Angry Joe Reviews Total War: Rome 2 (43 minutes)

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

Say what you will about Joe Vargas' approach to reviewing games, but this time I feel he has done fans of the Total War franchise a true service in voicing what I believe we're all thinking right now. If only SEGA and Creative Assembly would listen for once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_QK-lcW8a8

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

This quickly? It hasn't even been a week.

#3 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

First I haven't had a lot of the issues shown... so I guess I'm lucky. I've played for 30 hours now and the claim "it only works half the time" couldn't apply less to me. I think I've had one bug that made me quit and reload and then it's been smooth.

I again wonder has anyone played a TW game on release? The AI is usually like this and there usually are a fair amount of bugs.

I love what they do, make a kind of strategy title no one else does, so I'm fine with being a bit patient for it to shape up. This isn't a game you play a 5 hour campaign of and then are done with it... I'll be playing this game for at least a year. I'm fine letting it develop, both from CA and modders. Yes I wish these games were always more polished on release but there is a ton going on in them. Notice, again, no one else tries this type of game. I think there's a hint to the complexity and scope. The one I can think of is a recent game... something about King Arthur? And I guess that game really was a disastrous mess, so that tells you something.

Beyond that, he just complains that a ton of stuff that was there before isn't there now... well they added new systems which are interesting in their own way. Go play the old game if you just want all the old mechanics. I love that there are new systems at play here, with how politics work and provinces work. Having played every game in the series, I'd probably have stopped if all that changed was the settings.

This dudes also painful to watch/listen to. I never have heard him much but wow. Guys with these "Annoyed" or "Angry" titles are the worst, especially when they also try to be taken seriously... ughh.

Cause we gamers always should be so edgy and annoyed at our games right guys!?!? Leather jacket required.

@funkydupe said:

Say what you will about Joe Vargas' approach to reviewing games,

It's embarrassing?

#4 Edited by Slag (4450 posts) -

43 minutes?!

that seems....excessive for a "review". And that's a long long time to listen to somebody yell like that.

#5 Edited by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

Ugh. Not this guy again with his 2008 angry gimmick.

Fine. I'll take a look, but if it's bad, I want my time and MBs back.

Edit: Man, these sketches are really bad and unnecessary. He hasn't changed his schtick at all since I last saw his reviews in 2010.

Anyone who supports the 'That Guy with the Glasses' conglomerate of internet "celebrities" should be euthanised.

#6 Edited by OllyOxenFree (4974 posts) -

He's so angry! AAAARRRGHH! Real angry!

#7 Posted by VooDooPC (330 posts) -

This guy is pathetic. He's an embodiment of every forum whiner, Internet complainer, petition writing, game "boycotting, idiot.

#8 Edited by CornBREDX (5361 posts) -

@artisanbreads: expecting a game to be buggy on release is not acceptable and its a shame you think that's fine. "it's always buggy on release" is not a good excuse.

As for Joe himself, hes not popular around here which is why he no longer posts here haha. Doesn't matter, though, he gets his views. I dislike his approach at times because he doesn't have knowledge of how the industry works or even how games are made. In a way, though, that's why I like him too. He expects games to be what they tell us it will be and tries to have developers and publishers answer when they are straight up broken. Unfortunately not everything is so cut and dry but that's not the players fault. At the end of the day we're buying a product and Joe seeks to highlight good and bad games while also adding a little of his own flair to it.

He's not everyone's cup of tea, though, and I will admit I don't watch all of his reviews because he can be over zealous at times.

I have always found it funny how hated he always is on these forums, though. It's cute.

#9 Edited by Animasta (14698 posts) -

man if he's angry for that long I think he might hurt himself

#10 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@cornbredx said:

@artisanbreads: expecting a game to be buggy on release is not acceptable and its a shame you think that's fine. "it's always buggy on release" is not a good excuse.

Shame on me!

No I'm fine with it it's cool. I'll spend my money money how I want, supporting the one developer who makes the giant strategy game I like.

Just like Obsidian fans will excuse some bugs for what they get beyond that, I will too.

And as I said, please point me to a strategy game of this type that released bug free.

#11 Posted by Breadfan (6590 posts) -

@voodoopc said:

This guy is pathetic. He's an embodiment of every forum whiner, Internet complainer, petition writing, game "boycotting, idiot.

Totally. Dude is such a doof.

#12 Posted by Garfield518 (404 posts) -


I have always found it funny how hated he always is on these forums, though. It's cute.

If it's not Giant Bomb, chances are, people here will always blindly hate it.

#13 Posted by CornBREDX (5361 posts) -

@artisanbreads: I'm not saying you're wrong for supporting games you like. You still should not find it acceptable for the game to be buggy on release. You paid for it you should expect it to work. I didn't say shame on you, but rather that it is a shame you think that's ok.

I should have said it's a shame the industry is in a place now where that is the norm.

#14 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Anyone who supports the 'That Guy with the Glasses' conglomerate of internet "celebrities" should be euthanised.

From the reviewers I've sampled, they can actually make articulate, well thought out points when they want to. I can't speak for all reviewers there, but the Nostalgia Critic and Linkara know when to keep the abject anger in check (although maybe Linkara more than the Nostalgia Critic).

#15 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@cornbredx said:

@artisanbreads: I'm not saying you're wrong for supporting games you like. You still should not find it acceptable for the game to be buggy on release. You paid for it you should expect it to work. I didn't say shame on you, but rather that it is a shame you think that's ok.

I should have said it's a shame the industry is in a place now where that is the norm.

This isn't a game that I play for 5 hours and am done with it, like an action game that's straightforward. It's giant and complex and if everything goes well we're talking 100 plus hours. It's worth sitting through some bugs and understandable that there are bugs in such a large production.

Bug free games are often simple games. There's a reason games like Skyrim have more bugs than Devil May Cry or even say Diablo. It's trying to do way more. Same thing with this game vs your average RTS.

And like the Skyrim example, I'm playing this game so long and getting so much out of it I can sit through some issues.

So like I said, I'd love if these games were bug free but they aren't and CA is not a crappy developer. There is a reason this happens and the game is ultimately a giant value proposition that I'm getting so it's all worth it for me.

#16 Posted by Animasta (14698 posts) -

@cornbredx said:

I have always found it funny how hated he always is on these forums, though. It's cute.

If it's not Giant Bomb, chances are, people here will always blindly hate it.

or he could be... severely annoying to a significant portion of the forums because his schtick is one note and tiring?

oh wait no it's obviously because he's just not giant bomb.

#17 Edited by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

Joe is fairly new to me but I soon found that if you ignore the shouting you'll find he digs a hell of a lot deeper into gameplay mechanics, continuity, whatever - digs much deeper than almost any reviewers out there.

And he made Major Nelson look a bit of a fool, which is nice.

#18 Posted by chiablo (939 posts) -

Superman t-shirt? Really?

#19 Edited by Yesiamaduck (1096 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@nekroskop said:

Anyone who supports the 'That Guy with the Glasses' conglomerate of internet "celebrities" should be euthanised.

From the reviewers I've sampled, they can actually make articulate, well thought out points when they want to. I can't speak for all reviewers there, but the Nostalgia Critic and Linkara know when to keep the abject anger in check (although maybe Linkara more than the Nostalgia Critic).

I always enjoyed Nostalgia Critic to an extent, but it's recently become very sketch heavy and the screeching outloud schtick has become far too prominent.... much like it has done with Angry Joe.... however that being said these guys do throw in their fair share of genuine and well observed criticism that always stops me from totally writing them off. But I can understand why people wouldn't like them but I think people claiming they aren't putting any effort in and have no knowledge of the media they're reviewing are doing them a great disservice... that being said the humour in Angry Joes reviews is genuinely terrible.

Also for those wondering it's really clear that Angry Joe is a fan of the Total War series, he always reviews them within a week of them coming out and gives them a lot of publicity during development, so I think his opinion is as valid as anyone elses on this forum and he is right... I wish I didn't pre-order this game and waited for some much needed patches before purchasing the game because I have barely even touched it.

Online
#20 Posted by hanktherapper (379 posts) -

Everyone wants to be Lewis Black (Angry Joe, Annoyed Gamer) while no one really understands his act. Your schtick isn't funny, just idiotic.

#21 Posted by SlashDance (1818 posts) -

I'll wait for Irritable Steve and Choleric Mike's reviews.

#22 Edited by Veektarius (4869 posts) -

I'll wait for Irritable Steve and Choleric Mike's reviews.

Haha.

I do think Rome 2 needs some extra work, but they've promised weekly patches and are so far making good on it. That in itself is a significant improvement over past iterations.

@artisanbreads: My game is also in a mostly playable state, but what bums me out is the lack of serious enemies. It seems like all the major factions are either stagnant or get wiped out at the moment. Twice in 150 turns I've run into an enemy with enough troops to actually pose a threat to my settlements, and one of those was a faction without any unit variety to speak of (therefore, not very interesting to fight). I'm hoping a tune-up to AI aggression is in the works, because that's what's keeping me from enjoying it in the here and now.

#23 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -


@artisanbreads: My game is also in a mostly playable state, but what bums me out is the lack of serious enemies. It seems like all the major factions are either stagnant or get wiped out at the moment. Twice in 150 turns I've run into an enemy with enough troops to actually pose a threat to my settlements, and one of those was a faction without any unit variety to speak of (therefore, not very interesting to fight). I'm hoping a tune-up to AI aggression is in the works, because that's what's keeping me from enjoying it in the here and now.

Yeah I agree.

They don't act very intelligently with unit construction or in where they send their units... I rolled over Carthage early because they put all their units to sea and just sent small groups of them to basically all my different cities, which were each easy autoresolve battles.

I've had some good fights against some of the barbarian nations, but they did pretty much have make ups of average infantry, slingers, and a couple cavalry.

I'm hoping CA can fix issues or as always a modder will do the best AI work.

#24 Posted by ProfessorK (824 posts) -

Yea, it's a shame about the launch bugs and stuff, but owell.

Kinda sad to see that I'm in the minority of people who can be fans of many types of reviewers without being the embodiment of an internet hipster. "This guy's shtick rubs me the wrong way so fuck him, his family and all his fans!" Or, "insert witty dickish comment here" Duders relax.

#25 Posted by Crysack (320 posts) -

Beyond that, he just complains that a ton of stuff that was there before isn't there now... well they added new systems which are interesting in their own way. Go play the old game if you just want all the old mechanics. I love that there are new systems at play here, with how politics work and provinces work. Having played every game in the series, I'd probably have stopped if all that changed was the settings.

This would be a relevant argument if the features that they removed weren't core to the Total War experience - like, for instance, 'guard mode'. Gee, I sure do like the fact that I can no longer keep my men in formation in melees or withdraw my shock cav after a charge. Truly a positive change to the series.

I also wouldn't mind hearing what systems you think they've added, because as far as I can tell, all they've done is remove them.

#26 Posted by iceman228433 (616 posts) -

I feel bad for the guy he seems like a real fan of a franchise that they are killing right before his eyes.

#27 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@crysack said:

@artisanbreads said:
Beyond that, he just complains that a ton of stuff that was there before isn't there now... well they added new systems which are interesting in their own way. Go play the old game if you just want all the old mechanics. I love that there are new systems at play here, with how politics work and provinces work. Having played every game in the series, I'd probably have stopped if all that changed was the settings.

This would be a relevant argument if the features that they removed weren't core to the Total War experience - like, for instance, 'guard mode'. Gee, I sure do like the fact that I can no longer keep my men in formation in melees or withdraw my shock cav after a charge. Truly a positive change to the series.

I also wouldn't mind hearing what systems you think they've added, because as far as I can tell, all they've done is remove them.

I'm talking about the campaign map. They've added a political system (gravitas, ambition, the civil war potential, balance between families) as well as the provincial system, which makes sieges less frequent, changes how you plan out your cities (now it requires far more foresight and specialization), think about growth, squalor, and so on. The game also added a better garrison provided by buildings which is huge, letting you be more aggressive with your armies. They've also added stances to the armies (which I've loved so far) and have the new army history system, which carries bonuses throughout their history, also giving a great sense of progression and adding a bit of impromptu story and personalization to your story.

Not sure how you could be playing the game and missing all these changes.

The guard mode omission is puzzling, I don't get that.

#28 Posted by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

"angry" "frustrated" and "disgruntled" gamer gimmicks are the worst things ever.

#29 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1800 posts) -

This guy has some seemingly perspicacious thoughts on video games, but I can't stand his overly fake "angry" gimmick.

It was barely entertaining when the AVGN did it.

#30 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

"angry" "frustrated" and "disgruntled" gamer gimmicks are the worst things ever.

Exactly. I can't even stand them in their milder forms.

#31 Edited by Crysack (320 posts) -

@artisanbreads said:

@crysack said:

@artisanbreads said:
Beyond that, he just complains that a ton of stuff that was there before isn't there now... well they added new systems which are interesting in their own way. Go play the old game if you just want all the old mechanics. I love that there are new systems at play here, with how politics work and provinces work. Having played every game in the series, I'd probably have stopped if all that changed was the settings.

This would be a relevant argument if the features that they removed weren't core to the Total War experience - like, for instance, 'guard mode'. Gee, I sure do like the fact that I can no longer keep my men in formation in melees or withdraw my shock cav after a charge. Truly a positive change to the series.

I also wouldn't mind hearing what systems you think they've added, because as far as I can tell, all they've done is remove them.

I'm talking about the campaign map. They've added a political system (gravitas, ambition, the civil war potential, balance between families) as well as the provincial system, which makes sieges less frequent, changes how you plan out your cities (now it requires far more foresight and specialization), think about growth, squalor, and so on. The game also added a better garrison provided by buildings which is huge, letting you be more aggressive with your armies. They've also added stances to the armies (which I've loved so far) and have the new army history system, which carries bonuses throughout their history, also giving a great sense of progression and adding a bit of impromptu story and personalization to your story.

The political system is barely there at all and actually quite shallow compared to Rome 1 and the rest of the TWs. It doesn't actually affect anything, all that happens is that, at an arbitrary point, a bunch of armies will spawn from your faction outside your capital which you have to fight off. At least realm divide made a tiny bit of sense - the civil wars in Rome 2 don't make any sense at all. The provincial system is a nice change I'll admit - but it is annoying for certain factions like Sparta who have to annihilate their nearest ally (Athens) to gain the benefits of the provincial capital and, for that matter, any access to trade routes whatsoever. The garrisons are an awful change in my opinion. Rome 2 is far too forgiving on Legendary not only because of the braindead AI but because every single one of your cities has an almost impenetrable garrison - which only gets more ridiculous when you realise you can add post-Marian reform legionaries to your garrisons by 260 BC - completely nullifying any challenge whatsoever. The stances are not new, unless I'm going crazy, and the army progression system is nice but it comes at the expense of the general trait system from previous games, as well as the family system which allowed generals to pass down traits to their heirs.

Also, the guard mode removal is crippling to the multiplayer because it makes everything other than heavy infantry or pike spam unviable.

#32 Posted by Captain_Insano (1541 posts) -

I actually don't mind Angry Joe. His schtick can be irritating but I get that he has found his niche and he sticks to it.

I honestly believe that he enjoys the game and loves the franchise but he does want to point out its flaws. I haven't encountered quite as many problems as he or his fans have but I have run into some of them.

I think with Total War: Rome II, like anything, there are too few people willing to acknowledge the middle ground. This game is not 'horrendous' (as argued in another thread), nor is it the greatest thing ever (as argued on many CA forum posts) but is currently, sitting somewhere in the middle. I made a topic here on GB saying how hyped I was for the game, so far I've played 12 hours and I have really enjoyed myself (the time has flown by, with work, sports, gym etc I seldom get time to play games any more so 12 hours in a week is a lot for me) but there are aspects of the game which are ridiculously stupid.

I believe some of these issues can be resolved in patches, but I also agree that they shouldn't have to be. The game is good, it should be great but quite frankly it's not right now.

#33 Posted by RollingZeppelin (1998 posts) -

Everyone wants to be Lewis Black (Angry Joe, Annoyed Gamer) while no one really understands his act. Your schtick isn't funny, just idiotic.

Even Lewis Black can be a little much at times. I'm not subjecting myself to that longwinded blowhard's (Angry Joe) stupid opinions again.

#34 Edited by Milkman (16841 posts) -

Please subscribe to my new YouTube channel, Cheesed Off Gamer!

NEW NO NO: If you're going to release a broken game on PC, I'm gonna break my PC with a hammer!

How you like them apples, Einstein!?

Online
#35 Posted by Nonused (216 posts) -

@garfield518: Oh, I hate you so much because you're not Giant Bomb.

#36 Posted by Bam_Boozilled (152 posts) -

@animasta said:

@garfield518 said:

@cornbredx said:

I have always found it funny how hated he always is on these forums, though. It's cute.

If it's not Giant Bomb, chances are, people here will always blindly hate it.

or he could be... severely annoying to a significant portion of the forums because his schtick is one note and tiring?

oh wait no it's obviously because he's just not giant bomb.

I'm much more inclined to believe garfield. I'm definitely getting a feeling that its because it's not the mellow giantbomb vibe(which sometimes borders on apathetic). I love giantbomb, and I love angry joe. Sometimes I like Angry Joe more.

*Initiate Defensive Fanboy Mode*

It's a matter of taste. If you want people to sit around and say "meh it'll get fixed later I'm sure" then that is your thing. I'm glad Joe is out there and is passionate about the games he likes. The frustration people have with these horrible, horrible games and game releases is shown through these videos. I will happily choose his shtick(which is as much an act as it is true frustration) over Giantbomb reviews. There I said it. That's speaking from years of experience with both. Almost every review he does is of a game he wants to do well. If they do well he won't be pissed at all. It's the bad ones that get the (well deserved) anger thrown at them. Rome 2 Total War is one of those cases.

Joe is almost the opposite of what I see at Giantbomb, so yes I would say it is pretty obvious the hate stems from that. Saying his "shtick" is one note and tiring is purely subjective. Don't pretend otherwise. He wouldn't have had a following(that is growing) for this long if that were true.

*Deactivate*

#37 Edited by JBG4 (415 posts) -

Terrible.

#38 Posted by Animasta (14698 posts) -

@bam_boozilled: I could just read a forum about total war: rome 2 and get angry and disappointed just as well without listening to it for 43 minutes though, if I really wanted that.

Also, If something's broken enough to mention it's not like Giant bomb ignores it with "it'll get fixed later". They spent 2-3 weeks on sim city and how broken it was.

Also also, thanks for including subsciber numbers... You do know Fred has a lot of subscribers, yeah? So does Totalbiscuit and all those other stupid youtube personalities. If subscriber numbers matter than pack it in let's all go to IGN, but they don't. Something can be super popular and still be, I dunno, stupid!

#39 Posted by OllyOxenFree (4974 posts) -

@milkman said:

Please subscribe to my new YouTube channel, Cheesed Off Gamer!

NEW NO NO: If you're going to release a broken game on PC, I'm gonna break my PC with a hammer!

How you like them apples, Einstein!?

Real talk: I'd subscribe to Cheesed Off Gamer if he wore a cheese head hat on every single one of his videos.

#40 Posted by Bam_Boozilled (152 posts) -

@animasta: Well then that is your prefered method and I won't begrudge you for it. I do that as well, but I also like seeing AJ's thoughts on it.

@animasta said:

Also also, thanks for including subsciber numbers... You do know Fred has a lot of subscribers, yeah? So does Totalbiscuit and all those other stupid youtube personalities. If subscriber numbers matter than pack it in let's all go to IGN, but they don't. Something can be super popular and still be, I dunno, stupid!

Your cute snarkiness is really starting to grow on me. I wasn't trying to make a point about numbers, in fact I don't recall including a single number in there. My point was that if he truly was a one note, dumb shtick, he would probably not be doing that well. But fair counter point. If that is the correct term for it. Stupid things definitely can get popular. But "stupid" is a pretty general term and can be applied to anything and anyone for any reason you feel. AJ can be stupid, I agree. Giantbomb can be stupid as well. Stupid in what way is what matters I guess. You aren't a superior person for liking a different kind of stupid more.

#41 Posted by Bam_Boozilled (152 posts) -

@hanktherapper said:

Everyone wants to be Lewis Black (Angry Joe, Annoyed Gamer) while no one really understands his act. Your schtick isn't funny, just idiotic.

Even Lewis Black can be a little much at times. I'm not subjecting myself to that longwinded blowhard's (Angry Joe) stupid opinions again.

I can understand the longwinded part. But stupid opinions? Which opinions were stupid and in what ways? Get past the anger and all I see are valid points.

#42 Edited by VooDooPC (330 posts) -

Any review that starts with, "Okay, my review is only going to focus on the negative aspects of the game", is a pretty awful "review".

#43 Posted by Animasta (14698 posts) -

@bam_boozilled: you're the one who talked about how Angry Joe is a voice for people who have Angry Opinions about Things in Games. I think Giant Bomb is pretty funny but it's not like I really listen to them for their opinions... sometimes they find games I like. In fact, Jeff might have one of the worst opinions on games I've ever seen.

I never inferred that I'm a superior person for not liking joe, btw. Like him all you want, who cares? I just think that making him out to be something he isn't (nuanced) is a little silly.

Well, actually, maybe he is nuanced, but I sure as hell can't tell as long as I made it into that video (2-3 minutes or something). His gimmick is one note, no matter how much you read into it... Film Critic Hulk is someone I largely agree with but his gimmick is also one note and annoying too.

#44 Edited by MocBucket62 (1234 posts) -

I actually don't think Angry Joe is that bad. Don't get me wrong, his comedy is terrible and I usually skip his sketches. But I'm probably in the minority for respecting the guy for making thorough game reviews. 43 minutes seems a bit much and the way he formatted it wasn't great, but at least he's willing to outline as much detail about his playing experience as he can. And if there is anything we and Joe should agree with, replacing pre-fight speeches to motivate the troops with two-liner speeches is crappy. The speeches in Rome I was one of the reasons I loved the original so much! (Its a small touch as Joe pointed out, I know, but c'mon)

#45 Edited by Fattony12000 (7456 posts) -

His "You done fucked it up!" was pretty funny.

Holy shit, his use of the Dune music is pretty good too!

#46 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3861 posts) -

@captain_insano said:

I actually don't mind Angry Joe. His schtick can be irritating but I get that he has found his niche and he sticks to it.

I honestly believe that he enjoys the game and loves the franchise but he does want to point out its flaws. I haven't encountered quite as many problems as he or his fans have but I have run into some of them.

I think with Total War: Rome II, like anything, there are too few people willing to acknowledge the middle ground. This game is not 'horrendous' (as argued in another thread), nor is it the greatest thing ever (as argued on many CA forum posts) but is currently, sitting somewhere in the middle. I made a topic here on GB saying how hyped I was for the game, so far I've played 12 hours and I have really enjoyed myself (the time has flown by, with work, sports, gym etc I seldom get time to play games any more so 12 hours in a week is a lot for me) but there are aspects of the game which are ridiculously stupid.

I believe some of these issues can be resolved in patches, but I also agree that they shouldn't have to be. The game is good, it should be great but quite frankly it's not right now.

Good post.

I'm so tired of hyperbole by forum posters. Everything is either horrible or great, and they don't understand anything about how games are made.

I think the game will be fantastic within a few patches and some modding. The base is great. As I've said before, this is how TW games always are. People, who must have played previous games, act like this isn't how it is with every damn release. I'm genuinely confused.

(I argue with a poster who says there are no new features in the game, then he just responds saying all the added features are bad or were in the other games when they were not at all... okay dude...)

#47 Posted by cloudnineboya (822 posts) -

I could only last to the 7 min mark before i switched off thinking now i need a drink, a stiff cant remember what i did the next day drink. shame for the people that are experiencing these sort of problems. There is something to be said for all the games coming out this gen not being finished and need lots of fixes with updates that really should be in the final product .

#48 Posted by Fobwashed (2077 posts) -

His "You done fucked it up" was pretty funny.

Holy shit, his use of the Dune music is pretty good too!

His use of "What does the fox say" actually got me to find and watch the fox video. So it wasn't all bad.

I watched this and yea, his "ANGRY!" thing wears pretty thin. He's got over a million followers though so there are plenty people who are into that stuff. As with most things on the internet, ppl need to just relax and let others enjoy what they enjoy without trying to shit on it. Even if this guy's whole thing seems to be to shit on everything.

Oh, and according to the one guy I talked to ( @rolyatkcinmai ) the game is fine and not the ridiculously buggy mess portrayed by Joe. Meh.

#49 Posted by Fattony12000 (7456 posts) -

@fattony12000 said:

His "You done fucked it up" was pretty funny.

Holy shit, his use of the Dune music is pretty good too!

Oh, and according to the one guy I talked to ( @rolyatkcinmai ) the game is fine and not the ridiculously buggy mess portrayed by Joe. Meh.

Well, if you watched someone who actually mattered, you'd be able to see for yourself how good/bad the game is/was.

(It seemed mostly fine to me.)

I love you @rolyatkcinmai.

Part one

Part two

#bold

#italics

#50 Posted by OfficeGamer (1087 posts) -

@fattony12000: You're really broke and looking to make a buck aren't you? Damn your continuous self-plugging is annoying bro.

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.