Easy Allies |OT| The New Era

Bloodworth said:

heh, I guess that's a clear point of disagreement then as I just used NFS as an example in this thread as to why I feel the scoring range is appropriate. It still has its enjoyable parts despite all the mess, and it's more than technically competent. There's no good reason to give that less than 2 stars.

It's not the full story but I do think an emotional barometer really helps make more sense of this. A 10 is something absolutely enthralling, an amazing amount of fun, something you'll never forget. The games on the low end of the scale on the opposite side of that aren't just "not fun," they're infuriating, mentally painful, or completely unacceptable in every aspect. Then the 5 in the middle is either a weird mix of both sides or something so flat that you don't have any emotion either way.

And yeah, I'm going to go back to "you don't know how bad games can get" every time because I have had to suffer through and review those games. There are many, many racing games worse than Need for Speed Payback.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I agree with your points but not the conclusion you draw. To me, the "infuriating, mentally painful or completely unacceptable" fail as games and should all be lumped to the lowest possible score. There are too many bad games out there and to try to make room for all of them on a /10 scale of badness just isn't tenable.

If a game fails in any of the fundamental aspects of making a remotely enjoyable experience, whether thats currently considered a 5/10 or a 1/10 is functionally meaningless in today's scene.

UnnecessaryTodd said:

I agree with your points but not the conclusion you draw. To me, the "infuriating, mentally painful or completely unacceptable" fail as games and should all be lumped to the lowest possible score. There are too many bad games out there and to try to make room for all of them on a /10 scale of badness just isn't tenable.

If a game fails in any of the fundamental aspects of making a remotely enjoyable experience, whether thats currently considered a 5/10 or a 1/10 is functionally meaningless in today's scene.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's not very nuanced then. Some of those games are worse than others, even though they are all more or less unplayable, some can have more redeeming qualities than others. If you want examples of those types of games, search for asset flip on youtube or search on steam for games with a bad score.

Many of them are indeed a 1 and should not maybe not be even called games, but some of the games in that range can be very bad, but less unplayable. I know those are all games that nobody should ever buy, but the problem with having one pile of games which are called "skip" or "avoid" is that it will do disservice to games which are not good enough to play, but are not 100% crap like a lot of those bad steam games. For example, Horse Racing 2016 is a game that never should have been allowed on PSN, but I think it is a better game then Fidget Spinner Simulator for example (they apparently removed it from steam). At least you can play through Horse Racing 2016 and have you an objective. Sure, it is a crappy game and should not get over 2/10, but it is certainly better than a lot of Steams crappiest "games".

Btw, I don't think EZA should make time for reviewing that type of crappy games, but I just wanted to say that even in the bad range of games, there is still a difference in how bad some of those games are. It's just that those are the type of games most people will not review (and it is impossible with the amount of steam games that come out every day), so that side of the scale is obviously less used.

Edit:
I guess you can argue that those worst "games" (the ones from "devs" who release 20 games in one day) are not worthy being on a scale all together and should be scored 0/10 and then comes the somewhat working games like Horse Racing 2016 which then gets a 1/10, but yeah.

Also, while I haven't played NFS Payback or Horse Racing 2016 (I have seen the EZA groupstream of that one), you can't possibly say Horse Racing 2016 is of the same quality as NFS Payback is.

Have they discussed their growth strategy at all? Most of their content I find boring, other than the reviews and the weekly podcast. The rest of their content is aimed at sustaining their current audience rather than growing it.

The notion of needing a large scale for the sake of "worst games" and "little less worse but still garbage"-tier games that probably won't be reviewed anyway seems a little bit silly to me.

But then again, since I am an advocate of "feelings"-style critical analysis over technical product reviews, this discussion probably passes me by anyway.

Karu said:

The notion of needing a large scale for the sake of "worst games" and "little less worse but still garbage"-tier games that probably won't be reviewed anyway seems a little bit silly to me.

But then again, since I am an advocate of "feelings"-style critical analysis over technical product reviews, this discussion probably passes me by anyway.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Sure, I can see that. The problem is that if you add a score to a review, this will more or less happen anyway. You can create you own scale which says 1 -> don't buy (which has the really bad games), 2 -> underperformer, 3 -> average, 4 -> good, 5 -> fantastic (or something in that sense), but most people will translate that 3 out of your scale to a 6/10 and that for most people this means it's bad even though you don't mean it like that in your scale.

Imo a review should have both technical analysis and how well you like the game, but that's preference.

I wouldn't mind a review system without scores in general, but then again, for me the scores and scoring system doesn't matter that much. It's just that if you do use a score, it should be clear for most people what you think of the game by looking at that score (although they should listen to/read the review imo, a lot of people don't, so you need to try to adapt to that fact imo).

Someone needs to gif that bit in the latest group stream when Ben tries to take the skittles of Ian, hilarious

SprachBrooks said:

Have they discussed their growth strategy at all? Most of their content I find boring, other than the reviews and the weekly podcast. The rest of their content is aimed at sustaining their current audience rather than growing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

it's kind of an egg and chiken problem, if you wanna grow and produce more content you'll want to have a studio where they meet everyday, but patreon never reached the studio tier. now i obviously don't know how expensive would it be on a monthly base and if they can find one in a convenient position for everyone

Master Alucard said:

it's kind of an egg and chiken problem, if you wanna grow and produce more content you'll want to have a studio where they meet everyday, but patreon never reached the studio tier. now i obviously don't know how expensive would it be on a monthly base and if they can find one in a convenient position for everyone

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That studio tier was always a pipe dream in my opinion. I guess if they're okay remaining at the current level because it affords them a certain amount of freedom then I don't see a problem with it. Nothing worse than seeing something stagnate though.

Tbh, I hope they pull back on the anniversary stuff next year or something, I feel like it messes the schedule too much (even more last year, with E3 and the insanity that was October). Having newer/consistent content any one can watch for a whole year triumphs celebrating once or twice. But just once or twice :)

WarRock said:

Tbh, I hope they pull back on the anniversary stuff next year or something, I feel like it messes the schedule too much (even more last year, with E3 and the insanity that was October). Having newer/consistent content any one can watch for a whole year triumphs celebrating once or twice. But just once or twice :)

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And also that anniversary thing was...okay, compared to the rest of what they put out.

I actually loved it, but it definitely was more of a "you had to be there" thing than good recorded content.

WarRock said:

I actually loved it, but it definitely was more of a "you had to be there" thing than good recorded content.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That might be it

sora87 said:

Someone needs to gif that bit in the latest group stream when Ben tries to take the skittles of Ian, hilarious

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Are these the parts that you're talking about? Haha, I found two different spots where Ben takes some of the skittles while Ian had them lol.

MrMette said:

Sure, I can see that. The problem is that if you add a score to a review, this will more or less happen anyway. You can create you own scale which says 1 -> don't buy (which has the really bad games), 2 -> underperformer, 3 -> average, 4 -> good, 5 -> fantastic (or something in that sense), but most people will translate that 3 out of your scale to a 6/10 and that for most people this means it's bad even though you don't mean it like that in your scale.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

My experience has been different, although we went all-in on the feeling scale with no numbers at all (which I think is what the person you quoted was suggesting). Sure, there will always be a few idiots arguing about what numbers the "scores" translate to, but the fact that they can never seem to agree makes me happy.

It probably helps that we never published the full scale (there was no need to since it's not an actual ranking, and also so that we can add or change them if we need to) and we don't give a shit about not being on Metacritic. We are on OpenCritic, which let's you opt out of number conversions.

Fantomas said:

Are these the parts that you're talking about? Haha, I found two different spots where Ben takes some of the skittles while Ian had them lol.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hahahaha amazing. I love that he's almost astonished at first that Ben's taking them.
Also I really wanna get a pack that big of tropical skittles..

Finally got around to watching EZUpdate #100. Loved the song. <3

AndreGX said:

My experience has been different, although we went all-in on the feeling scale with no numbers at all (which I think is what the person you quoted was suggesting). Sure, there will always be a few idiots arguing about what numbers the "scores" translate to, but the fact that they can never seem to agree makes me happy.

It probably helps that we never published the full scale (there was no need to since it's not an actual ranking, and also so that we can add or change them if we need to) and we don't give a shit about not being on Metacritic. We are on OpenCritic, which let's you opt out of number conversions.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ok, I didn't understand that the "feeling scale" was no score at all. I personally don't have a problem with having no score on a review. It's best to read or listen to the review anyway even if it has a score (although I am sometimes guilty of only reading the conclusion/score on some websites as well, I never only check out a score by itself).

I do check out metacritic/opencritic as well, but more to get an overview of what the industry as a whole is thinking of a game (and on metacritic to have an idea what users are thinking although you can quickly see if it is worth to have a look at that score or not). There is always a chance I will have a look to buying a game that looks interesting to me as long as the game doesn't get insanely bad scores from almost everybody.

So while I do think having no score is a good way to review a videogame (and I applaud that some youtube channels/websites do this), I suspect that having a score on sites like opencritic and metacritic will help you get new viewers/readers a bit more easily than having no score at all (but I am glad to hear not everybody in the industry cares about that to the extreme).
I will have a look at one of your reviews to see how you do it.

I am liking Huber on this Kinda Funny podcast, but man Tim Gettys swears a lot. I have nothing against swearing, I do it all the fucking time, but it feels very unprofessional to me.

Fou-Lu said:

I am liking Huber on this Kinda Funny podcast, but man Tim Gettys swears a lot. I have nothing against swearing, I do it all the fucking time, but it feels very unprofessional to me.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I feel like such a grump for feeling this way in general about modern games journalism, but I completely agree. The swearing bothers me. In normal life whatever. It's not my bag, but I won't begrudge you for doing it. But in a professional capacity? Way more not my bag.

Fou-Lu said:

I have nothing against swearing, I do it all the fucking time

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Lol noice.

Yeah I'm also not a fan of people swearing in podcasts. And in real life too I guess. When talking to someone in person, I may swear for like comedic effect or something like that but otherwise even to emphasize a point I won't do it.

I also swear all the time and dislike hearing swearing in podcasts and whatnot. It can be funny if used now and again but if it's constant then it's just irritating.

Also Americans are just not very good at swearing.

Never had a problem with the swearing on kinda funny. It's actually pretty funny watching one of their jackbox streams compared to EZA's haha

Don Draper's Hat said:

Also Americans are just not very good at swearing.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

American here, can confirm British are much cooler. I like "bloody" way more than "fucking".
(And like I said earlier in this thread, I love "come off it" though I don't know if that's swearing)

The swearing thing is funny to me since they sweared all the time when they were GT. I didn't watch GT until after the fact but I miss the swearing personally. If you want to swear just do it. Don't act like a 14 year old cussing all the time but don't act like a 7 year old either like your going to get scolded for saying shit.

I think they had a better vibe when they were willing to swear because it feels more natural. As much as I loved damiani saying "I don't wanna get my butt whiped!" sometimes it comes off as weird when they are stumbling over there words to try to not swear.

A lot of gaming outlets are about building a community and being Mr Buttoned Up Professional isn't really the easiest way to do that

I don't mind people swearing as I do swear a lot as well.
That said, it depends on what format it is. Some youtubers have a habit to swear a lot and I am used to it and don't really care.

But I would find it strange to hear if people at EZA started to do that regularly for some reason. Probably because I am not used to it.

I guess it also depends on the context, but I can't really find a good example, so I guess I just don't care too much.

edit:
I have to agree it can come over as unprofessional. eg. while I laughed a bit with Josef Faris on the game awards, I do think he went overboard (he also looked drugged up, but yeah) and it started to bother me and I felt bad for Keighley (I guess that's a good example).

Servbot24 said:

A lot of gaming outlets are about building a community and being Mr Buttoned Up Professional isn't really the easiest way to do that

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Cause "swearing = genuine" right?

Like I said I'm not a fan of it, though I also don't have anything against it. But it's not like someone feels fake until they swear.

Whether you swear or not, I don't care, just be yourself. Saying sorry everytime you let off a "fuck" or whatever gets annoying tho. But alas, Michael "CFF" Huber's doing alright. :D

sora87 said:

Never had a problem with the swearing on kinda funny. It's actually pretty funny watching one of their jackbox streams compared to EZA's haha

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is so true, it feels like half of the allies actually dont answer how they want to in most of those games.

SprachBrooks said:

That studio tier was always a pipe dream in my opinion. I guess if they're okay remaining at the current level because it affords them a certain amount of freedom then I don't see a problem with it. Nothing worse than seeing something stagnate though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If they're serious about the studio, they need to actually give details on what this means. Tell us what they have in mind, the kind of space they want, and more importantly what it would mean for their content. Be precise.

As it stands the studio is just a nebulous dream that barely means anything. This is year 3, this is the year where they need to decide wether they're fine with the way things are or if they want to actually pursue something bigger with a concrete plan laid out for the patrons.

Charamiwa said:

If they're serious about the studio, they need to actually give details on what this means. Tell us what they have in mind, the kind of space they want, and more importantly what it would mean for their content. Be precise.

As it stands the studio is just a nebulous dream that barely means anything. This is year 3, this is the year where they need to decide wether they're fine with the way things are or if they want to actually pursue something bigger with a concrete plan laid out for the patrons.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well said.

MrMette said:

That's not very nuanced then *snip*

but I just wanted to say that even in the bad range of games, there is still a difference in how bad some of those games are. It's just that those are the type of games most people will not review (and it is impossible with the amount of steam games that come out every day), so that side of the scale is obviously less used. I guess you can argue that those worst "games" (the ones from "devs" who release 20 games in one day) are not worthy being on a scale all together and should be scored 0/10 and then comes the somewhat working games like Horse Racing 2016 which then gets a 1/10, but yeah.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, all it does is move the nuance from the bottom of the scale to the top of the scale. By limiting "good" games to 8/9/10 we're putting all this wasted effort into categorizing exactly how bad all the remaining games are. It seems counter-intuitive particularly as how many have said we have many more far better games today than we've ever had.

SprachBrooks said:

Have they discussed their growth strategy at all? Most of their content I find boring, other than the reviews and the weekly podcast. The rest of their content is aimed at sustaining their current audience rather than growing it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I hate to say it but I kind of agree. I don't play a lot of the same games, such as monster hunter, a lot of JRPG's or fighting games and I don't watch anime. So that right there knocks out a lot of content. I've tried to get into the streams and shows that revolve around those types of things but it just hasn't grabbed me.

The podcast, sometimes frame trap, the reviews, sometimes the Bosman streams depending on what he's playing (or Ben if it's paper mario), sometimes Easy Update and group streams depending on what they play are kind of my jam with Easy Allies.

Can't wait for Box Peak! I know this has been said before and debated a bunch, but man I would love it if Bosman had another commentary show. Sigh.

Loved Kinda Funny Gamescast with Huber. Both some of my favourite guys in this industry finally doing content together.

What happened to Ezanime?

Fuchsia said:

Box Peak

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yo where did that news leak

Xenoboy said:

What happened to Ezanime?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I swear I asked myself the same question yesterday. I don't know if we got one this month or last and it just wasn't an anime I'd seen but I feel like it's been a long time.

AndreGX said:

It probably helps that we never published the full scale (there was no need to since it's not an actual ranking, and also so that we can add or change them if we need to) and we don't give a shit about not being on Metacritic. We are on OpenCritic, which let's you opt out of number conversions.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This actually will make me look forward to GameXplain reviews from now on.

Xenoboy said:

What happened to Ezanime?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hellsing Ultimate was in January, and they hinted at the next one being Dragonball Super or Devilman Crybaby. I expect it can't be too far away

Silfer said:

Cause "swearing = genuine" right?

Like I said I'm not a fan of it, though I also don't have anything against it. But it's not like someone feels fake until they swear.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, to little gamer kids it probably is.

I am basically the perfect target for EZA content, the games they play, the things they watch and what they talk about is all of interest to me. They will probably never lose me as a patron. Despite that I do agree that they would do well to have an open discussion of their future plans, growth and the possibility of a studio.

Silfer said:

Yo where did that news leak


I swear I asked myself the same question yesterday. I don't know if we got one this month or last and it just wasn't an anime I'd seen but I feel like it's been a long time.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Idk of any news. Just saying I can't wait for its eventual release!

Servbot24 said:

I mean, to little gamer kids it probably is.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

...Know what? I can't even say anything other than you're right. When you read YT comments, you know kids nowadays like their free-flying swear words.

UnnecessaryTodd said:

I mean, all it does is move the nuance from the bottom of the scale to the top of the scale. By limiting "good" games to 8/9/10 we're putting all this wasted effort into categorizing exactly how bad all the remaining games are. It seems counter-intuitive particularly as how many have said we have many more far better games today than we've ever had.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I totally agree that this wouldn't be good either. I don't see why a game that gets 6 or 7/10 can't be a fun game to play. I can't think of a good example, but I know I have enjoyed games that didn't get "good" scores.

I don't agree that we have more good games than ever before relatively speaking if you see how much crap is on steam. I want to say we get the same amount of (or more) crappy games nowadays (relatively speaking) then there were in the 80s with the game crash. It's insane how many games release on steam each day:https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-games-released-2017, and most of it is probably crap.

That said, I do agree that there are more good games these days (in numbers) than we ever had and there are too many good games to review (there are just a lot more games releasing nowadays than ever before). I don't think changing the scale is going to help for that problem as the whole industry should shift it's scale for that to work well.
But I understand where you are coming from, I just think a "normal" 1-10 scale is the easiest for a random person to understand. I liked the star system as well as it said clearly what the stars meant, but yeah.

I see pros and cons for all systems discussed here to be honest.

I have recently dropped my patreon, i'm way to frustrated with their content output. I will watch the podcast when it comes out on friday and the E3 stuff. I really want them to grow but i don't see it happening.

MrMette said:

That said, I do agree that there are more good games these days (in numbers) than we ever had and there are too many good games to review (there are just a lot more games releasing nowadays than ever before)...
I don't think changing the scale is going to help for that problem as the whole industry should shift it's scale for that to work well.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's what I meant. We have more good games. Not percentage wise but in quantity.

The latter was my exact point in the "How do we fix the review score system".

Dipro said:

I have recently dropped my patreon, i'm way to frustrated with their content output. I will watch the podcast when it comes out on friday and the E3 stuff. I really want them to grow but i don't see it happening.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not trying to convince you otherwise and I am sorry to hear you are frustrated, but what exactly had you hoped/expected to see them do apart from what they are doing? Their schedule seems quite full to me as far as content goes.
Or do you mean the big gaps between retrospecives, game sleuth and stuff like that? I am not sure what else they can do to grow except for maybe trying to get on to a few other bigger channels podcasts or something similar.

I guess something like Box Peak can make them grow if it's good and it gets traction outside of the EZA fanbase.

The Souls Retro is really the only time they seriously dropped the ball as far as I can recall.

Yo it's not "Box Peak" y'all. That's like, endgame stuff. Or Season two.

EZA's greatest strength is the variety of content. There's something for everybody. Not everything can or should be for everyone.

Fou-Lu said:

I am basically the perfect target for EZA content, the games they play, the things they watch and what they talk about is all of interest to me. They will probably never lose me as a patron. Despite that I do agree that they would do well to have an open discussion of their future plans, growth and the possibility of a studio.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Saaame.

I'm wondering if the Patreon is in for another restructure, big or small, purely based off of last year's anniversary & what came out of that (Friend Code, Reaction Shots, etc).