devise22

Hey my review made it in. Thanks. People should check 10SNX out though, seriously. There was a thread on these forums recently about lack of quality Indy/smaller titles and this thing is a quality small title.

It still fills a pretty good niche if you enjoy indy games or games that maybe aren't large enough to capture full attention on a big screen. But your right, in an ideal world the Vita gets developed a year or two later, maybe three, and it wouldn't need the back touch screen gimmick could be a little thicker to mimic a proper PS controller. And of course have a bigger screen/playing power. But I still think it's impressive how much the Vita still gets used even to date, despite not a lot of high releases.

Really though I'd say that is in high credit to the quality of indy/retro titles. The Vita is simply the best place in a lot of cases to play those things on.

Interesting read, it's tough honestly to manage a very healthy gaming schedule while life begins to actually pick up proper, especially once you start factoring in other hobbies and things around that. It truly gives you an appreciation of some of the people who do games for work, because honestly I imagine they have no choice but to ignore real life and social situations sometimes. Just to get a review in, or whatever have you.

Anyway I wish you the best of luck your Vita time, honestly it's an underrated console. I know that message isn't new, but people need to keep hearing it. The Vita is actually good. :P Who knows maybe some day down the road you find a good enough time gap to jump back into the gaming pit for a month or so and try as hard as you can to catch some of the more memorable releases you missed.

Thanks for the feature yet again. :)

On a side note, can people tell me how good the Film and 40's have been? It's something I really haven't listened to/watched yet, but I have to imagine it's gotta be interesting. I've been kind of on the fence because rewatching some of those old Fast and Furious movies seems like a chore. But the idea of hearing the Beast crew talk over them seems alright. (I liked Fast 5 and 6 for what it's worth, but everything between and after I thought was rather...garbage isn't the right word, but let's say not great.)

I'm sorry but was he blowing shit up and causing mayhem in a driverless care while Turbo Lover by Judas Priest played? Welp Vinny just sold a copy of this game. :P

@mike: I think your not wrong, but that opinion is also kind of demeaning in a way. It's not just a "console exclusive" thing. There is part of that in this thread, and it's pretty silly. But some of it is also other things. Fans of Remedy games, fans of the "story shooter" genre, etc.

@onemanarmyy You pretty much got what I was going for. Appreciated the well thought out response. I get where you coming from and it's ultimately why I think the ragging on Jeff for this review is pretty silly. In that same breath though, "story shooter" is a genre now, as are a million other genres that Jeff and people here are never ever going to like. While Jeff is certainly within his right to review this game, and his opinion on his experience with it is still valid, eventually you begin to enter a world where you wonder what opinions like his add. Not because he isn't qualified. But as you also grasped, because in a world where Remedy does exactly what they want to do, does this game ever get a positive review from Jeff? The reason I felt the need to speak out on the issue is because I feel there is a growing divide among fans of multiple genres, and people who feel that if you any type of mechanics as deep as something like this in your game it has to be fun, layered, balanced, etc. I'm not saying those people don't have the right not to enjoy basic cover shooting mechanics with some random ability powers thrown in. But as you did grasp, there is a genre of that now, and people are entitled to be fans of that genre. Eventually since Jeff really doesn't come across at the person who walks into games like this with any sense of an "open mind". I don't mean he isn't willing to enjoy it, more that just due to his tastes there are things he'll never enjoy, even when the studio and fans of the genre think it was done brilliantly. At a certain point the "value" of any review in general comes into question just with how many genres of games we have and how different tastes are rapidly evolving.

I feel like the word o objectivity constantly gets used in place of what people really mean here. Listen, I'm perfectly fine with this review and Jeff reviewing it, but I honestly can't see why a few here have issues comprehending some actual critique towards the GB staff on this one.

The popularity of the gaming industry has led to a plethora of intentionally shallow designed interactive elements in games. Remedy is not the studio that "always" does that. But in that some stroke, they aren't exactly a studio known for their amazing mechanics. Yeah they had some slo down stuff in Max Payne, and the idea of using a Flashlight to scare away enemies in Alan Wake was interesting. But that is all they do. They come up with a remotely interesting concept, plaster it on their game, make some competent combat and then focus all their attention on storytelling. Ambient storytelling, environmental storytelling, and now with this they literally cross over and film a TV show. What do you think this studio and this project is more concerned with? That high end players, players who in this day an age prefer tight game mechanics over presentation like Jeff, are of no concern to the studio on this game. Sure they'd prefer they had fun with it.

But as I stated in a previous post. The gameplay in this is pretty much an interactive window to connect with the games narrative, characters, etc. The question is, knowing Jeff's taste in games as well as we the audience do and the staff do, is it giving this game a fair shake to have Jeff review it? Not because Jeff will dislike it, but because even if the narrative stuff was to his liking, would he of given this game a good review? Probably not. Which is a counter point being brought up that I can at least fundamentally understand. I mean Jeff didn't even like the combat in TLoU keep in mind, and it's far more developed/deep in that than most "story shooters." It's like people ragging on Uncharted because the gameplay feels generic. That is the point. It's a narrative driven experience for a reason. Jeff has on many occasions shown he dislikes most narrative driven games. And fine, that is okay. He is allowed to like games for being gamey. But the reality is there are entire audiences now who don't care about that.

In a review like this, as much as Jeff touches on the TV show/narrative stuff doing nothing for him, I still can't help but feel there is a perspective/voice completely ignored because Jeff reviewed this game. Where as if Brad or Austin had? I don't know if that would of been the case. Not because they may of "liked the game" but because both have shown not only passion but interest in more narrative focused games.

@ripelivejam: While I agree with you and I think Jeff in his review accounts for the concept that even as a vehicle to showcase this TV story idea, that the story itself and the TV bits fall flat for him.

While your totally within your right to dismiss a review that has more thematic elements and personal anecdotes, I think your kind of missing the point. You further prove this by quoting "in spite of the bad gameplay." There are people out there who WANT this type of gameplay. They want simple, easy to play easy to use levels of interactivity. These people are not coming to the game to try and set high scores, or engage in depth. They purely want the immersion the interactivity gives them, in engaging with whatever story or universe is presented. I personally know tons of people, some older family members who love games like Uncharted, Prince of Persia etc etc. Some of them are super excited for Quantum Break, and the notion that the cover shooter stuff is generic or not deep/engaging is the type of critique that means nothing to them.

The question now is, is that what Remedy was going for? Because if Remedy set out to make that experience, then it probably falls within some realm of reason to question if Jeff is really the right choice to review this product given how his gaming preferences lean, to review this product from the "fairest" perspective possible. Granted you'll never get a real fair perspective, and that is the point of subjectivity in reviews. But still, Jeff, like you have presented yourself, are pretty against games that use the interactivity of games simply as a means of pushing the viewer into their world.

See, what I really see beyond the fanboy flamewar and the other usual stuff that people rag on when someone gets critical of a review is this element. Why does a game have to soley be enjoyable in it's interactivity to be labeled a game? Sometimes, a game uses a basic interactive element as a method of engaging the viewer into it's story and it's themes. That isn't any less of a game than Pac Man. If your not a fan of low level interactivity in your games that is fine, but for a game that is doing that it makes way more sense for someone like Austin to review it than say Jeff.

Which is why I can very slightly somewhat understand frustration in regards to this review. Out of all the staff, Jeff very much is "if it ain't fun, I don't like it" type. Even things like Gone Home weren't as huge with him as someone like Brad. In reality it's not really giving a game like Qauntum Break it's fair shake. Not because Jeff's opinion isn't worthwhile. More because you could easily tell before hand how Jeff would feel about a high narrative, high presentation limited gameplay experience, because Jeff always seems to prefer the "game" aspect of games.

I wouldn't really blame any reviewer or the gaming community at large. This is what happens when you get over saturation of any medium. When enough of something gets made, the scale of what determines "good" changes. In 2006? Qauntum Break is probably a 5/5. I mean how many other cover shooters even existed in 2006? Like 2, and one of them being the notable Gears of War? Hell the gimmick of mixing TV show with game to create this connected universe would of been even more "cool" back then. But we've seen more now. Not just in games, but in life. So it has less of an impact.

The issue about it though, and one of the reasons I can see some argument, is that often reviewers and people making critical opinions ignore the over saturation effect, and how that doesn't really relate to work put in. I've read Jeffs review, and based on what it says nowhere does he imply Qauntum Break didn't take a lot of work to make. He also doesn't deny that he has some good ideas in it. Some of which even he found redeeming. Ultimately though, his experience was a sour one.

But in a way it's hard not to feel a little...bad for developers, especially in this instance. Invest yourself in a cool idea, turn that idea into to a competent good looking game world with some sound if uninspired and underdeveloped interactivity/gameplay and you pretty much made by most peoples standards a "shit" video game. When in reality there is going to be an audience for this game. I'm not just talking about MS fanboys in some system war either.

"Casual gamer" is one of the worst terms in the market. But how many people are going to boot this up, really dig the TV crossover aspect, have no issues with the lack of depth in the mechanics and love the huge presentation/AAA qualities of it. The opinions of those players, who largely only comment with their wallets is still relevant. Just because games are being made for that audience doesn't somehow mean that other audiences need to like/dislike.