Feedbackula - Dead Island: Riptide Rancor!
Show Episodes
- May 17, 2013
- EA Online Pass
- Battlefield 4
- May 10, 2013
- Wolfenstein Unveiled
- Wolfenstein: New Order
- May 7, 2013
- Riptide Review
- Dead Island: Riptide
- April 5, 2013
- LucasArts Closed
- Monkey Island
- SW: The Force Unleashed
- Star Wars: Battlefront
- March 28, 2013
- Battlefield 4
- March 22, 2013
- GoW Review
- Gears of War: Judgment
- March 15, 2013
- SimCity Outrage
- SimCity
- March 8, 2013
- Thief Unveiled
- Thief
- March 1, 2013
- Tomb Raider Review
- Tomb Raider
- May 7, 2013
Feedbackula is back with a fresh new take on things, which is more than can be said for Dead Island: Riptide. Johnny hacks his way through the comments on the recent review.
816 comments
1 Like "you are a whiny little bitch"... Gamespot, I love you! Keep up the great work with the shows.
And bring back the What IF Machine!
ahaahaahakaakaakaa... !!! the last comment was fucking epicly HIGHLarious... man i thought this show was dead... how i was so wrong... ??? good job LAMEspot !!!
1 Like Except Gamespot did in 2007 allow their advertising budgets dictate their review scores. Jeff Gerstmann was fired over it. Maybe the people responsible for the decision aren't still at Gamespot, but that's not how corporations work. It's explicitly opposed to how corporations work. The whole idea is collective responsibility, which shields individuals within a corporation from individual responsibility for their actions. Because of that Gamespot is always going to have this black mark against it for doing exactly what you said it doesn't do.
We're fans, we're not stupid and we can remember six years past.
@Jimmy5208 For me it's the term Feedbacula. I'm still waiting for a good one. GS hasn't done an amusing one in six months sadly.
Am I like the only one who watches reviews just to see the opinion of other people?? I know I will probably disagree with them, but I watch them to gain a new perspective. Watch like 3 random reviews of a game and u get a feeling is it for you before buying. Further more, the I don't care about the end score, just about commentary they make during the video.
1 Like I swear that guy with the 17 minute video response (how pathetic is that by the way?) is the dude who was trolling WoW players in that South Park episode.
1 Like @jonmar Not to mention he makes a 17 minute response and then calls the game reviewer boring; as he speaks in a monotone voice at a whopping 20 words per minute.
6 Like Hm. That was insightful. I honestly didn't know a review was supposed to be a SUBJECTIVE endeavor. I guess that explains a lot about some reviews that have been going around lately then. Maybe it's just me, but I expect reviews to be as cold and un-personal as it is humanly possible (that's partially why it takes a professional reviewer and journalist to do so. Anyone can be subjective about anything). Objective remarks and qualifications about production values, length, story telling, gameplay, etc. I don't want to know if it has succeeded in entertaining you, I want to know how likely it would be in entertaining me.
4 Like @ivan_osorio Well, I think it's an illusion to think anyone can objectively judge videogames, or any form of entertainment for that matter. Or any cultural product. I mean, how could anyone know how likely a game would be in entertaining you, a subjective individual with a specific taste and opinion? None of the reviews out there can extensively consider all the aspects of the game from all possible viewpoints. They have to select aspects they think are most important and that differs from person to person, which results in different scores. Some are more vocal in addressing the negative or positive sides of a game than others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more subjective. All journalism is subjective. It starts by picking the subject you want to write about and it ends by getting your work checked by editors.
As cold and un-personal as humanly possible would result in a very formal and pages long assessment of all the different possible opinions that are out there, plus the consideration of all the predecessors of the particular game that might influence the interpretation of said game, plus (somehow) a completely separated analysis of the game outside of the context of other games, plus a full description of a playthrough of the entire game, addressing every weapon/item/level/character/mechanic, etc. Is that really what you want? Or are you going to read a few reviews, which are all subjective by the way, and form your own opinion? You've probably already done the latter.
I was descriptive about what I expect from a review. I don't want to read "I had fun and I think the game is good". I want to read "It plays at 60 FPS, the game has sharp controls, X and Y mechanics that work in Y fashion. It has no glitches that I have encountered."
Case in point: Maxwell (forgot his last name) penalizes fighter games with less than stellar replay support. That is his opinion and I care not for it. I care to know that the Replay works in X and Y fashion, if he thinks that is enough or not it is his problem. (which is very different than to state that "Finding a replay to watch was hard", which is an objective assertion of the matter).
I hardly think it is impossible to be impartial and detached from reviewing. Movie critics have done it for a long time. But it is not a job for just anyone. I certainly don't gauge GS review as I would one on my personal blog (or any other user review). The fact is that, apparently, maybe I should.
1 Like @ivan_osorio @loafofgameI agree. Throwing away the terms objective and subjective, reviews should NEVER include the terms like, dislike, you will like, you won't like, etc. It makes the reviewer sound like an amateur.
1 Like @loafofgame @ivan_osorioSorry, wall of text inbound:
It probably is (a matter of taste). All those choices and the fact that they impact on how the review is written and perceived is why I choose to come to a professional site for professional reviews instead of reading 50 user reviews on Metacritic. The point being is that this seems borderline irrelevant now, as, apparently the reviewers themselves are all willing to just say "well, it's just my opinion". Don't get me wrong, it's not like I only come to GS for reviews or anything else, I have a bunch of sites bookmarked here, I'm not doing empty threats. It just saddens me that a site which I once considered my compass for gaming purchases has decided to ditch its professionalism and publish under the guise of personal opinion. That is not what journalism is about. PERIOD.
I'm going to put Maxwell McGee on the spot again. I really think this guys does some really, REALLY bad reviews. Sorry. He reviewed Silent Hill Downpour (which I bought on release -the first game in years- and had a tremendous amount of fun with, one of my favorite SH games), and said it was a "the bad" that the game has stiff combat controls. I'm interested in knowing that it has stiff controls, but it is not bad, and that is a call of judgment he shouldn't be making. It is supposed to feel this way. The day Silent Hill implements Sleeping Dogs-like fluid combat is the day I stop buying it. He doesn't have to go out of his way and say that it is good, because it is not. Just, you know, observe the fact that it does have less than fighter-like responsive controls.
Once again, on Maxwell and Silent Hill. He said that the visuals in the HD collection had been "improved". In textural resolution, sure, but the game actually looks "darker" and harder to see, it is HARDLY an improvement over the original product. Actually, most of the grainy feel is gone, and the city looks like it receives regular street maintenance. Which defies the point of an abandoned city and feel of isolation.
On the other hand, on both cases, he did an exemplar calling of a technical problem: "Frame rate is inconsistent". See? This is relevant information (specially in the HD Collection, considering the original games ran like BUTTER). Credit where credit is due.
But you know what, I digress? I agree to disagree. I just find it somewhat depressing this is what has come to. Now we get this gray-area reviews that explain nothing; have abstract scores points attached, but completely detached from their text; and are happy to ignore what they feel like ignoring (Carolyn's review of Tomb Raider was laughable to me. She did paragraphs about how Lara's character development was great and how empowering it all was, but neglected to mention a SINGLE TIME how the gameplay immediately and completely contradicted the games own storytelling, and how the two felt like completely separate entities. Or the simple fact that the GORE in the game is completely over the top and uncalled for). I don't know. I'm just disappointed I guess. But hey, some people seem to like it, so good for you (you all that enjoy it I mean).
I can still read 20 supposedly-professional reviews to figure out what I believe one aptly written review should have told me, so no loss I guess?
@ivan_osorio Well, it's a matter of taste then. And I think we define reviews differently. What you're describing seems like a properties summary to me, not a value judgment (but I guess a review is a balance between the two). And besides, even things like sharp controls and glitch encounters are subjective, depending on your playing style (and skills), the amount of time spent on playing the game, other games you've played, etc.
You can write in an impartial and detached way, but you still have to make choices about what to discuss in a limited number of words and you still have to base your view on a limited and personal experience. And you can also still get an opinion across in an impartial and detached way. So called objective evaluations deserve the same amount of caution and often differ more in style than in content.
1 Like @ivan_osorioyep people forget that sometimes, or just don't get it at all. They throw out the word 'opinion' too often, as if that somehow absolves them from any responsibility.
This is f***ing hilarious, I need to get a comment on it just to see who's voice I would get.
1 Like Gamespot couldn?t organize a f**k in a brothel, hilarious! And I think I saw that SOT of the Queen on the BBC before, isn?t that from when Prince Charles told her he was going to be marrying Camilla? This must be one of the funniest episodes of the FEEDMYNUTSBACULA SHOW I have seen yet! Keep up the good work Johnny.
Feedbackula - now with a disturbing lack of toast. :(
On a serious note, good to see you back.
1 Like actually developers and publishers do pay money for the reviews there was a giant scandal about it with gamespot the truth is some publisher threaten to pull advertising money from websites they need to continue running read it all here folks. http://www.shacknews.com/article/50134/report-gamespots-gerstmann-fired-due
always funny
thank you for today laughter ration(good for health by the way)
the best show of gamespot
1 Like Lmao!!! The 'Fuck England' comment had me dying. I always look forward to this show for a light hearted chuckle. Keep up the good work.
2 Like What's not really hard is not taking reviews on anything you enjoy seriously. If you enjoy it then that's all that matters.
I've discovered a long time ago that certain reviewers on this and other websites I'm bound to disagree with over their review style, it's just easier to completely skip over their reviews/articles without worrying that I'm missing much, except the funny comments of course.
Johnny YOU ROCK!!!!
I just love Feedbackula!
Its awesome how you put people back into ther place.
I hope this show goes on, Johnny is my favorite on gamespot i just love your reviews.
Your a fun guy. :D
Conversation powered by Livefyre
