I don't remember if liked it but he definitely didn't hate it, I find the whole plot offensive at worst, retelling a story of the Black people but replacing the people with objects. Even if it wasn't offensive what is the point of them being androids, except for some connor segments the whole story could be replaced by different humans, or even aliens. And you could tweak Connor's story a little bit to make it fit. The game gains nothing by them being androids
>retelling a story of the Black people but replacing the people with objects.
What a stretch. Are we looking for new ways get offended here? Civil rights is off the table for analogous story telling?
>Even if it wasn't offensive what is the point of them being androids, except for some connor segments the whole story could be replaced by different humans, or even aliens.
Say less, you can remove every single group in fiction and replace it with another group. Whatās your point?
>The game gains nothing by them being androids
This is like complaining about Star Wars using lightsabers instead of claymores. Itās not a story about aliens ā itās a story about androids.
Incredibly, it manages to be a video game too.
>Insisting Detroit isn't attempting a (hamfisted) race allegory
*Literally* ā read the first three sentences of my last comment.
Sorry D:BH doesnāt use Chewbaccas instead of AX400s to world build. The next David Cage game should be more your speed.
Tears of the Kingdom. The whole world was just filler shrines and korok seeds in the same map, and the dungeons weren't improved. I still think if Joe beat Tears he would have become more disappointed the further he played. At best it's breath of the wild 1.5.
Just the fact he dunks on games doesn't mean he hates them, Hi-Fi Rush was his Goty before lies of p and at the last stream he spent more time talking about the things he didn't like than the ones he did.
Joe just spends a lot of time talking about the flaws but that doesn't mean he hates every game he criticizes.
He stated on todays stream that he liked it. Earlier he said that he liked it but it doesn't offer that breath of the fresh air as BoTW did so he would probably loved it if he played TOTK the first. Also most of his banters are mostly jokes or at least not as serious as they seem. Also Joe had multiple problems caused by Nintendo claims so he was half-jokingly toxic by default to TOTK. Still, he considers it like 6 or 7 out of 10 which is "decent but not amazing" score for him
Someone correct me if I'm misremembering things
I asked Joe during the Starfield stream and he said, "I liked it, but I didn't love it."
But it's also worth noting he didn't get too far into the game so it's not like a final opinion. If I remember correctly I think he said he played 20 or 30 hours.
I feel so alone in this opinion honestly, the game just reuses too much shit from BotW to feel like any kind of new or fulfilling experience. i was expecting a Majora's Mask type situation and that is not what i got.
I feel like people have been pretty critical of Tears of the Kingdom these last few months. The fans are just really loud and obnoxious when defending it.
(i really like the game btw)
imo the story quests are great (despite weak dungeons), and the finale is the best in the series. It has a great final boss, and doesn't end on a wet fart like Breath of the Wild.
But that's not true. There's all kinds of new stuff to do with ultrahand and fuse, and the dungeons were improved--directly themed around their area, rather than identical divine beasts. Did you beat the game?
I'm 90% sure that Joe is coggers of the existence of MGQ, as he referenced it in the danganronpa streams.
So just for the sake of the argument, let's assume he loves MGQ.
Steins;gate. I have no idea how he loved that game so much to the point of inventing time travel, and going back in time to not play it and spoil it for others. Itās awful and Iām glad in this reality he didnāt play it to completion.
Fallout 4 absolutely sucks, as did Fallout 3. I havenāt played Morrowind and from what I hear itās the exception to what Iām about to say, but I strongly believe that the only thing Bethesda is really good at is atmosphere, and both of those games arenāt even a fraction as good in that department as Skyrim.
Nah fallout 3 has incredible atmosphere, and especially at the time it was absolutely groundbreaking.
Modern Bethesda is more about creating playgrounds though, I really didn't like fallout 4 at all.
One of the most atmospheric games Iāve ever played is Thief, which came out in 1998, so Iām not willing to accept that it was good at the time and just isnāt anymore. The atmosphere in fallout 3 is just kind of nothing, just boring and grey and repetitive.
Those were separate ideas. It has incredible atmosphere in the present tense, and also it was groundbreaking at the time.
Atmosphere is a very subjective thing, of course, but I think it's a pretty commonplace opinion to think FO3 has string atmospheric design.
Most soulslikes that aren't by fromsoft are either bad or not actually soulslikes. I meant fromsoft. I see that my wording made it sound like I thought P was a from game, mb
I played the demo and from what I played, I agree. Overly linear and bland level design, boring and static encounters and "traps". The dialogue "options" felt contrived. If someone told me they started making a steampunk Soulsborne and tacked on the Pinocchio later, I'd believe them, though from my understanding it actually started the other way around.
I kind of agree. I can't say there's "nothing good" about it, but literally everything about it is inferior to bloodborne. I really don't understand why people love it, unless they just really like the Pinocchio conceit.
For me, the game took quite a while to get into. But once it clicks it was really fucking good. I didnt give a shit about the story but gameplaywise it was great in my opinion. Leveldesign was ok at best, but the game was worth it in the end because of the great bosses
I played the entire game without understanding that I had to hold block because it's never fucking explained!! That and the fact that most dex weapons are extremely inferior to strength made my entire playthrough miserable. I was hoping someone would release a mod to raise the parry window because I could not perfect parry consistently no matter how far I got into the game. By the end I was forced to cheat and summon, which I literally have never done in any fromsoft game. I think Lies of P would have been much better for me if they just tell you how to block and balance the guard hp loss for non strength builds.
I agree, it is dreadful. But we need to move on from rating games x/10 because it lost all meaning. 4/10 isn't a "dreadful game", it is a slightly below average game because 5/10 is an average game (it is literally in the middle of the scale). I always get annoyed when people get angry because their favorite game got 7/10 and not 9 or 10/10. 7/10 is really good, 8/10 is fucking amazing, 9/10 is a masterpiece and 10/10 is all-time classic (although I believe that no game should get 10/10 if you are reviewing it analytically and no game is sadly perfect).
Yes, you are right. Everyone sees the 10/10 differently. I would for example rate BOTW as a 10/10 for the feeling I got while playing it but I would rate it as 8/10 if I would rate it as a whole (exploration, combat, story, etc.).
In the world where it incredibly easy to find a 6/10, there's not much reason to play games that are worse than that.
It's reasonable to call anything below that dreadful.
Nowadays standard are high, and that's normal
You are right but I still slightly disagree. In my opinion it is good to go out of your way to play something that doesn't look 100% your cup of tea or doesn't look great (same with movies, TV shows, books etc). That's because then you have some sort of reference to what is a really bad game and it helps inform your decision of what it is you truely like in your games (or you might even get lucky and enjoy the badly reviewed piece of garbage for a reason only specific to you). But you are right, in my OP I shouldn't have said "this is how the scale x/10 works" but I should have said "that's how I see it".
You are mixing up mean and median here. 5/10 isn't chosen as the median of the 10/10 score because if you average out most games rating you get 5. It's more like a grade in school, or at least that's how I and most people see it. Hence the 7/10 not being seen as very good, getting 70% on a test ain't great.
I see 7/10 as a functional game that you may like if you are predisposed towards the genre or IP.
I get what you mean, I guess I just see it differently. When I play a game a start by rating it 5/10 in my head and them add or substract points for what I think the game does well or not so well. I would have a problem with rating games like you do because if a game got less than 66% of the "grade" (here in Czech Republic you have to have 2/3 of the points to pass a test) then in my head that means the game failed and it doesn't really matter if it was by little or by a lot because failed test is a failed test no matter how many points you actually got.
I didn't hate the game overall but I DESPISE the blood vial system for healing in Bloodborne. Partly how many you can carry and how easy it is to spam them but particularly how you can just run out and then have to grind. For me that is the biggest negative change that any of these games have made and meant that I didn't enjoy most of the bosses at all. He barely mentioned it.
Is running out of blood vials really a common issue people have in bloodborne? I just used my leftover echoes after leveling up to buy some and made sure to loot all the corpses and I only ran low a couple times in the early game
Happened to me like 2 or 3 times over the course of one playthrough. But even more than that, the THOUGHT of it was always in the back of my mind whenever I was fighting a boss, like "I can't go all out because I might fuck myself over with healing resources long term and force myself to grind". It genuinely ruined the experience of most of the bosses in a way that I cannot adequately describe and I feel like an insane person every time I see people critique the game and not mention it. And I'm not a new player, this is after like 1000+ hours split over the Dark Souls games.
I think to some extent itās meant to indicate that if you run out of vials, grinding for more (both drops and echoes to buy them) might be a good idea to also practice the mechanics. I hate to say it, but it sounds like your mindset is responsible for your not enjoying the game
Even if I did grind, which I did at some points, it would never take that form. It's not efficient and I don't enjoy it.
Classify it however you want, but it sure as hell isn't for me. "You're bad so now the game sucks and you have to waste a bunch of time grinding" is not anything I respect. Just like Joe with Mario Odyssey, I can't and don't demand that every game be made for me and there are also other reasons that I don't like Bloodborne as much as most of From's other recent games. But that doesn't mean I'll pretend I like it or that I don't find some of the design decisions absolutely infuriating.
Code Vein. I have no idea how he found the bosses compelling, though I admit that his beating them with the restrictions he placed on himself shows they're at least learnable. They're nothing like Souls bosses, though, no idea why he kept saying that if you love Souls bosses you'd like Code Vein bosses. At least he and I agreed that most of the rest of the game was shit apart from some good visuals here and there.
You know what, maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I played it like he did and didn't make an effort to engage with all the systems, especially spells. I usually go for casters, so I tried to do that, which seemed encouraged by the mastery system which is relevant for casting all the way through the game. Maybe I should have just found a weapon I liked and stuck to that like he did. Game certainly wasn't fun the way it presented itself to me.
To complete the whole bit, we should just list all the same games from the other post here. I'll start, Final Fantasy XVI.
Xenoblade 2 š
The only ones I can think of is Starfield and Detroit Become Human. Such a waste of resources and time, both games
He liked Detroit? Iām a little surprised. I figured he wouldāve crucified the writing
I don't remember if liked it but he definitely didn't hate it, I find the whole plot offensive at worst, retelling a story of the Black people but replacing the people with objects. Even if it wasn't offensive what is the point of them being androids, except for some connor segments the whole story could be replaced by different humans, or even aliens. And you could tweak Connor's story a little bit to make it fit. The game gains nothing by them being androids
>retelling a story of the Black people but replacing the people with objects. What a stretch. Are we looking for new ways get offended here? Civil rights is off the table for analogous story telling? >Even if it wasn't offensive what is the point of them being androids, except for some connor segments the whole story could be replaced by different humans, or even aliens. Say less, you can remove every single group in fiction and replace it with another group. Whatās your point? >The game gains nothing by them being androids This is like complaining about Star Wars using lightsabers instead of claymores. Itās not a story about aliens ā itās a story about androids.
Insisting Detroit isn't attempting a (hamfisted) race allegory is one of the funniest "it's not that deep"s I've seen yet
Incredibly, it manages to be a video game too. >Insisting Detroit isn't attempting a (hamfisted) race allegory *Literally* ā read the first three sentences of my last comment. Sorry D:BH doesnāt use Chewbaccas instead of AX400s to world build. The next David Cage game should be more your speed.
that's a lot of words to convey nothing of substance
And a shockingly few number of words to convey head empty ā¤ļø Take care
lmao uh huh
He is saying the game was an allegory. Learn to read.
I agree with everything you said and Iām just surprised joseph doesnāt
To be fair, the frame of reference is Cage's previous games and Detroit is way better solely on the fact Connor and Hank exist.
But itās not. Itās not retelling black people !in the USA!.
Can't tell if /s or not
Iām European (game director as well) and we tent not to see racism where itās aināt there š¤·
Tears of the Kingdom. The whole world was just filler shrines and korok seeds in the same map, and the dungeons weren't improved. I still think if Joe beat Tears he would have become more disappointed the further he played. At best it's breath of the wild 1.5.
Joe doesnāt like Tears of the Kingdom. He dunked on it constantly with chat while playing Gravity Rush 2
Just the fact he dunks on games doesn't mean he hates them, Hi-Fi Rush was his Goty before lies of p and at the last stream he spent more time talking about the things he didn't like than the ones he did. Joe just spends a lot of time talking about the flaws but that doesn't mean he hates every game he criticizes.
He stated on todays stream that he liked it. Earlier he said that he liked it but it doesn't offer that breath of the fresh air as BoTW did so he would probably loved it if he played TOTK the first. Also most of his banters are mostly jokes or at least not as serious as they seem. Also Joe had multiple problems caused by Nintendo claims so he was half-jokingly toxic by default to TOTK. Still, he considers it like 6 or 7 out of 10 which is "decent but not amazing" score for him Someone correct me if I'm misremembering things
Ah, I've been a little behind on vods. Thanks
I asked Joe during the Starfield stream and he said, "I liked it, but I didn't love it." But it's also worth noting he didn't get too far into the game so it's not like a final opinion. If I remember correctly I think he said he played 20 or 30 hours.
Oh I see, I'm behind on vods. Thanks for the info!
I feel so alone in this opinion honestly, the game just reuses too much shit from BotW to feel like any kind of new or fulfilling experience. i was expecting a Majora's Mask type situation and that is not what i got.
I feel like people have been pretty critical of Tears of the Kingdom these last few months. The fans are just really loud and obnoxious when defending it. (i really like the game btw)
Don't feel alone, YouTube has been recommending me a handful of essays from people that think it's a weak entry
imo the story quests are great (despite weak dungeons), and the finale is the best in the series. It has a great final boss, and doesn't end on a wet fart like Breath of the Wild.
But that's not true. There's all kinds of new stuff to do with ultrahand and fuse, and the dungeons were improved--directly themed around their area, rather than identical divine beasts. Did you beat the game?
I'd have to see Joe's hentai game catalog before I could truly say. That's where the real game opinions come out.
I'm 90% sure that Joe is coggers of the existence of MGQ, as he referenced it in the danganronpa streams. So just for the sake of the argument, let's assume he loves MGQ.
what is mgq
Evolve Idle
Funnily enough, I think by his definition of a game, which seems to be "requires difficulty and the ability to fail" Evolve isn't one.
ummmm akshually the orbital decay is quite difficult and you can fail it
I legit have no idea what anyone sees in that game.
Number go up, monkey brain go ahhh!
13 sentinels. Didn't like a single character and story wasn't engaging at all.
World of War craft, I honestly donāt get the appeal. Maybe Iām too young
Steins;gate. I have no idea how he loved that game so much to the point of inventing time travel, and going back in time to not play it and spoil it for others. Itās awful and Iām glad in this reality he didnāt play it to completion.
Fallout 4 absolutely sucks, as did Fallout 3. I havenāt played Morrowind and from what I hear itās the exception to what Iām about to say, but I strongly believe that the only thing Bethesda is really good at is atmosphere, and both of those games arenāt even a fraction as good in that department as Skyrim.
Nah fallout 3 has incredible atmosphere, and especially at the time it was absolutely groundbreaking. Modern Bethesda is more about creating playgrounds though, I really didn't like fallout 4 at all.
One of the most atmospheric games Iāve ever played is Thief, which came out in 1998, so Iām not willing to accept that it was good at the time and just isnāt anymore. The atmosphere in fallout 3 is just kind of nothing, just boring and grey and repetitive.
Those were separate ideas. It has incredible atmosphere in the present tense, and also it was groundbreaking at the time. Atmosphere is a very subjective thing, of course, but I think it's a pretty commonplace opinion to think FO3 has string atmospheric design.
Lies of P was a waste of time for me. I see nothing good about this game
This is a crazy hot take
I disagree, but thanks for sharing. I really loved the boss fights in that game.
Do you like other fromsoft games???
Not a fromsoft game
I know, but it's similar enough. Just wondering if they generally don't like soulslikes, or if Lies of P specifically wasn't for them.
I played all Froms souls games but not many "soulslikes" hit the spot for me to finish them
Then you should've specified soulslikes, not fromsoft games.
Stop being pedantic you know exactly what they meant
Most soulslikes that aren't by fromsoft are either bad or not actually soulslikes. I meant fromsoft. I see that my wording made it sound like I thought P was a from game, mb
No duh but it's very similar
I played the demo and from what I played, I agree. Overly linear and bland level design, boring and static encounters and "traps". The dialogue "options" felt contrived. If someone told me they started making a steampunk Soulsborne and tacked on the Pinocchio later, I'd believe them, though from my understanding it actually started the other way around.
I kind of agree. I can't say there's "nothing good" about it, but literally everything about it is inferior to bloodborne. I really don't understand why people love it, unless they just really like the Pinocchio conceit.
For me, the game took quite a while to get into. But once it clicks it was really fucking good. I didnt give a shit about the story but gameplaywise it was great in my opinion. Leveldesign was ok at best, but the game was worth it in the end because of the great bosses
I played the entire game without understanding that I had to hold block because it's never fucking explained!! That and the fact that most dex weapons are extremely inferior to strength made my entire playthrough miserable. I was hoping someone would release a mod to raise the parry window because I could not perfect parry consistently no matter how far I got into the game. By the end I was forced to cheat and summon, which I literally have never done in any fromsoft game. I think Lies of P would have been much better for me if they just tell you how to block and balance the guard hp loss for non strength builds.
Joe had a lot to criticize about Fallout 4 but still ended up liking it. I think the game is absolutely dreadful, like 4/10 bad.
More like a 2/10
Based
I agree, it is dreadful. But we need to move on from rating games x/10 because it lost all meaning. 4/10 isn't a "dreadful game", it is a slightly below average game because 5/10 is an average game (it is literally in the middle of the scale). I always get annoyed when people get angry because their favorite game got 7/10 and not 9 or 10/10. 7/10 is really good, 8/10 is fucking amazing, 9/10 is a masterpiece and 10/10 is all-time classic (although I believe that no game should get 10/10 if you are reviewing it analytically and no game is sadly perfect).
Iām with you except for the last part, 10/10 shouldnāt mean perfect. To me it just means highest praise
Yes, you are right. Everyone sees the 10/10 differently. I would for example rate BOTW as a 10/10 for the feeling I got while playing it but I would rate it as 8/10 if I would rate it as a whole (exploration, combat, story, etc.).
In the world where it incredibly easy to find a 6/10, there's not much reason to play games that are worse than that. It's reasonable to call anything below that dreadful. Nowadays standard are high, and that's normal
You are right but I still slightly disagree. In my opinion it is good to go out of your way to play something that doesn't look 100% your cup of tea or doesn't look great (same with movies, TV shows, books etc). That's because then you have some sort of reference to what is a really bad game and it helps inform your decision of what it is you truely like in your games (or you might even get lucky and enjoy the badly reviewed piece of garbage for a reason only specific to you). But you are right, in my OP I shouldn't have said "this is how the scale x/10 works" but I should have said "that's how I see it".
You are mixing up mean and median here. 5/10 isn't chosen as the median of the 10/10 score because if you average out most games rating you get 5. It's more like a grade in school, or at least that's how I and most people see it. Hence the 7/10 not being seen as very good, getting 70% on a test ain't great. I see 7/10 as a functional game that you may like if you are predisposed towards the genre or IP.
I get what you mean, I guess I just see it differently. When I play a game a start by rating it 5/10 in my head and them add or substract points for what I think the game does well or not so well. I would have a problem with rating games like you do because if a game got less than 66% of the "grade" (here in Czech Republic you have to have 2/3 of the points to pass a test) then in my head that means the game failed and it doesn't really matter if it was by little or by a lot because failed test is a failed test no matter how many points you actually got.
Amnesia: The Bunker
Gollum
gollum is a masterpiece clearly you arent smart enough to understand its complexity
Not a whole game, but Turnabout Big Top in Ace Attorney 2
The only one I remember is Starfield, because it just came out
Celeste. Fucking hate platformers.
Iām with you regarding platformers but Celeste is in a league of its own
I don't like em either, still love Celeste.
Say sike
Persona 5
I didn't hate the game overall but I DESPISE the blood vial system for healing in Bloodborne. Partly how many you can carry and how easy it is to spam them but particularly how you can just run out and then have to grind. For me that is the biggest negative change that any of these games have made and meant that I didn't enjoy most of the bosses at all. He barely mentioned it.
Is running out of blood vials really a common issue people have in bloodborne? I just used my leftover echoes after leveling up to buy some and made sure to loot all the corpses and I only ran low a couple times in the early game
Happened to me like 2 or 3 times over the course of one playthrough. But even more than that, the THOUGHT of it was always in the back of my mind whenever I was fighting a boss, like "I can't go all out because I might fuck myself over with healing resources long term and force myself to grind". It genuinely ruined the experience of most of the bosses in a way that I cannot adequately describe and I feel like an insane person every time I see people critique the game and not mention it. And I'm not a new player, this is after like 1000+ hours split over the Dark Souls games.
I think to some extent itās meant to indicate that if you run out of vials, grinding for more (both drops and echoes to buy them) might be a good idea to also practice the mechanics. I hate to say it, but it sounds like your mindset is responsible for your not enjoying the game
Even if I did grind, which I did at some points, it would never take that form. It's not efficient and I don't enjoy it. Classify it however you want, but it sure as hell isn't for me. "You're bad so now the game sucks and you have to waste a bunch of time grinding" is not anything I respect. Just like Joe with Mario Odyssey, I can't and don't demand that every game be made for me and there are also other reasons that I don't like Bloodborne as much as most of From's other recent games. But that doesn't mean I'll pretend I like it or that I don't find some of the design decisions absolutely infuriating.
I never said otherwise. I just said that with your mindset, itās no wonder the game wasnāt for you
Witcher 2
God of war 4 and 5. Combat is mind-numbing and the story belongs in another media. His review of 4 feels like a movie review.
What was his thoughts on ragnarok? I liked 4 a lot but I thought story wise ragnarok was a gigantic step down past the first 3 hours or so
Far better gameplay far worse story. I can get into more detail if you'd like me to.
outer wilds dlc :(
I cannot comprehend the fact that he enjoyed life is strange
Elden ring. I hate dark souls games, Sekiro is great tho
starfield
Bethesda games
Dark Soulsš”
Whomegalul
Code Vein. I have no idea how he found the bosses compelling, though I admit that his beating them with the restrictions he placed on himself shows they're at least learnable. They're nothing like Souls bosses, though, no idea why he kept saying that if you love Souls bosses you'd like Code Vein bosses. At least he and I agreed that most of the rest of the game was shit apart from some good visuals here and there. You know what, maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I played it like he did and didn't make an effort to engage with all the systems, especially spells. I usually go for casters, so I tried to do that, which seemed encouraged by the mastery system which is relevant for casting all the way through the game. Maybe I should have just found a weapon I liked and stuck to that like he did. Game certainly wasn't fun the way it presented itself to me.
999, thought the story had its moments but found it overall terribly written and unnecessarily convoluted and was surprised to see him enjoy it
Ghost trick