DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I think it covered the entire card, lol.
Angry Joe Quantum Break Review.
- Thread starter Gamezone
- Start date
I think it covered the entire card, lol.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
I like AJ, but every single one of his reviews contains spoilers. I'm still pissed about him spoiling the shit out of Alien Isolation in his review.
Dougieflesh
Member
You could fill the whole card with one page
Same, and I'm yet to play Quantum Break, so I might hold off on watching.
Lister
Banned
Yeah no.
The devs fucked this up big time, and I'm relaly not sure why you guys are defending this.
You want people to use their time powers and not be stuck behind cover? MAKE YOUR AI SMARTER.
Have them flush you out, have cover not be a benefit over being on the offensive with your powers.
Angry Joe isn't complaining that the game is too hard, he's complaining that sititng in cover is the best tactic, and makes the game super easy because the devs dropped the ball and made taking cover the optimal way to play.
Sur,e using your powers might be more fun, but you need to prod your player into using them.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
Just to be clear, I don't know if this particular review is spoilery, I am also holding off until after I play the game.
JTCx
Member
Not only that but something about the aiming is 'off' theres like a stiffness to it.
Yeah. I'm pretty sure Joe didn't play through MGSV ghosting and getting all the S-ranks, using all the tools, weapons and upgrades, but still gave it a 9/10.
MilkyJoe
Member
He said what I feared in this game,
Roll back a couple of weeks, TV advert for quantum break
My missus: are you getting that?
Me: no
Her:why?
Me: cause it's half a game half a TV series, you finish a level and watch a half hour episode of the show of the game
Her: why would you want to watch a TV show when you are playing a game
Me: Bingo!
She knows fuck all about video games, she knows common sense, it would seem.
This shit smells like a poster game for the TV TV TV TV TV launch bullshit
Roll back a couple of weeks, TV advert for quantum break
My missus: are you getting that?
Me: no
Her:why?
Me: cause it's half a game half a TV series, you finish a level and watch a half hour episode of the show of the game
Her: why would you want to watch a TV show when you are playing a game
Me: Bingo!
She knows fuck all about video games, she knows common sense, it would seem.
This shit smells like a poster game for the TV TV TV TV TV launch bullshit
I mentioned this in the OT, but personally I'm experiencing a lot of input lag. Aiming feels like.. Sluggish, or maybe clunky, as all hell. Definitely not good. The powers are neat, but I really don't find combat fun otherwise.
Dunno man, I've been playing for like 8-9 hours and maybe an hour of that has been watching the show. Which is optional, by the way.
Just saying, if narrative-heavy games aren't your thing, it's all good.
Everything big name game that gets less than a 9 out of 10 is going to fill the card. Gaffers are not prepared for the fact that other people might like a thing less than they do.
.
So are people arguing when they literally only watched Joe's video?
He's off-base with a lot of his comments. This has been pointed out over and over, but the legit points are just being skimmed over I guess.
The AI is darn good...downright organic and natural more often than not. It can surprise you and feel really dynamic/smart. You're still a "super hero" though. The way they step and move is beautiful (IMO) at times.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Very true.
You know a game can be narrative heavy but doesn't have to drown you in a bunch of non interactive exposition sequences?
Adventure games do that, some RPGs do that, many games do it. Being narrative heavy doesn't mean you have to have long cutscenes.
Oh come on, now. Of course I know that. Just saying that if someone IS open to the idea of playing a narrative-heavy game, I think they should still give the game (and the TV show stuff) a try. I went in expecting to hate it, but I actually really like the stuff.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
You know what thats a really good point I always used the Time Powers because it was just so fun to use them and not really because I had to. The enemies don't really force you out of cover but I never really noticed because I was rarely in cover to begin with.
Devilgunman
Member
I'd agree since that is what it means, but I can't since for the majority of people 5/10 does not mean average in any way. At least for me through my life I've always been evaluated on different aspects academic and not. In those instances a 5/10 is a failure in every scale I've experience. I know it means something else here, but no. Someone gives a game such a low score when they think it's crap, not average.
That's the thing. The game intuitively tells you to play the game using the powers, it even says so giving you the hints. But Joe seems to have focused to much on cover maybe because of past experiences with other games. The problem was Joe, not the game. I remember some time ago when a reviewer gave a game a score that was really low because he didn't get how to play it. GodHand I think it was.
So you judge a show like It's Always Sunny in the same scale as Breaking Bad? I give that as an example. I agree the show had it's problems, but it was no worse that a decent SciFi show and that is a thing I enjoy and a thing I enjoyed in this game.
I think it would have been unrealistic to come in expecting a TV show that is really really good since Remedy have always done B type cool stories with a lot of cheese. So in this case unrealistic expectations hurt opinions for the game. That is why I don't like Joe's review it seems he is more in line with you. He may not be a big fan of TV shows so he just focuses on the really great stuff and this is not it and that is not the game's fault.
Oh man we can use this for every thread for joe hilarious!
Artvanderlay
Member
A successful idea will always be imitated , lets see how many big budget games will include TV interludes in the future . The answer is none at all .
Gravy Boat
Member
We don't rate media the same way we grade tests. 5/10 is mathematically average (5.5 if you want to be fussy about it). I even went through and added up the scores of joes last 60 reviews and the average score was 5.25. So yes. 5/10 is inarguably an average score, at least for Joe. I mean all you need to do is watch the review to see he doesn't hate it.
D20CritMiss
Banned
You're confusing successful with popular.
DudeDaftPunk
Neo Member
I hate the notion now that anything below a 7 is considered bad.
Did you read the documents at all? The collectibles?
I give you the fact that the main cop dude was a bit shallow. Though that is a thing that made me love the cheesier scenes a lot more ( think hospital scene) lol But the rest had pretty good background info and just info all around the game about them exposed during the game. And to me that is valid since this is part of the overall experience.
But the thing is we are graded for so much longer in an academic way that we sometimes cannot separate those scales. At least I know when I see a 5 out 10 in anything I do not think to myself" oh this scale is different because this is for media". It instantly makes me think it's crap.
As for the review itself. I've yet to see it completely, but there where many points I disagreed on. Me and Joe do not see eye to eye when it comes to story. It seems he can only appreciate and give high ratings to stuff that is perfect. And from what I saw he played this game as a cover shooter and this game is not that at all.
Like I said above. We are graded and tested so much in our lives in a scale where anything below a 7 or 6.5 is basically a failure we can't just turn that off and consider a whole new scale when it comes to gaming. To me anything from 6.5 - 7 is from average to above average. Anything at 5 or below is just a failure of a game. Like the below scale. We can argue all we want that they are not the same scales, but I feel it is impossible to not be at least a bit influenced by what you have been expected to do all your life.
Messofanego
Banned
Out of game coaching? You don't need anything. You can make any game play as boring as you want, but there comes a point where you're responsible for your expectations. If I play a Call Of Duty campaign by just sticking in cover and shooting infinite enemy respawns, I don't expect people to take my criticism that playing it without moving forward to trigger scripting is garbage, seriously. Either way, I responded to specific points about his playstyle or preconceptions of how the game should play rather than saying he was playing it wrong, but can't do anything if that kind of discussion is irrelevant to you.
I like to go back and watch his review after I finish a game for that reason.
Gravy Boat
Member
Well that's your fault. Doesn't change the fact that this is an average score on Joes scale, even by the most literal definition.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
I would be lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to it.
joecanada
Member
For the majority of people 5/10 should mean exactly what it does mean, average.
This comes up in every review thread, how is academic grading in any way related to media? And that is disregarding the fact that in academic scales 5/10 is literally a "pass' or a "D" ....
But to the real point, obviously in school you need to know more than just an "average" amount of information to proceed. If you knew half of the skills you required to enter a job would you hire that person who averaged 50%? Noone would which is why most programs require a minimum average. Some are as high as 80%.....being average in school or like 50% is pretty much pointless unless you are just getting by......
Media is in no way vital to your future, if you want an average game go buy it, who cares, or if you think it's great and a 10/10 that's good too but it doesn't matter very much. I grade games based on money. a 7/10, 8/10 I will buy for maybe 40 bucks, anything lower is a maybe... 10/10 might be a pre-buy.... might.
Ninja Scooter
Member
I hope Jeff Gerstmann reviews it.
Exactly, "playing it wrong" when it comes to Souls/Bloodborne means that you simply won't progress. Any viable tactics, weapons and playstyles that you use to progress and finish a Soulsborne game is what constitutes playing it "right" basically.
People saying that a person isn't playing a shooter "right" even though said person does take use of the mechanics the game has to offer to finish the game doesn't really hold water though.
Family Fry
Member
Jesus.
If the eurogamer 8/10 for uncharted 3 is anything to go by, it will be a bloodbath.
Messofanego
Banned
Maybe it could be because of having played it on Hard, but the enemies did exactly that for me. I couldn't play it as a cover shooter or I would die exponentially more.
SEGAvangelist
Member
History shows Brad will review it. He should have reviewed QB as well.
I mean if all Hard does is make you have less health (like every other third person shooter difficulty setting in the last decade) then of course you are going to die more often...
D20CritMiss
Banned
Miles of this. If you're trying to play QB on hard as a cover shooter, "you're gonna have a bad time.".
Joe isn't the only reviewer who failed to grasp the concept, can't remember which it was who said that time stop was the only power worth using. Completely wrong, its the one I use the least. It stops time very locally. Dash and Rush both trigger Vision and Focus time. And Focus time all but stops it for all of the enemies. Anyone who is saying these powers don't flow or chain well is relying too heavily on one of them.
Ah, but would GB's review have become the story if that happened?
Angry Joe is a very good reviewer. He takes his time to actually analyse the mechanics, story and design of a game rather than rushing to meet embargo deadlines. His reviews are always 2 weeks after the release meaning he actually experiences it at the launch phase and has enough time to mull over the events rather than making a reactionary review to get clicks.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with his review of Quantum Break. There's actual analysis and criticism rather than the stupid pandering a lot of the gaming media tend to do for AAA games.
Onto Quantum Break... Yeah, I'm probably not getting it. It looks painfully average and the TV parts are cringeworthy. Seen better acting in the new NFS game.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with his review of Quantum Break. There's actual analysis and criticism rather than the stupid pandering a lot of the gaming media tend to do for AAA games.
Onto Quantum Break... Yeah, I'm probably not getting it. It looks painfully average and the TV parts are cringeworthy. Seen better acting in the new NFS game.
That's the thing. It's not all my fault. It's part the fault of my and everyone else's upbringing. Rating scales may vary, as does Joe, we cannot help but be influenced by it.
That's what I mean and that's the reason people see 5s mostly as crap.
Like I said above, it's not related, but academic grading is a lot more influential to 100% of the people than media grading scales. So at least me and everyone I know let themselves be influenced by this. If in elementary, middle and high school, college graduate school. If in all of those and some other scales 5 is a fail and a fail is crap that influences how many think about media grading. Media grading is not more special than academic grading. Not saying it is not true, but it;s just the reason this comes up a lot. I see it more as justifying .media scales.
Messofanego
Banned
It's not just that, it's also the enemies flanking you, throwing grenades, or teleporting to your position to punch the shit out of you.
The AI here is better than a lot of thirdperson shooters.
Scientist Supreme!
Banned
lol
If only.
But here's the thing, and this isn't exclusive to QB (it's a problem with some other third person shooter games that try to put a "spin" on the genre like Infamous Second Son), if the player is able to successfully get through the game exclusively using one or two powers how is that the wrong way to play? The player isn't being punished for using only two powers. The only thing they are missing is optional fun or what may seem like optional tactics period.
Second Son falls into this same trapping where the enemies you face never change at a certain point but your amount of powers do. And the powers you get... all of them aren't required for winning any arena fight. You can stick to one power and win just fine. The game tries to make it clear you can swap powers via sucking up stuff on the run but why run the risk of doing that when your current power, the one you're comfortable with, is working? The only way the game can actually punish the player is by them getting hit but that's not really feedback for "you're playing it wrong" -- it's feedback for "you need to get behind something and heal". Which in a roundabout way is telling them they're playing it wrong but instead of encouraging them to be more active, being damaged and being low on health is telling them to go hide and shoot from behind cover.
If enemy types varied and AI varied across the enemy types, you could design arenas around forcing players to use all the powers. But since that's clearly not how the game is designed and players can skirt by playing it as a cover shooter on the standard difficulty everyone plays first, the powers the player has access to are then considered optional to them. That's a fault of the game's combat design.
Game designers in general just need to be better at designing their combat arenas to encourage players to be more creative. Whether that's through enemy AI, enemy types (both in terms of their weaknesses and strengths) or just the layout of the arenas.
One thing that could immediately help a game like QB is if certain enemies had weaknesses the player could exploit via using powers. That would be one way to encourage power usage and movement instead of sitting behind cover all day. Just one simple idea such as a weakness can completely change how the player approaches an enemy. And no, I don't mean something like a headshot... something way more creative than that as a "weakness".
It's not just that, it's also the enemies flanking you, throwing grenades, or teleporting to your position to punch the shit out of you.
The AI here is better than a lot of thirdperson shooters.
I found every moment of AI smartness was matched by a moment of AI daftness.
For every moment an enemy would time dash into cover, there were times where they time dashed into a position that made them easy to shoot. And that was Hard mode.
It's not just that, it's also the enemies flanking you, throwing grenades, or teleporting to your position to punch the shit out of you.
The AI here is better than a lot of thirdperson shooters.
But do they do those things on Normal too already? Because if they do, it means Hard doesn't change anything other than damage done to you...
At best, if any AI changes at all, it's just how frequent they might do those things. Otherwise, if they already do those things often enough on Normal then all Hard does is change damage which in the grand scheme of things completely nullifies the argument of "he's not playing it on Hard! He should have been playing on Hard!"
DragoonKain
Neighbours from Hell
People calling that "Xbot" comment an "attack" is just... ugh. It cheapens the meaning of the word attack. Can't poke a little fun at anyone anymore for a laugh, or be a little bit of an instigator. It's not like he went on some hate-laced tirade, jeez. He's just messing around and having a little fun with Xbox fans who way overreact to something as trivial as a game review.
People need to lighten up.
People need to lighten up.
(The game was a critical success with a small # of outliers)
No...and..
...no.
He didn't take the time to grasp the mechanics, there are a number of things wrong in the review. Some of them aren't a matter of opinion either.
The time/door/breaking its own rules remains a perfect example of that after all these pages.
I thought we were done with this fucking nonsense argument already. Click seeking activities, are you kidding me?
Christ. People think they can just explain away everything by saying they did it 'for the clicks'. Even when it makes absolutely zero fucking sense at all and there's no evidence to support it. And worst thing is, there's so many posters doing this, it's unreal.
Also, the hand-wringing anticipation of Uncharted 4 getting ripped in reviews in this thread is pretty great. Shows how far everyone here is above fanboyism, amirite?