Dan Takahashi of Venture Beat incompetently plays Cuphead for almost half an hour

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

DarthCoercis:

Smithnikov:
I hate Gamergate, and I finished S.T.A.L.K.E.R on Misery mod.

So where do we go with that?

I made it to lvl 601 in Gauntlet on the sega master system back in the 80s, and I have no idea what gamergate is (and don't care enough to google it). How do I fit in to the equation?

Well, Gyro is the representative of the Gatekeppers as pertains to this question, so ask him.

KaraFang:
"You wouldn't trust a review of a car from someone who doesn't have a driving licence." (John Bain)

And that's a false equivalence for this case. Gamer license doesn't exist. And anyone who quickly dismisses 30+ years of gaming experience (and 25 of game journalism) has no place to even suggest the standards for one.

CaitSeith:

KaraFang:
"You wouldn't trust a review of a car from someone who doesn't have a driving licence." (John Bain)

And that's a false equivalence for this case. Gamer license doesn't exist. And anyone who quickly dismisses 30+ years of gaming experience (and 25 of game journalism) has no place to even suggest the standards for one.

Depends on the "experience" you're talking about. If you could get a gamer licence, I very much doubt that Dan Takahashi would have one right now. It's pretty clear from Cuphead, mass effect, and just stuff this guy writes that he has very little experience in actual gameplay. Media and journalism? Yes. However, you shouldn't be writing or reviewing things if you have no idea about how they work.

(sighs)

shrekfan246:
Being bad at certain games for specific, simple reasons are certainly reason enough for people who have extensive knowledge of games in the same genre to decide that the person is not worth their time. If I were to be looking up criticism of Sonic Mania and I found someone who couldn't beat Green Hill Zone, for instance, I doubt I'd find anything worth hearing from that person on the subject of Sonic games generally or Sonic Mania specifically.

That, however, doesn't mean their opinion is entirely worthless. While I may not get any value from their experience, other people who are also bad at Sonic games or otherwise have little experience with them would likely find that the opinion of someone in a similar position would provide a much better evaluation for whether they would like the game or not. If someone who is bad at Sonic Mania or typically doesn't enjoy Sonic games still expresses joy and excitement while playing it, that might be an indication that it's a game to try even for those who normally avoid Sonic games; conversely, if they're frustrated or bored that might be a good indication that it won't be the game which convinces someone to love Sonic.

This speaks also to the fact that "value" is a relative term. It is dependent entirely on context and individuals. When Sam Raimi was filming Evil Dead, one night some locals broke into the cabin and burglarized the crew's power tools. They left behind the super-expensive film camera. Why? Because a film camera just isn't that useful or important to people living in the ass end of Nowhere, Kentucky. On the other hand, pretty much everybody in that little town would like a new set of power tools.

The mistake I see the Gaters making here is that they assume there is one, objective measure of value. That has never been true.

I just get the feeling hes never really played a side scroller. I remember playing like this when I first played super mario brothers. Granted I was like 7 and had never really played a game before but I would imagine that even if you do play a good number of games today you could still miss out on platformers. Not like they are as ubiquitous back in the nes/snes days.

Edit: Nevermind. Hes a journalist who is doing reviews he shouldn't be doing since apparently his game ability isn't very good. While that can make for some interesting content for the perspective of a newer player, its not what is needed by an actual reviewer.

As if there needed to be more evidence that gaming journalism isn't actually about skills in gaming but a big circle-jerking group of nepotistic weenies.

DarthCoercis:

Smithnikov:
I hate Gamergate, and I finished S.T.A.L.K.E.R on Misery mod.

So where do we go with that?

I made it to lvl 601 in Gauntlet on the sega master system back in the 80s, and I have no idea what gamergate is (and don't care enough to google it). How do I fit in to the equation?

You do just fine. It is just people like Dean would prefer the simplicity of a walking simulator and linear corridor shooters vs games like Cuphead or Doom 4. Honestly speaking so long as you get the basics down pat and the advance techniques so he can competently play it is all good by my standards. You got a limited time to showcase everything so just make sure your core gameplay mechanics is handle competently and it will be just fine by my standards

And I would one bottle of butt inflammation for Smithnikov because he just had another Gamerwalk inicident as well.

gyrobot:

And I would one bottle of butt inflammation for Smithnikov because he just had another Gamerwalk inicident as well.

You call me out twice, and don't even answer my point. My butt's cool as a meat locker right now.

shrekfan246:
At first I was confused as to what the point of this thread was and why it's three pages now, but then I realized it's just people beating the dead horse of GorbleGip yet again, and it all made sense. So I'm gonna ignore whatever the OP was trying to do with this thread and use this as a jumping point instead:

Saelune:
It makes me think, sure. But about how trivial this is as a criticism of someone.

I mean really... "He is bad at a random game and thats why his opinions are invalid"?

Being bad at certain games for specific, simple reasons are certainly reason enough for people who have extensive knowledge of games in the same genre to decide that the person is not worth their time. If I were to be looking up criticism of Sonic Mania and I found someone who couldn't beat Green Hill Zone, for instance, I doubt I'd find anything worth hearing from that person on the subject of Sonic games generally or Sonic Mania specifically.

That, however, doesn't mean their opinion is entirely worthless. While I may not get any value from their experience, other people who are also bad at Sonic games or otherwise have little experience with them would likely find that the opinion of someone in a similar position would provide a much better evaluation for whether they would like the game or not. If someone who is bad at Sonic Mania or typically doesn't enjoy Sonic games still expresses joy and excitement while playing it, that might be an indication that it's a game to try even for those who normally avoid Sonic games; conversely, if they're frustrated or bored that might be a good indication that it won't be the game which convinces someone to love Sonic.

I dont mean to say there are not instances where one's ability to play a game does not help or hinder their opinion on...something, but it kinda has to be relevant to gaming ability.

When Arin from Game Grumps goes on about Game Design and how a game is flawed in its design...but never bothers to read anything in game, skips all cutscenes, and blames the game for his own failures, well, yeah, I tend to ignore his opinion things. That doesnt mean I think he is wrong about oh, sexism.

Whitbane:
As if there needed to be more evidence that gaming journalism isn't actually about skills in gaming but a big circle-jerking group of nepotistic weenies.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone make the claim that game journalism is about skills in gaming. The vast majority of games journalism is completely disconnected from actual skill in playing games. Jason Schreier's skills in games has nothing to do with his journalism of the behind the scenes story of Destiny.

The only aspect of games journalism that would actually involve any sort of skill would be reviews, and even then, saying its "about skills in gaming" is a stretch. Reveiws would require a basic level of competence only insofar as its expected for a reviewer to make it through the bulk of the game, and even then I don't expect them to have skills in every game or genre in existence. I know Totalbiscuit reviewing a puzzle game is going to be difficult as I've seen him spend 30 minutes failing at basic logic puzzles.

If games journalism was actually about skills in gaming it would probably be worse off than it is now, I find the writing and ability to argue a point to be much more useful, I would much rather have someone terrible at a game who can tell me what they thought worked or didn't work in written or spoken format and can conduct interviews and break stories through industry contacts, versus someone that is really good at games but can't articulate why they liked or disliked certain elements and sticks to just previews and reviews rather than actual journalism.

If we are talking actual failures in journalism, this guy's old Mass Effect review, even if it was just done for a local newspaper nearly a decade ago, was far worse since that was a mistake where he blamed the game for missing a mechanic rather than his own skill. A retraction was issued, but ultimately it was a case of actual bad journalism rather than just someone showcasing their lack of skills.

Also not sure where you are getting the nepotism angle from, the guy works for a tech magazine, he doesn't seem to have any family or friend connections that got him that job, he's fairly separated from the major games sites and doesn't seem to have any real connection to any of them.

Silvanus:
He was rubbish. He knew he was rubbish, thought people might find it funny, so posted the video. It was self-deprecating.

This kind of response-- mega-serious, questioning his credentials and slating his professionalism-- is exactly why people don't feel like they can be self-deprecating.

What a horrible reaction.

image

KaraFang:
My opinion has nothing to do with GG or anything like that. My opinion on this mess is:

"You wouldn't trust a review of a car from someone who doesn't have a driving licence." (John Bain)

The man should have least have some basic competence in playing games if he wishes to be a game journalist.

Same for if he was writing for cars, or tech review magazines. I'm sure we ALL here would be astonished if he reviewed the Ryzen threadripper for example and complained that it's MUCH larger that the I7, and he doesn't see what the big deal of more threads and cores is...

So, having basic competence in what you wish to comment on is a requirement, otherwise your opinion (whatever it is) means zip. If you're not good at a genre, then DON'T COMMENT ON IT!

I will point out that this is not the 1st time this guy has fucked up. He reviewed the original Mass Effect and gave it a negative review slating the combat.

Turns out his main problem? He didn't distribute his XP points for the characters, so they were all essentially "level 1" still... something that astonishes, considering ME1 clearly explains how this works during the tutorial portion of the game.

So, it's not just platformers for this guy, apparently it's RPG's as well. (sigh) What a prat.

As pointed out, the car quote is a false equivalence. Because a driver's liscence is meeded because you are bein entruated that the half a tonne hunk of metal and petrol your are now controling you are aware of the regulations amd have the basic skill not to kill yourself or anyone else (at least in theory). A game reviewer will at most give an opinion in a medium aboyt a game. That is quite a basic difference amd why there are no "gaming liscences" in place.

Also a false equivalence bacuase it assumes a lot about a car review. First of all that someone will buy a car to drive it. I have acquaintances that purchase old vehicles to remodel them never to drive and sell them at the end. So a review of an enthusiast without a driver liscence that has a a view about the avaibility of spare pieces, market prices and a bit of engineering might be far more valuavle to them than a review by Mark Webber about how the car handles.

I swear this criticism is so shallow it astonishes me. It comes from a point of view that only "gamers" that game (and of certain age) might want to read a review or that thier POV is the only ome necessary. A review by a "no skill" reviewer migjt appeal to casuals, children, parents or "bad gamers" and might be a good thing.

DarthCoercis:
and have never seen him "jump on a bandwagon"

He jumpped on this, he jumpped on the GG bandwagon (and is regretting it to this day), he jumps on any stupid internet shit he can find. He is a drama whore extraordinaire.

or seen him not know what he's talking about regarding video settings on a game.

Then you haven't been paying attention. He flat out admitted he did't have a clue beyond the basics in his Serious Sam 3 video

Are you projecting some kind of personal inadequacy here?

What are you even on about? Are you seriously trying to play the "your just jealous" celebrity defense?

I'm really sorry,

Don't be disingenuous

but nothing you've said seems to me to be anything beyond "i don't like this youtuber/weird internet thing and will spout nonsense because of it".

What I'm saying is Total Dipstick is just about the last person who should be trying to shit on someone for being bad at something tangentially related to their job, and it's clear from the things he says on the podcast that he has had beef with professional journalists for years.

Why is Gamergate even mentioned here? I cruise the internet a lot and I find that NeoGAF and The Escapist Forums are like, the last two places still bickering heavily about Gamergate. That and a few forced article mentions.

Other than that Gamergate is largely dead.

Edit: The fact that Dean can't even play the most primitive style of game outside of pong is pretty sad considering his job. Its like listening to a sportscast where the commentators don't know the rules of the game.

Imagine if instead of Joe Rogan, they had Amy Schumer announce MMA fights, and got mad at any legit concerns of her lack of knowledge on the fighters. "Oh yeah! George Saint Rampage kicked the other guy pretty hard!"

AzrealMaximillion:
Why is Gamergate even mentioned here?

Because here is one of the places that GG loves to thump it's chest like it's some industry Batman still lurking in the shadows in case us evil leftist/cultural marxist/feminist/ anti gaming activist and game journo employees dare to sully their hobby.

Smithnikov:

AzrealMaximillion:
Why is Gamergate even mentioned here?

Because here is one of the places that GG loves to thump it's chest like it's some industry Batman still lurking in the shadows in case us evil leftist/cultural marxist/feminist/ anti gaming activist and game journo employees dare to sully their hobby.

GG is barely "thumping its chest" in the grand scheme of things. I think people both GG and anti-GG giving themselves something to complain about. GG is largely not spoken about in earnest elsewhere besides NeoGAF these days.

Seems people here are in a very small bubble...

Four pages? It's not that hard.

A dude can't figure out how to jump over an obstacle 10 seconds into a tutorial (never mind the instructions are written FRONT AND CENTER), I wouldn't trust his opinion on platformers. And it's not that he can't beat the first level... it's that he can't beat the first level because he 1) keeps throwing himself at enemies, 2) keeps running on the same spot even though enemies continue spawning, 3) will shoot endlessly but stop as soon as he sees an enemy (for some reason), etc.

Lack of skill would be trying to do things right and failing. This guy doesn't even know right from wrong. He doesn't just lack skill, he lacks basic fucking comprehension.

Johnny Novgorod:
Four pages? It's not that hard.

A dude can't figure out how to jump over an obstacle 10 seconds into a tutorial (never mind the instructions are written FRONT AND CENTER), I wouldn't trust his opinion on platformers. And it's not that he can't beat the first level... it's that he can't beat the first level because he 1) keeps throwing himself at enemies, 2) keeps running on the same spot even though enemies continue spawning, 3) will shoot endlessly but stop as soon as he sees an enemy (for some reason), etc.

Lack of skill would be trying to do things right and failing. This guy doesn't even know right from wrong. He doesn't just lack skill, he lacks basic fucking comprehension.

So how does that translate into everyone that's anti-GG suddenly being Anti-GG because we lack skill?

major_chaos:
*snip*

Don't

major_chaos:
*snip*

Do

major_chaos:
*snip*

That.

major_chaos:
*snip*

It's

major_chaos:
*snip*

a

major_chaos:
*snip*

right

major_chaos:
*snip*

pain

major_chaos:
*snip*

in

major_chaos:
*snip*

the

major_chaos:
*snip*

bollocks

major_chaos:
*snip*

to

major_chaos:
*snip*

read

major_chaos:
*snip*

and

major_chaos:
*snip*

makes

major_chaos:
*snip*

you

major_chaos:
*snip*

look

major_chaos:
*snip*

like

major_chaos:
*snip*

you

major_chaos:
*snip*

can't

major_chaos:
*snip*

form

major_chaos:
*snip*

a

major_chaos:
*snip*

cohesive

major_chaos:
*snip*

response.

Guilion:

image

But... Dash is a lateral move, it doesn't affect the height of the jump, right? I understand there's a 'horses for courses' thing here, but I wouldn't wanna take buying advice from this guy. He's not going to experience a game the same way as me if he can't perform basic functions like this.

It's delightful that we're 3 years on and you guys are still being bitchy & bitter to each other about GG on a daily basis. I don't generally tell others how to live their lives, but maybe lighten up? This can't be good for you.

"This one guy I don't like is bad at games, so that validates my view that everyone on the opposite side of this issue wants to destroy gaming!"

There. Did I encapsulate this well enough?

The Rogue Wolf:
"This one guy I don't like is bad at games, so that validates my view that everyone on the opposite side of this issue wants to destroy gaming!"

There. Did I encapsulate this well enough?

Maybe throw in a few more hashtags and a personal dig at one of Gamergate's preferred punching bags like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian?

RaikuFA:
Gaming elitism at its finest.

Not really though? I get the criticism. This isn't some random schmuck, this is one of the people lots of people rely on to give an account on how they experienced the game and why exactly they like or dislike it. If that someone isn't able at all to play a certain game because they're extremely incompetent at it I'm not exactly sure whether what they'll say in that particular review will represent the game fairly.

So this isn't about his ability to play as such, it's about whether he can write a fair review without the ability to play the game in question. And I think there's good grounds to doubt the fairness and usefulness of his opinion on, in this case, platformers if he can't at all play platformers.

That doesn't say anything else about the rest of his career, of course. But apparently something similar happened with his Mass Effect review.

Johnny Novgorod:
Four pages? It's not that hard.

A dude can't figure out how to jump over an obstacle 10 seconds into a tutorial (never mind the instructions are written FRONT AND CENTER), I wouldn't trust his opinion on platformers. And it's not that he can't beat the first level... it's that he can't beat the first level because he 1) keeps throwing himself at enemies, 2) keeps running on the same spot even though enemies continue spawning, 3) will shoot endlessly but stop as soon as he sees an enemy (for some reason), etc.

Lack of skill would be trying to do things right and failing. This guy doesn't even know right from wrong. He doesn't just lack skill, he lacks basic fucking comprehension.

Yeah, dude did bad. Dude knew he did bad, which is why he uploaded a video saying "look how badly I face planted, come and have a laugh"

It's the dudes using this as some sort of serious attack on the first dude I just don't get.

Cowabungaa:

RaikuFA:
Gaming elitism at its finest.

Not really though? I get the criticism. This isn't some random schmuck, this is one of the people lots of people rely on to give an account on how they experienced the game and why exactly they like or dislike it. If that someone isn't able at all to play a certain game because they're extremely incompetent at it I'm not exactly sure whether what they'll say in that particular review will represent the game fairly.

So this isn't about his ability to play as such, it's about whether he can write a fair review without the ability to play the game in question. And I think there's good grounds to doubt the fairness and usefulness of his opinion on, in this case, platformers if he can't at all play platformers.

That doesn't say anything else about the rest of his career, of course. But apparently something similar happened with his Mass Effect review.

I am sorry that I have to make that connection (again), but this has nothing to do with "game journalism" and "journalistic integrity", it is an attack ad hominem because the reviewer has political ideas the OP didn't agree on. If he wasn't anti-gg, the whole "argument" wouldn't have been raised. On the other hand, it would have been similarly worded if the reviewer had problems beating Nashandra... The OP was kind enough to point that out on the first sentence of his post: "Proof why the most vocal anti gamergate hates the industry, because they suck at games..."

hermes:
I am sorry that I have to make that connection (again), but this has nothing to do with "game journalism" and "journalistic integrity", it is an attack ad hominem because the reviewer has political ideas the OP didn't agree on. If he wasn't anti-gg, the whole "argument" wouldn't have been raised. On the other hand, it would have been similarly worded if the reviewer had problems beating Nashandra... The OP was kind enough to point that out on the first sentence of his post: "Proof why the most vocal anti gamergate hates the industry, because they suck at games..."

Fuck if I know, dude. It's for a reason that I didn't wrote about that. This thread is the first in which I've seen that connection being made, but it's not the first time I've heard of this guy screwing up with games. I really don't care what OP has to say on that particular front because it's bullshit. Me not trusting the guy's review on Cuphead because he can't play it for shit has nothing to do with that.

CaitSeith:

Ogoid:

Smithnikov:

Not to mention this notion that our politics dictates our actual skill at games.

I'll accept shit from GamerGaters about my supposed lack of skill when they can beat, say, Bayou Billy on NES without a cheat. Which I have.

I think the concern here is more like "getting paid to authoritatively opine on games should mean you're at least marginally acquainted with playing the damn things".

The only place where he is remotely authoritative is in your head. No one is telling you to heed his opinions (much less to take them as gospel).

A lot of people do though. Or at least enough to somehow make this guy's opinions on games relevant. I've never heard of him myself. I thought he was the Ninja Gaiden dude at first glance of the last name, which would be more surprisingly relevant. *googles* nope that's Itagaki. I thought there was another Takahashi but maybe not.

This seems like a happy medium if redundancy and loading space ad nauseum is a concern.

The Rogue Wolf:
"This one guy I don't like is bad at games, so that validates my view that everyone on the opposite side of this issue wants to destroy gaming!"

There. Did I encapsulate this well enough?

Pretty concise, yea.

I wonder how different this thread would be if it were someone akin to TotalBiscuit failing this hard for 26 minutes at a tutorial.

So, having read this a response post this guy made about this situation, I am reminded of an issue I've been pondering for a while. So, in part of his response he said that most games nowadays don't have tutorials and by making a game which requires a tutorial to be understood before play you're de-facto not making a game with as wide an appeal as you could.

I never understood that line of reasoning. At which point do we want for games to be appealing for being games and when is it too far where a game has become a tv show or a movie in the goal of this maximum appeal.

I think that it is fine for games not appealing to non-gamers, because games are games, and we are NOT going to change the games, what will change is the PEOPLE who will want to get into them and like them. Mutating games into a pseudo-game-state just so that the appeal will be wider is not good for games, only good for the profits of corporations, because the thing that will be raking all those profits in won't be a game any more.

Games have difficulty, some are harder than others, and most of them DO entail a tutorial, just in some cases it's in the form of the first stage and supplemented with a lot of hand-holding throughout. I am not sure if he was actually unaware of that fact or is generally oblivious.

Cowabungaa:

hermes:
I am sorry that I have to make that connection (again), but this has nothing to do with "game journalism" and "journalistic integrity", it is an attack ad hominem because the reviewer has political ideas the OP didn't agree on. If he wasn't anti-gg, the whole "argument" wouldn't have been raised. On the other hand, it would have been similarly worded if the reviewer had problems beating Nashandra... The OP was kind enough to point that out on the first sentence of his post: "Proof why the most vocal anti gamergate hates the industry, because they suck at games..."

Fuck if I know, dude. It's for a reason that I didn't wrote about that. This thread is the first in which I've seen that connection being made, but it's not the first time I've heard of this guy screwing up with games. I really don't care what OP has to say on that particular front because it's bullshit. Me not trusting the guy's review on Cuphead because he can't play it for shit has nothing to do with that.

Which is the main problem with everything GG uses to justify their position... by association, it muddies the waters for the argument.

If one were to argue about the need to disclaim relevant contextual information, the subjectivity of some reviewers that are personally close to publishers/producers, how the skills of the reviewer affects his experiences with the game, or how much value we give to certain benchmarks (like completing a game) to consider someone's opinion, which are interesting conversations to be had (especially at a time when the only thing you need to became a reviewer is a copy of the game and a soapbox)... but then someone gets transparent than their opinions are politically motivated and says "this is because GG/SJW/feminists are ruining gaming", and I immediately get turned off.

DarthCoercis:
snip

*rolleyes* If your post can't handle me stripping out the fluff and addressing it point by point for the sake of clarity then you aren't worth responding to. You do you.

It's amazing that they uploaded such low-quality footage to their channel (and kept it up) but it's even more amazing that people are legitimately pissed off that some Literally Who that writes for a tech site that doesn't even specifically cover video games is bad at a game, or that people are somehow using his shittiness at this game as some kind of political point.

Actual white supremacy: It's just free speech, brah!

Kind of shit at a game: NAIL HIM TO THE CROSS.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here