The Nostalgic Critic

Any one else agree with me when I say The Nostalgic Critic has really slowed down. Imo, I think he's beginning to get a bit stale. Don't get me wrong, he's still one of my favorite web comics but I just dont think he's as funny as he once was. The same goes for The Angry Video Game Nerd.

Pretty much everyone to me is dropping in quality. One exception is that I think Angry Joe has been getting better lately.

But anyway, he still makes good stuff to me. It's not as good as his older material... but hell. It's hard to continually write top notch material week after week.

A lot of the NC's jokes always felt a bit forced to me, if you know what I'm saying. Like he was reaching to much for a joke.

He's Daffy Duck, so being kind of corny and ham fisted is just part and parcel of the style. He is getting kind of stale though. Also, Douchey McNitpick is dumb. If nothing else was learned from Lady in the Water it should be that creating a straw man character to mock your critics is a bad idea.

I think they're both as funny as ever. Which is funny, but not as funny as a lot of the others at Channel Awesome. AVGN hasn't really dropped in quality, it's just that the rate the videos arrive is slower which gives that impression. As for Critic, he is the same as always, which might be the issue for some. Most jokes have been made and gets repeated. But to me, just as funny as they used to be. Especially when NC holds a "Old vs New" segment, that is my favourite thing with NC.

I typically find Doug's stuff to be very enjoyable. Sure, there are times where he gets a little too silly and I think it kills it, but ultimately I've never really truly disliked anything I've seen of his.

Doug is a very funny guy who does seem to have a great personality. The thing about The Nostalgia Critic show is that he never had a bad episode in my eyes, I mean one that I didn't find funny at all. Most of his episodes are enjoyable and fun, not all of them are great but I have yet to find one that made me close out from watching it out of boredom.

I think I actually like Walker more when he appears playing himself than the NC.

To me, NC is very funny, especially when he points out the infamous "big lipped alligator moments" in movies like ferngully..

but at the same time the choice of some movies has been hit and miss with me.

when it came time to review "The Room" i was shocked that NC didn't catch the scene obscura lupa did about the couple that randomly has sex in johnny's apartment and they dude has some weird fake O face thing going on.

Yes the nostalgia critic has gotten stale. But he has been doing this for 3 years now, its perfectly normal. This type of thing can go only so far, and there are just not that many jokes left. I won't say he doesn't make me laugh now and then, but most of these seemed kind of forced. But when I watch some of his older stuff I always laugh in earnest.
I also like his Old vs New bits, because he tends to do more research for those and its more informative.
Btw, Doug seems to be a very nice guy irl, its just that his character can only go that far.

Angry Joe(since someone mentioned him) is quite simply either a child, or a moron. He does not improve. He just mugs the camera and yells incoherently. He is truly like a 9 year old on a sugar overdose. He just goes on either hyping the shit out of a game that he really liked, or goes on a verbal tirade about a game he hated. The statement "This game is a piece of a shit farting, ass fucking, dick sucking stupidity"(note: ok its a bit of a overstatement, but gives you a clear idea) doesn't tell me anything, just that you are mad at the game. To his credit he does have some videos where he is more adequate, but that's rare. That's why I like Bennett's reviews. He tries to be professional about them.

Reviewing older games or movies in a character is actually quite alright, actually it spikes interest in them, so that people seek them out again. I can bet the AVGN has made so many people seek out the terrible games he has played on his show, that probably even nintendo were surprised and hell I don't know how many of the movies the Snob's reviewed I've seeked out.But that doesn't bode well for new ones especially games, regardless of their quality. Games that are 20 years old aren't going to suffer a sales drop just because some smart-alec said that the game is a Stinking carcass of Death. But new publishers and developers will suffer. Because when you say with your character who is supposed to be Angry that this game "FUCKING SUCKS, Don't buy it its the pitts", hordes of people who have no opinions of their own will believe you. Leave the professional criticism to the professionals, and keep your characters away from current events.


Most of the guys on CA have actually stopped reviewing and just re-tell the events of whatever they review and then just whine about how stupid a character acted or something of that sort. I'm glad that the Cinema Snob doesn't do that (when avoidable) and for the past 2 years I think I have always laughed at everything he has made. I dunno, maybe Brad has my type of humor, or rather his character does.

It's fine to find humor in something unique, or to tell people if something is really bad. But I think some of the reviewers are patently unfair, or worse actually dishonest about how bad some games are. Venetica for instance is a mediocre game, but it got trashed like it was the worst game in the world. That's exaggerating the faults of a game to sensationalize your review to get hits. That's exploiting the work of other people by not giving them a fair review.

Of course its fine to make fun of a bad game/movie. Its an easy target, but the humor should be subtle. Quick jabs and not spewing venom at the product. A review should be as objective as one can be, show all sides of the product. Not like you said just overexaggerate the games faults and shit on the makers.

And random side bar here, the "I'd like to see you do better" argument I see on the other forums is patently hypocritical. That argument could be applied to the many things the people on CA review. I would be amazed to see anyone at Blistered Thumbs make any game that's half the quality of the ones they regularly pan. But that's fine, because criticism isn't strictly the domain of experts, just like it makes no sense to expect people criticizing your reviews to do your job better.

That is precisely why I think reviewing a movie/game should be done by people who are actually involved in that industry. People, who are aware of how much work is put into the products. Anyone else just has an OPINION. Its not a review. You can't say something is this or that, while you are ignorant to the whole process of making it, because let's face it I doubt Angry Joe realizes exactly how much work is put into the games he verbally brutalizes. The era of a one-man game programmer is long gone. Hundreds of man hours are put into even the worst of games. For that, regardless of how bad the game is the developers deserve respect. Not some punk on the internet cussing them up a storm.

"I'd like to see you do better" is a pointless argument, because my doing better or doing something of that sort is again subjective to the audience. I might think its better, but someone else might not thus making my attempt pointless and I have wasted my time to prove something which is in any case irrelevant.

Well as far as an actual review you don't need to be an expert. At the end of the day the people these products are being sold to aren't going to care how difficult it is to program good AI after they've spent 60 bucks on a game they don't like. A good review is informative and entertaining. Ebert is the most well known critic for a reason, his reviews are sharp, accessible, informative, and he presents his opinion in such a way that even when you disagree with him you understand his thought process. At it's core a review is one person telling another person about the experience they had. There should be some modicum of honesty behind what you're telling the person. If it didn't actually make you really angry, then don't pretend it did.

Take Deadly Premonition for example. An honest review of that game from me wouldn't be me bouncing off the walls telling you how terrible it is. It would be me telling you that it's a deeply flawed but charming budget title that you should pick up if you're willing to be very forgiving.

As for Angry Joe in particular, I don't understand why he can't just let go of his character, because his character is an idiot. The person, seems to be an upbeat down to earth guy. If he went to the VGA's as himself and actually did some research he wouldn't have embarrassed himself.

Yes what you are saying is true. I just tend to try and appreciate every effort that is made, even if it fails. Its also perfectly fair if you have wasted your hard earned money on something that has disappointed you, after which things become subjective as it is YOU who is screwed over and you unleash your anger at whoever disappointed you. That's not the right thing to do, because you have no idea what really went on, in order for the final product to be bad/horrible. I am that type of guy who actually cares about both sides of the story. Just a quick e.g. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II though well recieved, was critisized by many for having vast amounts of bugs. While that's true, what many don't know is that those guys had one year to make the game during which they had to play the first game and then make the second one. I don't know if you are familiar with crunch time, but I can tell you that working under crunch conditions is one of the most horrible experiences ever.And those guys made a very good and enjoyable game. That deserves respect. Not, like you said, if someone encountered some strange bugs to just go on and on about them and in the end say "Well, those bugs were horrible and made the game really unplayable and it sucks, don't buy it."

Hmm btw maybe I should stop going off topic. This is the NC's thread after all. Sorry about that

Well what I mean is that if someone were to listen to a review I made and bought a game based on it, they aren't going to care about the developer's side of the story, they're going to care about the money they wasted on a game because I didn't tell them about the games flaws.

I for one rarely take into consideration reviews of any kind. If the public claims a movie/game is bad I just wait for its price to drop and then go see it/play it. There have been times when I've liked games/movies a lot more than some critics have.

When it comes to TGWTG, the Critic is probably my favourite reviewer #2 (as I mentioned, the Snob is my #1).

The first reviews I've watched by the Critic were "Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue" (a movie I grew up with) and "The Super Mario Bros. Movie". After that I kept watching and watching more episodes because I really liked his style and still do.

Until now I've been keeping following him although there are also a bunch of episodes I either missed (because I didn't think the topic would interest me that much) or didn't enjoy that much. And I wasn't that pleased when he took all his "Demo Reel" co-actors into the new episodes. After a while, though, I got used to them and I admit they've had their funny moments.

I also like some of his crossover episodes.

I haven't done a favourite episodes list yet since his show keeps going but some of my favourite episodes so far are "The Room", "Neverending Story 3", "Patch Adams", "Secret of NIMH 2", "Leprechaun" (with the Snob) and so on...

About his other shows: I haven't really followed them (Bum Reviews, Ask that Guy with the Glasses, Video Game Confessions...) and I didn't enjoy "Demo Reel". But I like his Disneycembers and Dreamworks-Uaries.