CD Projekt RED/Angry Joe

[KingHochmeister]

Either you are Angry Joe, or you have some sort of infatuation with him lol.
Never heard of the guy before - then again, I rarely go to youtube or anything Google... but based on the posted video, dude is very obnoxious.

As a general comment, I don't see the interest in the "critic" or the "expert", or even the mere "reviewer". In matters of taste, or any subjective matter, I prefer to try stuff for myself and form my own empirical opinion.

Because maybe he was ranting about losing most of his income because of Youtube stupid policies .... You missed the point of the video, with all due respect.

 

[umair2012]

Totally agree . However I think it was an error in system . Even if it is not error then still publishers are not responsible , YT is .

 

[Ancient76]

Just because you disagree with him about certain things doesn't mean he's an idiot. You obviously can't expect all of his reviews to agree with your opinion. I don't agree with some of his reviews but that doesn't mean that I think he's an idiot.I still like his videos and I'm still subscribed. Think about it this way. There are many things that my friend and I disagree about but does that mean we shouldn't be friends? Of course not. I like it when people substantiate their arguments even when their opinions don't agree with mine. So just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that the said person is an idiot.

Limited awareness!

What i'm talking about are facts, not opinion. If a game has big design flaws - that's a FACT! And reviewers should talk about facts, what is good and what is bad, no matter how much the same reviewer like that game. Ok!

That's called honest reviewing.

 

[Agent_Blue]

Limited awareness!

What i'm talking about are facts, not opinion. If a game has big design flaws - that's a FACT! And reviewers should talk about facts, what is good and what is bad, no matter how much the same reviewer like that game. Ok!

That's called honest reviewing.

I would agree with you except for the fact (idiom, no pun intended) that not every reviewer is going to weigh the flaws and virtues in the same manner. This is especially true in the case of Skyrim, which can either be taken as a sandbox experience - in which case its blatant shortcomings in the plot and characters departments become secondary - or played like a traditional RPG - where the vastness of the world, sheer number of points of interest and mini diversions are all relegated to the back burner.

So I'd say it's neither entirely subjective nor entirely factual.

 

[SystemShock7]

Because maybe he was ranting about losing most of his income because of Youtube stupid policies .... You missed the point of the video, with all due respect.

I didn't miss the point of the video. The point of the video has nothing to do with how obnoxious this Angry Joe is.

 

[Zhyphix]

As a general comment, I don't see the interest in the "critic" or the "expert", or even the mere "reviewer". In matters of taste, or any subjective matter, I prefer to try stuff for myself and form my own empirical opinion.

I think you don't *feel* the interest, because *seeing* that someone else's opinion might be useful, especially if that someone knows what they're doing and can effectively evaluate the product's pros and cons so that you don't have to go in blind, is plain as day. Unless it's entirely a matter of taste, which amounts to never in the field of videogames, the opinion of a reviewer is close to essential for some.

But as for the opinion that Angry Joe is obnoxious, it's always just that - an opinion.

 

[SystemShock7]

I think you don't *feel* the interest, because *seeing* that someone else's opinion might be useful, especially if that someone knows what they're doing and can effectively evaluate the product's pros and cons so that you don't have to go in blind, is plain as day. Unless it's entirely a matter of taste, which amounts to never in the field of videogames, the opinion of a reviewer is close to essential for some.

But as for the opinion that Angry Joe is obnoxious, it's always just that - an opinion.

Um... no. I don't *see* it. Rants are never a way to "effectively evaluate" anything, but to each his/her own.

... kind of amusing the "it's just that - an opinion" thingy going on now.

 

[Reod]

Totally agree . However I think it was an error in system . Even if it is not error then still publishers are not responsible , YT is .

There is no error , it just another way for big companies to get monopoly and crush any freedom.Im kinda scared what about future of copyrights and patents... soon ppls will run out of titles/images/sounds that are not copyrighted , what then?What then?

 

[Fandango9641]

I'm not Joes demographic, but I'm not going to hate the guy for putting himself out there and creating content for those who do enjoy his videos. Wish the lad luck in getting things resolved.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

I would agree with you except for the fact (idiom, no pun intended) that not every reviewer is going to weigh the flaws and virtues in the same manner. This is especially true in the case of Skyrim, which can either be taken as a sandbox experience - in which case its blatant shortcomings in the plot and characters departments become secondary - or played like a traditional RPG - where the vastness of the world, sheer number of points of interest and mini diversions are all relegated to the back burner.

So I'd say it's neither entirely subjective nor entirely factual.

Exactly. I never ever played Skyrim for its main plot, which is mediocre at best. Consequences of our actions in practically every quest sequence, are virtually non-existent, and yes, the murder of the emperor is a lesser crime than stealing a carrot in Whiterun. But as a sand-box Skyrim is the best game I ever played.

Angry Joe is more of a show-man than a professional reviewer, but he is funny, and has enough smart things to say. I like to watch his reviews even though I do not always agree with him.

 

[magnoos]

Here we go again! People are arguing about what they like and what they don't like.. Like it matters, why!!??

Who cares if someone likes Angry Joe or Skyrim subject is about Youtube!

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Here we go again! People are arguing about what they like and what they don't like.. Like it matters, why!!??

Who cares if someone likes Angry Joe or Skyrim subject is about Youtube!

And what exactly do you expect us to say? Obviously, it suck. I hope it is some dumb mistake. If there is some meaningful action to be taken, like a petition or something, it is great. But I am not going to waste my time with expressions of rage and indignation, especially here, on a non-related forum. Constrictive ideas how we can improve this situation? Please, suggest some! Production of mounds of meaningless rage posts? Just no.

If you read the title, the subject is about Angry Joe as well.

 

[Zhyphix]

Um... no. I don't *see* it. Rants are never a way to "effectively evaluate" anything, but to each his/her own.

... kind of amusing the "it's just that - an opinion" thingy going on now.

But you're referring to the only video you saw, the rant about YouTube. The guy is a game reviewer, that's why he's mad at that whole business. You said that you don't see the usefulness in "reviewers", did you not? Well, I thought the usefulness of the figure to be beyond evident.

And what's amusing about that "thingy"?

 

[frynse]

I think that he, and everyone else who has made a living off youtube, should've been prepared for this. It shouldn't come as a surprise that something like this was bound to happen sooner or later, especially when we're talking about youtube. Making money off something as fragile as that, that could change at any moment - which it did - with no plan B and then be shocked when it all comes crumbling down?
Can't say I feel too sorry for him.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

I think that he, and everyone else who has made a living off youtube, should've been prepared for this. It shouldn't come as a surprise that something like this was bound to happen sooner or later, especially when we're talking about youtube. Making money off something as fragile as that, that could change at any moment - which it did - with no plan B and then be shocked when it all comes crumbling down?
Can't say I feel too sorry for him.

Actually, we all often depend on some single entity. That's why people loosing jobs are often so freaked out - for many of them there is simply no time or opportunity for any plan B. Youtube is the largest and most popular outlet. People were making money off it for years, and it worked just fine. I don't get why exactly something like this was bound to happen, if youtube is profitable enough. I hope the guys who got hit by this won't be hurt too much.

 

[frynse]

The difference being that youtube have had sketchy rules for years in regards to copyright and a bunch of other stuff that they can change in a moment, making it clear it's not steady income just because it's worked for some for a couple of years at most. At a normal job, the risk of being laid off is naturally always present, but typically not because of something of this nature, and then you would at least have experience you could take with you.
Placing all your eggs in one basket of something this unsteady was never "just fine" or a good idea.

 

[Ancient76]

I would agree with you except for the fact (idiom, no pun intended) that not every reviewer is going to weigh the flaws and virtues in the same manner. This is especially true in the case of Skyrim, which can either be taken as a sandbox experience - in which case its blatant shortcomings in the plot and characters departments become secondary - or played like a traditional RPG - where the vastness of the world, sheer number of points of interest and mini diversions are all relegated to the back burner.

So I'd say it's neither entirely subjective nor entirely factual.

Who said that they are secondary? You? That's an opinion - not a fact!

How would you react to see Witcher 3 full of big flaws like Skyrim? Would you ignore this?

The job of a reviewer is to present facts. This is very simple to understand.

 

[GuyNwah]

This thread has become one that is mostly about Youtube policies and content creators, Angry Joe, and what we think of game reviewers. Since it isn't saying much about the Witcher games or CD Projekt, I'm moving it to Community.

 

[vivaxardas2015]

Who said that they are secondary? You? That's an opinion - not a fact!

How would you react to see Witcher 3 full of big flaws like Skyrim? Would you ignore this?

The job of a reviewer is to present facts. This is very simple to understand.

Man, you either need to take some basic critical thinking class, or just read an intro text-book. He is not claiming that they are secondary. It is a statement in a form '(either) A or B'.

"Skyrim can be taken EITHER as a sandbox experience - in which case its blatant shortcomings in the plot and characters departments become secondary - OR played like a traditional RPG - where the vastness of the world, sheer number of points of interest and mini diversions are all relegated to the back burner".

How Skyrim SHOULD be taken - EITHER primarily as a sand-box, with all plot shortcomings as less important that the world itself, and sand-box experience, OR a story-driven RPG, IS a matter of opinion, a matter of different values people have, and hierarchy of these values. Some people do not give a damn about the story, and only want sand-box experience, while the others, for example value both of these, but rank sand-box experience higher, or vice versa.

BTW, Bethesda people never presented Skyrim as a story-driven RPG, and in every damn interview stressed it was about the WORLD. They were building a perfect sand-box, and they nailed it. In my opinion, sand-box nature of Skyrim should be more important to the reviewers, because it was its intended major feature.

CDPR always very clearly claimed that TW3 is a story-driven RPG, and not a sand-box. So any matters related to a story-telling are more important, and sand-box features, like ability to enter every house, are less important. People can compare Skyrim and TW3, only they should do it properly, these games are not RPG twins, and have different creative philosophies behind them.

 

[Ancient76]

Man, you either need to take some basic critical thinking class, or just read an intro text-book. He is not claiming that they are secondary. It is a statement in a form '(either) A or B'.

"Skyrim can be taken EITHER as a sandbox experience - in which case its blatant shortcomings in the plot and characters departments become secondary - OR played like a traditional RPG - where the vastness of the world, sheer number of points of interest and mini diversions are all relegated to the back burner".

How Skyrim SHOULD be taken - EITHER primarily as a sand-box, with all plot shortcomings as less important that the world itself, and sand-box experience, OR a story-driven RPG, IS a matter of opinion, a matter of different values people have, and hierarchy of these values. Some people do not give a damn about the story, and only want sand-box experience, while the others, for example value both of these, but rank sand-box experience higher, or vice versa.

BTW, Bethesda people never presented Skyrim as a story-driven RPG, and in every damn interview stressed it was about the WORLD. They were building a perfect sand-box, and they nailed it. In my opinion, sand-box nature of Skyrim should be more important to the reviewers, because it was its intended major feature.

CDPR always very clearly claimed that TW3 is a story-driven RPG, and not a sand-box. So any matters related to a story-telling are more important, and sand-box features, like ability to enter every house, are less important. People can compare Skyrim and TW3, only they should do it properly, these games are not RPG twins, and have different creative philosophies behind them.

I think that you are one who should take critical thinking class! And unfortunately you aren't the only one!

To have a poor or less complex story and quests i can accept. But to have them broken i can't accept. Big difference!!!
To kill an Emperor in Skyrim without any consequences is RETARDED! Especially when guards know about this. That's broken! And after this you can even join Imperial legion!?

Story and quests are also part of the world. Previous TES games are proof of this! People have complained about this many times on Bethesda forum.

I have told you before that you aren't in position to question my awareness.