AngryJoe's No Man's Sky review out NOW

[Daxter4K]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTTPlqK8AnY

[Tim]

Początkowo opublikowane przez The Romanian Reaver:

8.5 out of 10.... on what basis? Combat is basic, crafting is below basic, exploration is rudimentary at the best of times, enemy variety is below standard, about the only thing that isn't average or below is the procedural generation which seems slightly above average. And I say this having experience a great many games both from within the genres this game is borrowing heavily from and that in which it is based.
Also if someone earns money for their reviews sufficiently to live off them they're either good at what they do or good at pandering without appearing to and you're kind of terrified it seems of the first possibility such that you do your damned best to discredit anyone who doesn't like the game who is a reviewer as a panderer.

Just as you stated your opinion, I've given mine. I'm no more right or wrong than you are. It doesn't matter how much gaming experience you have. Your opinion is only good for you. If you like or dislike the game that's fine. You're the one who has to play it. That doesn't make everybody else wrong though. Combat is no more basic than any other shooter. It's basically point and shoot. I play ARMA 3 and do the same thing. Crafting is just the same as many other games. Gathering resources and combining them. ARK and Skyrim have the same type of crafting system. Enemy variety is about the same as ARK or Skyrim too. In those game you fight dinosaurs, dragons or a variety of other monsters. In NMS you never know what you're going to be fighting.

Just because somebody earns money at something doesn't mean they're good at it either. There are plenty of bad doctors making money. Bad lawyers too. Anybody can review a game, a book or anything. I'm not terrified of people being good at something. I'm not trying to discredit anybody. I just don't put a lot of faith or trust in somebody writing reviews who needs hits to a site to generate income. They can slant their reviews any way that will get them more hits and it's in their interest to do it. The same can be said of magazine and website reviewers. It's in their best interest to give a game good reviews for the advertising income. If you want to follow Angry Joe or go with his recommendations that's up to you. But it's not for me. I'll trust my own instincts instead of listening to a guy who can't really be taken seriously because he acts like the class clown.

[Jiro Moonwood]

It was one amazing review.

[Tim]

Początkowo opublikowane przez The Romanian Reaver:

Actually it does mean that because you're assuming reviews don't get hits unless they pander. It's actually pretty retarded you even think that way. You're quite literally putting the cart before the horse (the reviewer caters their conclusion to get hits rather than the conclusion is what generates hits). To give you a slight hint: A appreciable number of people skip to the conclusion of a video review for their data. That's what happens with my reviews because in general people don't like my non-scripted live approach (average view duration on them is between 3 to 5 minutes, roughly one minute spent on the intro where I state my biases and the rest spent on the end for the conclusion) but still want information on a game. People don't check reviews, in a majority of cases, for validation but for either information or maybe amusement.

Considering the crushing mediocrity of NMS and the dodgy behaviour of HG and Sony positive, though I'd argue all regardless of tone, reviews should have a disclaimer to explain how they got to their conclusion (biases, experience with the game, etc).

All I have to do with you is read your statements made from ignorance to get the strong impression you're a kid trying to comprehend something you don't even have approximate experience in from a 3rd party.

In Angry Joe's case he pretty much reviews games after release. Not before. So it's not putting the cart before the horse. He knows who to cater or pander to when he writes his reviews. That's why I say he can slant his reviews to generate hits which means income for him.

The so called crushing mediocrity of NMS is just your opinion. Looks like a 51-49 split between positive and negative reviews left by Steam gamers. The number liking the game is slightly higher than those not liking it. You can disagree with me al wantl you too. That doesn't make me a kid. Chances are I'm older than you. How old are you? I'm pushing 60.

Want to know what a respectable reviewer is to me. Somebody who doesn't need a gimmick to get people to watch or listen. Angry Joe acts like the class clown. Jim Sterling dresses like a clown. How either of them can be considered respectable gaming journalists is beyond me. Like I said they can pander and write their reviews in a slanted way to make sure they get the hits they need to generate income. Not only with this game but with any game they review.

[RoReaver]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

Początkowo opublikowane przez The Romanian Reaver:

8.5 out of 10.... on what basis? Combat is basic, crafting is below basic, exploration is rudimentary at the best of times, enemy variety is below standard, about the only thing that isn't average or below is the procedural generation which seems slightly above average. And I say this having experience a great many games both from within the genres this game is borrowing heavily from and that in which it is based.
Also if someone earns money for their reviews sufficiently to live off them they're either good at what they do or good at pandering without appearing to and you're kind of terrified it seems of the first possibility such that you do your damned best to discredit anyone who doesn't like the game who is a reviewer as a panderer.

Just as you stated your opinion, I've given mine. I'm no more right or wrong than you are. It doesn't matter how much gaming experience you have. Your opinion is only good for you. If you like or dislike the game that's fine. You're the one who has to play it. That doesn't make everybody else wrong though. Combat is no more basic than any other shooter. It's basically point and shoot. I play ARMA 3 and do the same thing. Crafting is just the same as many other games. Gathering resources and combining them. ARK and Skyrim have the same type of crafting system. Enemy variety is about the same as ARK or Skyrim too. In those game you fight dinosaurs, dragons or a variety of other monsters. In NMS you never know what you're going to be fighting.

Just because somebody earns money at something doesn't mean they're good at it either. There are plenty of bad doctors making money. Bad lawyers too. Anybody can review a game, a book or anything. I'm not terrified of people being good at something. I'm not trying to discredit anybody. I just don't put a lot of faith or trust in somebody writing reviews who needs hits to a site to generate income. They can slant their reviews any way that will get them more hits and it's in their interest to do it. The same can be said of magazine and website reviewers. It's in their best interest to give a game good reviews for the advertising income. If you want to follow Angry Joe or go with his recommendations that's up to you. But it's not for me. I'll trust my own instincts instead of listening to a guy who can't really be taken seriously because he acts like the class clown.

Your entire first paragraph is one titanic rationalization. I argued my statements while you likened the combat in NMS to Arma 3... now I don't know how many times you were dropped on the head as a kid but outside the very, criminally, basic fundamentals of the game the shooting mechanics of NMS are somewhere around 1995 levels of sophistication while Arma 3 has different weapons with markedly different characteristics in addition to projectile related physics and that's what I know from 2nd hand experience and Arma 2. Crafting in the game... is about as sophisticated as WoW's with about as much gratification. In NMS the enemy variety is fairly fixed to archetypes which are then filled in by the procedural generation so while they may look different you'll only be fighting a handful of monster types which when compared to Skyrim's...yeah. Your opinion isn't even close to as good as mine for the simple fact I don't hold any love for any game outside of Elite, Stellaris and to a degree Pillars of Eternity while you're so desperate to validate your love for NMS that you come off as someone trying to compare a naked dude on a donkey to a Type 99A2.

Your 2nd paragraph can be summed up as: Here's a bunch of sophistry to prove I am right. You aren't. Reviewers have no interest beyond playing the game and spitting out their opinion unless someone pushes money into their face (in direct or indirect form) or some other more carnal reward and they don't have the integrity to resist that. If you are so concussed you can't wrap your head around that I suggest you don't trust your instincts farther than you can throw a 30 ton truck.

[Tim]

Początkowo opublikowane przez eisberg:

I said professional reviewers are one of the sources I use when making my decisions, there are other sources as well.

I have never used the refund system, except for 1 time with X:Rebirth but that was before Steam had a refund system, and I had to go through 6 weeks of back and forth with Steam to get my refund. (Only to have my wife buy me the game again as a gift later on To her defense she didn't know I bought it before and refunded it.) Other than that, I have not bought a game that I was not happy with since this current refund sytstem started.

I know many people are using the Refund system as some kind of Demo period, the problem is that after you do that so many time Steam takes notice and takes away your ability to use the automated system and you have to go through their manual system to explain your situation, and they deny your refund. So that is why it is not a viable option, it is limited due to Steam taking action towards abuse.

You are right that anybody can review a game. But it is the professional reviewers that are the easiest to follow, and are the easiest to find out what their dislikes and likes are. They are also the easiest to determine if they are being consistant. Since these people's careers and incomes are based on the reviews they give, they are incentivized to stay consistant, cause when they became inconsistant they lose their audience and then they lose money and their careers.

Angry Joe has in fact stayed consistant. He cannot stay consistant if he does his reviews based on general consensus. That right there is proof enough that he does not "go where the wind blows".

What generates the most hits for him is staying consistant, and going where the wind blows would make him inconsistant in his likes and dislikes.
Say what ever you want, but yours is based on ignorance, where as mine is based on actually watching him, and other Youtubers, and then using critical thinking and paying attention am able to determine if they are being consistant or not.

You really do not understand how important these people have to stay truthful in order to keep getting those hits. Inconsistancy will kill these peoples careers.

I understand completely how important it's supposed to be. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is that way. Let me ask you. Do you agree with Joe's review? If you do then it makes Joe credible and trustworthy in your eyes, right? Not everybody is going to feel the same way though. All I'm saying is that when Joe or any YouTuber reviews a game after release it's easy to slant their review to generate hits to their sites. They can do it and still look honest, trustworthy and credible. How would you know?

How is my opinion based on ignorance if we both watch the same review? The only difference between us is you trust the reviewer and I don't. The reason I don't is based on the fact that he needs hits to generate income. Knowing that some people dislike NMS, if I had a review site that paid by the number of hits then I would definitely not give a favorable review even if I actually liked the game. I may get a few people who like the game hitting my site but once word got out the biggest majority of hits I get would come from people who don't like the game. They're going to be the people posting links to my review. If I wait for games to release before reviewing and find out which way things are going, I can do that with practically every game I review and put a lot of money in my pocket. I'll still look credible and trustworthy too because I set my review up to make sure it goes with whicever group is most vocal.

[Tim]

Początkowo opublikowane przez The Romanian Reaver:

Your entire first paragraph is one titanic rationalization. I argued my statements while you likened the combat in NMS to Arma 3... now I don't know how many times you were dropped on the head as a kid but outside the very, criminally, basic fundamentals of the game the shooting mechanics of NMS are somewhere around 1995 levels of sophistication while Arma 3 has different weapons with markedly different characteristics in addition to projectile related physics and that's what I know from 2nd hand experience and Arma 2. Crafting in the game... is about as sophisticated as WoW's with about as much gratification. In NMS the enemy variety is fairly fixed to archetypes which are then filled in by the procedural generation so while they may look different you'll only be fighting a handful of monster types which when compared to Skyrim's...yeah. Your opinion isn't even close to as good as mine for the simple fact I don't hold any love for any game outside of Elite, Stellaris and to a degree Pillars of Eternity while you're so desperate to validate your love for NMS that you come off as someone trying to compare a naked dude on a donkey to a Type 99A2.

Your 2nd paragraph can be summed up as: Here's a bunch of sophistry to prove I am right. You aren't. Reviewers have no interest beyond playing the game and spitting out their opinion unless someone pushes money into their face (in direct or indirect form) or some other more carnal reward and they don't have the integrity to resist that. If you are so concussed you can't wrap your head around that I suggest you don't trust your instincts farther than you can throw a 30 ton truck.

Have you ever played ARMA 3 or any shooter? It's basically just point and shoot. It doesn't matter what weapon you have. It's point and shoot. Apparently you haven't played ARK or Skyrim either because their crafting is just like WOW's too. You gather resources and combine them to make something better. That's how crafting works in many games. These fixed archtypes you find in NMS are the same in ARK or Skyrim or many other games too. If you don't want to like the game that's fine with me. But I'm not going to allow you to piss on my parade and tell me I'm wrong for liking the game.

Your petty insults to makes points only proves that you feel the need to be right. Go ahead and compare me to a kid. Hell, I wish I was a kid again. I'm pushing 60 and have been gaming for at least 40 years. Boardgames first now computers. Calling me a kid is actually a complement not an insult. So thanks.

[MikeMousse]

it should be 5/10 but I would take - 1 or - 2 for fcuking false advertise

[Samiri]

This is my thoughts about what i feel about NMS.
https://youtu.be/AIdhTxZFMMk

[Zefar]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

I understand completely how important it's supposed to be. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is that way. Let me ask you. Do you agree with Joe's review? If you do then it makes Joe credible and trustworthy in your eyes, right? Not everybody is going to feel the same way though. All I'm saying is that when Joe or any YouTuber reviews a game after release it's easy to slant their review to generate hits to their sites. They can do it and still look honest, trustworthy and credible. How would you know?

What makes Joe trust worthy?
Have you even watched the video? He wouldn't be trust worthy if he gave the game a 7/10 or 8/10 because then everyone would call him out on his ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Because that score does not represent what he said in the video.

Also Joe has been doing for quite some time. If he lied to people he would have easily been spotted.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

How is my opinion based on ignorance if we both watch the same review? The only difference between us is you trust the reviewer and I don't. The reason I don't is based on the fact that he needs hits to generate income. Knowing that some people dislike NMS, if I had a review site that paid by the number of hits then I would definitely not give a favorable review even if I actually liked the game. I may get a few people who like the game hitting my site but once word got out the biggest majority of hits I get would come from people who don't like the game. They're going to be the people posting links to my review. If I wait for games to release before reviewing and find out which way things are going, I can do that with practically every game I review and put a lot of money in my pocket. I'll still look credible and trustworthy too because I set my review up to make sure it goes with whicever group is most vocal.

Your opinion is based on ignorance because you seems to think the things AngryJoe said are wrong. Why else would you still hold the opinion that this game is good?

Also AngryJoe gets paid from Youtube ads or from donations from fans. Magazines can get payment from game company to advertise their product on their homepage. Which do you think is more likely to be less critical of a game? Specially when a boss makes a lot of money from those ads.

If any reviewer ignores ALL of the flaws that No Man Sky has and give it a good score something is wrong because that's like rating a moldy cake 5/5 stars.

[Quantumdelta]

The review by Angry Joe is accurate. I would trust that more than some other reviews that came out a day after release. How they managed to play the game and write a review in that time confuses me and smells a little fishy.

[Dee]

never been a fan of Angry Joe but i think he just won the internet with this review.

composed, pointed, factual, emotional. it is good stuff, very good stuff. good on the guy!

[Xtorma]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Xtorma:

I don't know why anyone would do anything they want, but they did it. What professional do you know who doesn't get paid for thier work? you need to come to grips with the fact that most reviewers are giving the game average marks, and instead of sticking your head in the sand, figure out ways to bring those marks up.

The game is mediocre, every indicator known to man points in that direction. there is no secret conspiracy here, in fact completly throw out joes review and just look at the overall picture being painted across the entire spectrum of gaming journalism, player reaction, player count, and any other indicator you want to throw in there.

You are sitting on a solid 5/10 game.

I don't need to come to grips with anything. Mainly because I don't care what reviews or scores say about this game. I happen to like the game and for me that's all that counts. Why would I care how Angry Joe feels about the game? He's entitled to his opinion. But his opinion isn't going to change mine.

I'm not claiming a conspiracy either. I just don't put much faith in people who get paid the way Angry Joe does for reviews. I don't put a lot of trust in magazine or website reviews for the same reason. The 5/10 is just an opinion. Some people will rate the game higher and some lower. If I were to give it a rating it would be 8.5/10. I think the game is good but as with any game there is room for improvement. Just because somebody gets paid to give reviews doesn't mean their opinion is any more important than yours or mine. Just because somebody writes reviews doesn't automatically make them a bonafide journalist either.

you seem to care quite a bit , and quite strongly.

[Gruesome Puglet]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Gruesome Puglet:

Yeah because we should accept the lies of those greedy devs, shut our faces and pay our dollars to them...

Here's an outrageous idea. Stop buying games.

Yes that would be the best thing to do. Unfortunately there is plenty of idiots that will suck up to this crap. They will buy it and they will defend it... Gamers are dumb these days...

[boolybooly]

AJ tells it like it is for him and you take that as you find it.

He was actually pretty kind. I agree with everything he pointed out.

[PocketYoda]

As a customer who enjoys NMS i do agree with this review, just because i enjoy the game doesn't mean i cannot see the issues others had with it, and what sean murray said before release.

Good review.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Zefar:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

I understand completely how important it's supposed to be. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is that way. Let me ask you. Do you agree with Joe's review? If you do then it makes Joe credible and trustworthy in your eyes, right? Not everybody is going to feel the same way though. All I'm saying is that when Joe or any YouTuber reviews a game after release it's easy to slant their review to generate hits to their sites. They can do it and still look honest, trustworthy and credible. How would you know?

What makes Joe trust worthy?
Have you even watched the video? He wouldn't be trust worthy if he gave the game a 7/10 or 8/10 because then everyone would call him out on his ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Because that score does not represent what he said in the video.

Also Joe has been doing for quite some time. If he lied to people he would have easily been spotted.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Etack:

How is my opinion based on ignorance if we both watch the same review? The only difference between us is you trust the reviewer and I don't. The reason I don't is based on the fact that he needs hits to generate income. Knowing that some people dislike NMS, if I had a review site that paid by the number of hits then I would definitely not give a favorable review even if I actually liked the game. I may get a few people who like the game hitting my site but once word got out the biggest majority of hits I get would come from people who don't like the game. They're going to be the people posting links to my review. If I wait for games to release before reviewing and find out which way things are going, I can do that with practically every game I review and put a lot of money in my pocket. I'll still look credible and trustworthy too because I set my review up to make sure it goes with whicever group is most vocal.

Your opinion is based on ignorance because you seems to think the things AngryJoe said are wrong. Why else would you still hold the opinion that this game is good?

Also AngryJoe gets paid from Youtube ads or from donations from fans. Magazines can get payment from game company to advertise their product on their homepage. Which do you think is more likely to be less critical of a game? Specially when a boss makes a lot of money from those ads.

If any reviewer ignores ALL of the flaws that No Man Sky has and give it a good score something is wrong because that's like rating a moldy cake 5/5 stars.

I personally like angry joe because hes less bias, he usually tells it as it is. Unlike other youtubers that feel like they are bought by companies..

Hes pretty over the top humorous too..

I do agree with "most" of his reviews, but i tend to make my decisions on games not have youtubers do it for me, i usually watch AJ reviews after the fact anyway.