[Gaming critics saying "yeah" and other agreeing statements....]

[and one "nope".]

See? YouTube comments agrees with me,

And we already know that YouTube comments is the premier location for intellectual gaming critiques,

Harboring only the most cutting-edge scholars,

Such as Middleschoolerconnor.

But what separates this guy, from THIS guy?

Well this guy gets paid to say stupid shit.

The first issue I have with gaming outlets is how their opinions are so decentralized.

When you have multiple writers working on a website, you can lose track of who's actually talking.

"Breathe easy Sonic fans, Sega got this one right."

"Sonic the Hedgehog 4, I think it was pretty mediocre."

"Sonic is good again?"

"Sonic was never good."

"Numerous fun titles-"

"Sonic was never good-"

"...The levels are great..."

"There are no good Sonic the Hedgehog games."

[Other Game Scoop cunt] "Super true."

"Super detailed background and excellent animation-"

"There are no good Sonic the Hedgehog games."

"Fantastic level design-"

"Sonic is awesome."

"Right?"

"Yeah."

Just this year alone, IGN has featured over 37 different reviewers.

When you see a video from ProJared or TotalBiscuit or AngryJoe,

you know exactly whose point of view it's coming from.

Now pick a review from IGN, You've just entered the fucking lottery.

It's important to build an understanding between the critic and the viewer.

Every review you do should be like an extension of the last until your audience understands what kind of games you respond to.

It's also important to acknowledge your shortcomings as a reviewer.

Mine personally is that I have no fucking patience at all.

Pretty much throw any RPG at me,

I'm just going to say nah, that-that's boring.

But you know what's dumber than RPGS?

Anime.

Unless we're talking this guy, you need to get this bullshit outta my face.

But you know what I hate much, much more than anime? Turn-based combat. For real, I despise this shit.

There's like two games that figured out how to make it fun, but those don't count.

Turn-based combat is fucking boring, tedious, and draining. It is the opposite of fun.

So when I say Persona 5, a turn-based, anime RPG is actually pretty fun, you should go:

"Damn. Okay, maybe that game is alright."

Probably one of the dumbest, most frequent comments I see is

"yeah, I stopped listening to this guy after he said Bubsy 3D sucked"

Listen fucko.

You don't have to see eye-to-eye on every single game to put your trust in someone.

Obviously.

A critic's power lies in the consistency of their voice.

But when you're consistently wrong...

"This is one of the least exciting platformers I played in some time."

"This is a Call of Duty game-"

"...refreshingly original..."

"Call of Duty-"

That is when you become Armond White.

This dude is the ultimate contrarian.

Both of his parents were white.

His name is Armond White.

So he said,

"Nah, fuck you."

"I'm black."

According to Armond White,

everything that is good is bad and everything that is bad is good.

Does this make him "useless" as a critic?

Not at all.

When Armond White tells you that Man of Steel is "The Godfather of superhero films",

and calls it his movie of the year,

Then you as a viewer understand,

"Ok, so this is the worst movie yet created."

Some films transcend even Armond White though.

And then you have a movie like Suicide Squad,

And it's just such a piece of fucking shit.

Even this guy who likes fucking Video game movies.

When even HE doesn't like it,

That's when you have fucked up.

At least he stands out.

So many of these reviews read exactly the same.

"Makes you feel eerily like Batman..."

"...the player really feel like Batman."

"...Could not look or feel more Batman."

"Made us feel like we were-"

"...feel like Batman..."

IGN, what did you think?

"Arkham Asylum makes you feel like you're Batman-"

My reviews certainly aren't perfect, But at least I'm trying out here.

Even after I put my stuff up, I'm still in the comments taking the discussion even further.

Now, let's look at IGN's review of Super Metroid.

"In Metroid you play as Metroid... as a Bounty hunter that shoots a Dinosaur in outer space with his missle"

9.5-

What the FUCK was the point of this?

I can find all this shit on the back of the box except there, it would probably sound exciting.

The only real content in this review was the number at the end of it.

Which is usually restricted to a seven, eight, or nine all of which implied the game is good .

Even something as disastrous as Mass Effect Andromeda will still get away with a seven out of ten.

I play a lot of games, and on my scale,

most of this shit fucking sucks man. Honestly even going back through the years

I find that only a few select games really hold up today, so when I do give a game a three out of five

I'm saying okay. This is a quality game. This is something worth your time that actually held my interest to the end credits.

I feel like a lot of critics are too afraid to say something real

And I think there's a lot of factors that influence this.

Gaming outlets and even youtubers now have relationships and contacts with these companies

So they can get interviews, early copies, early game footage...

This doesn't mean they're paid off, but maybe they won't criticize stuff as harshly as they should.

They're part of a circle and some of these websites are funded in large by advertising game developers

which fuels these really lame trends.

Mainstream critics are pretty much restricted to only play the latest releases,

so their standards are defined by what's been done recently,

and then you have this fuckin shitty rat race to be the first review on Metacritic

So that your dumb ass website can get more traffic,

and the end result is a column of weak ass first impressions.

"Right now the music comes out like this."

"People are writin' the review in, um... in a day."

"First of all, you can't listen to an album and rate it in the day."

"It's just impossible."

The best reviews are entirely subjective

But that doesn't mean you throw objectivity out the window.

You have to build your case with honest statements that even someone who disagrees with you could relate to.

Recently Gamespot gave the new Crash remaster a six out of ten, citing some abrupt difficulty spikes.

But if you know Gamespot, you know these guys aren't exactly capable when it comes to platformers.

"New Super Mario Brothers Wii is a tough game. Old school tough."

Huh?

"This will test even the most seasoned platforming veterans."

"New Super Mario Brothers Wii is by far the most challenging game."

"The game's high difficulty may initially scare off new players..."

But why is my opinion more valid than this guy's?

Well first off, I've actually completed the fucking game!

This dude got halfway through the game and put his review up! What the fuck?

It's funny, because I think he's absolutely right.

Crash Bandicoot is a little rough on the controls and camera.

But it's completely doable until this fucking piece of shit dumb motherfucker turtle level.

Who is responsible for this fucking abomination?

This has got to be one of the single worst levels I've ever seen in a video game.

"The game can feel really old..."

"Depth perception is an issue."

"Stiff driving controls."

"Physics just don't always work."

Dunkey: Piece 'a shit turtle-

"Hit Detection in general can be a little weird."

"Not quite as precise as it should be-"

When Reggie was developing Mario 64

He discovered that jumps requiring pinpoint precision

just did not fly in a 3D space.

Naughty Dog, however said "fuck that shit,

"Jump on the shitty turtle kid, except it won't even bounce you far enough to get over the fucking piece of shit bridge!"

There's certainly a steeper than usual learning curve,

and the series has always been more impressive in my opinion on the visual end.

Crash looking at the boulder chasing him, water shimmering down a waterfall, an ancient temple illuminated by sunlight.

When you lose, Crash doesn't just disappear.

He fucking gets incinerated.

Fucking gets crushed by a big-ass boulder and destroyed.

Pig knocks him off, breaks his spine.

BOOM! Just turns into a little pancake.

Falls in the water and freezes to death.

He gets fucking killed in this game, man.

When you finally conquer that ridiculous level, Crash says it all for you.

He just goes...

*Whew*

Great job! Except you missed one, two,

three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven,

21! 22! 23! 24!

57! 58! 59! 60! 61-

94, 95, 96, 97, 98.

But hey, man, other than that you did a good job.

The presentation is top notch, and critics have most definitely taken notice.

But what's more important to a game like this, how it feels or how it looks?

Which leads into my final point: focus.

Remember when this video was about game critics? That's because I lost focus.

Immediacy. Atmosphere. Variety. Replayability.

This is what I value in a game.

If the music sucks... *Yoshi's New Island - The Yoshi Clan*

*Yoshi's New Island - The Yoshi Clan*

If the levels are uninspired, if there's constant downtime, the game is not fun.

"If it's not fun, why bother?"

I see a lot of reviews where the language doesn't really align with the final verdict.

"The New Super Mario Brothers series has often felt like a watered down more casual attempt."

"It's just a shame it doesn't push the system's visual or audio capabilities."

"A bit of a disappointment. Numbing, generic bubbling music-"

"Playing with friends is still a bit of a chaotic mess."

"By the time Mario U really starts to do interesting things, It's over."

Damn, he fucking hates this shit.

What the fuck?

"It has a little something for everyone."