Amusingly bad reviews

[ACSeraph]

These weapons suck cuz I can't survive long enough to ever get one. These guys would be mind blown if they ever saw an option That said for a casual look at the game it could be a lot worse, this is probably how the average non-shmup player views it.

[Obscura]

I've never played it, but I thought Life Force NES had a reputation for being super-easy?

[LordHypnos]

I think Life Force is considered the first or second easiest shmup on the NES. Personally, I find the powerdowns to be super frustrating though. The game is much funner with at least one or two speedups, missiles, and at least one option.
As for autofire though, IIRC if you're close enough to an enemy (or the right side of the screen) when firing, or have laser or wave, you might as well have autofire. I think I played it at one point where I didn't even tap except in a few particular spots. For most of the first stage you're best off staying near the front of the screen anyway.

[CloudyMusic]

It's probably easy to people who have experience with the genre, but it (like Contra) also has a "30 lives" cheat which could make it feel "easy" to casual players too.

[Doctor Butler]

I'd figured that the NES-obsessed James Rolfe would know more about Gradius games, lol

[Mortificator]

* Incredibly unskilled play.

* Ignorance of the most basic game elements.

* Dull, humorless commentary.

... and the video has a quarter of a million views and five thousand thumbs-up.

[trap15]

That's basically avgn.txt, really. Or maybe just modern_avgn.txt, he used to be funny sometimes at least.

[cave hermit]

He used to be a lot funnier (although I'm not sure if he had ever been good at them actually): I'm sure doing nerd videos for so long has begun to wear him down.

Also keep in mind that the video in question is more or less just unscripted filler material.

[Pretas]

James knows a good deal about popular 8 and 16-bit platformers, and that's about it. It's always been obvious that his primary passion is film, not video games. Hence his film reviews being much more detailed, factual and referenced.

He should have formally retired the AVGN character right after finishing the movie. He needs to, there's nothing more that can be done with it that isn't weary and stale. But it's his one claim to fame outside of narrow internet circles, so he probably feels he's now obligated to trot it out every once in a while to avoid slipping into the same irrelevance that countless other former e-celebrities have faced.

[Blinge]

Bear in mind he's not in character and it's not an avgn video.

[BIL]

Didn't watch the video, but seeing how poorly they did at Contra I'm not at all surprised they had trouble. These are only mildly difficult games for the initiated, but they're most definitely substantial enough to stop novices or plain poor players. That proximity-triggered ceiling flare in Contra's sixth stage won't sympathetically stop killing you mid-jump if you get angry enough at it. Cue footage of panicking monkey with fist trapped in tree trunk full of nuts.

I do like Rolfe and company for what they are, slacker nostalgism + bad games tourism. Stuff requiring more than minimal investment of the player is typically going to look like shit when they're at the controls.

[JBC]

They did beat Silver Surfer.

[Blinge]

Not a 1cc!

Whip them through the streets!

Hang them from the rafters!

Throw them to the dogs!

Feast on their corpses!

Howl at the moon and smear our chests with blood!

Call the FBI!

Burn your consoles!!!

[BIL]

They did beat Silver Surfer.

I'm guessing it looked like shit though, right? :/ They actually legit cleared Super C, but it was like watching a nervous pigeon shit out a metal hexagon*. You can't expect these guys' gameplay to be pleasing to watch, let alone useful. It's nostalgism for casuals who recall Contra being a remorselessly pistoning cybernetic bumming machine.

* <3 that video btw

Spoiler

[soprano1]

It's always been obvious that his primary passion is film, not video games. Hence his film reviews being much more detailed, factual and referenced.

He made me a Godzilla fan, for all that's worth.

[JBC]

They did beat Silver Surfer.

I'm guessing it looked like shit though, right? :/ They actually legit cleared Super C, but it was like watching a nervous pigeon shit out a metal hexagon*. You can't expect these guys' gameplay to be pleasing to watch, let alone useful.

It's useful for entertainment purposes. They don't intend or claim to make walkthrough vids. Beating Silver Surfer at all is pretty impressive, that game is ridiculous.

[Obscura]

It's always been obvious that his primary passion is film, not video games.

If you're willing to substitute "film" for other media types, this is true of almost all of the most famous videogame bloggers.

Nearly all videogame bloggers would rather be covering another medium. They cover videogames because they were too stupid to be a critic/journalist in their field of choice, and the standards are lower here. It's no different than Felica Day suddenly saying "hey guys, I'm really a huge nerd and a gamer, pay attention to me!" when her carreer started flagging.

[BIL]

It's useful for entertainment purposes.

That's what I've been saying. ;3 It's no failing of Rolfe et al that they and their audience are generally a bit shit at these games, that's kind of the whole nostalgic casual shtick.

Obviously it's not helpful for anyone wanting skilled, informed play but they shouldn't be watching. Or caring.

[copy-paster]

* Incredibly unskilled play.

* Ignorance of the most basic game elements.

* Dull, humorless commentary.

... and the video has a quarter of a million views and five thousand thumbs-up.

I may agree with you that the video is their most terrible Cinemassacre episodes, thought.
Speaking of game elements, 2 years ago Mike released his SNES trivia video which shows he's beat 50 final boss in each games. Watching at minute 1:44 and I actually laughed.

[Special World]

It's always been obvious that his primary passion is film, not video games.

If you're willing to substitute "film" for other media types, this is true of almost all of the most famous videogame bloggers.

Nearly all videogame bloggers would rather be covering another medium. They cover videogames because they were too stupid to be a critic/journalist in their field of choice, and the standards are lower here. It's no different than Felica Day suddenly saying "hey guys, I'm really a huge nerd and a gamer, pay attention to me!" when her carreer started flagging.

This is actually totally not true, and a lot of videogame journalists then move on to other mediums where, surprise, they're really fucking good at their jobs. This does not necessarily apply to bloggers and vloggers or people on my-friend startup sites (though some of them are very good), but people who write for videogame sites are actually often very good writers. They're just writing about a medium and fandom that completely resists critical thought.

Also, a lot of them are concurrently freelancing for comic/film/tech sites while writing about videogames.

[Squire Grooktook]

I have an ideal for reviews. It's all I ask.

1: Tell me the objective elements of the game (ie the mechanics, the length, the game structure, blah blah blah)

2: Tell me how you subjectively felt about it (ie did you find it twitchy or imprecise? Tactical or trial and error? Short or tight? Why?)

If people disagree with your subjective feelings, at least they learned something and can then decide whether they want to give the game a chance or not, even if the review didn't like it.

[Lord Satori]

The problem is, some people don't have the ability to distinguish between objective and subjective.

[Special World]

Is that a problem with the reviewer or with the reader?

[Shepardus]

Both, but it's worse when the reviewer's making that mistake.

[Special World]

In my experience there's usually a problem only if the reviewer goes in with a mindset of "game reviews should be objective," as there's no such thing as an objective review. Usually it's pretty easy to tell what's a subjective opinion, even if the reviewer states it as an objective fact.

"Five levels and 30 minutes of play is objectively too short for a game released in 2015." <--- Anybody can see that's a subjective viewpoint, even if the reviewer themselves treat it as an objective fact about modern gaming. I think the bigger problem is generally failing to take context into account. Like, who the hell would want to play an 8-hour long scrolling shooter? That'd be exhausting. So 25-45 minutes is perfectly fine for a scrolling shooter, given how intense and replayable they are.

[Ixmucane2]

I think the bigger problem is generally failing to take context into account. Like, who the hell would want to play an 8-hour long scrolling shooter? That'd be exhausting. So 25-45 minutes is perfectly fine for a scrolling shooter, given how intense and replayable they are.

This is where the even bigger problem begins: plain old stupidity and ignorance. A competent reviewer would know, among many other things, that shooters are normally short but replayable, but competence in game journalism is traditionally an exception.

P.S. This thread consists of reviews of stupid and ignorant people, as seen through the difficult (for them) test of reviewing games.

[Shepardus]

Reminds me of a quote I saw not too long ago, "A whole generation of players grows up thinking this is what games are." If you go in expecting a (single-player) game to be a narrative experience you play through like a movie or other consumable item rather than something that demands that you adapt and persevere with it, even the best shmups will seem disappointingly antiquated. Unfortunately most reviewers lack either the open mind or the time to engage with a shmup on the level it deserves. All they really have time for is to play through to see what the content is and what the mechanics are on a basic level, and make a judgment from there based on their experience with what games are or "should be." For many people to see replayability they have to be explicitly presented with replay options or else they'll miss it entirely, as if you leave it in the intangible realm of "how should you treat this game" only those already in the right mindset will understand.

[Lobinden]

Reminds me of a quote I saw not too long ago, "A whole generation of players grows up thinking this is what games are." If you go in expecting a (single-player) game to be a narrative experience you play through like a movie or other consumable item rather than something that demands that you adapt and persevere with it, even the best shmups will seem disappointingly antiquated. Unfortunately most reviewers lack either the open mind or the time to engage with a shmup on the level it deserves. All they really have time for is to play through to see what the content is and what the mechanics are on a basic level, and make a judgment from there based on their experience with what games are or "should be." For many people to see replayability they have to be explicitly presented with replay options or else they'll miss it entirely, as if you leave it in the intangible realm of "how should you treat this game" only those already in the right mindset will understand.

The main cause of this issue is that videogames as a medium can only become accepted and mainstream among the masses by parroting other media. Core, "game-like" games usually require some form of perseverance from the player to appreciate, because that is how interactive media and games operate. This perseverance is not common among the masses who want "narrative experiences" and such. That is not to insinuate that seeking a narrative experience is bad or somehow inferior to demanding a skill-based game which requires time and effort from the player to master, but the two are usually mutually-exclusive.

[Doctor Butler]

Reminds me of a quote I saw not too long ago, "A whole generation of players grows up thinking this is what games are." If you go in expecting a (single-player) game to be a narrative experience you play through like a movie or other consumable item rather than something that demands that you adapt and persevere with it, even the best shmups will seem disappointingly antiquated. Unfortunately most reviewers lack either the open mind or the time to engage with a shmup on the level it deserves. All they really have time for is to play through to see what the content is and what the mechanics are on a basic level, and make a judgment from there based on their experience with what games are or "should be." For many people to see replayability they have to be explicitly presented with replay options or else they'll miss it entirely, as if you leave it in the intangible realm of "how should you treat this game" only those already in the right mindset will understand.

^ This.

It's really sad that the post-arcade crowd can't comprehend the inherent value of gameplay.

[Lobinden]

Reminds me of a quote I saw not too long ago, "A whole generation of players grows up thinking this is what games are." If you go in expecting a (single-player) game to be a narrative experience you play through like a movie or other consumable item rather than something that demands that you adapt and persevere with it, even the best shmups will seem disappointingly antiquated. Unfortunately most reviewers lack either the open mind or the time to engage with a shmup on the level it deserves. All they really have time for is to play through to see what the content is and what the mechanics are on a basic level, and make a judgment from there based on their experience with what games are or "should be." For many people to see replayability they have to be explicitly presented with replay options or else they'll miss it entirely, as if you leave it in the intangible realm of "how should you treat this game" only those already in the right mindset will understand.

^ This.

It's really sad that the post-arcade crowd can't comprehend the inherent value of gameplay.

There are some exceptions, like the fans of Platinum's games who put in a lot of time to master the mechanics of each one, but generally it is easier for people to just say that The Last of Us is "the citizen kane of videogames" or some other similar drivel instead of persevering with game mechanics and making decent observations about them.