haha Angry Joe is a funny sob. Love most of his reviews but I'd NEVER solely base my game criteria off of his material. OP must be 100% new to AJ's showmanship as he is generally great at over hyping the smallest of pros or cons in order to make a review have funny highlights.
ps. hey OP I here Dave Chappelle gives great advice about things to do while playing kickball on the corner....
Angry Joe is by far my favorite reviewer. However, I also think he was a bit harsh on Defiance. I can understand his anger at the patching issue though. I think at minimum Defiance would be a 6/10 for me. Rising to probably a 7.5-8 after they fix everything.
What turned me off most about the review is his lack of knowledge in the game. Like when he said there's no way to have multiple loadouts with different guns?? Lol. Lawkeeper's voice off? I think it's spot on. Weak story characters? I don't think so. He was blinded by his anger at the patcher. Which again, I totally understand.
But, to each his own.
He lost me as soon as he started screaming about a patch error. That's 10 seconds I'll never get back.
OP if your judging the game off this ****** and not playing it for yourself I feel sorry for you. Go hit a Red Box or something and rent Defiance at the least. Once you've actually played the game then your opinion will be valid. Otherwise, have fun playing whatever it is that you're playing.
"Buy the ticket, take the ride."R.I.P. Hunter S. Thompson
Whoa, people still watch and read this guy? I mean, I used to love his stuff back in the day, but it's not even worth a laugh anymore. Now that he reviews nearly everything, he really has to reach for some of his critiques and they just aren't very good. His Bioshock review was just a joke. I guess in a sense it was accurate, but if you have to screw your head on backwards to find a different angle to look at something, doesn't really make sense anymore.
I respect Angry Joe's reviews a lot. One thing you cannot deny (and I hope he never compromises on) is his integrity to tell it exactly like he sees it. I trust him to not take payola or swag and be bought out by a developer or publisher to give a glowing review to a crap game. Likewise I trust him to never punitively ding a game because he didn't get swag or special access or ***-kissing by a dev or publisher.
However, in this review, I do think he got a few things wrong, and I think his overall perception was negatively colored by his insane issues with the patcher's inability to deal with certain routers between joe and the servers for a long time. And by some early beta bugs he ran into?
Also, he spent the first 12 minutes ragging on the story premise and production values and dialog of THE SHOW. We don't start hearing about the game itself until 14 minutes in. All we know about the show is a few promo clips and the first 14-minutes of the pilot. That's it. You cannot write off a show based on just that. Falling Skies? (which he liked) The first few episodes seemed awful and hackneyed to me. I walked away from it. I only came back and tried again at other's urging, and it indeed turned out very good. Same for Fringe: you have to get to the ending episode of the first season before you realize that it might actually be going somewhere interesting.
But I digress; everyone's a critic about film and TV and books, and no 20 scifi lovers in a room will agree about what's great and what's crap. I don't know how many people hated BSG, when so many people (like me and Angry Joe) frakkin' loved BSG. Same for Firefly. Or Caprica. Or any truly "experimental" property.
And that brings me to the game review itself. He is of course right on about the clunky UI, the broken chat and subsequent lack of real MMO-like social interaction, and so on. But those are things that can ultimately be fixed/improved.
But he dings the game itself largely on the basis of what HE feels is poor voice acting, poor dialog, and no comprehensive story or backstory. Again, that is a subjective matter of personal opinion. I'm an unforgiving critic of most media franchises and shows, but I actually found the dialog and voice acting fairly well done and would give it an 8/10 compared to many games. VonBach's and other characters have made me laugh outright a few times. Not saying anyone has to agree, just saying to take HIS opinion with a grain of salt. He seems to have considered Babylon 5 and Farscape "much better", but if you go watch Babylon 5 or Farscape start to finish, well... Let's just say Joe and I have very different tastes and standards and leave it at that. He's entitled to his opinion.
Then there are the obvious clues he hasn't put that much time into the game:
5 or 6 episode missions? No.
No way to save multiple builds? No.
Only means of real progression or customization is lockboxes? No.
Those are pretty glaring errors of perception, AND HE DINGED THOSE ERRORS AS FLAWS of the game, when they were his own errors of perception and discovery.
I'm not trying to rag on Joe. Like I said, I normally agree with him. But not on this game. I feel he was negatively predisposed by early, infuriating bugs, and negatively predisposed by his perception and tastes about the look and feel of the TV show.
i agree 100% with joe but the game could get even better over time
Playing with my money is like playing with my emotions
This is the problem with game reviews you sheep listen to the reviewers but are forgetting that this is their opinion! i like Joes reviews but hes becoming like IGN where he thinks he can tell people if a game is good or not and if joe says it's good then it's good if joe says it's bad it's bad.Play the game make your own judgment.
+100000.Originally Posted by Dunnomatic
I giggled because I reported lots of the stuff he mentioned (repetitive quest mechanics or the fact that killing the monolith in a cutscene SUCKS big time, for example) when I alpha tested defiance, however, I give it a 7 with potential of 9.5 (if Trion pull this off smoothly).
There's something that he did mention that is very true though... The game has plenty of content, BUT it's the kind of content that not everyone could find engaging or entertaining, which I think is the main reason for all the "I BEAT THE GAME AND IM SO MAD" threads.
It's a 30 minutes angry review. Sadly people just watch the 5 minutes rant at the start, and assume the rest. Joe gets more positive as the review goes on.
He gave such a low score because he was upset that he couldn't play. I am sure of that even if he says it's not true. He was so frustrated on his vlog that i think he decided to bash the game.
I like the game really much and will be playing it a lot!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
