Ranting About Why I Like Matthewmatosis Over Joseph Anderson

[@DozyBinsh]

Joseph Anderson does not have a sexy Irish accent, check and mate.

[@isthisajojoreference]

GoneZombie no he has a sexy Canadian accent

[@ChaseFace]

Is this a J o J o r e f e r e n c e ! ? ! ? He sounds like a teenager that’s mumbling into his blue yeti and trying not to wake up his parents.

[@ChaseFace]

Is this a J o J o r e f e r e n c e ! ? ! ? I don’t sound like that even remotely! ;)

[@heitorbatista5392]

My only problem with Joseph is his almost fetish level of giving examples. I know he is trying to give a point, but I think he goes way overboard and is the main reason why his videos are long. With Matthew, while I believe he is the best when it comes to explaining mechanics, I rarely see him talk about presentation in much depth. Same with game stories. For me, Joseph seems really more open to analyze the latter than Matthew. I understand however that Matthew’s tastes are almost always towards mechanic intense games with bare minimum presentation and his past new videos seem much more willing to try this angle. In a way, I think they complement each other very well.

[@rat4992]

Heitor Batista underrated comment

[@JKSmith-qs2ii]

To be fair Joseph probably looks at story more and less about mechanics because he is a subpar writer. It's more his "field".

[@Klayton_Nivel]

Joseph basically made his version of "objctively good doesn't fucking exist" video. Digi has more in common with JA than he realizes

[@Tamacat388]

Matosis also believes that objectively good doesnt exist and even talked about it in his podcast. He just isnt so insecure and anal about stupid KZbin comments to make some passive aggressive or angry video about it because hes there to discuss video games and not bullshit argumentative semantics.

[@theanimerapper6351]

When someone request the rant you were gonna request so now you don't have to pay for a video

[@nemeru3352]

Matthewmatosis Dark souls 2 video was the biggest thing he's made(made still is) views wise. Yet you don't see him making a video on every single souls game. Even tho he has that crowd. Might still see a video of bloodborne, maybe, but not a very here and now type of guy.

[@TectonicImprov]

According to his patreon we probably won't see a Bloodborne video. The closest we'll get is likely the snippet in Mega Microvideos and the Lost Soul Arts video

[@iPostiPodiEatiYuri]

mm ds2 video got destroyed in a video called "in defense of ds2"

[@dampeth]

@@iPostiPodiEatiYuri And that video got destroyed in a video called "RE : 'In Defense of Dark Souls 2'" by mauLer.

[@Pan_Z]

@@iPostiPodiEatiYuri that video from hbomberguy might be the worst "analysis" type video on this site. "In Defense of DS2" should be studied like the film "The Room," in the sense that you can learn what not to do when framing an argument.

[@Tremere]

@@iPostiPodiEatiYuri Fuck off hbomber guy, stop making alts to shill your dumpster channel and go back to bitching about "DRUMPFFF!!!" on twitter

[@JuanPerez-bd6oz]

I think the reason Hamsterson is more popular is simply because he interacts much more with his audience. He has his own patreon discord, while Matthewmatosis is completely against the idea. Matthew also disabled donations in his streams because "he doesn't want people buying his attention". All of this while doing the kind of content he wants to do, regardless of fan expectations. It takes a lot in the youtube business to stay true to yourself, and that's why phimosis > hamster.

[@Klayton_Nivel]

who says JA doesn't stays true to himself by allowing different forms of donations? Not taking money is not a virtue

[@sircthulcifer6870]

I agree partially but the discord isn't patron exclusive

[@ChaseFace]

Not to mention Matthewmatois maintains an air of professionalism by staying off of most social media, including not replying to KZbin comments, compared to JA who replies to all criticism with something akin to “No, you’re wrong.” And then when JA makes a bad video and people dislike it, he makes a follow-up video patronizing all of his subscribers and implying they’re enraged children instead of just clarifying his points in a separate video and apologizing for his poor phrasing. TL;DR JA strikes me as very arrogant, while MM seems like a very sensible, down-to-earth person that doesn’t take himself seriously.

[@BobtheX]

That's dumb. Digi does the same shit. Sometimes people just misinterpret things in the most retarded way possible and you have to call them out on it. He's a youtuber, I don't give a fuck how professional he is.

[@frogglen6350]

Uh... All of Joseph's videos have more likes than dislikes. And you're saying criticism should be ignored.

[@CJojo_13_]

I would implore you to watch some of Joseph Anderson's stream highlights if you think it's all serious. The way he is on stream is like a complete 180.

[@joshuariser8605]

Anderson loses me when he starts acting purposefully obtuse. Which is often.

[@joebailey8294]

Yeah Matthewmatosis is just on a different level

[@sinklar7946]

6:06 Watch his video on Hearthstone. As he is passionate World of Warcraft fan, you can really tell that the question of Hearthstone's quality was really important to him and thus it becomes obvious why he decide to make a video about it.

[@SpookerK]

Joseph could never make a video as good as Matthewmatosis' Devil May Cry Commentary.

[@glowerworm]

@@TheTsuyuki honestly I'd just have to say to watch his Rise of the Tomb Raider video. Never played the game but I think it's his best video.

[@CD-mb4bv]

@@TheTsuyuki None of them have anything on MMs DMC commentary. He summed up the pinnacle of action game designs origins in a succulent video while JA takes hours to choke over needless examples to spit out a simple point.

[@mistergremm735]

Joseph has odd opinions, specially on horror games

[@DoggyP00]

And he gives appropriately long explanations about why he feels that way. If you just break down horror games to their game mechanics, and not just how the atmosphere and genre itself is trying to feel, you realize that there's a seperate, often bare bones, genre underneath. That's not a knock on horror games as the main point of it is how it makes you feel, but it's a take

[@mino_dev]

If you haven't seen any of it yet, I'd recommend some of Joseph Anderson's stream vods on his second channel (or twitch). I do often agree with Matthewmatosis's gaming opinions a lot more than Joseph's and share a lot of your opinions on the way the two make constructed videos, but after listening to a few of his Q&A's and watching some of his live commentary I've definitely come to appreciate Joseph's position on a lot of things more. Plus, Joseph's Danganronpa and Undertale playthroughs are probably some of the most thoroughly entertaining content I've ever seen on the internet.

[@MegamanStarforce2010]

I wouldn't actually recommend those streams. A lot of silence, a lot slight chuckling and rarely maybe an actual comment on the game. There's no coincidence that his multiple streams results in 'highlights' that are only some

[@Michal-zs9sq]

@@MegamanStarforce2010 You must have watched his older streams. The newer ones, like Danganronpa and Catherine for example, are really great.

[@finebonsai9131]

@@MegamanStarforce2010 bro honestly what are you on about. His streams are always filled with memes, intresting moments and just generally enjoyable commentary. I dont know what streams you've been watching but I've never found a better streamer. All of the other streamers either have shit humolur or only play multiplayer games.

[@sircthulcifer6870]

don't shit talk the streams or i'll ban you

[@JayAreAitch]

The main thing I know about JA's playthrough of Danganronpa is him throwing a hissy fit over the twist in 3-1.

[@havocbringer2100]

I never heard about Matthewmatosis but will immediately check him out because that's exactly the kind of content I love. I get to experience games I am not able to play and the moment and learn more about game design decisions. Consider me sold.

[@MrDrManPerson]

Matthew is a good reviewer but his bread and butter are fighting/action games. His understanding of those mechanics is stellar. He is great in other genres too so dont miss out.

[@joebailey8294]

One of the best writers on KZbin

[@AppericateGamer]

B-Mask cool. Matthewmatosis great writing and script in my opinion

[@somniloguy12]

B-boi is best boi

[@Pan_Z]

Anderson spends 3 hours going into tedious detail, yet somehow states and illuminates less than Matthew does in under an hour. They're simply not on the same level. Not even remotely.

[@frogglen6350]

Er.... No. Not really. Joseph goes into great detail about games. Guessing you're just mad because Joseph doesn't like Bubsy 3D

[@juanmanikings]

@@frogglen6350 Joseph Anderson is nowhere near Matthewmatosis level his video about god of war case study is demostration of that

[@samuelstephens6904]

Can’t say much about Matthew since I haven’t seen much of his videos. But what I have seen of Joseph Anderson’s stuff is insufferable. The guy has the worst attitude when it comes to video games. His analyses are hyper-reductionist, evaluating everything in its own vacuum and by extension missing the bigger picture. Likewise, he is quick to bring out the buzzwords like “filler,” “pretentious,” and “wastes of time” to more or less describe parts of games he just doesn’t like. Like many amateur critics, his content is overly evaluative and lacks any substantial framework for understanding what games are and how they work. He is also condescending, going so far as to say people who like certain games “enjoy tedium.” Honestly, I’m not a fan of most KZbin game critics and such. The only person I’ve ever really appreciated is Richard Terrell. He has been blogging and making videos about game design for over a decade now, far longer and with much more to say than anyone else. It’s a shame he isn’t more well-known.

[@smackmmk]

Coming back to this video 4 years later, because I wanted to watch more Matthew mitosis videos and videos related to the guy. I'm happy to see digi bro, a channel that I used to follow very closely, has the same opinions that I do on this guy, Joseph Anderson and H-bomer guy. And I think over time this video rings even more true because of how right Matthew was about certain topics and how the industry is today.

[@ricardoms2072]

The thing is, Matthew is the GOAT. He's literally the best game essayist there is. No one does it like him. Joseph Anderson, Jacob Geller, Hbomberguy or whatever are good, but you simply can't top the master.

[@pouihurmen]

Joseph's content feels a lot more passionate to me. His writing is obviously not as tight as Matthew's but it's pretty apparent that he puts in a lot more time and effort to convey a certain thought he had about a game and explain why he felt that way

[@DoggyP00]

I don't know about more passionate, I just think Joe has a better speaking voice, it's more that he prefers a fundamentals approach, looking at things like game theory and design, while matthew looks at specific problems he had while playing one game and compares it to another game he played that he liked more.

[@franjaff6919]

Matthew puts a huge amount of time into his videos as well, that time is just spent on polishing scripts instead of adding more to the scripts.

[@aaronyu5427]

Matthewmatosis analyzes from a developer's point of view while Joseph Anderson talks from a consumer's point of view. In terms of what's more interesting, I do agree that Matthewmatosis offers a more insightful viewpoint. I find that Joseph Anderson is a lot less professional and a lot more personality-based than Matthewmatosis. A lot of Anderson's videos are exhaustive for the sake of being exhaustive, to the point where his community has memed Anderson for having unnecessarily long videos. Too repetitive. On the other side of the coin, I think Matthewmatosis gives too brief of an analysis on games. Certainly it's tight and has good flow, but he leaves out some aspects in his reviews that make it less comprehensive. I think he probably does it to not interrupt the flow he's built over the video, but one thing you can't fault Anderson for is his comprehensive reviews. All in all, I do find Anderson to be more "should you buy" as opposed to the more insightful videos of Matthewmatosis.

[@CGoody564]

This seems like nonsense. Both review as consumers and not developers... Not sure why you think Mathew approaches reviews as a developer, because he doesn't. He would be talking about maximizing profits and marketing rather than the experience of playing it.

[@FlexNTube]

Comparing those two always feels useless to me because each does something that is different enough that the videos they have where they talk about the same games can complete each other, making both of them worth watching. What I dont really understand is you coming to joseph anderson with the expectations you have about matthewmatosis and then being disappointed with the content being different in some way. If MM is about games HE find important then JA is about "some games" rather than the games HE finds important enough to make videos about? You understand why MM makes his videos but you dont ask the same question about JA content mostly because you find it inaccessible due to the commentary itself. This isnt a point I disagree with, there are high quality youtubers I dont watch because of this exact same issue but at the same time I never say anything negative about them because I dont have issue with the content. You are talking about the MM zelda commentary being about figuring an original solution to a pre-established problem presented to the player but at the same time disagreeing with JA commentary about DS2 where he talks about coming up with an original solution due to the issues the game have. Of course length is an issue to some people and its understandable not wanting to watch the long videos when you also have issues with the commentary but at the same time the older videos that are also longer than average are broken to chapters so you can consume them as a bunch of shorter videos and at your own pace. When it comes to perspective, you give MM the praise for talking about games a certain way and about certain things but if JA did the same thing you would write him off as a copycat. I dont know what you watched of JA but if you want to know what his main perspective or thesis he brings to the table, he is looking for ludonarrative harmony in the games he plays. Also, probably his best work, in the Edith Finch video he brings one of the more unique perspectives you can ask for and he talks about the game from the point of view of a father. I think your opinion of JA is tainted due to exactly what the title of the video is showing. People keep comparing them. People keep looking at reviewers or critics or analysts or however you want to call somebody like it is a competition but at the same time they are an integral part of the conversation. I watched all of MM and JA content, I am looking forward for both of them to release new videos and somehow I am able to look at one and the other and see two parts of the same puzzle rather than two separate puzzles that I have to choose between. Nobody asks you to be a fan of JA just because you are a fan of MM but I think you judge JA as you do MM just because of this idea that keeps being brought up of them being very similar to each other. I think its great that MM and JA are both representing a higher tier content creators within the "talking about videogames" youtube sphere because they are very different when it comes to their perspective and taste.

[@yuza1032]

Digibro literally said he thinks they're doing two different things at 11:10. He's talking about the subject because he literally gets paid to give these rants by patrons, he doesn't choose it. He's just stating what's different about their work so that he can explain his personal preference for Matthewmatosis. Someone *can* prefer apples to oranges. Seriously, Digibro's criticism of Joseph Anderson is so mild I don't know how you got so many paragraphs out of it.

[@sinklar7946]

100% agree, in fact I was so angry that the rant had to be a comparison between the two. This would have been so much better if he'd just focused on his criticism of Joe.

[@KuroOnehalf]

Just gonna nitpick the statement about Zachtronics games being the pinnacle of puzzle gaming, as I think it was a misguided conclusion. They're more engineering games than puzzle games. They're not about the study of the emergent properties of mechanics, but rather the construction of systems given limited tools to fulfill a set of constraints. In other words, they're not so much about showing you cool things about the mechanics, as they are about being optimization problems. They're lumped in with puzzle games because they involve puzzle solving, but they're very different types of games that should be discussed separately. There's this great RPS article I found recently featuring some of the greatest and most influential puzzle game designers of our time where they discuss what creating a good puzzle game means. www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/01/22/how-to-make-a-puzzle-game/ The game that's pretty much unanimously accepted to be the holy grail of actual puzzle games right now is Stephen's Sausage Roll.

[@DoggyP00]

So you are agreeing with him, just that you think it should be a separate genre... As for things needing to be discussed separately, why? They are both problem solving games, clearly extremely similar in the gaming space. It would be unreasonable if you said that we shouldn't compare zelda breath of the wild to horizon zero dawn, just because horizon is rpg based while zelda is physics based. They are clearly easy to compare and you can get a lot out of it. With "puzzle games" and "engineering games" the main point is clearly to solve the problems and what makes them good I feel are largely the same. How well do are you forced to use the puzzle solving mechanics? The fairness and difficulty curve, how fun or rewarding it feels to solve said puzzles. What's the need to separate these categories.

[@KuroOnehalf]

​@@DoggyP00 If I were to lump both genres together and opine on whether any Zachtronics game is better than SSR, then from the ones I have played I would say no, based on the fact that the latter (and games like it) gave me much more enjoyment, and that the best puzzle game designers seem to share in this feeling. Granted, I stopped buying Zachtronics games after Infinifactory because I was coming upon the same issue and not having a lot of fun with it, so I can't speak to whether Exapunks, Shenzhen and Opus Magnum do it any better. I do intend to try them eventually, but they're low on my priority list. I'd disagree that the point of puzzle games is to solve problems. Solving problems is the vehicle by which you progress through the game, but the goal of a puzzle game should be to provide enlightenment. The article I linked goes quite a bit in depth about that. "Learning, rather than solving, is the measure of exhilaration". If you're just going through the motions and applying things you already know, tweaking things until your output is accepted, then it's not as interested as being forced to learn something you didn't already know. A good puzzle game is made with the explicit purpose of guiding you toward these revelations. It could be that these games I'm labeling as engineering games are designed with the same purpose, but my experience with them usually doesn't leave me with that feeling, and I feel like the problem gets exponentially worse as you get to the harder levels and you're asked to make more complicated and uninteresting solutions. The possibility space just gets too out of hand and unfocused, and whatever intent there was to guide the player toward a revelation gets lost in the mist.

[@DoggyP00]

​@@KuroOnehalf forced to learn something you didn't already know fuck youtube comment jesus fucking christ. Have you ever seen a worse fucking comments system. What the actual fuck! Welp there goes my essay or whatever. in summary: - you're literally just saying "Problem solving isn't what makes puzzle games puzzle games, it's problem solving" Except you expand on that and say that you like this type of problem solving instead of another. Your article agrees. It also thinks puzzle games are about solving puzzles, just that the puzzles should be a certain way. It has a provacative click-baity title that it uses to dig deeper into the topic, but not really refute it. You even end you paragraph by agreeing with this point. It's what you like in problems not that it's not about problems themselves. - you don't have to like whoever's whatever games. Doesn't mean you have to create a new genre, lol. - As for puzzles getting harder, I guess you don't like the exploring one mechanic to its limits approach? Celeste, who went this route for the first time in forever, seemed to be popular enough. Also reminds me of puzzle games before video games. It is easy to get overwhelmed if you like to solve it in a vague mental math-y way instead of actually figuring out how the puzzle works fundamentally. Perhaps, puzzle video gamers shouldn't be expected to do that. Instead of guiding you through its systems through hand holding (touch love sure, but still), those games go for the getting you to understand the core mechanics through a good difficulty curve aka the old school way.

[@joebailey8294]

Baba is you is up there for me now

[@StanTheWoz]

Honestly never found Matthew that interesting, but I guess he may have gotten better, I haven't watched any of his videos from the last couple years. From what I remember I thought he made too many broad generalizations without really backing them up, particularly for matters of opinion that it seems like he expects everyone to agree with. But I also have pretty much the exact opposite opinion on their voices, so that may be part of the difference, haha.

[@StanTheWoz]

Anyway, pretty fair take.

[@ChaseFace]

Watch his BotW video. None of his videos are “broad,” he goes into incredible detail about small things most people would overlook, especially in his DS2 video with the blacksmith example. To be honest most people find his voice boring to listen to, but they realize admitting that would make them sound superficial, so they pick a random, vague criticism and go “I just don’t like him.” Not casting any aspersions about you or anything, just a trend that I’ve noticed.

[@anthraxcrab2222]

Stan the Woz Did you respond to your own comment with a compliment?

[@reyntime738]

@@anthraxcrab2222 He was responding to the video

[@Whyiseverynameinuse]

Joseph did say that a horror game isn't a horror game if it doesn't scare him personally.

[@Harrinsain]

then when he was called out for it, he blamed everyone else for their problems with that video

[@DoggyP00]

Funny how you just decide the 3 hour explaining just doesn't exist. Neither did everyone else who called him out on it. For those few that critiqued him with the 3 hour explanation in mind, he responded appropriately

[@Whyiseverynameinuse]

DoggyPoo I've heard him clarify further, I still don't agree. In fact he showed his confusion between objective/subjective even more by saying that horror movies are scarier than horror games, because in a game you can respawn. I also remember him misrepresenting and moralising in order to not address certain arguments put forward.

[@DoggyP00]

​@@WhyiseverynameinuseIf you have heard him clarify, don't intentionally mislead people. > n fact he showed his confusion between objective/subjective even more by saying that horror movies are scarier than horror games, because in a game you can respawn. You seem very confused about objective/subjective yourself. Saying that horror movies are scarier than horror games, because in a game you can respawn IS an objective argument. It isn't an all encompassing argument that settles the overall discussion of whether horror games are more scary than horror movies or not, but the fact that you do respawn in games is an objective point that support his argument. Furthermore, again, you keep trying to intentionally mislead taking out clips way out of context. He have his points on how the ability to respawn took away the factor of threat and danger, and if anybody would try and create an objective criteria for horror overall, I'm sure they would put the sense of threat and danger on it. In that angle, you can say that in this way horror movies are "objectively" scarier than horror games. All of this he mentioned ofc.

[@Ineedgames]

Then it's not a horror if it's not scary.

[@sefatsilverlake3816]

I like sprinkler guy for his streams. Couldn't care less of reviewers, anyone can be a critic

[@TheCreepypro]

sounds like I need to check out both these guys to me

[@catsoup9870]

6:50 IT'S THE LITERAL OPPOSITE BUT OK

[@MedakaKurokami]

Not to me for ether one but Matthew is a little more addictive to listen to but so is anderson.

[@CaptainHandsome]

Joseph Anderson has 13 videos that are over 1 hour long. Matthewmatosis has 4, 3 of which are him commentating over complete playthroughs of games, so only 1 if we're talking reviews. How anyone can think spending 3 hours analysing Zelda is better than spending just 50 minutes doing the same thing in about as much depth is baffling to me. Plus man can't even walk in a circle.

[@reyntime738]

But they're not analysing them in the same amount of depth

[@CaptainHandsome]

@@reyntime738 That too, how could anyone watch JosephAnderson?

[@drinks_menu]

I don't prefer Matthew because he focuses so much on 100% everything. For example, he brings up in his Zelda series the tediousness of collecting everything in Minish Cap, when in my opinion none of that is the "core" of the game and shouldn't be something that lowers your overall experience of the game. Just because he has that fetish to 100% everything, doesn't mean others feel the same. Also, Joseph Anderson is a published author, so a lot of his critique at points is how to tighten up stories. A lot of people in here seem to think he's a "should you buy" type of guy, but i feel like he has more to offer. I think his video on Prey is a good example.

[@Tamacat388]

Anderson also doesnt seem to grasp much or metaphor or symbolism though and think any depth in Silent Hill 2 is just people imagining things. His analysis of narrative is often very nitpicky and lore heavy. Which to me is the least interesting thing to talk about.

[@drinks_menu]

Thanatos388 I heavily disagree. Watch his Edith Fitch video for an example.

[@SonofSethoitae]

I mean, he can only speak from his own play style. A reviewer's job isn't to speak to everyone's play style, but to reflect their particular playstyle for the benefit of those who are similar.

[@symbolicjohnson7]

@@Tamacat388 Sounds really condescending. It's all matter of taste, anyway. Some people don't like "fill in the gap" type of stories. SH2 story is good, very mature for the genre and it's time. I don't think it's a high enough standard for a media, though.

[@BoxyBrown717]

@Digibro Have you watched any of Mauler's content? I'd recommend his response to Hbomberguy's DS2 video as a decent start if you have any investment in the souls games.

[@somniloguy12]

Brevity is the soul of wit

[@BoxyBrown717]

@@somniloguy12 Right, right, long man bad.

[@somniloguy12]

@@BoxyBrown717 9 hours of unedited, meandering observations are not a critique. If you like listening to lazy (or 'loose' if you want to call it that) then go ahead. And if that was his only fault, fine, but his critiques are also riddled with inaccuracies and ad hominem, borderline conspiracy theory critiques.

[@ChaseFace]

The Will of G Give some examples of said inaccuracies.

[@somniloguy12]

@@ChaseFace top of my head I don't have any. But I remember Beyond Pictures responding to the narrative he constructed around yooka-laylee which I wholeheartedly agree with.

[@trentc2392]

Have you heard of Noah Caldwell Gervais?

[@joebailey8294]

Jack Schnead yes

[@Harrinsain]

Joseph is capable of good content, he just uses the "subjectivity" shield to protect himself even when he is provably wrong on things he's saying and have nothing to do with that "subjectivity vs objectivity" debate, in other words he dismisses criticism even when it's completely valid for the sake of putting himself on a pedestal. He's also terrible at structuring his videos. Not to mention that one time he made "subjectivity is implied" where he basically just said it's up to the viewer to figure out when he's putting forward a fact or his feelings towards something even when his wording contradicts what he says he means constantly. Even when Joseph has a thing going for him like the Mario Odyssey video his structure gets people pissed because he front loads a controversial conclusion and then makes the argument, then he actually explains what the problem is. That video is a mess to first time viewers because it's structured in a way so that you people are likely to not even know what his problem is until the end of the video, and with it being that long most people aren't gonna stick around to find out. and don't even get me started on the time he said SOMA wasn't a horror game because he wasn't scared by it, then he doubled down on it when he was criticized for it He's also just a bit of a twat if you ask me. Matthew has genuinely good content, even if i don't agree with him all the time, he always explains himself in an understandable way that makes sense even when looking at it as an outsider to his perspective. By comparison, Joseph is just pretentious and gets pissy whenever you put forward any criticism towards him. He'll go as far as to straw man people just to make himself look better TL;DR, just watch EFAP #16

[@CecilyRenns]

"provably wrong" what? you're on a Digibro video, the "OBJECTIVELY GOOD DOESNT FUCKING EXIST" guy, are you seriously going to start this argument

[@Stevem]

@@CecilyRenns I'm guessing he means when he makes a mistake or says something untrue, no?

[@CecilyRenns]

i mean yeah. sure you can mess up a fact, or come at something in bad faith. but this is Joseph Anderson we're talking about, who painfully goes over every detail on a game just so he doesn't get those kind of "gotcha" comments about how he missed the one thing that makes his entire point apparently invalid. he doesnt get those kind of criticism (the most common one he gets is "his videos are too long" seconded by of course, "he acts like he's making objectives statements") OP is specifically talking about the "Subjectivity is implied" video, which is NOT even a "response" video or anything like that. its a thesis video on the nature of criticism and how people perceive reviews. he uses comments from his past videos cause it fit as examples, but he could've used any comments on any other youtube channel. he didnt use it to defend against criticism, because they werent really criticism in the first place. saying "you are speaking as if you are making Objective Statements and That Is Mean" isnt constructive criticism, youre just finding excuses because you didnt like that a reviewer sad a rude thing about your favorite game taking the SOMA comment for example, when Joseph says (paraphrasing) that it is "not a horror game", what he obviously means is it FAILS as a horror game. for HIM. it doesnt do the things that a horror experience should do - what HE thinks a horror game should be. thats a subjective standard he has set out for himself and no amount of "calling out" can change his mind on that. sure, argue against his point, but speak from good faith, and try to understand his reasoning first, and dont dismiss it as "provably wrong." if someone takes his point to mean he literally does not believe it should qualify as a horror game and that people should stop calling it as one, they're simply being disingenuous he didnt even hate SOMA too lol. does anyone like that game for how "scary" the monsters were? the storytelling is what it exceeded at

[@Stevem]

@@CecilyRenns I'm not a fan of objective criticism since no one is defining how they mean that. There's a lot of academia on the subject so it's not like there's a one way answer. However in the case of Anderson it sounds like this is a writing issue with clarity. "Soma isn't a horror game" that's a contentious point so some would say it need to be Point , evidence , explained. as Genre is a funky thing I'd say intention tends to be more valid than person experience with putting something in a genre.If not we fall into a no true Scotsman paradise(but this isn't always concrete with things like music which get far harder to define) . If Alone in Dark scares me or not doesn't imply if it's a horror game. Although if this is about failed horror games then, Anderson would need to start with his point Soma isnt a successful horror game to me "Evidence" In this case Anderson would need to set up how he'd defined that quality, what does it need to do he could also bring in studies or other people writing on the topic to expand the horizon. Explain, then go through point by point for why he doesn't see this game as a horror game or one that succeeds in most areas.

[@DoggyP00]

@@Stevem Well, he does explain it. You should considering arguing against his real points instead of his hypothetical points. Also, I think it's more that the word "objective criticism" triggers you. Most "objective" critics don't think there is only one way to answer, especially not independent creators (I do see some delusional big media types, ofc). As long as they define what they mean by objectively, or angle their point in a way where you know what they mean, point taken.

[@dweebosupremo5904]

Agreed

[@dragunov815]

Ok.

[@TheSBWproductions]

BASED

[@PomPomegrenade]

Dark Souls 2 has a movement system that feels good.

[@Quetzocotol]

Dark Souls 2 is a great game but you're bonkers. The free analog movement of 1 and 3 is so much better

[@DJ5540]

I'll take 500 dollars for the worst opinion I've ever seen, Alex.

[@iPostiPodiEatiYuri]

Ds2 is the best game of the 3, and not only because it has more content than 1 and 3 put together. Anyone with above room temperature IQ agrees.

[@CJojo_13_]

@@iPostiPodiEatiYuri quantity doesn't = quality. I'd rather have the best sex that was 5 minutes long, than have 20 minutes of mediocre sex.

[@DoggyP00]

I feel like Matthewmatosis is entirely antecdotal. He talks about his own personal and bias perspective. Sure, he goes very deep in that perspective, but it also feels very narrow minded. On the other hand Joseph Anderson, like you said, is very presciptive and comes from as objective an angle as possible. He tries to understand why the developers did what they did from a game design perspective, so like a scientific approach, and gives after like 3 hours of critiqueing with arguments based around fundamental game design, he gives some easy suggestions. Not that these in particular should have been implemented, but just to show that it wasn't impoosible for his issues to have been solved without fundamentally changing it. Matthewmatosis often just says "why can't it just be exactly like this other entirely different game" and his suggestions change the core idea of the game rather than just fixing his critiques. It really helps in writing critiques about your videos, because it feels like I can just use your argument against and switch up the words and it will be for my point, but make more sense.

[@caiopatric]

theres nothing more interesting to digibro (and me) than a completely personal biased opinion. and theres nothing "narrow minded" about that, its just about sharing that personal experience and how it affected you and made you think. i feel like youre really oversimplifying matthewmatosis comparisons here for whatever reason. maybe you like ds2.

[@catsoup9870]

@@caiopatric Theres nothing less interesting to ME than a completely personal biased opinion. Matthewmatosis is very much narrow minded and that's makes him great. He would be able to come up with "Atreus Skill Progression" if he were to stick with simply discussing what is already there.

[@caiopatric]

@@catsoup9870 yes it does make him great :)

[@DoggyP00]

@@caiopatric I'm sure it does. For the same reason people have started moving away from ign and into independent reviewers with consistent opinions that own up to their own biases, I'm sure mat has his appeal. On the other hand, that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what digibro said in his entire video.

[@juanmanikings]

Joseph Anderson objective? ptfff don't make me laugh

[@somniloguy12]

Joseph Anderson is a bad reviewer, plain and simple. He is nitpicking personified. He claims to make objective reviews (which he shouldn't) but always puts his subjective expectations into the game. He only likes clear cut stories that would get you an A in writing class and seems to shurk experimentation.

[@Michal-zs9sq]

He claims to make objective reviews? Literally what

[@TheKalluto]

didnt JA make an entire video about how objective good doesnt exist?

[@JayJavaArts]

Subjectivity is implied, doe.

[@Lightningrodmcree]

Joseph Anderson is a ripoff artist