By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Angry Joe's Top 10 Games of E3 2016

GOWTLOZ on 19 June 2016
Johnw1104 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

God of War has never been a button masher especially at high difficulty setting. Plenty of weapon variety, enemy variety, block, evade, counter, jump, double jump, combos and weapon upgrades. QTE's are mostly optional except for boss fights where they are used as finishers.

Its actually the best hack and slash franchise by far everything considered.

Well given it's so popular I've no doubt many people enjoy it, and clearly it wasn't a matter of just smashing one button... I remember taking the time to search for every chest in the game (I think it was God of War 2), but by the time we were about half way through the game began to feel a bit like a grind to my roommate and I. I think one of the issues were those brief cutscenes when you'd maim and kill the enemies in different ways which, while initially awesome, got a little old by the 60th time you'd seen it. Perhaps the levels were just a bit too long or we needed more types of enemies, I don't know.

The visuals were clearly the best part for me, especially the background scenes. The music was great, and I loved the setting and thought the designs of the gods were all superb. The sex scenes were bizarre and awkward (shouldn't he be grieving over his wife and kid lol), and the combat was initially fun though it came to grow stale at times. While I'm not a big fan of QTE, I'd say the staging of the battles against the bosses were pretty billiant at times. As for the narrative, it was fairly simple but you DID want to see him kill those damn olympians.

I think if there'd been a greater variety of enemy or the levels were a bit shorter I'd have liked it more, but the game started to feel like a chore over time. This new game, though, looks rather awesome on first glance. I liked the fixed camera of the old ones, but I'll give this one a chance with its over-the-shoulder approach. The combat looks necessarily more complex with that view point, and they've chosen another superb setting. I didn't put it on my list yet due to my previous experience, but it could certainly wind up being something that appeals to me.

The enemy variety is very much there. There are atlesat 20 types of common enemies in GOW 2, but some do appear more frequently than others, which may lend you to believe that. But when mixed up they required very different approach when fioghting them. GOW has a lot more enemy variety than DMC.

The finishers you're talking about are entirely optional, as I said only the boss battles require you to do finisher moves. I also feel that the narrative is incredible, probably the best in a video game, in that it feels so much like novels and the art style is amazing. The levels hardly felt too long. I've never heard this complaint before about GOW from anyone else.

The combat is great, but at easier settings you can easily beat the game without ever knowing much about it. Its at harder settings that the game challenges you and then you realise the importance of those secondary weapons. I also enjoy the puzzles a lot, they help in the pacing of the game where other hack and slash games feel like you're doing the same thing through the game.



Around the Network
Ruler on 19 June 2016
VXIII said:

One man's opinion. I'm pleasantly surprised that his top game for the show was Final Fantasy XV. He isn't the kind of person who care about Jrpgs. XV also won IGN's best RPG award and some others. The demo was well recevied it seems. Good stuff.

Because no one can deny the great graphics



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Soundwave on 19 June 2016

Did he even get to play Zelda? I heard like only 5-10% of people at the show got to play it, Nintendo only had a certain number of booths and with an hour basically minimum required for playthrough a lot of people there at E3 did not get to play it.



TheTruthHurts! on 19 June 2016

Interesting and unique list. Being a game journalist he gets access to actually try a lot of games most of us have to rely on trailers and videos for.

He plays the majority of his games on PC, one reason why his list is predominately PC titles. I rarely see him review Nintendo stuff, so something like Zelda might not be his cup of tea.



QUAKECore89 on 19 June 2016

He can't put any Nintendo games video gameplay, because he got copyright strike long time ago.

He plays Fire Emblem 3DS tho. :-p



Around the Network
Nuvendil on 19 June 2016
Veknoid_Outcast said:
Peh said:

Everything I know:

When Nintendo announced his new Youtube policy for people monetizing on Let's Play video's on Nintendo content and the restrictions which come with it a lot of Youtuber's like PewDiePie and so on who do mostly Let's Play videos went against it. Angry Joe was one of them. Some time later when fans demanded of Joe doing videos about Nintendo games, they've contributed money for Joe to get a Wii U with some games.

Joe did 2 streams of him and his friends playing Mario Party 10 and Mario Kart 8 on twitch. He uploaded these videos on Youtube clearly knowing Nintendo's Youtube Policies and tried to monetize on this poorly made (No edited) videos. When Nintendo took all the money being made with these 2 videos, Joe took both videos down, because he can't make money with it. A few hours later his Final Nintendo Rant video went online and told Nintendo how greedy Nintendo is.

The Nintendo Youtube Policy is one thing, but Angry Joe dealt with it like a little, whiny, greedy, bitch himself.  

He thinks he is entitled to make money on content he doesn't own.

Thanks!

Two questions:

1) can YouTubers use any footage of Nintendo games without consulting Nintendo? Like a trailer or a brief 30-second spot?

2) can someone do a let's play in partnership with Nintendo? Like they split the proceeds?

Actually, no, what he just described is NOT how it went down at all.  Not even close.

First off, the content creators program was not announced and set up until AFTER Joe bought the Wii U and planned to do some streams and post highlights to YouTube.  It sjowed up at the end of January 2015, Joe did his streams and had his run in with them at the start of and middle of January 2015.

Second, Joe's fanbase never DEMANDED he do Nintendo content.  I should know, I've followed him for years.  In fact, a sizable chunk of his fanbase didn't care about or actively disliked the Nintendo.  

Third, while yes, he used donation mkney to get a Wii U, three things must be remembered:  one, it was one fan who donated it; two, that fan did not demand Wii U reviews; and three, he Lways uses the money from twitch streams and donations to buy new equipment.  Youtube revenue primarily goes to general cost of living and running the Angry Joe Show, he has said this numerous times.  And FYI, I was watching the stream where these donations were made, I know this first hand.

Third, Joe was completely not in the loop about Nintendo before his issues.  He hadn't owned a Wii, it had been ages since he had any Nintendo products and had never done any Nintendo coverage.  He conducted himself exactly in line with what essentially every other company allows for let's players and streamers.

Now, having corrected all that noise, yoir questions:

Nintendo is NOTORIOUS for claiming videos for petty reasons.  The Co-optional Podcast had a 30 second clip of the Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 trailer in their 3 hour show and Nintendo claimed the whole video and took all the revenue.  It is very tricky to do.  ProJared used to get around it by lowering the sound but had mulfiple claims last year.  He has reviewed no Nintendo published product since.

Your second question, only if it is a game Nintendo has on their list of permitted games and only if Nintendo gets 40% of the revenue, an absolutely absurd cut.  And before you ask, no, I have no idea how GameXplain gets by.  But essentially, unless you are a big enough entity to intimidate Nintendo or fight back, they will screw you.  And Joe and Jared and Jim and TotalBiscuit have every right to call them on it, it's a violation of fair use.  

Edit: oh, and joe has spoken very positively of the New 3DS and Wii U on social media.  And he got that 3DS after the run in with Nintendo.  Yeah, clearly he hates them.



Goodnightmoon on 19 June 2016
TheTruthHurts! said:
Interesting and unique list. Being a game journalist he gets access to actually try a lot of games most of us have to rely on trailers and videos for.

He plays the majority of his games on PC, one reason why his list is predominately PC titles. I rarely see him review Nintendo stuff, so something like Zelda might not be his cup of tea.

Rarely? He has NEVER reviewed anything Nintendo related, their fans gave them money to buy a WiiU (because he didnt had enough.................) and how he paid them back? With absolutely nothing, not a single review, nothing, disgusting.



Nuvendil on 19 June 2016
Goodnightmoon said:
TheTruthHurts! said:
Interesting and unique list. Being a game journalist he gets access to actually try a lot of games most of us have to rely on trailers and videos for.

He plays the majority of his games on PC, one reason why his list is predominately PC titles. I rarely see him review Nintendo stuff, so something like Zelda might not be his cup of tea.

Rarely? He has NEVER reviewed anything Nintendo related, their fans gave them money to buy a WiiU (because he didnt had enough.................) and how he paid them back? With absolutely nothing, not a single review, nothing, disgusting.

Read my post directly above yours, you have been completely misinformed.

As for this list, he may not have seen 99% of the Zelda stuff and certainly didn't play it.  The linne was 8 hours long and he had three other platforms to cover.



pokoko on 19 June 2016

Are there really people who are disgruntled because he didn't have their favorite game-they-haven't-even-played on his list?

That's sad.



Veknoid_Outcast on 19 June 2016
Nuvendil said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:

Thanks!

Two questions:

1) can YouTubers use any footage of Nintendo games without consulting Nintendo? Like a trailer or a brief 30-second spot?

2) can someone do a let's play in partnership with Nintendo? Like they split the proceeds?

Actually, no, what he just described is NOT how it went down at all.  Not even close.

First off, the content creators program was not announced and set up until AFTER Joe bought the Wii U and planned to do some streams and post highlights to YouTube.  It sjowed up at the end of January 2015, Joe did his streams and had his run in with them at the start of and middle of January 2015.

Second, Joe's fanbase never DEMANDED he do Nintendo content.  I should know, I've followed him for years.  In fact, a sizable chunk of his fanbase didn't care about or actively disliked the Nintendo.  

Third, while yes, he used donation mkney to get a Wii U, three things must be remembered:  one, it was one fan who donated it; two, that fan did not demand Wii U reviews; and three, he Lways uses the money from twitch streams and donations to buy new equipment.  Youtube revenue primarily goes to general cost of living and running the Angry Joe Show, he has said this numerous times.  And FYI, I was watching the stream where these donations were made, I know this first hand.

Third, Joe was completely not in the loop about Nintendo before his issues.  He hadn't owned a Wii, it had been ages since he had any Nintendo products and had never done any Nintendo coverage.  He conducted himself exactly in line with what essentially every other company allows for let's players and streamers.

Now, having corrected all that noise, yoir questions:

Nintendo is NOTORIOUS for claiming videos for petty reasons.  The Co-optional Podcast had a 30 second clip of the Pokémon Black 2 and White 2 trailer in their 3 hour show and Nintendo claimed the whole video and took all the revenue.  It is very tricky to do.  ProJared used to get around it by lowering the sound but had mulfiple claims last year.  He has reviewed no Nintendo published product since.

Your second question, only if it is a game Nintendo has on their list of permitted games and only if Nintendo gets 40% of the revenue, an absolutely absurd cut.  And before you ask, no, I have no idea how GameXplain gets by.  But essentially, unless you are a big enough entity to intimidate Nintendo or fight back, they will screw you.  And Joe and Jared and Jim and TotalBiscuit have every right to call them on it, it's a violation of fair use.  

Edit: oh, and joe has spoken very positively of the New 3DS and Wii U on social media.  And he got that 3DS after the run in with Nintendo.  Yeah, clearly he hates them.

OK, thanks.

So I get Nintendo wanting to crack down on Let's Players, but how does the company get away with claiming ownership of reviews, for example? As long as those only use a small portion of the copyrighted material, they should fall under the fair use umbrella, no?