Mark from CGR asks the question that might never be answered , yes snes vs genesis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEGA.GENESIS1989

The toilet bowl humor, occasional F-bomb, and seeing him raise his middle finger at games only dampens my enthusiasm for the show.

---

Uhh... what? Mark almost never does any of these things! What in the world are you talking about? Not Classic Game Room...

Quote:

---

watched the show religiously. After 2009, I lost interest in CGR once I realized that the quality of the material was subpar and monetization/revenue was his primary for publishing videos on Youtube.

---

The polish of his newer content really shows. CGR has improved a lot versus the early years of the resurrected show. Quality has gone up substantially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

Uhh... what? Mark almost never does any of these things! What in the world are you talking about? Not Classic Game Room...


The polish of his newer content really shows. CGR has improved a lot versus the early years of the resurrected show. Quality has gone up substantially.

---

I love how you included the word "almost" in the sentence! :cool: It's an obvious admission on your part that he DOES do these things and therefore asking me what in the world I am talking about and then saying "not Classic Game Room" is incorrect. When he lauched his Youtube channel, he never did any of these things. Ever since CGRUndertow was created, he's (re-)adopted these sordid habits.

Hey, if you like his brand of material that's of no concern of mine. Everyone has the freedom to watch what they want whenever they want. Afterall, we're not living under the auspices of the Taliban. And I really don't care if you call me a sanctimonious prick but the fact remains that I don't like it. He's around the same age as me and it's hard for me to watch a grown man flash his middle finger at a game just because he thinks is terrible. I'll simply end this post by simply saying that I mostly agree with alot of the points that both Barone and Zz Badnasty. Much to your chagrin they do make some valid points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zz Badnusty

A review should be critical and informative, not solely silly and puerile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

If you want "serious, critical, informative reviews", to each his own.

---

IDK, but looks like you put "serious" in Zz Badnusty's mouth for no good reason. Or you think that to not be silly and puerile you have to be serious.
Either way, that's not what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorIng

Well, you certainly won't find them at any major site. Sometimes HonestGamers is alright, as is the Video-game Critic. As well as more niche blogs/sites.

---

Defunct Games has a pretty wide and large selections of reviews for old consoles and I find them pretty well balanced for the most part. Surely better than stuff like Gamefaqs and HonestGamers IMO.
They're both critical and informative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

tragic that you can't make a point without insults & condescension,

---

I had a hard time trying to select a proper word to describe your last post. Terms like "brain-dead" and "retard" came to my mind but I found those too offensive.
Sorry if I've hurt your feelings, that wasn't my intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

but all the same: name some shows/sites which fit the aforementioned journalistic bulletpoints of integrity. at least it'll be entertaining pointing out the holes in them, because again, having following gaming mags/journalism since the fanzine era, let me assure you: it doesn't happen. there's no golden age when it did, either.

---

IDK why are you twisting Zz's posts to the point of suggesting that the guy was expecting for something perfect and/or really serious.
Like I said before, it seems to be a pretty childish way to argue, even more when you consider that Mark himself call his reviews "journalist" and states that CGR is providing "professional" reviews. Zz pretty much just compared what Mark says to what he actually delivers.

But anyway, feel free to "pointing out holes" in the following suggestions (I'll name just a few ones out of my YT subscriptions), since, unlike you, I don't worship these guys, neither I will take the criticism towards them as a personal attack nor I'll need to write an essay in order to find them informative and critical. Oh, and they also seem to do some research before reviewing the games ("Wow!!!!"):

HappyConsoleGamer - I'm not a regular watcher of his work but I find some of his reviews quite useful.
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8OHQa9Z0tM

16BitBrothers
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-G3GX5O9p8

BNGamesReviews - I like these guys especially for their selection of PS1 games, with several good imports. But usually they're very well balanced in their reviews IMO.
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCqjCXq-LlA

PeteDorr
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMlydsMB0e8

There are several other channels which I subscribe, some like PepAlacant's don't have good production values but they're really informative and bring a lot of obscure games and platforms to my attention.
And, of course, I consider Game Sack to be entertaining, critical, informative and very well researched for the most part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishNinja

which premier gaming site do you follow for modern reviews that doesn't accept any gift greater than a cup of coffee? go on, i'll wait.

---

Sorry, I don't have interest in modern reviews and I also don't "follow" any "premier" gaming site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

CGR has improved a lot versus the early years of the resurrected show. Quality has gone up substantially.

---

Care to point what exactly has been improved so much? Any examples (an old review vs one of the new awesome ones)???

I forgot to mention Chris Bucci. I like his PCE reviews quite a lot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsVHqoS1Y58


And if you're ranking YT shows based on the level of fanboyism, Retro Core surely ranks above CGR is terms of Sega stuff. And it's very strong in terms of imports and lesser known games (I don't like the voice of that guy though)

EDIT: Hardcore Gaming 101 does a great job reviewing series of games IMO. Their research is usually very good.
The Quackshot review is a masterpiece IMO:
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/don...onaldduck3.htm

Don't stop now guys, let's take it further and pointlessly argue our opinion on other stuff. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorIng

Well, you certainly won't find them at any major site. Sometimes HonestGamers is alright, as is the Video-game Critic. As well as more niche blogs/sites.

---

That dude is terrible. He hands out Ds and Fs like cheap promotions, especially to games he is clearly not the audience for. Sometimes it's evident that he played whatever game he "reviewed" for about 2-4 minutes before he decided to hand it an F-.

Examples like Jag Doom (he gave it an F, I don't know why, and his readers bitched at him until he raised it, to a C), Ranger X (clearly only played it for five minutes), or knocking Rocket Knight Adventures for "ripping off" DKC's mine cart level despite the copyright screen dating it for 1993 (he fixed that, but come on), and Virtual On OT ("This is hard and I'm not sure what to do. Better give it a D-!"), and Chaotix (he's not the only one to not "get it", but that doesn't excuse it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

Hardcore Gaming 101 does a great job reviewing series of games IMO. Their research is usually very good.

---

They're a good site for discovering games/series you've never heard of. Their research though is often slipshod and some flaws can be aggravating, like claiming that the first SFC Goemon game drops your walking speed on being hit (which it, uh, doesn't). I like the site, and some of the articles are nice primers, but it has its limits - easily corrected with "mr. article writer please play the game more."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zetastrike

That dude is terrible. He hands out Ds and Fs like cheap promotions, especially to games he is clearly not the audience for. Sometimes it's evident that he played whatever game he "reviewed" for about 2-4 minutes before he decided to hand it an F-.

Examples like Jag Doom (he gave it an F, I don't know why, and his readers bitched at him until he raised it, to a C), Ranger X (clearly only played it for five minutes), or knocking Rocket Knight Adventures for "ripping off" DKC's mine cart level despite the copyright screen dating it for 1993 (he fixed that, but come on), and Virtual On OT ("This is hard and I'm not sure what to do. Better give it a D-!"), and Chaotix (he's not the only one to not "get it", but that doesn't excuse it).

---

I said sometimes. The reviews are quick and to the point and at least framed with a certain honest perspective (despite flubs like what you listed). I may chafe at low scores for shmups but at least I know I am not strictly getting self-congratulatory wanking when I read the site.

HardcoreGaming101 is pretty sloppy, often misleading and agenda pushing. Most articles I've read have some sort of problems, but they vary based on author. Too many feel like they were slapped together after skimming a wikipedia page. It's still fun to browse, but it's on average as accurate or comprehensive as a wiki page.

I've written to HCG and complained on things such as this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardcore Gaming 101

The sprites and controls are lifted from Turtles in Time, playing identical to that game with the exception of one things. The Mode 7 powered screen toss is missing entirely due to the Genesis not being able to scale and zoom sprites in a similar manner.

---

But they didn't want to edit their flawed article(s).

I like the videogamecritic, even though he's obvious with his biases and some of his grades can be WAY off. I still find his reviews useful; they're like junkfood. Quick bites of reviews that are easily consumed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

HardcoreGaming101 is pretty sloppy, often misleading and agenda pushing. Most articles I've read have some sort of problems, but they vary based on author. Too many feel like they were slapped together after skimming a wikipedia page. It's still fun to browse, but it's on average as accurate or comprehensive as a wiki page.

---

I feel the same way about HCG101. Over the past few years, it seems to have gotten worse. I still enjoy reading the articles, but it's clear that many of the authors aren't as involved with all games/ports to give them a fair review. They aren't even reviews, they're more like previews. Good for some info and seeing games related in the a series, as well as a quick glance at different ports - but next exactly great for reviewing games IMO. They'll list games, and show pics, and then completely gloss over those versions. But it's better than nothing. ~Some~ of the articles are clearly biased, but it's hard to find anything on the net that isn't - when it comes to multiplatform games/ports/etc. Now, if we can just some higher class Hardcoregaming..HCG250?

NEO•GEO AES beats both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SEGA.GENESIS1989

I love how you included the word "almost" in the sentence! :cool: It's an obvious admission on your part that he DOES do these things and therefore asking me what in the world I am talking about and then saying "not Classic Game Room" is incorrect. When he lauched his Youtube channel, he never did any of these things. Ever since CGRUndertow was created, he's (re-)adopted these sordid habits.

---

I've watched pretty much all of his videos, but I couldn't and can't think of even one time that he did any of those things. I said "almost" because i was thinking that you probably wren't making it up entirely, just being \extremely selective in what you talk about. Has he ever used "toilet bowl humor", for instance? I can't think of any. If he's ever "raised his middle finger at games"... maybe once or twice? And not necessarily at the game? (such as here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBeokwN_5jg )

Of course, your claim that he didn't used to do things like those is wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ot7wUVgyo He can't raise his middle finger of course, because he didn't appear on screen for quite a while, but he does swear at the game.

Seriously, those are weird complaints, because complaining about Mark criticizing games is kind of silly, because he's one of the most positive game reviewers in existence! Sure, he does criticize games sometimes, and probably has reviewed more bad games in the last few years than he did before, but people have been sending him more bad games, so that was going to happen. Even so though, if you watch Undertow reviews and then Mark's reviews, the difference is massive; Derek and co. often bash games hard, while Mark almost always tries to find the good in almost everything. One of the better things about CGR is how different Mark's attitude is from the popular "angry reviewer" style that still dominates Youtube game reviewing. Sure, even Mark dislikes a game once in a while, but it's much less common than with most Youtube game reviewers. You're taking things that he might do, like, once every couple of dozen videos or something and then making it sound like he's doing that stuff all the time! That's not true at all.

Quote:

---

Hey, if you like his brand of material that's of no concern of mine. Everyone has the freedom to watch what they want whenever they want. Afterall, we're not living under the auspices of the Taliban. And I really don't care if you call me a sanctimonious prick but the fact remains that I don't like it. He's around the same age as me and it's hard for me to watch a grown man flash his middle finger at a game just because he thinks is terrible. I'll simply end this post by simply saying that I mostly agree with alot of the points that both Barone and Zz Badnasty. Much to your chagrin they do make some valid points.

---

No, they don't. Mark does as good a job as anyone in the field, and produces more content than almost anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black_Tiger

HardcoreGaming101 is pretty sloppy, often misleading and agenda pushing. Most articles I've read have some sort of problems, but they vary based on author. Too many feel like they were slapped together after skimming a wikipedia page. It's still fun to browse, but it's on average as accurate or comprehensive as a wiki page.

---

I agree. HG101 can be great, but their articles are often loaded with bias and flawed. Beyond just the text problems, I also don't understand why they often have giant lists of portraits of all the characters, but very limited information about the games themselves... some HG101 articles are great, and others aren't. It's varied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sketch

I like the videogamecritic, even though he's obvious with his biases and some of his grades can be WAY off. I still find his reviews useful; they're like junkfood. Quick bites of reviews that are easily consumed.

---

I agree with this as well. The guy sometimes gives ridiculously bad scores to great games, but other times has good reviews. It's worth reading either way, but I definitely know not to trust his scores... particularly with kinds of games he has a history of scoring poorly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barone

IDK why are you twisting Zz's posts to the point of suggesting that the guy was expecting for something perfect and/or really serious.
Like I said before, it seems to be a pretty childish way to argue, even more when you consider that Mark himself call his reviews "journalist" and states that CGR is providing "professional" reviews. Zz pretty much just compared what Mark says to what he actually delivers.

But anyway, feel free to "pointing out holes" in the following suggestions (I'll name just a few ones out of my YT subscriptions), since, unlike you, I don't worship these guys, neither I will take the criticism towards them as a personal attack nor I'll need to write an essay in order to find them informative and critical. Oh, and they also seem to do some research before reviewing the games ("Wow!!!!"):

HappyConsoleGamer - I'm not a regular watcher of his work but I find some of his reviews quite useful.
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8OHQa9Z0tM

16BitBrothers
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-G3GX5O9p8

BNGamesReviews - I like these guys especially for their selection of PS1 games, with several good imports. But usually they're very well balanced in their reviews IMO.
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCqjCXq-LlA

PeteDorr
Sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMlydsMB0e8

There are several other channels which I subscribe, some like PepAlacant's don't have good production values but they're really informative and bring a lot of obscure games and platforms to my attention.
And, of course, I consider Game Sack to be entertaining, critical, informative and very well researched for the most part.

---

If Mark only made one video every six months or something, instead of a review every day, I'm sure he could keep every video at the level of the HCG's or something... but he doesn't. He makes a lot of videos, and it is his job. You can't ignore that. I haven't watched the middle two of those, but I have watched a lot of the HCG and Pete Dorr's stuff. They're fine, but I definitely like CGR better.

Quote:

---

Care to point what exactly has been improved so much? Any examples (an old review vs one of the new awesome ones)???

---

Here are some of the early reviews from the new CGR, from '08: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxLJG6nhjwk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpsfPJ9RuYI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ot7wUVgyo He doesn't even appear on camera, it's just game footage with voiceover.

Versus recent ones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub8bmVzzL0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgvFHOBCSVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7awvn3KWsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t_NSFjAIvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NxzEAd4XZI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKB2zQjECLI

Of course, Mark loves 2nd-gen games; Ms. Pac-Man is probably his favorite game, of course, and the original Mario Bros. (not Super) is his favorite Mario game. Anyway, of course different people will have different tastes in what kind of game reviews they like to read or watch, but CGR's are great fun. Sure, they aren't the most informative reviews in terms of the details, but they usually give a good sense of how the game plays, and who would like it.

aw, i hate seeing HG101 get so many knocks, considering how extensive they are vs most places...plus since it's user-submitted stuff, it's kind've wiki-like, no? can't you just resubmit a better piece if you feel a page isn't very accurate/thorough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Black Falcon

I've watched pretty much all of his videos, but I couldn't and can't think of even one time that he did any of those things. I said "almost" because i was thinking that you probably wren't making it up entirely, just being \extremely selective in what you talk about. Has he ever used "toilet bowl humor", for instance? I can't think of any. If he's ever "raised his middle finger at games"... maybe once or twice? And not necessarily at the game? (such as here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBeokwN_5jg )

Of course, your claim that he didn't used to do things like those is wrong: He can't raise his middle finger of course, because he didn't appear on screen for quite a while, but he does swear at the game.

Seriously, those are weird complaints, because complaining about Mark criticizing games is kind of silly, because he's one of the most positive game reviewers in existence! Sure, he does criticize games sometimes, and probably has reviewed more bad games in the last few years than he did before, but people have been sending him more bad games, so that was going to happen. Even so though, if you watch Undertow reviews and then Mark's reviews, the difference is massive; Derek and co. often bash games hard, while Mark almost always tries to find the good in almost everything. One of the better things about CGR is how different Mark's attitude is from the popular "angry reviewer" style that still dominates Youtube game reviewing. Sure, even Mark dislikes a game once in a while, but it's much less common than with most Youtube game reviewers. You're taking things that he might do, like, once every couple of dozen videos or something and then making it sound like he's doing that stuff all the time! That's not true at all.

---

:blah:

Clearly you haven't watched all 3,038 of his videos and if you have, you've not noticed some of the crass things mentioned previously! :daze:

Weirdest statement in ABF's long winded post:

Quote:

---

"Seriously, those are weird complaints, because complaining about Mark criticizing games is kind of silly, because he's one of the most positive game reviewers in existence!"

---

What? Most positive game reviewers in existence? That's your argument? Nonsense! Your fanboyism almost sounds like you have an internet crush on him :love:... and that's seriously creepy! :eek:

Obviously you're a diehard fan of the show so it won't matter if I compile a list of videos as a way to establish my argument. Your undying love for the MOST POSITIVE GAME REVIEW IN EXISTENCE won't allow you consider my point of view. And to be honest, I really don't give a damn! Most of his content post-2009 doesn't appeal to me in the least.

I will say one last thing: In one of his most recent videos he DOES raise his middle finger at a video game! Take that oh loyal CGR fan! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: