I like AVGN, in that I think he's a guy who honestly loves and knows videogames who has found an entertaining schtick to run with. I wish he'd cut down on the swearing and the fecal humor since I want to share his reviews with my children, but I can't blame the guy for finding a persona and sticking with it. I guess he knows his audience, and for the most part, I'd bet they aren't 40-somethings with children under 12. :D
I'd like to see him give a positive review though (I haven't yet) because I think a positive review is a lot harder to make entertaining. It's easy to make fun of something. It's not as easy to clearly articulate why you you think something is good, or why you liked it and still make it as entertaining. If "good video games traits" were easy to nail down, then it would be a lot easier to make "good video games". Though, the thought occurs to me: since there are a lot of "bad video games" and it seems easy on the consumer end to identify them as such, one must wonder "what were the developers thinking" ?
With Odyssey, it seems like a few of the games were just put in there to "fill the box and raise the price point". It was my understanding that Ralph Baer had originally wanted to sell his "brown box" for something like $20. But Magnavox and the marketing firm they hired (name escapes me) thought that business needs would be better met with a $100 selling point and more games. I don't think they even play-tested Roulette.
I like AVGN, in that I think he's a guy who honestly loves and knows videogames who has found an entertaining schtick to run with. I wish he'd cut down on the swearing and the fecal humor since I want to share his reviews with my children, but I can't blame the guy for finding a persona and sticking with it. I guess he knows his audience, and for the most part, I'd bet they aren't 40-somethings with children under 12. :D
I'd like to see him give a positive review though (I haven't yet) because I think a positive review is a lot harder to make entertaining. It's easy to make fun of something. It's not as easy to clearly articulate why you you think something is good, or why you liked it and still make it as entertaining. If "good video games traits" were easy to nail down, then it would be a lot easier to make "good video games". Though, the thought occurs to me: since there are a lot of "bad video games" and it seems easy on the consumer end to identify them as such, one must wonder "what were the developers thinking" ?
With Odyssey, it seems like a few of the games were just put in there to "fill the box and raise the price point". It was my understanding that Ralph Baer had originally wanted to sell his "brown box" for something like $20. But Magnavox and the marketing firm they hired (name escapes me) thought that business needs would be better met with a $100 selling point and more games. I don't think they even play-tested Roulette.