeled as garbage a few hours later (COD4, Crysis, GTA4, the usual big hitters which have a bunch of nerds who hate to be "different") but it's not horrible either. You nerds act like playing a decent game is a sin. You do know that good and bad aren't the only two categories right?
I bet you guys are the same people that go on Xbox Live and think there are only two races, black and white. Calling everyone a n***** who has a deep voice.
"
Who are you ranting at? It's certainly not the people posting in this thread.

No one is overly bashing the game in this thread. The general theme of posts (so far) is aimed more at reviews and review sites. I don't think its at all productive to lash out with rash generalizations.
#50 Posted by Eli (334 posts) -

Why didn't anyone make a video like Kevin's for Kane and Lynch?





















just kidding.  ;  )

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.