Okay, I was looking back on Joe's interview with Geoff Keighley, and I'm wondering now: Why did Joe try to conduct an interview with him while the guy was running a show since he's one of the producers? Wouldn't it have been better if Joe just interviewed Keighley RIGHT AFTER the show, when he wasn't busy?
I may just be watching the wrong videos, but has Corporate Commander showed up since Kan and Lynch 2? I don't know how well he's been received, but I want to see more of him.
He was in the Aliens colonial marines review.
And in the most recent (As of 4/22/14) review, Elder Scrolls Online
Angry Joe's treatment of the halo franchise just bugs me. Starting with ODST's review more then anything, which seemed to focus on the 'wallet rape' despite that every game that gets released ends up with a $60 price tag. Claiming that most review sites were giving it 'biased ratings' because it was a halo game. Despite that once again, 4 point scales are pretty common with most 'professional' reviewers. Then comes Angry Joe's Reach review, which while better still manages to cause me to delve into 'what the fuck' territory. For example the fact that he criticized the game for not having multiplayer space battles with Sabres that would have ripped off battle front 2 and being more of the same. Despite that Bungie experimented with them early on and decided against it since it would be unbalanced which comes of as down right hypocritical when you consider that he praised the developers of the KOTOR MMO for not getting in over their heads with space combat by making it an on rail shooter. As for the thing about claiming bungie were just pandering to halo's fanbase. Despite that reach had more changes then the jump from halo 2 to 3. New game types, more armor customization, armor abilities, new gametypes, new weapons and vehicles as well as removing duel wielding, removing a lot of recognized weapons, especially covenant ones. And even adding more options into forge mode. Options that make map making so much easier for me. It really seems like angry joe is just out to spite the halo 'fanboys' to me.
About the "wallet rape" I have to say that I agree (if a bit nuanced) with Joe. The game didn't have enough content compared to its bigger Halo brothers to warrent a full price, $60 price tag on release. ODST didn't offer enough new content to justify that, like the short campaign (which took me about 5 hours on normal and 8 on legendary to finish. But nonetheless I still enjoyed the game and didn't really agree with the rest of Joe's (and other harsh critics') criticisms. Halo ODST felt more like an expansion to me than a true stand-alone game, that's all.
Considering that they were only given a year and it was Microsoft that forced Bungie into doing a full release. I'd say that the content is understandable as the average game dev time is 2 to 5 years (Bungie wanted ODST to be DLC expansion, MS said no.) Even barring that, EVERY game nowdays gets released at a $50/60 dollar price tag. So saying ODST is wallet rape for lack of content to price ratio comes off as illogical when you consider how many horrid games that actually have less content come out for $60...
Also I remember how Joe went on twitter defending Reach to Spoony for awhile.
"Angry Joe heads The Resistance whose purpose is to defend our gaming freedoms from Corporate, a ruthless organization determined to rule the world through the proliferation of bad games!" The same vague corporate idea that he's railing against is what has also given us great games. Sure, there are exceptions, but almost all of the games that are considered the greatest of all time weren't exactly created in non-corporate environments. They just happened to have loving and talented designers.
Empires are always evil. Resistances are always good. Joe is taking the oldest, most discussed, deconstructed, and etc trope in the game storytelling book and playing it perfectly straight.note I think it's pretty stupid. Others are welcome to think it's epic.
Angry Joe is railing less against corporate in general and more against the practices of EA and Activision that are usually frowned upon by gamers. In otherwords companies that have little love for the industry and are only in it to make a quick buck at the expense of us gamers
^What this troper said. Notice how much he loves Bioware, who take the time to make a good game, and compare it to Activision or EA, who have a reputation for just milking games with no real care to the quality of the game. "4 hours" anyone?
Just a slight point that bugged me - EA own Bioware, and have actually been pretty good at not milking their series (Sports games not withstanding) as of late, unlike Activision. And the "4 hours" example would actually make sense if EA or Activision published Kane and Lynch, but that's anEidosSquare Enix game.
I always just saw it as Joe making a fun format for his show while pledging to keep corporate politics from letting his honest opinion be heard.
What happened to the Super Hero gimmick Joe used to have (ie. his secret identity as mild mannered Joe) I've seen a few of his early videos and wondered where it went?
What's the deal with the text on the background screen? Sometimes it simply repeats or sums up what he's talking about, but other times it responds and refers to Joe in third person like it's some kind of AI buddy or similar.
Why did it take him more than two months to review Green Lantern: Rise of The Manhunters? Joe's whole schtick is that he reviews the recent releases, but I don't think anyone will argue that a two month old game that ties into a film no longer in cinemas doesn't exactly qualify as a recent release.
He probably had other things on his plate, and he likely hated the game so much that it took him more than two months to play the whole thing. Remember, wasn't it in 3D? That's kinda one of his major Berserk Button things.
Only if you had a 3D TV, otherwise it wasn't. And either way, doesn't excuse him taking two months to review it.
Why is he the flagship reviewer for Blistered Thumbs, when he only has an Xbox 360 & a PC and thus can't review any of the exclusive releases on the PS3 & Wii?
He makes interviews with people in the media, regardless of the console a game is made of, his reviews tends to be fair, not bashing or praising games too much, gives praise where it should be given, etc. his reviews have been taken in consideration by companies when making a sequel of a game he reviewed in at least two ocassions, has been in the TWGTG Annyversary videos since the start, has a good relationship with his viewers, and, overall, just being popular.
Ultimate Marvel Vs Capcom 3 - A lot of people has seen this infamous vid by now, but he's recently done an interview by Seth Killian. Rather than being a professional and asking questions and listening to his answers, he flat out disrespects the guy, not letting him finish his sentences or not even looking at him in the eye, coming off across as condescending and rude with his tone of voice and body language. Even moreso, he's still talking about a game that he told his own audience not to buy weeks ago and yet here he is still talking about it, and being immature about it, no less
He also still manages to get some of his questions wrong.
I knew Joe was salty about the game, but not to the point where he'd be such a dick to Seth Killian. Seth isn't even responsible for the game's creation, he's just the messenger and PR guy. He's one hell of a cool guy, and Joe is being REALLY immature about this game's existence.
Even more so with his recent Top Ten Games of 2011 list. He's still nitpicking on Vanilla Marvel vs. Capcom 3's lack of features despite the Ultimate update already being out and giving us a very beefy Heroes and Heralds mode.
And now he's put Vanilla Marvel vs. Capcom 3 on his Worst Games of 2011 list. Despite the fact that he gave the game an average review for lack of content, but still said that the actual fighting engine is great. Not to mention the fact that he made several scripted videos revolving around him playing it. I guess the realease of Ulitmate Marvel vs Capcom 3 really hit him harder than it should have.
In his defense, Joe has stated in his Mortal Kombat review that he views it (Mortal Kombat) as the new standard for fighting games here on out. Perhaps he was comparing (U)MvC3 to that.
Not that it helped since he constantly hammered at MVC3 in that review every 5-7 seconds or so.
Wasn't that the incident when he went on in character without realizing it was a serious thing and ended up looking like a dick? I'm sure he's already appologized for that and realized his mistake. As for the game being on his Worst Game '11 list, Meh, its just his opinion. I actually love that game, but I've basically lost interest in holding other people's opinions against them.
The problem with not holding peoples opinions against them is Joe is supposed a "fair and honest" reviewer who will really tell you things how they "really" are. He puts himself on a pedestal as an unbiased source you can truly look to when all those other media outlets deceive you. Then he jumps on his high horse and runs away with it, acting intensely immature about issues and trashing games in a childlike, very biased manner. Honestly he is his own worst enemy - if he didn't pretend to be such a straight and unbiased source he wouldn't get as much backlash from the reasonable fans. If he didn't act childish about things he didn't like he wouldn't get trashed as much when he acts in character for interviews and ends up looking silly. Joe is an insanely cool guy from the time people I know have spent near him but he's quite the ass professionally about some topics and this causes a bit of backlash from those fans who keep hearing his "telling it like it really is" speeches.
If you believe someone can ever be 100% fair and biased then something is seriously wrong with you. His stance is basically that he's never sold on hype, while a lot of other reviewers are.
How did the whole Anita Sarkeesian mess not make his top 10 controversies for 2012?
Probably time constraints. If he wanted to include it, he could've made a Top 11. Although I consider it more important then Joe ripping on games journalists or a clip of a fat guy freaking out on Diablo 3. Hell, Anita was beaten out by a game being a Wii U exclusive!
Time constraints? Joe makes videos for the internet, not a television network. He has no time constraints for the length of his videos other than the ones he sets himself.
Well, he did spend ten minutes or so in his 'Top 10 Controversies of 2013' discussing this very issue. Worth a look, and what he had to say earns a place in the Crowning Moment of Awesome secton.
Is it true that he only cares about the single-player content in video games? If so then why doesn't he just stick with reviewing games like the first Uncharted game?
The single player aspect is a big selling point for him, but he does take a look at the multiplayer games (or multiplayer aspects of games that have single-player modes) - he's even reviewed some games that are pretty much mostly (if not all) multiplayer, such as Overwatch and Battleborn, and he also did a rant on Activision's decision to split the Userbase of Call Of Duty Infinite Warfare.
Do all of Joe's topics in his Gaming Controversies list really qualify as a controversies? They all sound like high profile news events with bringing up; but some of them like company going under, launch failures, the rise in swatting in 2014 don't sound controversial. Calling them "controversies" implies that people defend them. Those just sound like events that spark anger.