Conan O'Brien Enjoys Killing Nuns in Hitman: Absolution

[crazyrabbits]

You really like throwing the word "Fanboy" around a lot, don't you?

Without hesitation.

 

[Acton Hank]

You really like throwing the word "Fanboy" around a lot, don't you?

Without hesitation.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

 

[crazyrabbits]

You really like throwing the word "Fanboy" around a lot, don't you?

Without hesitation.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

No. Most of the time, it's justified. There are often so many kneejerk reactions to announcements that it's much easier (and more apt) to categorize the people who aren't discussing the main strengths/weaknesses of the game/product (and are mindlessly gushing for the sake of it) into one category.

Is that all you wanted to talk about, or did you want to debate the finer points of this game? I'm not accusing you of being a fanboy - far from it. I'm just surprised you're jumping on me because of one word in a long post I made. If you want to discuss the inaccuracy of the aforementioned review, I'm all for it.

 

[Acton Hank]

You really like throwing the word "Fanboy" around a lot, don't you?

Without hesitation.

You don't see anything wrong with that?

No. Most of the time, it's justified. There are often so many kneejerk reactions to announcements that it's much easier (and more apt) to categorize the people who aren't discussing the main strengths/weaknesses of the game/product (and are mindlessly gushing for the sake of it) into one category.

Is that all you wanted to talk about, or did you want to debate the finer points of this game? I'm not accusing you of being a fanboy - far from it. I'm just surprised you're jumping on me because of one word in a long post I made. If you want to discuss the inaccuracy of the aforementioned review, I'm all for it.

I haven't played the game yet so it would be pretty arrogant of me to judge whether a review is inaccurate or not.

I did recall the review stating that the game ran something like 15 FPS on PC, which is pretty damn terrible.

Also I kind of like how a bunch of people see several positive reviews alongside a single so so review ( I don't consider 62/100 damming) and that's when they decide: "Oh the game sucks the reviewers who give positive reviews are paid off", and seriously the paid off shtick is getting so old now I think i see maggots crawling out of it's decomposing corpse.

 

[crazyrabbits]

I haven't played the game yet so it would be pretty arrogant of me to judge whether a review is inaccurate or not.

Are you saying that I have to buy a game to know if a review is inaccurate or not? I hope not - if everyone was of that mindset, we'd never have any improvement whatsoever. There would be no pre-release controversies (which more often than not, have been beneficial to the gamer).

That's why I qualified my statement by saying that, judging by people who have played the game and can speak to what's going on, and from my own personal knowledge after seeing a playthrough online, they/I can reasonably say the review is inaccurate.

As I mentioned before, the reviewer speaks about the game "forcing" you to kill people, which is incorrect because i) the tutorial mission ("A Personal Contract") stresses to you in the first couple minutes of gameplay that whether or not you want to have extra casualties is your own decision, not anyone else's, ii) the game also clearly states that 47 avoids civilian casualties if he can help it, iii) the nature of the game is about assassinations of specific targets. The reviewer, who billed himself as a fan of Blood Money and has a history of being contrarian for the sake of it, failed to address any of these points. That's just one issue.

Also I kind of like how a bunch of people see several positive reviews alongside a single so so review ( I don't consider 62/100 damming) and that's when they decide: "Oh the game sucks the reviewers who give positive reviews are paid off"

That's part of the fanboy mentality I've described in the past. I don't care if there are negative reviews if they have valid and just criticism. You can jump on someone for not liking Toy Story 3 if you want, but if their criticism of the film is well-worded and substantiated, you don't need to blow a fuse. I haven't seen a recent case where one review caused people to exclaim that all the rest were paid off - that's a generalization.

It's when gaming outlets assign ridiculously high scores to games, in deference to a) fanbases that have the mentality that an 8/10 somehow constitutes "horrible", and b) the game being a step back in terms of gameplay/plot/design/etc., that I have a problem.

Seriously the paid off shtick is getting so old now I think i see maggots crawling out of it's decomposing corpse.

And yet, it just reared its head up a couple weeks back when a former Square Enix PR rep threatened legal action against Eurogamer for supposedly insinuating that she's a shill, despite the fact that she's shown multiple times that she's paid to write reviews, including two for Absolution that weren't labeled as advertorial.

You may think it's played out, but that's not what most other outlets think. You haven't seen the backlash about it over the last two weeks? Many gaming blogs/reviewers are changing their stances to clarify when they receive paid perks by publishers.

 

[Acton Hank]

I haven't played the game yet so it would be pretty arrogant of me to judge whether a review is inaccurate or not.

Are you saying that I have to buy a game to know if a review is inaccurate or not? I hope not - if everyone was of that mindset, we'd never have any improvement whatsoever. There would be no pre-release controversies (which more often than not, have been beneficial to the gamer).

That's why I qualified my statement by saying that, judging by people who have played the game and can speak to what's going on, and from my own personal knowledge after seeing a playthrough online, they/I can reasonably say the review is inaccurate.

As I mentioned before, the reviewer speaks about the game "forcing" you to kill people, which is incorrect because i) the tutorial mission ("A Personal Contract") stresses to you in the first couple minutes of gameplay that whether or not you want to have extra casualties is your own decision, not anyone else's, ii) the game also clearly states that 47 avoids civilian casualties if he can help it, iii) the nature of the game is about assassinations of specific targets. The reviewer, who billed himself as a fan of Blood Money and has a history of being contrarian for the sake of it, failed to address any of these points. That's just one issue.

Also I kind of like how a bunch of people see several positive reviews alongside a single so so review ( I don't consider 62/100 damming) and that's when they decide: "Oh the game sucks the reviewers who give positive reviews are paid off"

That's part of the fanboy mentality I've described in the past. I don't care if there are negative reviews if they have valid and just criticism. You can jump on someone for not liking Toy Story 3 if you want, but if their criticism of the film is well-worded and substantiated, you don't need to blow a fuse. I haven't seen a case where one review caused people to exclaim that all the rest were paid off - that's a generalization.

It's when gaming outlets assign ridiculously high scores to games, in deference to a) fanbases that have the mentality that an 8/10 somehow constitutes "horrible", and b) the game is a step back in terms of gameplay/plot/design/etc.

Seriously the paid off shtick is getting so old now I think i see maggots crawling out of it's decomposing corpse.

And yet, it just reared its head up a couple weeks back when a former Square Enix PR rep threatened legal action against Eurogamer for supposedly insinuating that she's a shill, despite the fact that she's shown multiple times that she's paid to write reviews, including two for Absolution that weren't labeled as advertorial.

You may think it's played out, but that's not what most other outlets think. You haven't seen the backlash about it over the last two weeks? Many gaming blogs/reviewers are changing their stances to clarify when they receive paid perks by publishers.

I went looking for the review on google but couldn't find it, I could only find forums discussing it and listing several pro's and cons.

No, I'm saying you need to play a game for yourself to know what you think of it and watching a playthrough/walkthrough doesn't count as personal experience. (there's a difference)

As for the paid reviews fiasco I was saying that I'm sick of people saying that reviewers are paid simply for giving a score that doesn't fit with they think a game should get, a game that hasn't been released and that they haven't played yet; don't twist stuff around.

 

[crazyrabbits]

I went looking for the review on google but couldn't find it, I could only find forums discussing it and listing several pro's and cons.

No, I'm saying you need to play a game for yourself to know what you think of it and watching a playthrough/walkthrough doesn't count as personal experience. (there's a difference)

As for the paid reviews fiasco I was saying that I'm sick of people saying that reviewers are paid simply for giving a score that doesn't fit with they think a game should get, a game that hasn't been released and that they haven't played yet; don't twist stuff around.

a) It's the PC Gamer review from the online edition, and will supposedly be in print next month.

b) Semantics. As I said, I'm not going to drop $60 on a product just to see whether a single review is "correct" or not. That's a herd mentality line of thinking. If I watch a playthrough online, I can see what the plot's about, get an idea of the gameplay mechanics and understand whether there are any major issues/bugs to be worked out. The only thing actually playing the product gets you beyond watching is your own personal input and ability to shape the gameplay experience/narrative the way you see fit. It's not a big difference at all.

c) Then you should have clarified your statement. You made it sound as if the very notion of bring up accusations about "paid reviews" is tantamount to heresy. Context is important.

What you're describing ties in with your earlier notion that you can't prove or disprove a review is correct until you buy the final product, which is patently absurd. While I agree that basing your views off a single outlet/reviewer is complete nonsense and sheep-like behaviour, it also doesn't excuse the mentality of constantly putting out money for products that will be second-rate or underwhelming compared to everything else out there.

 

[Acton Hank]

I went looking for the review on google but couldn't find it, I could only find forums discussing it and listing several pro's and cons.

No, I'm saying you need to play a game for yourself to know what you think of it and watching a playthrough/walkthrough doesn't count as personal experience. (there's a difference)

As for the paid reviews fiasco I was saying that I'm sick of people saying that reviewers are paid simply for giving a score that doesn't fit with they think a game should get, a game that hasn't been released and that they haven't played yet; don't twist stuff around.

a) It's the PC Gamer review from the online edition, and will supposedly be in print next month.

b) Semantics. As I said, I'm not going to drop $60 on a product just to see whether a single review is "correct" or not. That's a herd mentality line of thinking. If I watch a playthrough online, I can see what the plot's about, get an idea of the gameplay mechanics and understand whether there are any major issues/bugs to be worked out. The only thing actually playing the product gets you beyond watching is your own personal input and ability to shape the gameplay experience/narrative the way you see fit. It's not a big difference at all.

c) Then you should have clarified your statement. You made it sound as if the very notion of bring up accusations about "paid reviews" is tantamount to heresy. Context is important.

What you're describing ties in with your earlier notion that you can't prove or disprove a review is correct until you buy the final product, which is patently absurd. While I agree that basing your views off a single outlet/reviewer is complete nonsense and sheep-like behaviour, it also doesn't excuse the mentality of constantly putting out money for products that will be second-rate or underwhelming compared to everything else out there.

I didn't say BUY I said PLAY, you could rent the game for 5 quid or dollars or whatever to test it or borrow it from a friend, gameplay videos don't provide enough context as to how controls handle or whether button placements are sensible, and a good chunk of people don't want a story spoiled for them.

 

[Not Matt]

Well he is Irish and ... Uhmm... Catholic... Nuns. ......... There is a finny joke in there somewhere I just don't know where.

I agree with with Conan, hitman is fun. And the ice cream guard looks like Louis CK

 

[Caffeine_Bombed]

Please stop posting these.
I despise this man and his live audience of hyenas.

Nobody's forcing you to watch them...

 

[Caffeine_Bombed]

That was so funny it was offensive lol I had never heard of this show, and I must say that, at least this time it was VERY fun. Conan was simply amazing, he played it honestly, like most people who never played games before (or even simply never played a stealth game before), his first instinct was to kill the enemy and shout "WOW! COOL!!!", and that's how beginners react. He failed at pointing anything relevant for the game, such as the stealth assassinations, but I don't care, it's not like his show is a serious review, it's more like advertising-fun lol

Editing: he's totally right about the bar code, I think any Hitman fan has though about that... I mean, if it was really necessary to tattoo a bar code, than do it somewhere else lol

First post I've read that gets this video!
It's Conan, a comedian, playing a video game. This isn't a professional review so people need to stop taking this so seriously.
Also, if you really hate Conan as much as some of you say: why are you watching this video? Do you really have THAT much free time?