The Legend of Zelda: BoTW Angry Joe Review

9/10.

Can't help but like his reviews... very thorough.

He never played a Zelda game before? WTF??

While I dont agree with every review he's done ( Complaining about halo 5's length while playing it on easy and in 4 player co op was the dumbest thing he's ever done) I cant help but he digs deeper than most to get all he can out of a game

I stopped watching after he said it was his first Zelda. How the hell has a guy his age not played Zelda before? This guy is doing reviews and gaming related content and has not played Zelda before? WTF?! I lost a lot of respect for him after that.

@BassMan: huh?

I agree. It's like saying you're a mathematician, yet you've never factored anything.

I wouldn't even say it's arbritrary. If someone hasn't played Pong, Tetris, etc. I'd say "Eh, it's important, but not a big deal". Being a game reviewer but never having played Zelda pretty much shits on him.

Do we really need a topic for every review this guy makes? He was good a long time ago, sure, but now he's average at best and a money whore. Why doesn't Jim Sterling get the same amount of love' he actually shows up problems in our community / in gaming in general.

Jim is currently hiding in an under ground bunker surrounded by armed guards after giving Zelda a 7/10. Surprised Joe is not receiving death threats from not giving it a 10/10 also from the Nintendo fanatical.

"It truly is a system seller, like Halo was for the original Xbox"

That line was even worse than him admitting this was his first Zelda or his first complaint about not being able to remap the controls to mirror an Xbox controller. There were plenty of other cringeworthy lines, but they escape me due to the severity of the ones I mentioned.

And I'm not sure any of that copyrighted footage was necessary. It definitely isn't worth getting in a dispute with Nintendo. He could have cut it all, added another sketch with Other Joe in the dress, and everything would have been fine. Maybe even better since the sketches are always the best parts of his reviews. This sort of proves his dispute with Nintendo is purely for attention. And this being his first Zelda sort of confirms his negative bias towards Nintendo. Like Halo was for the original Xbox.... GTFO

I desagree with his opinion on the weapon degradation but still, good review.

I'm just glad we don't get Pachter threads anymore :)

At least Joe does something gaming related. Pachter just liked to talk hot air.

@goldenelementxl: How was that a bad line?

@BassMan: my friend works for Nintendo and he had never played a zelda game before BOtW.. That's far worse. Anyway, I won't watch the vid.. Dont know why I clicked on the thread to be honest.

He mirrored the footage to dupe the bots.

And who gives a shit if he's played any Zeldas or not? That doesn't suddenly rob him of the ability or qualification to critique something on its own merits. I don't need to have driven the Model T to be able to review cars. What ridiculous grounds for dismissal.

I'm not giving that idiot anymore clicks.

That said, anyone want to claim Nintendo paid him for the positive review? What about that "nintendo bump?" I guess it would have scored an 8 normally since he's so nostalgic for Nintendo, never having played a zelda before.

No? Anyone?

UNRELATED: It's only been two weeks since the game came out...I'm about 20 hours in and really how the hell are people BEATING this game so quickly? I...don't.....HOW? I'm literally just one dungeon down, buncha shrines, and still activating towers.

Thank you! I call myself a gamer, but there are/were several other franchises I never played when they were first big. I never played a Tomb Raider until Legend. I never played a Gauntlet until Legends/Dark Legacy. I never even played a Dead or Alive until Dimensions. Should that really a dismissal of opinion unless I, you know, actually miss the point?

Relatively speaking, it does rob him of giving him a relevant review of the game. 99.9% of gamers are viewing this game from the perspective of someone who has played Zelda games before. It's context. Playing previous games in a series has a very direct correlation to one's ability to recognize how the game relates to, differs from, and evolves from the previous entries in the series and of course - all relates to one's enjoyment of a game.

It would be like someone who had never played Madden before, plays the newest one, and is amazed by all the mechanics that have already existed in previous games in the series, even if it's largely unchanged. That person would appear like an idiot.

Honestly, I think you're just being ridiculous to pretend it doesn't matter at all. Obviously it doesn't mean his review is worthless, but it does really make him seem like someone who hasn't experienced a wide variety of games.

I disagree. It does not rob him of giving a relevant review. In fact it's neat to get a non-zelda fan POV of BOTW. I'm a casual zelda fan. I JUST beat my first zelda four weeks ago. Before that I played bits and pieces of almost every zelda, but never enough to beat any of them. People come around on plenty of franchises.

What does rob him of giving a relevant review is the game has only been out two weeks and he beat it already? REALLY?

I'm going to also say I'm willing to bet money Jim Sterling didn't beat it either before he gave it the 7.

how long do you think it takes to beat?

I was promised anger. I got none. I feel cheated >.>

I'm not sure if you are claiming that Zelda is not a system seller or that Halo wasn't. Either way, I think you are pretty wrong.

I was mostly sorta joking but I honestly have no idea. BOTW is gigantic...it's intimidating and scares me whenever I play it lol. Okay I'm still mostly joking, seriously it's a huge game. I just can't imagine being able to give a proper score and review unless you take the time to do most things. Did Joe rush the game? If he did that's a real shame. I'm enjoying playing it slow and discovering all the bits.

I thank gawd I'm not a person who reviews videogames.

Wow! F***ing wow! That is literally one of the most narrow-minded, tin-foil hatted posts I have ever read. You realize the "lack of button mapping" complaint was only minor, right? He still got the game to work for him regardless, and again, how does it being his first Zelda deter credibility and not to mention, prove how negative against Nintendo he always was (even though the only complaints he ever had with them were the hardware and their YT policies).

Then again, you're the guy who complains that he copy/pastes other gamers opinions, never mind that, besides this review, he SO did that with Sleeping Dogs, where everyone loved it, but he gave a 6/10.

I like that it's his first zelda because he hates Nintendo and even he has to admit BOTW is legit.

The game is THE BUSINESS. This cannot be denied.

Yet you can also accuse those who actually played Zelda before for being nostalgic when dishing out 10s for BOTW.

AJ not having played Zelda before actually is a plus, this is a completely fresh take on BOTW not coloured by past experiences and it actually mirrors the fact that there are going to be a lot of newcomers to the Zelda games. If anything, he is more credible since not only he is not an existing Zelda fanboy, everyone knows his relationship with Nintendo isn't the best.

Excellent review. He's finally back at doing proper reviews. From mid 2015 to the end of 2016 his reviews were a disaster.

Exactly! Spot on

Not everyone can play every game ever created. I've never played a final fantasy game, does that make me a failed gamer? (I own 14 game consoles and over 400 physical games)

I'm glad he decided to go through with it, I'll have to watch it later.

BOTW is a new game - how can it be overrated due to nostalgia?

Fact of the matter is a reviewer's experience with a medium in content is relevant to their ability to review that medium. It's inarguable. I'm not saying that person can't review something they have no experience with. I'm saying that person has diminished experience relative to other reviewers, thus leading to a diminished review. Ever notice that professional reviewers for professional outlets all happen to have...LOTS of experience? Crazy, right?

Are you aware of something called a "target audience"? Reviews are geared towards people who would like to be informed on a product. People who have a tendency to seek out reviews tend to be enthusiasts. Enthusiasts tend to have experience with the most popular/common content in that medium, and would expect the same from the reviewers they seek.

If anything, Zelda fanboys SHOULD be reviewing the latest Zelda game. They would hold it to a higher standard than Joe because unlike Joe, these gamers actually are aware of the PRECEDENT SET BY THE SERIES. Which Joe is ignorant to, thus making him an ignoramus. Joe would have no idea what's better or worse about this game than previous games in this series - which makes it nearly impossible for him to gauge it in a way that most people would look at it.

Love how he keeps trying to dodge the flagging system, evading the rules, say what you want but everyone follows it rules and he just breaks it because he thinks he should get payed for that review.

Joe's reviews are always well done and well thought out, you can tell that he puts a lot of effort into them and I appreciate it. Even if you don't agree with his opinions or scores, he always provides ample evidence for why he feels the way he feels. Nice review for his first ever Nintendo game Angry Review.

He also said the same for Metal Gear Solid 5 review, he never played any MGS games and also Killzone when he also review Shadow Fall so I really don't get this whole he never played this, that, there's always gonna be that one gamer never played this series.

@nintendoboy16: @PurpleMan5000: @vfighter:

OK, I did a bad job of explaining my viewpoint. In fact, I didn't explain it at all. So let me explain.

After some thought, the line, "It truly is a system seller, like Halo was for the original Xbox," triggered me because it basically sums up his credibility in one sentence. Joe hates Nintendo. He refused to even buy a Wii U with his money he made from the gaming communities views, subs and donations. So Joe had a Wii U DONATED to him so he could review Nintendo titles. (which he tried twice) I'm not going to get started on his ass-backwards logic and understanding of copyright and fair use laws here. I just want to illustrate that this guy has a knowledge of gaming that is far less than most people that post here at System Wars.

For Joe to compare BotW being a system seller like Halo was is baffling to me. But when I think about it, he can't compare it being a system seller like other Nintendo titles have been because he doesn't play Nintendo games and holds a grudge. And he can't compare it to being a system seller like other Zelda titles have been because he has never played one before. And for the original Halo to be the game that comes to his mind makes me question if he started gaming in 2001.

- Would you trust a movie reviewer in their 30's that never saw The Godfather, The Departed, or The Silence of the Lambs? Would you question their credibility to cover and critique new movies based on their limited scope and knowledge?

- Joes problem isn't the mapping, it's the labeling of the buttons that is throwing him off, which is why he mentions the Xbox at first. You can see around the 17 minute mark when the "Y" prompt pops up and he hits "X." The action assignment and placement for the Switch is not out of the norm. Nintendos button layout has been this way forever. If Joe had spent time with Nintendo consoles in the past, this would not have been as big of an issue. Would you accept this criticism from a person that never played a Playstation console? Would bitching about shapes instead of letters be OK for a reviewer? For this to be an issue for Joe is a reflection on him as a gamer and not on Zelda.

- Sleeping Dogs is at an 80 on Metacritic with a user score in the high 7's. Lets not act like folks were saying it's top 5 of all time game. Joe is generally a tough reviewer and uses the 10 point scale closer to the way it should be.

Joe is a talented guy that does some genuinely funny stuff. The sketches and parodies are often quite good. It's the video game knowledge, especially involving PC and Nintendo that is concerning. I think if Joe went full on with the parody material it might be a better fit.

Well Joe has been that one gamer quite a bit now. My Mom might be as qualified to review games as Joe is...

@goldenelementxl: Oh, I'm cool with you. There are things I don't personally agree with Joe, but I still like to show what's wrong with this game to back up his claim and I still haven't beating Breath of the Wild just yet, I think he speed run this one cause he's also working Mass Effect: Andromeda review as well and I too am playing it as we speak.

"He hasn't played Zelda before" is a lousy thing to knock the dude for, and doesn't invalidate any one thing he says about the game. You people are telling me, with a straight face, you have played all the important games that have shaped this medium? We've all played Ultima here? Really?

This is a good review, it's an excellent review.

Why the f*ck are people up in arms about it?

I mean let's be real, I'm sure it's not an excellent review. But why do you think? Bunch of butthurt plebs always need a reason to get mad at Angry Joe, usually over some perceived slight of their false cow.

But it's actually a good review. It makes some good points. I don't even like Angry Joe, but this is a good review.

And I mean, what, are we getting butthurt over a 9/10 now? Jesus Christ.

I get your point. But then again most of us here aren't calling ourselves "reviewers," and do not receive compensation for our opinions. This is why I like the way Giant Bomb and IGN do their reviews. (IGN to a less extent but the concept is there) Both sites have reviewers that are familiar with or fans of the games review them. Having prior experience with a series is far more preferential than no experience at all imo. I would never want Vinny or Dan from Giant Bomb to review a sports title. They don't know what the hell they're looking at. Just like how I wouldn't trust Jeffs review of a Sonic or Mario Kart title. But when Dan reviews a Nintendo title, I know what he thinks about each series and how those opinions align with mine. Just like how I knew that when Jeff was raving about Horizon Zero Dawn before release, it was something I should pay attention to. Joe is such a wildcard and all over the place that I'm not sure if I can take his opinions seriously. I appreciate his use of the point scale, however. His intentions are in the right place. But between his Alienware PC, hate and lack of knowledge for Nintendo, and how he fought with IGN over misrepresenting them in his Titanfall review, I question his ability to be responsible in his critique of video games. And him never playing a Zelda game before doesn't help that.

Joe can have any opinion he wants. I don't think anyone here is dismissing that. I would have the same argument against his review even if he gave it a 10 and said it's the best game ever. Someone else here used Madden as an example. My Dad would probably be blown away by Madden 17. But he has no context and has nothing to compare it to, so his opinion wouldn't carry the weight as someones who is familiar with the series. Especially if he were getting paid for his review. That would be totally inappropriate.

Lost some respect for this guy he hasn't played link to the past or ocarina of time or even the first nes zelda i can't relate to him as much now

It may be his first Zelda game. But, it's probably not his first RPG, action or otherwise. That's good enough to me.

Better than that one Gamespot reviewer years ago who probably never even played a flight/space sim before. He friggin took points off because the game required a joystick.

Well this time, it's that the game is his first Zelda. Which on a basic level, semi-eye roll on how he lacks knowledge on what makes Zelda, Zelda to a lot of people. While ignoring a basic premise that he provides, considering he writes buyer's guide reviews, and not art critiques. There are going to be a shit load of people who will probably have Breath of the Wild, as their first fucking Zelda. So by extension this point of view has plenty of merit.

He also isn't bogged down by expecting something very specific from a Zelda, which creates a lot of poorly written reviews that focus too much on "thing changed" without every detailing "why change in this case was for the negative". Which is a pretty fucking important distinction.

That's not even a reasonable criticism of the review- the review has one job, which is to assess this game on its own merits, and it does so well. You're right, he can't get into how things have changed from previous games- but personally, I'm not sure why he needs to. He needs to get into why this game is worth a purchase (or not), and as long as he is doing that, he's doing his job.

F*ck, if Zelda had remained on the cutting edge pioneering spirit of gaming, I'd maybe have understood the argument- but right now, it's like, he hasn't played the previous games, all of which are essentially enhanced N64 games in turns of structure and format (I love them, but we know this is true), so he can't tell what's changed... I mean, so?

Its funny reading the comments about Angry Joe not playing any previous Zelda games. The fact is that the majority of gamers have not. Check the numbers if in doubt.

"Because Joe is not a Nintendo fan..." plus some conspiracy.

Even if you are getting compensation for your opinion, that doesn't make your review less valid. The only thing that makes an actual review "good" is the argument presented and how well it's argued. Believe it or not you can dissect a sequel in a franchise, while never having played the game. The critique has value to people. Because there are plenty of people that would like reviews, that aren't from a fucking fan.

You post IGN, they suck, ass. Greg Miller basically swallowed for Naughty Dog when he had to review an Uncharted game, and Ryan McCaffrey's Halo 4 review is about as objective as Chaz is on all things Nintendo and Persona. Giantbomb writes awful reviews, I like them on a mic, in text, most of them, especially Jeff G, are lousy. Be it as critics or writers for that matter. Vinny isn't a reviewer for starters, notice how he hasn't done one since basically 2009, outside of a rare exception because he's the only one that plays that type of game (the witcher, point n click adventure games).

And Jeff's inability to properly critique Mario Kart, shows a failing on him as a critic. Less so that Dan is better "suited". Either of them have perfectly valid view points on the game: one likes it, the other doesn't. It's a matter of how they present their argument.

1. He had a PC before alienware, and he used his new money to have them build him a beast. Big fucking deal, that's the benefit of having that pay, you can buy expensive shit for the sake of convenience. Their products aren't exactly poor, they are overpriced.

And what hate for Nintendo? He's blasted them on their copyright policies for all youtube videos, when the concept of fair use is a thing, and were Google to ever bring some of these companies to court, they'd win. He doesn't lets plays, yet he's expected to let Nintendo cut into his pay based on nothing they fucking did?

Otherwise this just in. considering how only one of Nintendo's consoles has been commercially successful in comparison to their competition out of their last 4 consoles dating to 1996, it's not unheard of that there will be people who are really into games, and don't play Nintendo games. The Playstation consoles have sold in the 100 millions, their "bad" console did 80. Nintendo's 1 console went over a 100, the rest went like 30, 20, and like 10 million. So while yeah his lack of knowledge with Nintendo is mildly questionable, it doesn't detract from his ability to present a well reasoned review.

And he doesn't necessarily need to only make reviews from the point of view of a fan, **** the fans, there are plenty of people who will play Breath of the Wild, and it'll be their first zelda. So on that premise he provides a service.

Your Dad and Joe aren't on the same playing field in this case. Your dad the way you describe him barely games, Joe actually has made a living out of it for a few years, and routinely is playing games. And in the case of Zelda, games similar to the new Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Your dad getting paid would be inappopriate, but it's a false analogy here sunshine.

As do all sheep defending the game. The game may be good, but this is one of those things that you'll have to take an objective look. Having loot breaking quickly when loot is clearly one of the key elements in the game...isn't a fun concept. Imagine playing Diablo where the legendary sword you find breaks in a single farming run. That takes people out of the game

And the inability to comprehend this simple concept probably stems from one thing - Nintendo doesn't have enough experience making a loot-based open world game, and many Nintendo fans also don't play enough of those kinda games

The fact that its his first zelda really agitated me for some reason. It makes him in a way almost unqualified to review. Like how in the hell have u never played zelda? Thats like a music critic never hearing the beatles or a film critic never seeing the godfather.

@Bread_or_Decide: I'm literally in the same boat as you. I'm taking my sweet time to do this game.