Haven't posted here in awhile but tuned in for the awards and wanted to just leave some thoughts with the intention of hopefully being constructive.
Overall I enjoyed the format. The virtual setting was fun and the work down from 100 to the top 10 was a good conversation. Just a few things caught my attention that we're kinda a bummer to listen to though.
It's a shame there seemed to be some games just not mentioned at all? Like for example I didn't see metal hellsinger show up at all and monster hunter was mentioned but didn't even get added to the list to be discussed because everyone got excited about having an even 100. It's a long list of games so it's understandable, but feels like a space for improvement to make sure things don't get unintentionally ditched without conversation.
I really didn't enjoy that one particular game wasn't allowed to be discussed. That seems to be against the spirit of this process. If something has value that's worth mentioning it should be allowed to be highlighted for those positives, which clearly to at least a couple people it did have merit. I don't even really care about the game myself but it seems like a bad precedent to bar things from conversation just for one individuals dislike of it. Let people say what they liked about it and then cut it. As a listener I didn't get to learn anything about it other than the fact that someone really hated it which is not what I listen to this for.
Going forward it seems like there should be a rule to lock in votes after people start revealing their votes to prevent people from swapping their votes around as results are tallying. It seems like a flaw in the process that you can observe how you can influence the results and then change your votes. It gives an ability for people submitting later to influence where games land by swapping things around more than those submitting early. You might see your top game doing great and then swap in a more niche pick to make sure it lands in the list for example because your top doesn't need as much support. Even if they don't intend to it's extra info that shouldn't influence the voting process in my opinion. Especially if it's not info that everyone gets to benefit from (those voting first). I don't think it made a huge difference this year but as an observer it sounded like it happened based on at at least one or two people during the voting process and didn't seem fair to anyone who submitted earlier even if it's still all in good fun. Not a deal breaker on the voting but for future proofing the process it seems like something that should be prevented before it becomes a problem in a tighter race.
Finally, I didn't really enjoy the lack of interest in discussing games that you knew were going to be in the top 20. Elden ring won but barely anyone said more than a sentence or two about it. Again, this seems like it should be a process of highlighting the value of a game if it's worth being on the list and that didn't come across for the winner other than of course everyone knows it's good. I don't really care if you discussed it on release or if everyone else is already praising it, I'm listening to this to hear what you all think about a game right now at the end of the year in retrospect. Just because it might all continue to be praise doesn't mean that isn't interesting to listen to. If that's the attitude toward discussing the best games of the year then that just encourages me to go listen to those other sources that do discuss games regardless of how much they've already been praised instead of listening here. It was a weird feel to have the winner just not chatted about much at all.
Can't say I'm super into it. Parodying something that's unintentionally annoying runs the risk of just creating something that's intentionally annoying which is almost just as bad. And I worry this is veering a little too close to that. I'd be curious to see where it goes, but this episode on its own isn't interesting to me. Maybe it'll prove me wrong as it goes.
@sammo21: I don't feel like it's that baffling. I've never heard Jeff claim to be an expert or a reader of the source material so inconsistencies wouldn't necessarily stand out to him. He's also only played Wulfgar and offline until this video. So starting out "it's not great but you could play it" and ending up "I don't want to play this anymore" is not that surprising.
@av_gamer: Is the 5-6 year gap between 3 and elden ring really over doing it? Sekiro was 2 years ago (almost 3 by the time elden ring is out) but for many it didn't scratch quite the same itch. It's not like they're an annual franchise that never tries anything new.
@bobtoad1: I think the experience varies wildly depending on what choices and conflicts you cared most about. Tuchanka and Rannoch are great but things like the Rachni Queen, Cerberus, the council, many squad members from 2, and a number of other things just end up getting tossed by the way side with a brief side mission or racked up as readiness points. Readiness points which aren't reflected all that well in the final mission at all really considering what participation allies have in the mission is largely off screen.
I still like ME and can still enjoy it, but I can see where Jeff is coming from and I don't think his issues with it would seem lesser to him today. Some things would probably be worse to be honest like the turret rail sequence and a few other "AAA action" sequences that every game back then did at the time.
Loved the content this year. Great work by everyone all around and the discussion (when it got more into debate) did not feel draining to listen to as a bystander. Felt like everyone was willing to hear people out on both positives and negatives and didn't overly focus on dismissing games out of hand. Especially enjoyed how well Jan fit into the discussions while also taking care of the live show aspect.
My only critique would be the this doesn't hang award was a bit confusing conceptually. If it's games that couldn't hang in the top 10 then there's a whole 15 games that didn't hang in the 10 here that didn't get to be up for discussion in the award about not hanging in the top 10. I get it's kind of a joke award so it's not a big deal though.
@shiro2809: Even in that context I can kinda understand the noodles thing being a weird disconnect that takes some extra notice on the players part. I feel like in the states (or at least where I am) eating dishes with noodles is such a common thing that the idea of making a statement of "never seen you eat noodles before" just comes off as kind of weird. Guy has never enjoyed some spaghetti, cheap ramen bowl, or panda express-esque chinese dish before? Even when home cooking making stuff with noodles is like a staple around here because it's so cheap and easy to cook up. Of all the dishes I'd envision someone who's low on cash trying to make it in the world eating...cheap noodles is pretty high up there.
I think their point on it was just that in cities noodles are so easily available, cheap, and generally flexible/inoffensive to people's tastes that it's a weird food to choose for the scene. It's the same reaction I'd have if they had made it about chicken tenders and fries being unusual for him. Might have landed a bit better if it was like a sushi or something that people actually get kind of squeemish or picky about if they've never had it before.
@av_gamer: Seems kind of ambitious to trust metacritic scores over open discussion about the game imo. Track records lean far more heavily toward general critic scores overblowing a games quality in my opinion. And it's not like CDPR is on that much of a winning streak. They released the Witcher 3, but if time has told us anything it's that no developer in infallible. Witcher 2 was a good game within the genre but nowhere near as defining of a game and it took an overhaul to fix in the enhanced edition. Witcher 1 was good but again not that amazing. Fans seem to act like one game sets a track record of outstanding success for CDPR when in general they typically make decent to good rpgs that require a lot of fixes to be in it's best state. Which is lining up with what the guys here are describing.
From the sounds of it, the team does understand what people enjoy about the Witcher despite it not being as impactful for them. And they've pretty clearly said that so far they haven't found those same things people look for in the Witcher in this game. The "there's no bloody baron here" is pretty much the most telling sentence I've heard about the game so far. Seems best to temper our expectations at cyberpunk being the on the same level as the Witcher. Especially with all the talk of how generic and interchangeable the side mission interactions are sounding by the guys' descriptions. We'll see I suppose though.
Also correct me if I'm wrong didn't Vinny play the Witcher the following year after it's release and mention it during their games of the previous year that didn't get enough talk the year before award? Not sure where this story of "oh they hate the Witcher" comes from. Brad and Vinny liked it. Brad didn't finish it but pretty sure Vinny did. The team almost fully agreed that the bloody baron was one of the best story moments of the release year. Jeff is really the main one that couldn't get past the gameplay issues he had with it, but he typically holds gameplay annoyances more strictly in deciding to play a game.
Feels like people are remembering that nobody finished it for the goty awards and didn't make it number one and are assuming everyone on the team dislikes it.
I love the Witcher series, but as someone who has played the Witcher games on launch, I've found that CDPR games are best experienced after launch. They always have bugs. They always have odds and ends issues mixed in with a few gameplay annoyances. And they usually do a big patch or series of patches that smooth some of these things out. See the enhanced edition of Witcher 2 or the series of patches they did for Witcher 3 when they were releasing DLC.
Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games of all time, but I just keep reminding myself that it's not because it was an amazing launch experience.
I expect this game will shape up to be something pretty great after awhile, but I think the reality of CDPRs track record is going to be a rude awakening for some people on launch day. Their marketing is way overblown and people who are going along with it seem to think this is going to redefine rpgs just because the maker of the Witcher video game is making it.
Just want to thank Jeff and Jeff for the solid conversation to listen to. It was nice to hear something that wasn't in the context of a written review.
@ik2k3: I don't think their criticism of the isle in the game was because they didn't think it actually exists. Felt more like doubt that the game handles it well based on their opinion of the humor they've seen in game.
I got more of a oh of course they went for that low hanging fruit of a joke rather than oh of course they made something like that up.
MezZa's comments