Critics That You Simply Can't Listen to Anymore

[BloodSquirrel]

I haven't seen this Gaming Brit, but I've got his back here.

"Durrr, it's my opinion!" is a trite and stupid defense for lousy writing.

Your opinion means nothing. The internet is full of opinions, each one stupider and more offensive than the next. I don't need a professional to give me what every half-literate jackass on the web is willing to provide free of charge. Being paid doesn't make your opinion any more valid or relevant to me than any random Sony fanboy's opinion of Halo.

Professional reviewers and critics are supposed to provide what XxxM$ucks112xxX can't: intellectual meat behind their opinions. Non-trite analysis. Insight. Enough justification for their statements to give me a sense of whether I'm reading an opinion I would agree with or not.

Having to hide behind "It's my opinion!" is a sign that a critic isn't up to snuff.

 

[DanielBrown]

After Angry Joe made his illegal, and seriously retarded, raffle for the Playstation 4 I unsubbed and haven't watched him since. Some guy said he was alerting the Texan authorities about it, or something, so hopefully he'll learn(since he plans to do more like it). Would've stopped watching him soon enough anyway since he hardly produced any reviews anymore and when he did it was so fucking theatrical I couldn't be arsed to watching it.
Also gave up Nostalgia Critic after I saw a video of his trip to Vienna(as himself). I apologise to all kind, intelligent and normal Americans here, but he was just so fucking... "American"... Mocked a girl for her accent, acted like a complete fucking jerk off and whined about things he couldn't understand. Lost all respect for him after that episode and have hated him since.

 

[omega 616]

snip

Don't take it personally. It's just my view on vloggers in general, it's not a personal attack on your channel, it's my opinion on vlogging.

I'd usually agree but if you decided to do production stuff, then suck at it, I can comment on it. If a builder wants to build a wall but it is all crooked, I can say "that wall sucks!".

Am I speaking double dutch? It's not that I disagree with his opinion, it's not that I think his show is half assed ... they contribute to why but aren't the whole reason, the main reason is just him.

I don't like anything about his personality or show, you can't please everybody and I am one of the ones he can't please! It's not really anything I can quantify, beyond saying what others have about the likes of movie Bob etc.

I actually like people who don't agree with me, stop the whole circle jerk thing. Nothing more boring to me than people who like what I like telling me why they like it 'cos it's just me watching thinking "I like that to", it doesn't challenge me.

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

To be honest, anyone from Gamespot. I mean, alot of the people are good reviewers and obviously know what they are saying and they have good points, but the others are horrible and give games low review scores for the stupid fucking reasons. Case in point, the Last of Us review. But everyone hated that, so I was not the only one.

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

Movie Bob........

But hear me out before grabbing the ban hammer (as you do when someone says something bad about someone who works for the escapist)
Not for his movie reviews but for his willingness to poke fun at fans for defending something that they love, but expects sympathy when someone badly adapts one of his beloved comic books


Double standards Bro

This. All of this. I agree with all of this. As a fan of something that he has poked fun at, and I defend it, I feel what you are saying. Thank you for saying this.

 

[shrekfan246]

With those bad points I'd say it shouldn't have more than an 'okay' score of 6 or maybe 7. Not 8+.

Which is exactly my point. For my money, I was far more interested in the story/characters of Dragon Age II than Dragon Age: Origins, and while the areas were reused far too often and Kirkwall should've changed more dynamically across the narrative of the game, I appreciated what the narrative was trying to do in comparison to the rote nature of the first game. I also thought the skill system for each class was vastly better than Origins and I thought the friend/rival character reputation system was a significant improvement as well, because it led to more interesting interactions than the binary "they like/hate you" system from the first game.

While I personally would probably mention the reused assets were I to write a review for the game, that's simply because I identified it as one of the problems I had with the game. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a problem for everyone who plays the game, and I wouldn't expect it to be brought up by someone who didn't care about it.

EDIT: Added bold to your quote to emphasize what I actually meant by "my point".

Also, "quality" by its very definition is entirely subjective.

Yes, by "quality" I mostly meant the overall design/production value. It's not too difficult to glance at something, practically anything we humans can 'consume', and judge whether it's solidly designed or not, but that's not always indicative of the actual enjoyment you'll get out of the product.

 

[JimB]

I still watch and enjoy Arin Hanson of Game Grumps...but I hardly respect his views on game design anymore, at least when held up against his Sequelitis series. I don't know if that was a fluke, or that it's just hard as hell to talk or critique while playing games (not that he does this often anyway).

I think I know what you mean. Not too long ago, recent enough that I remember this happening but long enough that I've forgotten the video and the game in question (probably Wind Waker HD), he got stuck somewhere with what I thought was a really obvious puzzle he kept overlooking, and all the time I kept thinking of his Sequelitis about Megaman X and wanted to scream his own advice back at him: "There is only one direction you can go! Go that direction and push buttons!"

I have a set of standards that while they may be subjective to my viewpoint they are reliant on a very real foundation. If you can't do that, it makes you a crappy critic. A critic is only good because you are getting a solid perspective on a movie or whatever is being reviewed that is actually based on something other than your mood. Something more grounded.

I do not believe that what you are describing is a solid foundation. You seem to be denying that any critic can ever learn more about himself or his preferred medium through experience and exposure to new things; that the only good critic is one who neither changes nor grows and is therefore completely stagnant. I think that is a completely unrealistic standard to hold to.

Screw the religious and political point of view. Those don't matter in a review. Those are yours and should be left out of judging a movie as a movie.

But a movie's religious and political point of view are part of the movie. I mean, at the end of the day, a movie is a dude (in the case of an auteur, at least, but more likely is a bunch of dudes) saying, "Here is ninety minutes of me talking about something I want to talk about." Why should a critic not be allowed to discuss what the creators wanted to talk about?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yikes, this thread is an eye opener.

"So and so talked about feminism once, so he's out"
"So and so has white guilt, so he's out"
"So and so is pushing a liberal agenda, so he's out"

And of course the ever popular...

"So and so once had an opinion that differed from mine, so I lost all respect for them forever"

Generally I don't have an issue with any critics, even the obviously pointless mouthpieces who just parrot marketing copy (because they are harmlessly transparent and because I retained my ability to critically think about the things I read). I *did* stop watching Extra Credits after the hilarious misstep that was their MMO addiction expose, just because I couldn't take them seriously any more. 30 minutes of some mopey, scraggly looking ************ sitting wet eyed in front of a camera moaning about a time he turned his friends down for a movie because he was playing WoW. Such addiction. At first I thought it was a brilliant parody, but...nope. It wasn't what they said (MMOs can be addictive...doy) but rather HOW they said it (the "very special episode" trappings, the trembling lip, the somber tone). It was too much! It was toooooo much.

To be honest, anyone from Gamespot. I mean, alot of the people are good reviewers and obviously know what they are saying and they have good points, but the others are horrible and give games low review scores for the stupid fucking reasons. Case in point, the Last of Us review. But everyone hated that, so I was not the only one.

What was the "stupid reason" they gave The Last of Us a less than stellar review? This is a middling review of The Last of Us that I happen to agree with almost note for note...

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2013/06/12/the-last-of-us-has-real-heart-but-not-much-else/

 

[Tom_green_day]

MovieBob, specifically on superhero films.

Like Super, and Kick Ass? I'm not a fan of Marvel but it seems he automatically loves everything that they make, so I don't really listen to his general feedback on those and some other genres.
OT: Zero Punctuation, Jimquisition and Total Biscuit. They seem to only tell people what the people will want to hear, instead of saying stuff that is interesting or new. Also, they're incredibly pretentious- as though their opinion of a game is superior to gamers who don't have an internet show, or non-gamers. It isn't.
That's why I like IGN- it seems that all their reviews are written from the most objective standpoint possible, and I've never thought 'that was unfairly rated because of their opinion' most good ratings I've seen I feel are justified, the rest I haven't played the game.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

After Angry Joe made his illegal, and seriously retarded, raffle for the Playstation 4 I unsubbed and haven't watched him since. Some guy said he was alerting the Texan authorities about it, or something, so hopefully he'll learn(since he plans to do more like it). Would've stopped watching him soon enough anyway since he hardly produced any reviews anymore and when he did it was so fucking theatrical I couldn't be arsed to watching it.

Also gave up Nostalgia Critic after I saw a video of his trip to Vienna(as himself). I apologise to all kind, intelligent and normal Americans here, but he was just so fucking... "American"... Mocked a girl for her accent, acted like a complete fucking jerk off and whined about things he couldn't understand. Lost all respect for him after that episode and have hated him since.

Angry Joe. The man is but a word away from being a corporate shill in sheep's clothing. That, and his yelling/ranting became a real offputting factor.

Also, the Nostalgia Critic. Haven't watched any of his material since Episode #200*, and the only reason I even hop back to That Guy With The Glasses on occasion is to see if Linkara updated History of Power Rangers.

*Okay, I saw his Avatar: The Last Airbender review, and while it had it's moments it wasn't as good as anything before I stopped watching him. One wonders if Doug should have just kept the NC retired instead of caving into fan pressure.

 

[teebeeohh]

i thought this might turn into a TB and moviebob thread.
i don't actually remember what the guy was called but he argued that if Michael Jackson did indeed molest children we shouldn't judge him for it because he made thriller and none of the children would ever contribute to humanity as much. which is something that is ok to say when you are in rapture but not in the real world.

and isn't TBs pc gaming master race thing at the point of self parody by now?

edith: every time i see someone say "liberal agenda" like there is some kind of evil club that wants to make the world fairer and more equal i image the kind of people who also tell me that global warming doesn't exist because it's cold right now. thank you for making me giggle

 

[Redflash]

I've decided to give Movie Bob a rest for a while. First off he made Frozen out to be some genre-redefining classic when it was actually just a pretty good Disney Princess film like any other one.

Then, and much more seriously, he gave Wolf of Wall Street a triple-platinum seal of approval. Having seen the film, I can confirm that yes, it is funny as hell, but when that funny is just an endless, unstructured vomit of comedy with no light and shade in between it gets pretty boring. Especially when its three hours of boring and the film's 'plot' (not that it really has one, but lets pretend for the sake of argument that it does) starts 45 minutes in.

The fact that he just gave it this gold stamp and encouraged people to go spend their money watching what is easily the worst thing Scorsese has ever produced without even one note of warning besides the fact that "yeah it's a wallow" (it's absolutely disgusting, and this is coming from someone who was known as 'Mr Inappropriate' in high school), genuinely angers me. Movie Bob is in a position of trust, and he's abusing the hell out of it by jumping on the W. of W.S. critic's bandwagon.

I guess that was more of a rant about the movie than Bob, but they're both part of the problem. I hope that film bombs straight to hell, there needs to be some sort of directorial equivalent of a FIFA apology for Scorsese to go through. Actually no, just make him watch his shitty film a few times, that ought to do it.

EDIT: Basic spell-checking, sorry I'm a bit tired tonight

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

MovieBob has been skirting that line a bit more recently, since he voted Spring Breakers one of the best films of last year (it was incredibly boring), and Man of Steel the worst. I've been screwed over by his recommendations so many times in the past I only watch him because he's another critic to give some perspective to whether I should see a film or not. I never go see a film based on his recommendation alone anymore. He lets his rampant fanboyism seep into his reviews more and more, like when he never seems to discuss the Man of Steel we got, but the Man of Steel he would have wanted and seems to revere anything to do with his childhood nostalgia (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was a pile of diarrhea) with unrelenting loyalty.

I watch Anime Abandon occasionally, not so much to find out whether the anime Sage reviews are any good, but just to see what all sorts of crazy fuckery anime history has to offer. But Bennett sometimes really goes to complete nonsense territory, like in his Fist of the North Star review, when he compared it to Hamlet and went on a whole tangent about how male anime protagonists rarely conform to the norm. Yeah, the WESTERN norm, you idiot. And it sort of comes with the art style that not every male protagonist is a musclebound hunk when everyone else is slender and slim as well.


Mark Kermode, on the other hand, there's a critic! Ignoring his baffling love of the Twilight series he offers intelligent, funny, and insightful reviews. And he's not afraid to admit to being wrong about films or that he doesn't like certain films just because they don't get to him personally.

 

[Amaror]

There are, admittedly, times where they will omit certain things that may be problems simply because they didn't view it as a problem or because it paled in comparison to how much they enjoyed the rest of the game

That, exactly that, is the problem.
Reviews can and often should somewhat reflect the personal experience of the reviewer, but not in this way. Just because the reviewer doesn't care about some problems or features a game has, doesn't mean he can just ignore them.
Because other people will very well care about those problems or features.
A reviewer has to convey what the game is first. The opinion comes on top of that.
He should not just talk about how he thinks about the game and omit a lot of the game itself, just because it doesn't support his opinion.

Let me tell you about the reviews from a german gaming magazine, which in my opinion are the best reviews i have yet to see.
While they differ a bit for small titles for most bigger titles the reviews are always structured like this:
In the main article itself they talk only about the game. They describe it's features, some story (without spoilers of course) and go into detail about the game mechanics.
Then they have always some extra texts from the people that reviewed it, with bigger AAA there will be multiple people involved in the review, were they can give their personal opinion about the game, if they liked it and what they liked/disliked about the game. In some cases, for example Dragon Age 2, they even had an entire page were 2 of them discussed the game, one of them liked it, one of them didn't.
And then they score it depedend on ten categories, which each give the game up to 10 possible points, always with little details explaining the score that category got. 6 of those categories are fixed and always the same for every game, like graphics quality and 4 are always dependand on the genre of the game. Those then get added and form a score x/100. No game ever got 100 points, since no game is perfect. I think the highest was warcraft 3 with 95 points.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I generally steer away from anyone who:
a) Sells the games they're reviewing - for obvious reasons.
b) Gives a review that is 90+% good about almost everything they review - I think they're either being paid or lazy.
c) They're in good with all the gaming companies and are constantly doing interviews with them - Bias.

The main people I read/listen to are usually smaller productions such as Jim, or who I know point out the bad with the good in games.

Still, was School Days really that terrible? I thought it was fuckin' funny.

It was bloody hilarious. People just cracked the shits because it turned the Romance genre on it's head.
It was like the Spec Ops: The Line of anime.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Pretty much any critic that injects political correctness or whether or not something agrees with their ideology into how they score a game. Also Tom Chick from quarter to three. Its ok to not like popular games. I found halo 4 to be very boring and I am just bored of the series in general but I could not in all fairness give it a 2/10 because its not a bad game. I just did not like it. It eventually gets to the point where calling low scoring reviews "click bait" could be valid when games that are nearly universally praised get scores that should be reserved for games that are flat out broken and unplayable on a regular basis from one critic.

 

[Eamar]

Yikes, this thread is an eye opener.

"So and so talked about feminism once, so he's out"
"So and so has white guilt, so he's out"
"So and so is pushing a liberal agenda, so he's out"

And of course the ever popular...

"So and so once had an opinion that differed from mine, so I lost all respect for them forever"

To be fair, it makes sense that people who hold strong views aren't going to actively seek out opposing views in their entertainment. I mean, I'm a liberal, feminist, gay rights activist and I have no problem admitting that I look for entertainers who share my views on such things and avoid overtly conservative media. Makes sense the same would be true for people on the other side of the political spectrum. In fact, I'd say avoiding people you know you disagree with is probably more positive than staying and flaming in the comments.

As for the differing opinion thing, depends on the context I suppose, but it can be a valid reason for ignoring a critic. I found that my opinions on films often didn't match MovieBob's, so I don't feel there's much point in me watching his reviews since I use reviews to decide which films to see. I know which reviewers tend to share my tastes and watch/read them instead.

 

[Verlander]

More like Movie Bob pushes a leftist viewpoint way too hard. (To which I agree as a leftist myself.)

I'm one of those criticising Bob, and I'm a feminist and generally very "leftist" socially.

I don't think I've seen anyone here criticising him for those reasons, it's more his tone or his movie reviews people take issue with. You can agree with his politics without liking his videos.

Come on guys, keep it real. He's centrist/populist. Hardly "leftist". For the most part he keeps it completely out of his reviews as well.

Backing someone for bringing the topic of gender politics in games (Sarkeesian) isn't "leftist", nor is pointing out the lazy, often racially or culturally insensitive plot writing in games. He's passionate about movies, games and geek culture generally, and wants it to move past the awkward immature stages. I dig that.

As for people on here, there was a comment saying that Bob should be proud to be white, and that he hates his own race. So yeah, it totally reads like that.

 

[Eamar]

snip

You'll notice I put "leftist" in inverted commas. I was using the term because that's what a lot of people describe him as and I was trying to indicate that I generally agree with him.

EDIT: And, while I don't necessarily agree with the comment, I read that comment as meaning he shouldn't be ashamed to be white. There's a difference.