-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Dunkey - Game Critics (Part 2) - It's actually about the gaming community
- Thread starter gitrektali
- Start date
His Octopath, Xenoblade 2, and Splatoon 2 reviews all seemed faulty and had multiple things I feel like were cherry-picked to not give the full picture of the game, and its things like that about Dunkey that bother me. He's entitled to make a review and even not like it, but sometimes he does get things wrong or sometimes seemingly tries to present games at their worst, and I didn't really care much for that approach. A ton of games have repetitive voice lines, or have occasional bugs or whatever, but when you zone in on those things and make your reviews 70+% of that, it kinda doesn't even feel like a review anymore to me.
I'm a fan of the genre, beat both of those games and dunkey's critiques of them are valid. The distinction for fan's of the genre is whether or not those problems prevent you from enjoying the overall package, not that they don't exist. I liked both of those games, but they both are flawed. It didn't stop me from loving XB2, warts and all (OT is another story).
Edit:
Exactly! He is honest about his distaste for the genre, which gives him tremendous credibility when he actually praises a jrpg. He also really enjoyed Earthbound, as another example.
I can't remember if the XB2 video was a dunkview or not. Dunkviews tend to be serious while other reviews play up the game issues for comedy's sake. This is the one thing I think is a valid criticism of dunkey's review style. Only because he spends half his time in a comedy persona, it makes it tough to understand when he is being sincere and when he is joking around (like saying Reggie developed Mario 64).
Last edited:
Reading through this thread and I'm honestly surprised to find out that, like, people take Dunkey's reviews seriously? Dude's shit on games I like plenty of times but I watch for the comedy, isn't that the point?
His serious reviews are different from his joke videos as far as criticism goes. Mostly.
This is still my favorite article about Dunkey on Kotaku lmao
Even Dunkey likes Final Fantasy XV - by Jason Schreier
People were livid when Dunkey hoped that VII Remake was more like FFXV and less like Kingdom Hearts III lol. Especially after his review of KH3.
Even Dunkey likes Final Fantasy XV - by Jason Schreier
People were livid when Dunkey hoped that VII Remake was more like FFXV and less like Kingdom Hearts III lol. Especially after his review of KH3.
He has serious reviews? Legit question, cause I assume he's always in character.
That's probably for the best.
(Although Super Mario Bros. 2 is the greatest game of all time)
Watch his review of Super Mario 64. He completely captures what makes that game so special even compared to today's games. He has a light-hearted tone but it is a completely straight-faced review (and also really well done, in my opinion).
Noticed that too. It took me like 5 seconds to remember what it was from.
Dunkey knows what's good.
I feel maybe he would've run out of stuff to say if all he ever intended was purely comedy.
Lol what is this thread. He has opinions that sometimes don't line up with yours. It's okay. There is a good chance I don't like something you like or even love. It's okay. You don't love everything I do either. No ones opinion is wrong. Dunkey doesn't have to like the game/s you like and you don't have to like the games he loves. It's okay for him to say he doesn't like a game and for you to do the same.
one of my college roommates got offended when I said I really liked Lego Movie and then said "it was like an 8 out of 10"
By any chance, do you go by youtube using the username "Animal Jayson"?
That's more because there was so much garbage in the 80's/90's, that the whole scale HAD to be used. I think a lot of modern day gamers don't understand that for a game to even be playable from start to finish without some game breaking bug that would never get patched was an accomplishment. Let alone any cohesion with the game mechanics at all, every game having brand new controls that you'd have to suffer with, lack of support or any progression systems. ect. ect. We all remember the very few exceptional titles that were the cream of the crop, but it wasn't the entire picture.Well to be honest, who doesn't know this already, I mean seriously.
Edit, Everybody knows this image and it still holds true.
So we definitely still have that metric of; if a game is actually playable and functional it is at least a 6/10. It just so happens that most games out now are very much playable and generally well polished. These are not films that can be viewed objectively, there are still a lot of miraculous systems that have to work together to even function AS a game.
I feel like we should probably put this in every review thread going forward
This is a good point. Between the big three of the 16-bit era (Super Nintendo/Sega Genesis/Turbografx-16), around 1600 games were put out in the USA. I'd guesstimate that about half of them are complete junk. The true classics that people come back to again and again? Eh..there's maybe 200 or so. Anyway, since there was plenty of time and not that many games, gaming magazines of the time covered most everything, even the junk.
These days we're also seeing a LOT MORE games. Last year, over 9,000 were released on Steam.
However, in most cases, only a handful of them actually get reviewed. Since reviewers have so many options available, they tend to gravitate towards the "sure-things", such as AAA titles and indies with a lot of buzz. The chances of a reviewer having to review a piece of crap are slim to none.