When they're playing modern games and they miss obvious prompts and tutorials, I get the complaints. We're talking about Genesis games without manuals and, apparently, with controller issues that Ryan was playing for the first time.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Giant Bomb Thread 2: A thread on a popular internet message board
- Thread starter randomlyrossy
- Start date
- Status
So, if you had been playing those early games, you would have immediately understood which button did what and the perfect timing for pressing them without any of it even being hinted at?
It's like the ultimate of what Brad is always complaining about. If it had been him playing, he'd probably have come in here to yell at you by now
This argument is completely awful and yet it keeps getting used. Seriously people, there are a few steps between incompetent and expert.
I'm not even talking about the olympic thing here, I hate that argument in general.
exactly. besides, Olympic games were shit anyway. watched it just to see how bad they were.
I only buy games that @Fatal1ty says are good. Otherwise, how am I supposed to know it's not the reviewer being terrible?
I kind of like seeing the gradual learning of moves or techniques during these. It's how it would actually be for most people.
That's a leap of logic. The primary skill required for them to fulfil their job properly is their ability to articulate if a game is good or bad in their writing. Whether or not they're good at games is secondary if they're incapable of informing the consumer on purchasing advice.
What an excellent point. I didn't think any person tuned into the Olympiad to see how good the games were, or to see if Ryan could "beat the games" or whatever. I guess I was wrong.
I wasn't looking for purchasing advice. I was looking for a dumb thing to watch on the internet that would make me laugh. The worse Ryan did the better.
In order to be able to even tell whether a game is good or bad, they need to be capable of playing the game at the average skill level of the game's target audience. You can't have someone writing a review for an FPS if they can't aim and shoot a stationary target, and you can't write a review for a sports game if you don't know the rules of the sport. It's arguable that gaming skill is just as important as writing skill for a game reviewer.
You're arguing for an objective game review. I think GB has acknowledged that all their reviews are subjective.
Bummer. Tell us more about the things you hate.
Games often get bashed for being too difficult and the brilliance of level/character design is mainly found in difficulty (or otherwise "high level play"). There is also the matter of as games become exceedingly complex, they take more expertise to fully comprehend and compare. This creates a favoritism of games which are not very deep, but have polished superficial elements. Game journalist across the board are poor critics as games have outpaced them and their meet-the-deadline methods. Giant Bomb isn't really an exception just because they are entertaining and have good chemistry with each other.
e.g.
John Madden : Football :: Jeff Gerstmann : Fighting games
I'm not asking for an objective review, I'm just saying that there are bare minimum skill requirements for delivering a worthwhile review. Also I'm just writing in response to whatever i'm quoting, I'm not actually joining a side in whatever debate is going on.
Except that there are players of variable skill. There's value in getting a review of something like, say, Bayonetta by someone who isn't amazing at action games, because there are people who aren't experts at action games who might be interested in picking it up.
There's also value in seeing how a game treats a player who isn't skilled.
To be fair, controls in these old sports games can be pretty obtuse while demanding fairly precise timing. I can deal with him not getting pole vault or diving right, for example.
That said, it really was a disaster in pretty much every discipline that didn't just involve mashing, you'd expect him to nail at least some of these. >_> And just generally, you would just expect someone with that many years of videogaming experience across so many genres to be quicker picking mechanics up and have a stronger execution overall... but well, we've had this discussion before and we still like the GB guys even if they're rubbish at most games. Jeff clearly seems to be their strongest player across classic genres like shmups and fighters.
To be honest, in the olympic event case, it did make for rather poor viewing (that and the fact they didn't play multiplayer - what a missed opportunity!!), but oh well.
Patrick finally back in the office today. A ton of newsy stuff even just from this weekend (hell, this morning) that he has missed but I'm glad to have Tricky back.
I'd agree with that,except for the notion that games are more complex now than they had been in the past.
Apart from the difficulty issue, I'd argue that most game critics also favor shorter games more so than the passionate hobby gamer usually does. Breezing through games as fast as possible seems to be the goal most of the time.
All of this is why huge sections of the (podcasting) gaming press had trouble understanding the fascination behind the Souls games, for example. I know that I, despite being a subscriber, probably won't be looking for coverage of the next Souls game on Giantbomb. And it's kinda sad to see Vinny - the only one of them who could potentially tackle these type of games - wasting his time with mediocre stuff such as Driver and Homefront that no one really wants to talk or hear about anymore. If only they could hire another guy for such "core" games that require a little more attention
(Rorie)
I don't know guys. After watching that Trials quicklook with Brad+Ryan I think we can't call him bad at videogames, for a time at least. That was pretty funny.
In reality, I don't care if the guys are good or bad at them, I just mind when they fault the game for something when it's clearly them not paying attention to in-game cues or instructions. Brad is the one who does that more often, even if he probably is the best of the bunch.
In reality, I don't care if the guys are good or bad at them, I just mind when they fault the game for something when it's clearly them not paying attention to in-game cues or instructions. Brad is the one who does that more often, even if he probably is the best of the bunch.
That's what gets me, without fail. You are watching other people play video games, and if you've done that sitting next to them at any point in your life you'll know how infuriating it can be.
At the same time, it can be really entertaining when the game in question is really complex. Or a simulation, rather.
Why am I not surprised. I'm not sure why they're so reluctant to do this more often. Viewers always clamor about more in-house played games yet they never seem to. I thought that's what was going to make this Olympic thing special.
It also would have taken the heat off of Ryan if you saw multiple members of staff trying to grasp the archaic designs for the games. That or see someone beat the crap out of him at an event and laugh.
edit:
Brad is, from what I can tell, the only one who still plays some games on hard. I think Patrick may do this as well.
Aw, no Last Story stuff. I wanted to see Brad and Patrick freaking out over a JRPG with cover and headshots.
Jurassic Park stuff should be fun whenever they start that up. And I didn't realize JoJo's was coming out so soon, awesome.
No. You can play all aspects of the new TF2 mode without paying.
The only thing you are paying for is a guaranteed drop at the end of a mission (instead of the normal random drop system) that can include a new hat and when you complete 6 missions you get a new type of weapon that is functionally the same as the default class weapons but has a robot head on it.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. The sheer crush of assets and breadth in gaming now along with the hype & no tail sales strategy runs against depth and involved critical analysis, which the GB guys have proven that are very much capable of.
The price of nuance in gameplay and the value and joy in learning how to play, then excel is bumbling around like a doofus for X amount of time. They're doing it before god and country live to a bunch of stream monsters with no comprehension of respect. Kinda illuminates the Riposte quote and my response above, huh?
Does the PC version of Iron Brigade have any new content? Kinda lame that they would cover that in lieu of Dark Souls PC, which features a bunch of new stuff.
But you know... Double Fine... so it's automatically double the normal coverage.
It comes with the Mars DLC built in, which they also had a quick look of...
Riposte's post seems to actually run counter to this sentiment. i'm not sure i'd trust a critical analysis of anything from the GB crew other than how great a pizza tastes and which energy drink will destroy your liver the fastest. they go through games like tissue paper. it's the rare occasion where something grips them for multiple weeks in a row, and even rarer where they're capable of providing a defeated sigh and "yeah i'm still playing that" beyond two weeks.
i can't fathom why anybody would rely on popular avenues of game media for genuine critique.
yeah the silence when Brad said how about Dark Souls was a bit depressing.
the Double Fine bias is kind of annoying. I never trust their review scores for those guys... (or supergiant). i guess they are friends but i just find them irritating whenever they are on GB stuff, they don't blend.
Sad yet probably true.
i'll tag along!
I find that I don't care that much on how they play and still I respect they reviews. More often than not are spot on in my taste (and when is not, like Catherine, don't mind to much).
Maybe is because I'm not in competitive gaming or I like experience over challenge for the sake of it.
Just dunno, the Olympiad actually made me appreciate modern gaming a little more, cause I had the same issues when I was a kid.
Maybe is because I'm not in competitive gaming or I like experience over challenge for the sake of it.
Just dunno, the Olympiad actually made me appreciate modern gaming a little more, cause I had the same issues when I was a kid.
The more I play Sleeping Dogs the more irritated I am that the review got pawned off onto Alex. I have nothing against Alex at all, but having the game go to him means the chances of the rest of the crew playing it through and discussing it at length are pretty low. Especially with Borderlands 2 coming soon, which is going to basically kick off the 'season' of major releases through February or March of next year. The game's getting great word of mouth and is apparently selling out at retail, it would be nice if there'd be some good discussion about it on the Bombcast.
Right now Sleeping Dogs is my GOTY, without question. And it's going to take a lot to knock it off the top of the list.
I really like GB's reviews for two reasons. One, the score is at the top of the page, and two, they're short and concise.
Really? They feel overwordy to me. But I'm used to print reviews with hard word limits.
Nice to see Patrick back in the office.
..... This feeling won't last
..... This feeling won't last
That's...interesting as all their Double Fine reviews are on or below industry average (except Costume Quest which is slightly higher) with Brutal Legend's review 'famously' being the lowest on Metacritic.
Oh, and they never reviewed Supergiant's Bastion.
But don't let pesky facts get in the way of your tinfoil hat.
- Status