So this has been bugging me/A plea to Brad and Patrick

@mordukai said:

@Video_Game_King said:

Is this sarcastic? My time on the Internet has fried my ability to detect such things.

I meant it in the most serious way.

Seriously? This is the only time I'd ever recommend you play Return to Castle Wolfenstein, if only to demonstrate why this school of game design has largely died out.

I found this post hilarious. Comparing Painkiller to Doom was probably the only thing they got right on that Quick Look.

@Manhattan_Project: It's certainly not worth my time to trawl through the Bombcast archive looking for examples, as I honestly don't care. I'm sure there's someone out there who has specific examples in mind, though.

Someone mentioned above Sonic, which I do recall him talking a shit on Sonic Generations, at the same time admitting to having never played it. Which is exactly the kind of thing people were talking about when they brought this up. It's not "his opinion is entirely based on the Internet" so much as he fills in the gaps in his experiences with games using the popular Internet opinion.

Again, don't give a fuck about this. I'm done with it. Get upset about it all you want if it makes you happy.

Brad is doomed.

Calling someone's review of a game terrible is like calling a painting ugly, its a piece made from the author's perspective created in his/her voice. If you don't like his reviews, find someone who you do like, but telling people to change to please you just makes you sound naive.

@Video_Game_King said:

@mordukai said:

@Video_Game_King said:

Is this sarcastic? My time on the Internet has fried my ability to detect such things.

I meant it in the most serious way.

Seriously? This is the only time I'd ever recommend you play Return to Castle Wolfenstein, if only to demonstrate why this school of game design has largely died out.

I think he was being sarcastic.

@Manhattan_Project said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@mordukai said:

@Video_Game_King said:

Is this sarcastic? My time on the Internet has fried my ability to detect such things.

I meant it in the most serious way.

Seriously? This is the only time I'd ever recommend you play Return to Castle Wolfenstein, if only to demonstrate why this school of game design has largely died out.

I think he was being sarcastic.

You shouldn't use sarcasm in reply to somebody asking you if a statement was sarcastic, at least in text. That's just mean.

The only thing I can really agree with here, and I don't think you were intentionally (or knowingly) going for this, is how often reductive descriptions are used. Painkiller IS like Doom, you can't fault that. But it isn't Doom, because it's Painkiller. It's got its own flavor even though Doom's influence cannot be denied. Yeah, both games involved shooting dudes (sometimes gigantic dudes) in a demonic back drop, and sometimes there was a room filled to the brim with dudes that had to be shot. And sometimes those rooms had gigantic dudes in them. Also those dudes needed to be shot. Shotguns.

I'd like to see games be better described without having to use other titles as a crutch, but realistically you shouldn't have to recreate the proverbial wheel every time you go to describe what it is. Especially with first person shooters.

@Peanut said:

@Manhattan_Project: Someone mentioned above Sonic, which I do recall him talking a shit on Sonic Generations, at the same time admitting to having never played it. Which is exactly the kind of thing people were talking about when they brought this up. It's not "his opinion is entirely based on the Internet" so much as he fills in the gaps in his experiences with games using the popular Internet opinion.

This is different from the rest of the staff, or most people in general, in what respect?

@Zekhariah said:

But than, the real question would be, what actor is the equivalent of Jeff Gerstmann to video game journalism?

Some sort of John Belushi/John Goodman hybrid, I think. Minus the drug overdoses.

I can just imagine him playing part in either Animal House or The Big Lebowski, not sure why.

Anime avatar + caring about Sonic games = disregard this thread, move along everyone.

Serious Sam, while a shooter, is really nothing like Doom except in the regards that you shoot things and press buttons. Anyone who has played both of them for more than 15 minutes could tell you this. Game Journos.

@vinsanityv22 said:

Brad... he just needs to familiarize himself with games a WHOLE lot more before leading a Quick Look on them.

I've seen this irritating complaint echoed several times on Quick Look comments. The crew at Giant Bomb is not large. Everyone plays a ton of games, and if they were to take your advice, it would likely cut the total number of Quick Looks as well as delay them. More importantly, the purpose of Quick Looks isn't just to watch someone play a game, rather the feature presents a snapshot of a game's character, with some funny commentary thrown in. Watching someone who is still learning accomplishes this well. I haven't found anything else like it on the net, so can we please not fuck with a good thing?

@Video_Game_King said:

@vinsanityv22 said:

the "We're just a linear theme park attraction"-kind of crap from Call of Battlefield: Warfighter.

Mainly because shooters from the 90s largely consisted of wondering just where the hell you were or where you were supposed to go.

And the answer is to go in the complete opposite direction? It doesn't have to be all extremes.

@BisonHero said:

I do the same thing Patrick does, but A) I recognize it, and B) I don't sit in on Quick Looks where I add little aside from regurgitating general Internet consensus on a game or series. I don't find Patrick annoying like the haters, but it doesn't feel like he's bringing the wealth of knowledge or any personal opinions to a QL like the other staff members; unless he has some unique factoid he picked up while researching a story, he basically just gives opinions I'm already familiar with from spending a few hours reading gaming sites each day. Maybe it's an age thing, since he's been in the business like a decade less than everyone else. Still, I agree that he seems content to just reiterate consensus, instead of giving his own impressions or anecdotes related to the game/series. Also, it continues to be ridiculous that he barely mentions any game other than Deus Ex in all of the stuff he has written about Mark of the Ninja and Dishonored; I get it, that's a game he has actually played, but for the love of god, if you're going to cover those 2 games so in-depth, find a weekend to rip through a Thief game or two.

I find this to be a well-reasoned critique of Patrick's contribution to the site. He definitely does not have the wealth of knowledge and experience of the other bombcasters. Great news stories. But I think you have a point about his other content.

Just because opinions are negative doesn't make them hateful :)

This thread owes me money

@vinsanityv22: No, they are absolutely the same thing as Doom. You run around, shoot guys in the body with crazy weapons, and sometimes insane things happen in terms of "OH FUCK SO MANY SKULL FIRE AGHHHHH." They each have their own little twists, but they are definitely cut from the same cloth, and that's awesome.

@gladspooky said:

@Video_Game_King said:

@vinsanityv22 said:

the "We're just a linear theme park attraction"-kind of crap from Call of Battlefield: Warfighter.

Mainly because shooters from the 90s largely consisted of wondering just where the hell you were or where you were supposed to go.

And the answer is to go in the complete opposite direction? It doesn't have to be all extremes.

I just played Dishonoured; wonderful level design

Some have it right, some have it wrong. That's how it always is.

@vinsanityv22: I agree with you that Painkiller is like Doom in only the most superficial sense.

I love Doom, it's one of my favorite games of all time, and I'll gladly pop it in every few months to get my feet wet for while.

But I personally can't stand games like Serious Sam, Painkiller, or Hard Reset (Which I just finished tonight, actually) where the entire game revolves around "move forward, spawn waves of enemies from out of nowhere, backpedal". It's fucking boring. I feel like the only real connection to Doom is the speed, but that speed is mostly spent circle strafing away from dumb enemies that run right at you. I'm not really super offended when people call these "The Modern Day Doom", even if it's wrong. It just makes me sad that games like Doom don't exist anymore.

Also, I don't know where all this sentiment about Doom having bad level design comes from. It has pretty great level design! Definitely more effort put into it than most modern day shooters. It really did go off the rails in Doom 2 though, which is why I don't like that game as much.

You're asking Brad to go back and play Doom?  
 
You must be new.

You've come a long way from insulting anyone who disagrees with you on Screened, now you've written one of these weird "I wish Giant Bomb were more like every other video game site on the internet" screes. I honestly cannot comprehend why people come to this site if not SPECIFICALLY for the editors' personalities. And yeah, just because Patrick agrees with the general consensus/majority, doesn't mean that's NOT his opinion. If he told you "Unforgiven" was an amazing movie, which IS the general consensus, would you immediately assume he hadn't seen it and was just regurgitating someone else's opinion?

I do think the comparison between Painkiller/Serious Sam and Doom II holds true, as Doom II also had this kind of terrible arena based level design. OP's description of Doom is just a description of the original Doom, not it's sequel. And, well, Brad did play through the entirety of Doom II, but again, that wasn't Doom.

I don't agree with all that much of what the original post said, but I think there's a pretty big difference between the designs of Painkiller/Serious Sam/Doom II and the original Doom, which it's kinda sad that people don't recognize.

@Peanut said:

@Manhattan_Project: It's certainly not worth my time to trawl through the Bombcast archive looking for examples, as I honestly don't care. I'm sure there's someone out there who has specific examples in mind, though.

Someone mentioned above Sonic, which I do recall him talking a shit on Sonic Generations, at the same time admitting to having never played it. Which is exactly the kind of thing people were talking about when they brought this up. It's not "his opinion is entirely based on the Internet" so much as he fills in the gaps in his experiences with games using the popular Internet opinion.

Again, don't give a fuck about this. I'm done with it. Get upset about it all you want if it makes you happy.

Patrick was fairly positive during the QL and I can't remember ever hearing him say Sonic Generations was terrible. The guys mostly just say "That looked like a good sonic game."

If I worked with individuals whose lives were all about covering video games, who grew up with games heavily in their lives and have not stopped playing, and who also have been covering them and the industry that births them for a significant amount of time (what's Jeff at... 25 years or more?) I'd be confident that an opinion of 'sonic sucks in general' applies for a sonic game I hadn't played. Not that it's hard to form opinions based on evidence you trust around you.

@fisk0 said:

I do think the comparison between Painkiller/Serious Sam and Doom II holds true, as Doom II also had this kind of terrible arena based level design. OP's description of Doom is just a description of the original Doom, not it's sequel. And, well, Brad did play through the entirety of Doom II, but again, that wasn't Doom.

I don't agree with all that much of what the original post said, but I think there's a pretty big difference between the designs of Painkiller/Serious Sam/Doom II and the original Doom, which it's kinda sad that people don't recognize.

I think the the primary reason the differences between a Doom or Quake vs Hard Reset or Serious Sam are glossed over comes down to looking more at weapons and gameplay pacing instead of level design and encounter structure (rocket launchers with 50+ clips). For someone who is in the majority of current gamers (Call of Duty is popular......), you are talking about modern military shooters being the primary point of interest. Since people into that sub-genre probably like the semi but not really realistic licensed weapons, there is not much incentive to care about Doom Vs. Serious Sam (the are both removed from being anything you would consider playing before you get into the finer points).

Games that are not the modern military style and at a console speed are rare enough (because the publishers are not suicidal) that other parts of the genre stay in their niche. For the moment it is a bit of a down side that you just have the old games to get that type of (or a evolution based on the parts of quake / doom that were removed from modern day) gameplay, but that may change as those practices circle around.

Cest la vie

I don't see how what Patrick said is wrong or offensive to anyone who likes DOOM.

@vinsanityv22 said:

Somebody needs a hobby...

I agree with your general point (as all your generalized points are true), but you could've picked a better thing than to tell Brad to play more Doom when he's done like six fucking videos/events of Doom games in the past ~year. Using such blatantly false evidence really hurts your overall argument, even if it is true, because people that disagree will just pick the thing you fucked up and rip it apart and leave instead of saying anything constructive. I'm not really blaming those people, but that's what they'll do.

Doom wasn't just about fighting waves of enemies sure but Painkiller and Serious Sam have no exploration? what? Both series of games have just as many "find thing to open door" or "find button to allow access to next area" elements as Doom did. The very reason I can't stand playing games with that old design mentality is the slow tedious boring nature of having to look through every single nook and cranny of a bland environement in order to be allowed progress.

I don't like how super linear 90% of modern shooters are either, but the ideal experience for me is one of focus but with options ala original Crysis which i still consider the bar that other shooters should be compared to in at least a level design sense.

Man you really shot yourself in the foot with that "brad should play some doom" comment. Pretty funny stuff.

Should GB crew be more prepared when they do QL? absolutely (they need to make sure they get developer/ publisher name, price and platform down consistently) , but I really don't think your criticism is on point here. For example, while I do agree that Patrick lacks the general experience and knowledge when it comes to some video games (and that is only because he is working with people like Jeff, Brad and Ryan who are in a league of their own), I genuinely feel that he puts extra effort when he is driving a QL and specially when he is reviewing games and I really appreciate that. Therefore, when he is talking about a subject he doesn't know too much about, he goes with what he has heard/ read on that subject (and cmon we all do this). Again this site is suppose to be about the personalities, so coming in to QLs, reviews and podcasts you should know what tendencies Patrick has when it comes to video games and you should adjust your expectation according to it.

The other side is that while this site is a pretty hardcore niche place, you do want some sort of generalization when it comes to QL etc. I'm sure a lot of people on this site know what Painkiller and Serious Sam are and they know while those game were/are influenced by Doom, they are not really like Doom. But if someone did not know that, telling them that Painkiller is a modern version of Doom is pretty fair and accurate description in the context of a QL. Even though QL are usualy 20+ min, they are "Quick Looks"

@laserbolts said:

People take this stuff way too seriously.

Yep.

@vinsanityv22 said:

Anyone see the Painkiller HD Quick Look? *sigh*

Look, I love the GB crew. But Patrick and Brad get on my nerves sometimes. Brad... he just needs to familiarize himself with games a WHOLE lot more before leading a Quick Look on them. Patrick; he's a fine journalist. A lot of the features he does for the site are eye opening and compelling. But he's a terrible REVIEWER. Whatever seems to be the general opinion of a game on the internet is his opinion, automatically. All the time. He does for Sonic games. And he did it for Painkiller. It's obviously not coming from personal experience - why must it be restated as fact?

What I'm talking about, specifically, is his claim that Painkiller and Serious Sam are basically modern day Doom.

I wish, desperately, that you guys would go back and actually play Doom. Or one of the mods for it (might I suggest Brutal Doom?).

I know it's the cliche, lazy internet thing to do, but comparing Painkiller and Serious Sam to Doom is just insulting Doom. They're completely mindless games; the Dynasty Warriors of shooters. I'm not saying they're not fun - I'm just saying, Doom did a lot more. And you guys should give credit to it instead of regurgitating the internet opinion that these new, dumb shooters are just like Doom.

I mean c'mon. Doom may have been "Go from point A to point B", but it didn't mindlessly throw enemies at you. It was as much about exploring Phobos as it was about battling the demons of Hell. Those levels were not linear, they weren't mere arenas to trap the player in. They had a really effective sense of place. They were loaded with secrets. You weren't just blazing through levels; you were looking for everything. And those environments were so effective, I bet you STILL know which wall hides the Chainsaw is in the first couple of levels.

Shooters today... their level designs are dogshit. Not just this "lock you in an arena until you kill x swarms of bad guys" stuff from Painkiller and Serious Sam, but also the "We're just a linear theme park attraction"-kind of crap from Call of Battlefield: Warfighter. Games from the 90's were FAR more ambitious; they really tried to establish these locales as places. There were way less invisible walls; there were tons of corridors and room and the way they were connected MADE SENSE. Make fun of color coded key cards all you want, but compare those levels to MOH: Warfighter and all of sudden, key cards look pretty awesome. It's astounding how backwards shooter design has gone.

Seriously, Patrick, Brad - I'm BEGGING you. Go back and play some older shooters. They're better than most modern shooters. They deserve more credit from you. Do another couple Quick Look throwbacks, like you did for Deus Ex.

Ha ! Ha ! Hope you're not serious, man. Either way, you've surely made my day - good stuff there. Wow, where can I buy your nostalgia glasses? They must be really powerful.

And just in case you were serious, Doom did a lot more, so let me break it down for you:

Painkiller:

1. Kill many men
2. Move on
3. Repeat

Doom:

1. Kill many men
2. Navigate through a confusing mess of a level for a half hour looking for a key or a switch
3. Repeat

Ha ! Ha !

all i say is i love both brad and patrick and they should both stay the course. and people need to lighten the fuck up. i guess entertainment is a serious business now, but it's still entertainment, and sometimes you should just enjoy it at face value. i think that's one of the many subversively wonderful things about GB is that it just lets you enjoy gaming for fun's sake and kinda strips away all the excess pro gamer baggage and minutiae of other sites. kinda reminds me of just hanging out with a group of friends and just having pure FUN with a game, riffing on it, and trying our damndest to get it to break (like Mario Kart 64, ah the memories). i know a lot of people come her expecting exacting coverage of gaming, and i DO think GB provides that to a degree, but i don't think that in the end that's what GB is about. i think it's about fun times with people who love games, if in the end they aren't the be-all/end-all experts at them. it's just real.

The only thing that annoys me a bit is when they seem totally clueless on a games mechanics because they ignore any on screen stuff and then wonder how things work, or just show an inept ability in general.

I mean I don't play games for a living, or even play them very much these days, but I just don't get how people can be so inept when games are what they do. (this isn't specifically aimed at anyone Ryan)

Kill Kill Kill Kill

@Sooty said:

The only thing that annoys me a bit is when they seem totally clueless on a games mechanics because they ignore any on screen stuff and then wonder how things work, or just show an inept ability in general.

I mean I don't play games for a living, or even play them very much these days, but I just don't get how people can be so inept when games are what they do. (this isn't specifically aimed at anyone Ryan)

again (i say this with respect) you MIGHT be taking their play habits a little too seriously. this kind of medium (gamers en masse watching other gamers play video games) is still RELATIVELY new, and i can see even without having the actual audience in front of you someone may be intimidated a little. and they're right to feel that way apparently, as people seem to tear their videos apart limb by limb ready to call out pretty much the slightest flaw. i think most gamers would feel the same sort of "stage fright" if put into the same situation.

even if they are playing poorly by all criteria, it's still a fun video they put up just to exemplify the gameplay a little. it's supposed to be evident just in displaying the gameplay how it plays, at least to some degree. it's part of a large reservoir of content which you can say either falls above or below this so called standard of playing. it's 20 minutes of gameplay, for Crissakes. how can you even judge by that, really? it's just enough to give you a taste of the game's style and i think it serves that purpose very well.

haha and now I'M getting a little too bent up. i think the overall lesson is just to chill the fuck out, and enjoy the content FWIW.

Because Painkiller isn't a linear theme park ride?

I find it odd that people say Klepek doesn't have the experience, yeah he is not as old as Ryan of Jeff, but... dude has put time in the game, he is FAR from new to the industry. And unless I hear things wrong, I am sure than anytime Patrick speaks on the game, he always adds the, "this is what I heard.." or "popular consesus is..." so it's not much pawning it off as HIS opinions, but the ones that he has heard.

Which is what most people do, I've never seen "Glitter" but I trust the opinions I've heard of it being terrible. From what I gather from clips in trailers and whanot, seems like a terrible movie, don't know why that wouldn't work with video games... I dunno man... Criticizing Video Game Criticism changed... it got weird man.

@Fredchuckdave said:

Painkiller is a modern version of Doom, hate to break it to you bud. I guess if Painkiller had color coded key cards you'd like it more? Or if you automatically aimed everything?

Painkiller is not a modern game anymore though

Neither is Serious Sam. Both are classics at this point

Did you really tell Brad to play more Doom? The fuck?

And I haven't played Painkiller, but after playing Doom and Serious Sam, how are they not like each other?

I gotta agree. I love serious sam but it's not at all like doom. I'd say it more arena style.

Havent played painkiller

I'm sure it's been said many times yet it bears repeating...

Brad played through the end of Doom II on camera, so yeah. DO YOUR RESEARCH HERP DERP

@vinsanityv22 said:

What I'm talking about, specifically, is his claim that Painkiller and Serious Sam are basically modern day Doom.

I wish, desperately, that you guys would go back and actually play Doom. Or one of the mods for it (might I suggest Brutal Doom?).

I realize you're not a premium member so I'm gonna tell you this without snark and stuff: Brad played through Doom 2 on ultra violence just recently as part of the Breaking Brad feature. There's hours and hours of video (subscribers only) on the site of him playing through the game with everybody checking in. They really couldn't have fresher impressions of what original Doom gameplay is like.

@Christoffer said:

And this is why reviews are soon a thing of the past.

Not even kidding.

Jesus Christ.

Jeff says this once, and the entire community piggy-backs on it.

He said quick-looks are going to be the future, but OP is slating the team's preparation for them (which is pretty common).

Yeah. I think Brad's pretty much Doom'd out, by this point.

It's a good job a Quick Look isn't a review then, ain't it!

This fucking guy, right here.

Holy shit, this thread...

Worth it to see someone demand that Brad play Doom, though. That's hilarious.

I really like it when quicklooks make people angry. I think I have a problem.