Support NeoGAF

[Foliorum Viridum]

First so-so Bombcast of the year.

They really nailed it in last month every week.

Also, I'm liking them giving Gears 3 spoilers. They should talk about games like that more often, if they're not going to do spoilercasts.

 

[Lombax]

Murder Slingshot, and I love to tussle.

 

[ultron87]

What else would you call it? It's clearly referencing to stuff catering to the Call of Duty demographic.

Their specific complaints about the Resident Evil trailers seemed to be that it was "explosion-ey". So say you don't like that it appears action and set-piece focused.

Calling something "dudebro" or "bro" is just attempting to demonize trends you don't like by tying them up with a demographic that is considered "the other" or "the enemy" by the core gaming audience.

 

[I'm an expert]

Yeah...GB of all people calling something bro... the irony indeed.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

First so-so Bombcast of the year.

They really nailed it in last month every week.

Also, I'm liking them giving Gears 3 spoilers. They should talk about games like that more often, if they're not going to do spoilercasts.

Agreed with spoilers. I think a month or two after a game is released, spoilers are fair game. If anyone was truly interested in a game, they would have bought it at launch, not on bomba, or they would know to skip ahead.

 

[I'm an expert]

Agreed with spoilers. I think a month or two after a game is released, spoilers are fair game. If anyone was truly interested in a game, they would have bought it at launch, not on bomba, or they would know to skip ahead.

Sorry to be blunt, but that is very..dumb. Not everyone has the ability or time to jump on every game release within the first week, or month, even two, three, four months. It does not mean someone is not interested in the game. Not even the GB crew play every release right away, look at Brad and Batman. The GB crew themselves have set the rule that a game should be 6 months out before they talk about spoilers.

As for "skip ahead", if the GB crew actually gave us timestamps that'd be possible, but most of the time we have to ask for safe spots here in this thread because they do not provide us such info.

Spoilers are fine, as long as they give fair warning before they begin talking, but they should also give us a timestamp of where it ends or Ryan should edit in something like "and skip to so-so for the end of the spoilers talk". It really sucks having to fast forward a bit here, a bit there, praying you don't accidentally hit more of their spoiler stuff.

This is from years of experience listening to them, not just all of a sudden.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I agree that good timestamps should be given with spoiler talk.

 

[StuBurns]

Spoilers almost never start right away, it's never "Rosebud is a sledge" out of the blue.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

Ryan did go from "can we talk about spoilers?" to

Spoiler

"DOM DIED Y'ALL"

pretty quickly. If I hadn't played the game, I could see myself not being able to skip ahead quick enough if I had to alt-tab out of a game, or pick up my iPod as I was driving etc.

Advance warning is always good.

 

[ultron87]

Spoilers almost never start right away, it's never "Rosebud is a sledge" out of the blue.

I'm pretty sure the Catherine one that Patrick dropped a few podcasts ago kind of came out of nowhere. Otherwise I would've skipped it since that is a game I do intend to get back to.

Unless that was during the GOTY podcast where it would've been okay. I don't remember when it happened.

 

[sixghost]

Sorry to be blunt, but that is very..dumb. Not everyone has the ability or time to jump on every game release within the first week, or month, even two, three, four months. It does not mean someone is not interested in the game. Not even the GB crew play every release right away, look at Brad and Batman. The GB crew themselves have set the rule that a game should be 6 months out before they talk about spoilers.

As for "skip ahead", if the GB crew actually gave us timestamps that'd be possible, but most of the time we have to ask for safe spots here in this thread because they do not provide us such info.

Spoilers are fine, as long as they give fair warning before they begin talking, but they should also give us a timestamp of where it ends or Ryan should edit in something like "and skip to so-so for the end of the spoilers talk". It really sucks having to fast forward a bit here, a bit there, praying you don't accidentally hit more of their spoiler stuff.

This is from years of experience listening to them, not just all of a sudden.

He said if you were interested in a game you would EITHER have bought the game OR know to skip ahead when the warning was given to avoid being spoiled.

Calm down

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I'm pretty sure the Catherine one that Patrick dropped a few podcasts ago kind of came out of nowhere. Otherwise I would've skipped it since that is a game I do intend to get back to.

That was a GOTY podcast. Spoilers are always going to be in those podcasts, and they warned as such. If there's a game you care about the story of, don't listen to GOTY podcasts.

 

[StuBurns]

I'm pretty sure the Catherine one that Patrick dropped a few podcasts ago kind of came out of nowhere. Otherwise I would've skipped it since that is a game I do intend to get back to.

The GotY one? They made it clear they would have spoilers in previous episodes. I was caught by that one too actually, because Cathy wasn't '11 in the UK, and I was just thinking about if I'd finished the '11 games I cared about.

 

[I'm an expert]

Spoilers almost never start right away, it's never "Rosebud is a sledge" out of the blue.

Right, they always give warnings, but sometimes it amounts to someone being like "c'mon guys we can talk about that now right? good? ok and.." while in the past they were much more sensitive to that stuff being like "INCOMING SPOILERS 3 2 1". I appreciate they always ask everyone before going ahead, but again, a few timestamps and all would be good.

Ryan did go from "can we talk about spoilers?" to

Spoiler

"DOM DIED Y'ALL"

pretty quickly. If I hadn't played the game, I could see myself not being able to skip ahead quick enough if I had to alt-tab out of a game, or pick up my iPod as I was driving etc.

Advance warning is always good.

Yes, this. They used to be much more sensitive back in the day. Now it seems like it annoys them.

 

[I'm an expert]

He said if you were interested in a game you would EITHER have bought the game OR know to skip ahead when the warning was given to avoid being spoiled.

Calm down

Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't calm? I must have missed the part where I'm rambling on using all caps and tearing my hair out.

I addressed the part about skipping ahead very clearly - we can't, not easily, because we don't have timestamps and then it just becomes a guessing game of have I gotten past the spoilers or am I now skipping content I want to hear. Also how does buying the game make me immune to spoilers? Ok, I bought it. Now I'd like to enjoy it, not have it spoiled. I read his post to have meant "you must rush to beat it in one or two months otherwise it's your fault" which is why I thought his logic wasn't very logical at all.

Read posts next time?

 

[sixghost]

Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't calm? I must have missed the part where I'm rambling on using all caps and tearing my hair out.

I addressed the part about skipping ahead very clearly - we can't, not easily, because we don't have timestamps and then it just becomes a guessing game of have I gotten past the spoilers or am I now skipping content I want to hear.

Read posts next time?

my bad I didn't realize you had years of experience listening to them. Just skip ahead a few minutes at a time. There aren't going to be gigantic spoilers every single second they are talking about the ending or something. It's really not that big of a deal. If you really want to be safe, skip like 5-6 minutes ahead. You might miss 2-3 minutes of a 3 hour weekly podcast.

 

[I'm an expert]

my bad I didn't realize you had years of experience listening to them. Just skip ahead a few minutes at a time. There aren't going to be gigantic spoiler every single second they are talking about the ending or something. It's really not that big of a deal. If you really want to be safe, skip like 5-6 minutes ahead. You might miss 2-3 minutes of a 3 hour weekly podcast.

These are first world problems, I get it, but not everyone has that same opinion. It's not a big deal to YOU. To some it is. Hence why the other poster saying something along the lines of "it's your own fault for not beating games at a steady pace" is a head scratcher. Some people don't want spoilers period, that's their right. It's GB's right to discuss them as well, and they've always been great about giving warnings. No complaints there, but I don't want to miss 2-3 minutes of the podcast. Some of us listen to it while working out, commuting, working, playing a game, whatever. I'd like those 2-3 minutes, even if someone else doesn't. Also it's not that easy to fumble around with my mp3 player when I'm driving or doing something else. Having both hands tied up but hearing in your headphones "GIANT MAINSTREAM GAME SPOILERS INCOMING" can definitely catch you offguard. So a simple timestamp would clear all that up.

Yes, I'll survive, and continue to live my life, one step at a time..but voicing my opinions or criticisms are what an internet message board is for. Don't be so quick to swipe them away by telling people "it's not a big deal".

 

[Mahonay]

Going back to Brad being a handheld racist, did Sony send these guys a way to capture Vita footage yet? Games are on PSN, Canada is shipping Vitas early, Gamestop has demo units...

Man I got the hype bug bad. I need some quicklooks!!

Jeff was entertaining the idea of getting a Japanese Vita if a recall but thought better of it.

From what I could ascertain during their last Happy Hour when they answered Dave's questions about the Vita is was pretty apparent they did not have one in the office yet at that time.

 

[sixghost]

These are first world problems, I get it, but not everyone has that same opinion. It's not a big deal to YOU. To some it is. Hence why the other poster saying something along the lines of "it's your own fault for not beating games at a steady pace" is a head scratcher. Some people don't want spoilers period, that's their right. It's GB's right to discuss them as well, and they've always been great about giving warnings. No complaints there, but I don't want to miss 2-3 minutes of the podcast. Some of us listen to it while working out, commuting, working, playing a game, whatever. I'd like those 2-3 minutes, even if someone else doesn't. So a simple timestamp would clear all that up.

Yes, I'll survive, and continue to live my life, one step at a time..but voicing my opinions or criticisms are what an internet message board is for. Don't be so quick to swipe them away by telling people "it's not a big deal".

I just think the fervor with which some people denounce spoilers is weird. I'd rather have them regularly talk about games freely after a month or so and risk having a few things spoiled rather then hear them pussyfoot around spoiling the ending to a 2 year old game or be furious about them talking about a plot point that gets revealed in a trailer.

Patrick spoiled the shit out of Catherine during the GOTY podcasts, but if anything what he said made me more interested in playing that game.

 

[LCfiner]

there’s always shades of grey with spoilers.

I think enough time has passed for a big, fast selling title like Gears (it’s been almost 5 months) for them to be able to talk about it freely.

There may have been times when they spoiled stuff that had been out earlier but, for the most part, they’re OK with this stuff.

I remember that preview Brad wrote about Arkham City where WB spoiled their own little plot twist from early in the game. While it’s true that it’s not an event that has a big impact on the game, I still think there should have been a spoiler warning in the article as it makes the reveal in the game lose some impact.

And I don’t like it when publishers reveal these fake-y spoiler and then giggle and go “oh, you gotta see what happens next”. annoys me.

 

[Mahonay]

I just think the fervor with which some people denounce spoilers is weird. I'd rather have them regularly talk about games freely after a month or so and risk having a few things spoiled rather then hear them pussyfoot around spoiling the ending to a 2 year old game or be furious about them talking about a plot point that gets revealed in a trailer.

Patrick spoiled the shit out of Catherine during the GOTY podcasts, but if anything what he said made me more interested in playing that game.

This. I mean if I was really that desperate to not have a game spoiled for me I would have played and finished it already.

I played about half of Gears 3 but in reality I was never going to find time to beat it. I was fine with the spoilers when it meant they could speak freely on their thoughts about the game. If anything, I'm maybe more in inclined to go back and finish the game now.

 

[I'm an expert]

I just think the fervor with which some people denounce spoilers is weird. I'd rather have them regularly talk about games freely after a month or so and risk having a few things spoiled rather then hear them pussyfoot around spoiling the ending to a 2 year old game or be furious about them talking about a plot point that gets revealed in a trailer.

Patrick spoiled the shit out of Catherine during the GOTY podcasts, but if anything what he said made me more interested in playing that game.

I respect your opinion, I just disagree about "after a month" because it's not realistic that people finish games that fast. Again, they've always had a 6 month since release rule. If they stick to that, and give proper warnings, then it's much appreciated. If they don't, well, oh well.

This. I mean if I was really that desperate to not have a game spoiled for me I would have played and finished it already.

I played about half of Gears 3 but in reality I was never going to find time to beat it. I was fine with the spoilers when it meant they could speak freely on their thoughts about the game. If anything, I'm maybe more in inclined to go back and finish the game now.

edit: After reading your post below, glad we agree on that much! Let's just leave it at that haha.

 

[Mahonay]

I respect your opinion, I just disagree about "after a month" because it's not realistic that people finish games that fast. Again, they've always had a 6 month since release rule. If they stick to that, and give proper warnings, then it's much appreciated. If they don't, well, oh well.

I'll agree that one month is an incredibly small window of time. To spoil a game that soon is a little much.

 

[sixghost]

I'll agree that one month is an incredibly small window of time. To spoil a game that soon is a little much.

Eh, it depends on the game. Obviously they probably shouldn't do it for long ass games like Skyrim or Dark Souls, but for shorter games like Gears I don't see the problem. Any longer than that and the game probably won't ever get brought up again.

 

[mjc]

Their complaints of Amalur makes my head hurt. I seriously need to start toning them out when they start dribbling shit out of their mouths.

 

[MiniBossBattle]

Their complaints of Amalur makes my head hurt. I seriously need to start toning them out when they start dribbling shit out of their mouths.

I heard broken economy, more might gear then finesse gear in main lines & not challenging combat, lack of diverse enemy types to change how you play the game on autopilot. The side stories not being interesting did kinda bother me but I agree with the majority of what they said about the game.

What did you not agree with?

 

[Mahonay]

Their complaints of Amalur makes my head hurt. I seriously need to start toning them out when they start dribbling shit out of their mouths.

Tell us what you really think.

 

[Bad7667]

I don't understand all the praise Reckoning is getting. To me it's an average game. The world feels so empty, there is no personality to the NPCs, like say a Fable game has. Everything feels static, almost MMO like.

And the comparisons to Skyrim are weird to me. Fable is much more closer to it than Skyrim.

 

[I'm an expert]

Their complaints of Amalur makes my head hurt. I seriously need to start toning them out when they start dribbling shit out of their mouths.

You know I think used to have the perspective that games journalists were "better than the average Joe Gamer" when it came to playing games. But GB has really been the site over the years to raise the blinds for me in terms of seeing how average journalists are at playing games. It was kind of like when I realized wrestling was fake as a kid.

The quick looks, TNTs, endurance runs really show you that even though these guys play a lot of games, it doesn't make them good by any means. Pulling a Brad, anyone? Once I kept that in my head, I realized that where they're coming from with a lot of their opinions and critiques is absolutely no different than you, me, or any other gaming fan with a voice. They have no qualification that puts them above any GAFer (though it'd be nice if the did, like a degree in gaming design or something). In fact, I trust a lot of GAFer's opinions way more than them because I know how skilled or experienced they can be at a certain game or genre. The GB crew..I dunno.. I guess people will usually say Brad with SC2 or Jeff with Blitz..but..I have a feeling in those respective communities they're just average at best.

I don't understand all the praise Reckoning is getting. To me it's an average game. The world feels so empty, there is no personality to the NPCs, like say a Fable game has. Everything feels static, almost MMO like.

And the comparisons to Skyrim are weird to me. Fable is much more closer to it than Skyrim.

I couldn't agree more. Game is generic, bland, and a mish mash of the genre's checkpoints. Not to say it isn't fun, I didn't mind the demo. But man..for some reason..Westerners love having shit spoonfed to them with WRPGs nowadays.

 

[Massa]

I was surprised by Jeff's take on Amalur since he's been playing a lot of MMO's lately. In particular, I thought he'd be more into the mindless "go kill 10 random enemies" side quests.

I definitely see where he's coming from.

You know I think used to have the perspective that games journalists were "better than the average Joe Gamer" when it came to playing games. But GB has really been the site over the years to raise the blinds for me in terms of seeing how average journalists are at playing games. It was kind of like when I realized wrestling was fake as a kid.

The quick looks, TNTs, endurance runs really show you that even though these guys play a lot of games, it doesn't make them good by any means. Pulling a Brad, anyone? Once I kept that in my head, I realized that where they're coming from with a lot of their opinions and critiques is absolutely no different than you, me, or any other gaming fan with a voice. They have no qualification that puts them above any GAFer (though it'd be nice if the did, like a degree in gaming design or something). In fact, I trust a lot of GAFer's opinions way more than them because I know how skilled or experienced they can be at a certain game or genre. The GB crew..I dunno.. I guess people will usually say Brad with SC2 or Jeff with Blitz..but..I have a feeling in those respective communities they're just average at best.

Having good skills or dexterity in a particular game and being able to construct and provide good criticism on games are two completely different abilities.

 

[mjc]

You know I think used to have the perspective that games journalists were "better than the average Joe Gamer" when it came to playing games. But GB has really been the site over the years to raise the blinds for me in terms of seeing how average journalists are at playing games. It was kind of like when I realized wrestling was fake as a kid.

The quick looks, TNTs, endurance runs really show you that even though these guys play a lot of games, it doesn't make them good by any means. Pulling a Brad, anyone? Once I kept that in my head, I realized that where they're coming from with a lot of their opinions and critiques is absolutely no different than you, me, or any other gaming fan with a voice. They have no qualification that puts them above any GAFer (though it'd be nice if the did, like a degree in gaming design or something). In fact, I trust a lot of GAFer's opinions way more than them because I know how skilled or experienced they can be at a certain game or genre. The GB crew..I dunno.. I guess people will usually say Brad with SC2 or Jeff with Blitz..but..I have a feeling in those respective communities they're just average at best.

I echo your sentiments exactly. I really enjoy their personalities and the hard work they put into the site, but its pretty obvious that they lack some degree of proficiency at gaming.

 

[sixghost]

You know I think used to have the perspective that games journalists were "better than the average Joe Gamer" when it came to playing games. But GB has really been the site over the years to raise the blinds for me in terms of seeing how average journalists are at playing games. It was kind of like when I realized wrestling was fake as a kid.

The quick looks, TNTs, endurance runs really show you that even though these guys play a lot of games, it doesn't make them good by any means. Pulling a Brad, anyone? Once I kept that in my head, I realized that where they're coming from with a lot of their opinions and critiques is absolutely no different than you, me, or any other gaming fan with a voice. They have no qualification that puts them above any GAFer (though it'd be nice if the did, like a degree in gaming design or something). In fact, I trust a lot of GAFer's opinions way more than them because I know how skilled or experienced they can be at a certain game or genre. The GB crew..I dunno.. I guess people will usually say Brad with SC2 or Jeff with Blitz..but..I have a feeling in those respective communities they're just average at best.




I couldn't agree more. Game is generic, bland, and a mish mash of the genre's checkpoints. Not to say it isn't fun, I didn't mind the demo. But man..for some reason..Westerners love having shit spoonfed to them with WRPGs nowadays.

Who cares how good they are at video games?

 

[I'm an expert]

I echo your sentiments exactly. I really enjoy their personalities and the hard work they put into the site, but its pretty obvious that they lack some degree of proficiency at gaming.

And to be totally fair, they're (except for Patrick), all in their mid-30s and clearly don't have time to put into a set game or genre to get exceptional at them. Totally understand that, and I don't expect them to be pro gamers or anything. Nor does one have to be a pro gamer to review a game. It's just you'd hope with how much experience they have they'd be a bit more ..I don't even know.. confident in their gaming?

 

[MiniBossBattle]

I echo your sentiments exactly. I really enjoy their personalities and the hard work they put into the site, but its pretty obvious that they lack some degree of proficiency at gaming.

Wait what? His complaints was not about how he had difficulty with the game because of his lack of skill but the actual systems and item collections as well as being underwhelmed by the one button combat. But hey; 4/5.

 

[Felix Lighter]

Wait what? His complaints was not about how he had difficulty with the game because of his lack of skill but the actual systems and item collections as well as being underwhelmed by the one button combat. But hey; 4/5.

Yeah I can't even follow the logic of how the coversation got here.

 

[I'm an expert]

Who cares how good they are at video games?

It's not about being good, it's more about them being able to show me that they know what they're talking about. Isn't that what someone who goes to their site for impressions/opinions on whether to purchase a game or not wants? When you see some of them struggle with certain games in quick looks or whatever, you can't help but question their final opinions on the game.

Look at Brad and his opinions on raid mode in Revelations in this thread. He thinks the gameplay is lacking to warrant going back and playing raid mode, but the core gameplay of the game is the same as RE4/5 and in essence better due to the control scheme. Not to mention raid mode is more of a co-op based mode, and I have a serious doubt he set up some online co-op with someone and played raid mode for at least 4 hours before brushing it off. The comment someone made earlier in this thread, that he "only reviewed half of the game" is most likely right. Even if he says he played it, his review makes it seem like he loaded it up, played a level, and said that's enough for me. Well, that's not much of a review. Of course if this assumption is false, he should word it better in his review. Everything in the raid mode section I could easily ascertain from the game's manual. This leads me to believe Brad simply wasn't good enough at the gameplay to appreciate a mode like raid since it requires more skill than the main campaign to obtain high scores. Again, if I'm wrong, great, but that's the impression the review gives.


For reference, this is his "raid mode section" of the review.

As you go through the storyline you'll also unlock "raid" missions, which are snippets of the campaign broken up into short, timed levels where you try to set a high score. There's a whole separate metagame attached to the raid mode where you level up multiple characters and buy new weapons and gear with both battle points that you earn in the campaign and Play Coins you get from walking around with your 3DS. It's nice that there's some depth and customizability to the raid missions, and they'll give you something to do if you want to keep playing after the story is over, but the game's action isn't good enough on its own that I wanted to go back and spend a lot of time on those missions after the fact.

 

[Jintor]

You got him coming and going there

 

[LCfiner]

Every day I thank the gods that I suck at gaming so I can’t spend my time judging others by that metric.

 

[jediyoshi]

It's not about being good, it's more about them being able to show me that they know what they're talking about. Isn't that what someone who goes to their site for impressions/opinions on whether to purchase a game or not wants? When you see some of them struggle with certain games in quick looks or whatever, you can't help but question their final opinions on the game.

Phew, if that's the only caveat then it sounds like Jeff's review is completely justified for having finished the game.

 

[sixghost]

It's not about being good, it's more about them being able to show me that they know what they're talking about. Isn't that what someone who goes to their site for impressions/opinions on whether to purchase a game or not wants? When you see some of them struggle with certain games in quick looks or whatever, you can't help but question their final opinions on the game.

Look at Brad and his opinions on raid mode in Revelations in this thread. He thinks the gameplay is lacking to warrant going back and playing raid mode, but the core gameplay of the game is the same as RE4/5 and in essence better due to the control scheme. Not to mention raid mode is more of a co-op based mode, and I have a serious doubt he set up some online co-op with someone and played raid mode for at least 4 hours before brushing it off. The comment someone made earlier in this thread, that he "only reviewed half of the game" is most likely right. Even if he says he played it, his review makes it seem like he loaded it up, played a level, and said that's enough for me. Well, that's not much of a review. Of course if this assumption is false, he should word it better in his review. Everything in the raid mode section I could easily ascertain from the game's manual. This leads me to believe Brad simply wasn't good enough at the gameplay to appreciate a mode like raid since it requires more skill than the main campaign to obtain high scores. Again, if I'm wrong, great, but that's the impression the review gives.

Your argument isn't necessarily wrong, but that seems like a really bad example to cite. I enjoyed RE4, but playing some sort of Mercenaries-like mode or some type of survival mode with improved controls doesn't really seem interesting or that challenging.

I'd be inclined to agree if you wanted to talk about a game like Bayonetta or Vanquish or some fighting game being under appreciated because they aren't the type of people to delve that deep into, and master, a games systems. But even then, who cares? They don't need to cater to every single type of person.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Playing RE:R, I disagree with Brad's review, but if that's how he feels about it, fine. It's not the end of the world.

 

[obonicus]

Worldrevolution:

The essence of Brad's complaint about raid mode is that he thinks the combat is dull, and thus a mode that is all about the combat doesn't hold his interest. Your rebuttal is that the combat is an improved version of RE4/5 combat. That argument by itself isn't a contradiction of what Brad is saying.

I'm not sure there is any way in which you can contradict Brad finding the combat dull; if you want to be honest with yourself you'll accept that Brad's tastes are not your own, rather than resorting to ad hominems about how much they suck at games (which they might -- it's a non sequitur for this particular argument, though).

At best you might be able to find a source that has Brad talking about how much he liked RE4/5's combat, and call him a hypocrite for that, but that doesn't even take into account that his tastes might have changed in the interim (or that Brad disagrees that the combat is improved over RE4/5s, for that matter).

 

[I'm an expert]

Your argument isn't necessarily wrong, but that seems like a really bad example to cite. I enjoyed RE4, but playing some sort of Mercenaries-like mode or some type of survival mode with improved controls doesn't really seem interesting or that challenging.

I'd be inclined to agree if you wanted to talk about a game like Bayonetta or Vanquish or some fighting game being under appreciated because they aren't the type of people to delve that deep into, and master, a games systems. But even then, who cares? They don't need to cater to every single type of person.

I disagree in that I think mercenaries mode takes a certain amount of skill that's above what the campaign requires in an RE game. But sure, Bayonetta or Vanquish have much deeper combat systems that make distinguishing someone who gets the system and doesn't much more apparently.

And no, they don't have to cater to every single type of person. I hope they keep doing what they're doing as I've clearly been a fan up until now. Still, if they read some opinions and criticisms and keep them in mind, it surely can't hurt. Doesn't cost anyone here anything to type a few lines about what they think.

Worldrevolution:

The essence of Brad's complaint about raid mode is that he thinks the combat is dull, and thus a mode that is all about the combat doesn't hold his interest. Your rebuttal is that the combat is an improved version of RE4/5 combat. That argument by itself isn't a contradiction of what Brad is saying.

I'm not sure there is any way in which you can contradict Brad finding the combat dull; if you want to be honest with yourself you'll accept that Brad's tastes are not your own, rather than resorting to ad hominems about how much they suck at games (which they might -- it's a non sequitur for this particular argument, though).

At best you might be able to find a source that has Brad talking about how much he liked RE4/5's combat, and call him a hypocrite for that, but that doesn't even take into account that his tastes might have changed in the interim (or that Brad disagrees that the combat is improved over RE4/5s, for that matter).

Meh, I had something typed out but now I'm just coming off as some rabid anti-GB hater which I'm not. GB is part of the reason I'm still a gamer at this point in my life, so I'll give my thanks to the team and leave it at that.

 

[LiK]

I disagree with Patrick about the end parts of Catherine. Puzzles were great and the endings were great. I remember Patrick not liking how it went near the end but I thought it was expected.

 

[Typographenia]

I'm pretty sure the Catherine one that Patrick dropped a few podcasts ago kind of came out of nowhere. Otherwise I would've skipped it since that is a game I do intend to get back to.

Unless that was during the GOTY podcast where it would've been okay. I don't remember when it happened.

My first time listening to this week's podcast I zoned out right before Vinny started talking about Catherine. I was wondering what game he was talking about until he said something like "I'm really liking the waitress" and I muted it as fast as possible. I skipped ahead 5 minutes to be safe.

It's annoying to still be skipping the talks at this point, but I just haven't gotten around to catherine yet, so I'm paying for it. : (

 

[LiK]

Did they really need to tell me what the FFXIII-2 ending was like even without major spoilers? I'd rather discover that on my own. The game just came out. Gimme a break.

 

[frequency]

Did they really need to tell me what the FFXIII-2 ending was like even without major spoilers? I'd rather discover that on my own. The game just came out. Gimme a break.

Yeah that really bummed me out.
It's like the Catherine thing back when it was released too. It was like "I'm not going to spoil it, but

Spoiler

THERE'S A TWIST AND IT DOESN'T END WHEN YOU THINK IT DOES!

"

BAIHSBDJKASDA
Don't do that! I spent all game

Spoiler

expecting a twist. And when it got to the point where I would've thought it was over, I knew it wasn't. And the surprise factor was lost.

Why is it so hard to talk about a game without mentioning the ending? Seriously annoying.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Ryan did go from "can we talk about spoilers?" to

Spoiler

"DOM DIED Y'ALL"

pretty quickly. If I hadn't played the game, I could see myself not being able to skip ahead quick enough if I had to alt-tab out of a game, or pick up my iPod as I was driving etc.

Advance warning is always good.

Yeah, I haven't played through all of Gears 3 yet and that part was ruined for me. I don't really hold it against them though, but a little more warning would have been nice.

I skipped the rest of the conversation once I realized what was going on.

 

[LiK]

For the folks who are worried about spoilers. Here'a a list of what was discussed in order. Just skip them if you're worried.

Skyrim - Main story ending.
Catherine - Near end game stuff and puzzles.
RE: Revelations - Mid-game character appearance.
FFXIII-2 - Ending stuff. Not story specific but still annoying.
Gears 3 - Major story stuff. (the only one with a warning, sorta)

Felt like a GOTY podcast except it's not.

 

[NHale]

Yeah, I haven't played through all of Gears 3 yet and that part was ruined for me. I don't really hold it against them though, but a little more warning would have been nice.

I skipped the rest of the conversation once I realized what was going on.

Me too. When I reached the fast forward button it was already too late.

I don't have any problem with them wanting to talk about a game freely but at least give us more than 10 seconds to skip it before spoiling major parts of the game.