Yes some of the gameplay that is shown while he talks is from later in the game.
Last edited:
Yes some of the gameplay that is shown while he talks is from later in the game.
Angry Joe's videos have some goofy parts some people might dislike, but for the most part are entertainment on their own. As for the review itself... I like that he mentioned bugs, flaws and annoyances that can happen while playing the game. I don't really agree on combat and 10/10 is not a score I'd give, but other than that it's a decent review.
Saw in the credits Angry Joe voiced a Rock Troll, by the way. Wonder which one though, absolutely did not recognize his voice.
Edit: googled it and suspected as much, lol
Edit: googled it and suspected as much, lol
Loved the review. Good stuff! I adore Joe's reviews cause he's so damn hilarious. :thumbup:
I don't really like the goofy parts of his videos since I don't see how they contribute to the review other than to keep some people entertained who have short attention spans. I usually like Angry Joe's reviews, although there was one or two that I didn't agree with. His Witcher 3 review was pretty spot on, but I feel like he did miss one thing that always stood out to me: the dismemberment.
Every time Geralt cuts off a head, an arm, or an entire torso, the pieces that are lost always turn into generic place holder models completely covered in blood. Sometimes, the clothing textures on the missing pieces don't match up well to what the person was actually wearing. Roach, too, is a pretty finicky horse, and often doesn't go where I would like him to. I find this a little immersion breaking, but that's a small knit pick at the game.
Every time Geralt cuts off a head, an arm, or an entire torso, the pieces that are lost always turn into generic place holder models completely covered in blood. Sometimes, the clothing textures on the missing pieces don't match up well to what the person was actually wearing. Roach, too, is a pretty finicky horse, and often doesn't go where I would like him to. I find this a little immersion breaking, but that's a small knit pick at the game.
I stopped watching Angry Joe's reviews when he sold out and started taking cash from developers to promote their games. Does he mention in his review the horrendous controls, dumbed down combat where you just mash the quick attack button to defeat any enemy, etc? Or does he just get on his knees and suck it like all the fanboys on this forum do?
Your ignorance and close minded thoughts are really unneeded on this forum. If you're going to make a comment, you should really do your own research.
Back on-topic:
It was a really entertaining review and covered the pros and cons. It was pretty cool seeing as how he is a huge fan of CDPR.
I have no doubt that Angry Joe gave it a nice and honest review, but I can see why some people don't believe some of his reviews. He did do some voice work for this game for one of the Easter Eggs, and obviously has formed some relationships with the developers. Not to say that he's not honest, but some people might say his good review is biased due to the close relations he had with certain parts during the development of the game.
I, for one, believe this was honest. Almost every major review website has given this game 9/10s, 9.5/10s, or even 10/10s. He did fail to mention certain negative points, but not everyone can be perfect or experience the same problems in an open world game. I don't understand why people are complaining about the "dumbed down comat" since it seems pretty good to me. It definitely keeps me on my toes when I'm playing on Death March.
Imho Angry Joe is one of the best game youtube reviewers and I agree with all the points he has illustrated in his TW3 review. I've watched some of his game reviews and I see consistency in his direction to review the good, the bad and the ugly of the games he has played in details. :respect:
Even though he could have put it in another way, he's right. Angry Joe used to make pretty awesome reviews - but since a couple of months he glorifys games that aren't SO good. DA: Inquisition was a 10/10 for him for example, and that was a medicoregame at best. Same as Witcher 3. It's an awesome game, but it's not "legandary", not a "masterpiece", for it has to many flaws, especially the weak and rushed story, that has little replayabillity
Check your facts. He gave DA:I 9/10.
And it's all a matter of an opinion.
There are no objective reviews, simply because art forms cannot be judged objectively. There are some elements that can be judged objectively (technical ones), but whether someone enjoyed the combat or liked the story is always purely subjective.
As he says in the ending of the video, that scale will be used as a measure for future games. Him giving this a 10/10 would influence what could get a 10/10 next, and so on.
I don't think he will give as much credit to DA:I as he did in his review if both DA:I and TW3 came out in the same year(2014).
No. Joe gave Dragon Age a 9/10 (8/10 on PC).
TW3 gets 10/10 (9/10 on console).
I think he has it about right, DAI was an excellent game but TW3 probably pips it, principally for the depth of story and side content.
Joe rates fantasy RPG positively as it is a genre he clearly enjoys.
He's perfectly entitled to construct a rating scale and he explains exactly what it means.
Yeah sorry it's been a while, I just remembered he praised the game to heaven.
Of course there are objective reviews for "art". There a several icendents that have to be achieved, like emotional attachment to the characters, a story line that come to a head on very dramatic and emotional events and so on, while Witcher 3 feels like work, it's exhausting to search for Ciri, just asking around for her and do those ones how know about hey favours to gather informations, or the quest where you accompany Ciri through Novigrad for like 30-40 Minutes, to say good bye to old firend who helped her out. It's just plain boring and you're asking yourself the whole time why the heck you even do this, almost the whole Mainstory plays like that, it's not exciting at all.
And there are the bugs, it's not my opinion that the inventory is quit messy when first playing the game (one get used to it though), it's not my opinion that there are crashes, glitches, exploits bad design decisions like putty candles everywhere you can loot and interact with stuff, or that your hose is doing a fullstop every few meters in specific areas.
All these things can be rated and finally judged. And Witcher 3 did a lot of mistakes. It's still a freaking good game and I'm enjoying it a lot. But it's simply not a 10/10
Come on guy. Stop making it like DA:I is some medicore average game. It deserved the praises it got.
It is a great game & won a few GOTYs. It got a metascore of 89 % on PS4. It may not be the 93% witcher 3 now sits, but its not complete rubbish like some people made it out to be.
It is a great game & won a few GOTYs. It got a metascore of 89 % on PS4. It may not be the 93% witcher 3 now sits, but its not complete rubbish like some people made it out to be.