Classic Game Room silliness

[jfrost]

I think it was here that people that drew my attention a while ago to Classic Game Room videos, and I occasionally watched them over the years.

The problem always was how loud and stupid most Youtube videomakers seem and how CGR was different from them, being actually quite understated and all that.

So, I saw a comment on how CGR had turned bad on Kotaku and I went to check it out.

It isn't a thorough PewDiePie-zation of the channel, but it's pretty bad. Every video has to have a stupid gimmick now. Goddamn, now what's the alternative?

[Gunstar Green]

I don't see it. I thought Mark was always pretty goofy. The game "reviews" are the same "Mark plays a game while making 80's references" as they've always been. CGR is alright entertainment sometimes but it's honestly never been a good source for serious reviews.

Anyway here's some recommendations but they're not "one a days" like CGR.

Our own SNESdrunk makes awesome videos, definitely check out his channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/1SNESdrunk

Retro Snow is one of my personal favorites and it just returned from a long hiatus. Dude totally needs more subscribers:
https://www.youtube.com/user/snowcon3

Game Sack, which I'm sure you already know of:
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrGameSack

Metal Jesus Rocks of course, great for discovering underrated titles:
https://www.youtube.com/user/MetalJesusRocks

And many more, but that's off the top of my head.

[samsonlonghair]

CGR has been trying new things lately. Maybe that's gimmicky or maybe that's experimental. Remember that Mark has been making classic video game reviews since the time when Dreamcast was a new, modern console. After fifteen years more or less, you have to try something new or you'll grow stale. I can't blame Mark for experimenting with changing his videos just a bit.

[Exhuminator]

"This game's pretty cool, it's kinda fun, check it out." <---Every CGR "review" I've seen.

One time I asked Mark if he actually beat any of the games he reviewed and he refused to answer me. It's decent entertainment and the Windsquid's a cool dude, but the show should be called Classic Game Playing.

[BoneSnapDeez]

"This game's pretty cool, it's kinda fun, check it out." <---Every CGR "review" I've seen.

Yeah.... Could never get into CGR. Seems like dudes just yaking over game footage. No real "reviews" or analysis.

[samsonlonghair]

Analysis is for the birds. Either a game is worth your time or it's not.

[Luke]

I feel like as dolt for forgetting his name, but we do have a member** that does a "vs." series and is not only engaging, but well informed and intelligent. And I hate youtube video game reviews. But this guy actually puts effort into his reviews.

Most "reviews" are schtick, which is okay, but hardly anyone has a decent schtick.

I do enjoy Metal Jesus because he's off his rocker. It wouldn't surprise me if he had a review that started out with playing Secret of Mana and the video ended with him cooking mac and cheese in a George Foreman grill.

But those who will not be named suck balls when "reviewing" a game. It's "here are the first two levels of the game we won't actually play through and only say why we don't like the game even though we don't give it an actual chance".

Maybe I will name one. Game sack is an insult to both "Game" and "Sack". But that's just like, my opinion man. Obviously with sites like buzzfeed people would rather just look at idiots showing shit rather than reading a well informed opinion on said shit, so there is that. But when a reviewer actually does some homework, tells a back story and explains the significance of the game being reviewed...well, I get a kick out of it. Create a story, create some interest, or even create a character. Just please don't say "Here's a game, and it sucks". There's a reason a lot of game "reviewers" disable comments, and the reason is blatant and obvious*.

*It's because they are terrible.

**GyreDor is his "name" : viewtopic.php?f=32&t=45045

Like any great critic he does state his opinion, backs it up and them says "But it's up to you what you like". He isn't a blowhard, and he actually doesn't try to convince you that his opinion is right or not. Big Plus: He's not annoying nor arrogant, rather informative and quite eloquent.

[Gunstar Green]

Game vs. Game is excellent. I appreciate how he compares the games beyond popular opinion and shows that while there may be a "better" choice in some of the match-ups there's often give and take between versions.

[Luke]

Game vs. Game is excellent. I appreciate how he compares the games beyond popular opinion and shows that while there may be a "better" choice in some of the match-ups there's often give and take between versions.

That's what is so great about his reviews. He never tells you what to think nor he give dumb blanket statements of "this sucks". He also lays out the classic critic approach of "1) Here's what I'm going to talk about, 2) I talk about it, 3) What do you think?". He has what I consider a "justified bias". He doesn't force his opinion on you, but when he does say "I don't like this aspect of the game.." it is swiftly followed by, "and here are the reasons why".

I'm a hard sell, but if this dude wrote a book on his favorite games (no matter what console) I'd buy it...or at least check it out at the library.

Thank God he doesn't have a youtube clone.

[Sarge]

Game Sack, which I'm sure you already know of:
https://www.youtube.com/user/MrGameSack

Game Sack is definitely one of my go-to shows. Very well done. Dave's not perfect on his delivery at times, but he's getting better, and Joe really seems to have the format down. They've both got very impressive collections, for sure. And even though I don't always learn something new, it does happen from time to time, which is always good!