Major123 said: All he did was talk over gameplay with a robotic voice...he did a good job reviewing the game but I think Joe did just as good while being entertaining. You say he doesn't put effort into his vids and then you post a vid of a guy only talking over gameplay. Come on man, you can do better. Joe isn't entertaining, unless you're a child then you can't help it. Showing gameplay actually helps the viewer know what the reviewer is talking about. You will start to appreciate it when a reviewer doesn't have to spend 30 min - 1 hour reviewing a game when he could have done it in less time. |
 |
sullynathan said: Like I said just read an article instead, its even faster. Joe shows gameplay too, he also makes it look like he actually cares about his channel. That vid you posted is basic game reviewing. Nothing special of note.Major123 said: All he did was talk over gameplay with a robotic voice...he did a good job reviewing the game but I think Joe did just as good while being entertaining. You say he doesn't put effort into his vids and then you post a vid of a guy only talking over gameplay. Come on man, you can do better. Joe isn't entertaining, unless you're a child then you can't help it. Showing gameplay actually helps the viewer know what the reviewer is talking about. You will start to appreciate it when a reviewer doesn't have to spend 30 min - 1 hour reviewing a game when he could have done it in less time. |
 |
Major123 said: thefreeloader is obviously the best of them by a kilometersullynathan said: Please, he's the best game reviewer on youtube by a mile.angry Joe sucks at reviewing |
Major123 said: Like I said just read an article instead, its even faster. Joe shows gameplay too, he also makes it look like he actually cares about his channel. That vid you posted is basic game reviewing. Nothing special of note. Eh.. I agree with him for the most part. Nothing against Joe, I like some of his content, but I feel his reviews are overlong, the skits can be unfunny, and his angry shtick is grating at times. Super Bunnyhop is a fantastic reviewer, one of the better I've found on youtube. |
 |
| I don't really pay attention to reviews/reviewers that I don't find helpful. Some critics I do like: Kevin Vanord (gamespot), Tristan Ogilvie (ign), Cam Shea (ign) and Peter Brown (gamespot). |
lab_coat said: You've got to add thefreeloader there, like seriously, she won't fail you!I don't really pay attention to reviews/reviewers that I don't find helpful. Some critics I do like: Kevin Vanord (gamespot), Tristan Ogilvie (ign), Cam Shea (ign) and Peter Brown (gamespot). |
lab_coat said: I don't really pay attention to reviews/reviewers that I don't find helpful. Some critics I do like: Kevin Vanord (gamespot), Tristan Ogilvie (ign), Cam Shea (ign) and Peter Brown (gamespot). SOOOOOOO, speaking as someone who has studied journalism, I want to give attention to this post. Not because it's a bad post, but rather because this person remembers to do something that I've seen most people seem to completely not think to do: Respect the byline. A publication is not a hivemind. Different writers have different ideas and means of presenting those ideas. It's easy to dismiss an entire publication based on a small number of articles. It would be like if I were to completely dismiss all of Kotaku's output because I think Richard Eisenbeis (who is, of course, no longer with Kotaku. Also, I'm not sure if I spelled his name correctly) isn't a very good critic. There are plenty of great writers that get ignored by people who lazily dismiss entire outlets because of a small number of articles. So, yeah, respect the damn byline. |
Cloud3514 said: oh so that's why I don't see his reviews there anymore. but wait, was he really that bad of a critic? Those he wrote were pretty entertaining and some of his reviews were moving and hype-inducing that I found myself watching those shows he mentioned there most of the time. So yeah, Richard's a good critic.lab_coat said: I don't really pay attention to reviews/reviewers that I don't find helpful. Some critics I do like: Kevin Vanord (gamespot), Tristan Ogilvie (ign), Cam Shea (ign) and Peter Brown (gamespot). SOOOOOOO, speaking as someone who has studied journalism, I want to give attention to this post. Not because it's a bad post, but rather because this person remembers to do something that I've seen most people seem to completely not think to do: Respect the byline. A publication is not a hivemind. Different writers have different ideas and means of presenting those ideas. It's easy to dismiss an entire publication based on a small number of articles. It would be like if I were to completely dismiss all of Kotaku's output because I think Richard Eisenbeis (who is, of course, no longer with Kotaku. Also, I'm not sure if I spelled his name correctly) isn't a very good critic. There are plenty of great writers that get ignored by people who lazily dismiss entire outlets because of a small number of articles. So, yeah, respect the damn byline. |
sullynathan said: Major123 said: All he did was talk over gameplay with a robotic voice...he did a good job reviewing the game but I think Joe did just as good while being entertaining. You say he doesn't put effort into his vids and then you post a vid of a guy only talking over gameplay. Come on man, you can do better. Joe isn't entertaining, unless you're a child then you can't help it. Showing gameplay actually helps the viewer know what the reviewer is talking about. You will start to appreciate it when a reviewer doesn't have to spend 30 min - 1 hour reviewing a game when he could have done it in less time. I like Joe, but most of the time I want a quick no nonsense review instead of 20 minutes of comedy. People recommend Jim Sterling but I can't get past his apparent douche baggery and cheesy gimmick. |
DateYutaka said: SchnickelFritz said: Eh.. I agree with him for the most part. Nothing against Joe, I like some of his content, but I feel his reviews are overlong, the skits can be unfunny, and his angry shtick is grating at times. Super Bunnyhop is a fantastic reviewer, one of the better I've found on youtube. joe makes money from reviewing when he should not he lacks the professionalism to make money while based on what iv seen of him Bunnyhop is very well spoken and is very professional From what I remember Joe isn't afraid to call out developers and publishers on their bullshit and terrible practices. It's also easy to see the devotion and time he puts into his videos. You have to respect that. |
thefreeloader said: oh so that's why I don't see his reviews there anymore. but wait, was he really that bad of a critic? Those he wrote were pretty entertaining and some of his reviews were moving and hype-inducing that I found myself watching those shows he mentioned there most of the time. So yeah, Richard's a good critic. Yeah, he left pretty recently. I'm curious if it was a side effect of the Univision takeover. I doubt it was involuntary, seeing as he's a pretty popular writer for them, but he has since moved on (he's an editor for Anime Now! according to his Twitter). As for why I don't care for him as a critic, note my choice of words. He knows how to write a good article. He's a good writer. I just don't think he's a very good critic. A big part of this is personal opinion. Personally, I find it a little hard to take him seriously after calling the first part of Sword Art Online the "smartest anime [he's] seen in years," followed by praising the second part's fascinatingly badly written villain and the first arc of the second season ("Sword Art Online Returns Strong as a Cyberpunk Murder Mystery." Ugh). And the problem there is not that he has a differing opinion on the show than I do, it's that I could probably write several articles myself (again, I am somewhat of a journalist) about how he failed to actively analyze the show or didn't really pay that much attention to the smaller details that are just as important as the big setpiece action scenes. In my view, a professional critic (and Eisenbeis is a professional journalist) failing to critically analyze what he's reviewing is a bad sign that poisons the well for anything else he writes going forward. |
KermomancerAug 28, 2016 11:07 PM
SchnickelFritz said: Well if you just want a good review and nothing more then fine but I'd like someone who sounds like he actually cares about the game he's reviewing. Bunnyhop has a terrible monotone voice.Major123 said: Like I said just read an article instead, its even faster. Joe shows gameplay too, he also makes it look like he actually cares about his channel. That vid you posted is basic game reviewing. Nothing special of note. Eh.. I agree with him for the most part. Nothing against Joe, I like some of his content, but I feel his reviews are overlong, the skits can be unfunny, and his angry shtick is grating at times. Super Bunnyhop is a fantastic reviewer, one of the better I've found on youtube. |
| |
Major123 said: That's because you're an idiot. You haven't watched more of SBH and you assume he doesn't care as much. He's been doing reviews as long as Joe and he has far more passion and intelligence than Joe ever did.sullynathan said: Like I said just read an article instead, its even faster. Joe shows gameplay too, he also makes it look like he actually cares about his channel. That vid you posted is basic game reviewing. Nothing special of note.Joe isn't entertaining, unless you're a child then you can't help it. Showing gameplay actually helps the viewer know what the reviewer is talking about. You will start to appreciate it when a reviewer doesn't have to spend 30 min - 1 hour reviewing a game when he could have done it in less time. |
sullynathanAug 29, 2016 8:21 AM
|
sullynathan said: I never assumed he didn't care much but based on their videos. Joe is the one that sounds like he cares more and since it's his career he probably does, allso insulting me won't help you. Look I'm just gonna end this here by saying I like Joe and I think he's a great reviewer/entertainer. /threadMajor123 said: That's because you're an idiot. You haven't watched more of SBH and you assume he doesn't care as much. He's been doing reviews as long as Joe and he has far more passion and intelligence than Joe ever did.Like I said just read an article instead, its even faster. Joe shows gameplay too, he also makes it look like he actually cares about his channel. That vid you posted is basic game reviewing. Nothing special of note. |
| |
Major123 said: sullynathan said: I never assumed he didn't care much but based on their videos. Joe is the one that sounds like he cares more and since it's his career he probably does, allso insulting me won't help you. Look I'm just gonna end this here by saying I like Joe and I think he's a great reviewer/entertainer. /threadThat's because you're an idiot. You haven't watched more of SBH and you assume he doesn't care as much. He's been doing reviews as long as Joe and he has far more passion and intelligence than Joe ever did. SBH uploads just as frequently as Joe. Why would reviewing being joe's job mean he cares more? |
|
Cloud3514 said: Oh yeah, now that I look back at those reviews, I disagree with most of the points discussed there once I finished playing or watching those mentioned. Sorry, got the wrong idea about being a good critic and a good writer.thefreeloader said: oh so that's why I don't see his reviews there anymore. but wait, was he really that bad of a critic? Those he wrote were pretty entertaining and some of his reviews were moving and hype-inducing that I found myself watching those shows he mentioned there most of the time. So yeah, Richard's a good critic. Yeah, he left pretty recently. I'm curious if it was a side effect of the Univision takeover. I doubt it was involuntary, seeing as he's a pretty popular writer for them, but he has since moved on (he's an editor for Anime Now! according to his Twitter). As for why I don't care for him as a critic, note my choice of words. He knows how to write a good article. He's a good writer. I just don't think he's a very good critic. A big part of this is personal opinion. Personally, I find it a little hard to take him seriously after calling the first part of Sword Art Online the "smartest anime [he's] seen in years," followed by praising the second part's fascinatingly badly written villain and the first arc of the second season ("Sword Art Online Returns Strong as a Cyberpunk Murder Mystery." Ugh). And the problem there is not that he has a differing opinion on the show than I do, it's that I could probably write several articles myself (again, I am somewhat of a journalist) about how he failed to actively analyze the show or didn't really pay that much attention to the smaller details that are just as important as the big setpiece action scenes. In my view, a professional critic (and Eisenbeis is a professional journalist) failing to critically analyze what he's reviewing is a bad sign that poisons the well for anything else he writes going forward. |
More topics from this board
» Do you guys enjoy fighting games? ( 1 2 )Dumb - Feb 11 |
50 |
by Dumb
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» Is 8 gb vram enough these days?Cnon - Mar 5 |
20 |
by loligoth666
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» Stellar Blade Preview: Sekiro Meets NieR: Automata?deg - Feb 1 |
26 |
by loligoth666
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» Add "you little bitch" to a video game quote. ( 1 2 3 )Kajiuran - Oct 20, 2023 |
140 |
by loligoth666
»»
4 hours ago |
|
» What are you playing right now? (v2) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )anime-prime - Oct 4, 2020 |
3508 |
by loligoth666
»»
6 hours ago |