Good gaming channels on Youtube?

[flyingjohn]

...why?

Wasn’t this guy a respectful game reviewer? Why make review on anime trash?

It seems to have great exploration according to him.

 

[Jarpie]

The BG one is actually very well made. It includes footage from the og release, which says a lot by itself. Well researched and technical. Small channel and few videos so far, but has potential.

I watched the BG video, it was actually very good and very well researched. Subscribed.

 

[A horse of course]

The BG one is actually very well made. It includes footage from the og release, which says a lot by itself. Well researched and technical. Small channel and few videos so far, but has potential.

I watched the BG video, it was actually very good and very well researched. Subscribed.

Baldur's Gate did not base the RTwP system on VATS. It was a concession to Ray Muzyka and other team members who didn't like RTS gameplay.

 

[Jarpie]

The BG one is actually very well made. It includes footage from the og release, which says a lot by itself. Well researched and technical. Small channel and few videos so far, but has potential.

I watched the BG video, it was actually very good and very well researched. Subscribed.

Baldur's Gate did not base the RTwP system on VATS. It was a concession to Ray Muzyka and other team members who didn't like RTS gameplay.

True, not sure where he got that idea.

 

[A horse of course]

The BG one is actually very well made. It includes footage from the og release, which says a lot by itself. Well researched and technical. Small channel and few videos so far, but has potential.

I watched the BG video, it was actually very good and very well researched. Subscribed.

Baldur's Gate did not base the RTwP system on VATS. It was a concession to Ray Muzyka and other team members who didn't like RTS gameplay.

True, not sure where he got that idea.

I distinctly recall either Trent Oster or Feargus Uruquart making the connection, though they were merely comparing the two ideas, not claiming a causal link. Soybeard probably misunderstood/misinterpreted it.

That said, I watched the video last night and was livid, because he covered literally 97-98% of the same material as my video. He even found that obscure RCPsych interview with Augustine Yip that I thought I was clever for uncovering. Fucking PRICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alienman]

Point that out on his video if you have not already. Kinda important to get correct.

 

[Baron Dupek]

Is my search bar broken or Mandy's thread is gone? Only got one for his incident...

 

[A horse of course]

Point that out on his video if you have not already. Kinda important to get correct.

meh. I'm sure there's stuff I've gotten wrong myself - things like specific dates, why certain decisions were taken etc. don't always line up between Muzyka, Parker, Oster etc. In public, for example, Muzyka was highly supportive of RTwP and very dismissive of Diablo. Behind the scenes, initially Muzyka hated the idea of making AD&D real-time because it clashed with his dream of recreating the Gold Box games, and Bioware went apeshit over Diablo - Oster claims it delayed development by at least two months because nobody did any work.

But yeah, the influence of RTS and the RPG market being in the shitter are important points re: why Baldur's gate is the way it is. To be honest I don't get the impression Fallout had much influence on BG at all beyond general things Black Isle advised on (standardizing toolsets, which they'd fucked up in Fallout, for example). If people want a super accurate account of BG's development, a video probably isn't the right format. Even the Bioware 25th Anniversary Art Book I used for a bunch of references contains a bunch of omissions or outright lies.

edit: I just remembered that his video also massively overstates the importance of multiplayer. I think this is due to

A: Battleground Infinity,
B: BG being marketed as translating the tabletop experience to computers,
C: BG's online multiplayer being marketed by Interplay,
and D: The final product has multiplayer.

...but he misses a lot of important interstitial points, like Interplay rejecting Battleground Infinity and suggesting they go back and rethink the project (even before the connection with the AD&D licence was suggested), and the fact that Baldur's Gate didn't actually have working multiplayer until Interplay (who badly wanted this feature in the game) gave them more time and money to finish implementing it.

 

[A horse of course]

Crispy dies at 00:35:20 and 01:58:44

 

[deama]

only good one of the long-form game essay guys is MatthewMattosis.

the. only. one.

And that's largely because he works in video game design, i think as a teacher or something (he mentions it briefly in a 7 hour demon's souls video when he's breaking down how cameras in video games work).

Too bad he takes forever, last video of his was 7 months ago.

 

[smaug]

Crispy dies at 00:35:20 and 01:58:44

That comment section is unbelievable butthurt that you aren’t playing the EE’s LOL

 

[Poseidon00]

Canal BySpeed does some pretty cool oldskool Mortal Kombat stuff

 

[Young_Hollow]

Spoiler

Crispy dies at 00:35:20 and 01:58:44

Finished it today and my thoughts:
1. All round very informative. I think the sections about the different versions and mods would be really helpful for anyone looking to buy a BG and doesn't know the compromises that come with getting the Beamdog edition.

2. I'm personally not a fan of learning about the development-side / ''making of'' kind of information but I think the video is enhanced by having it since it helps to put a lot of stuff in context. It'll be more appreciated by people in the game-dev scene though. It comes down to personal vision about how much of it to include but I think you could go ''the most important features of X game's development was this, this and this'' and stop there unless you have your own insight / opinion to add to it. I'm looking at it from a review-video fan's perspective though and I understand that a retrospective has its own shoes to fill.

3. I don't know about others but I don't like discussion of the critical reception. Critical reception was more important at the time of this game's release but I think you could easily go ''the main criticisms were 1, 2, 3 but IMO'' if you put that section in the beginning of the video or put a section at the end called something like ''reception and legacy'' or ''impact on future games'' and discuss just the criticisms (without outlet and critic names) and your take on them considering the things you've said in the review-portions of the video. You could also include info about how it inspired future games or its place and significance in the genre in such a section. The mentioning of the other games with the rtwp system is similar to what I mean.
I know its important to give names in a video that serves both an informational and critical purpose but IMO the dropping of so many names in a short time will make people confused and unable to remember any of them rather than being able to remember only the most relevant ones that were mentioned briefly but not succeeded by the names of 4 or 5 other people (ie game critics).

4. I think you should find your ideal balance between informative and critical content in your vids so you could keep them either more succinct(in the case of shorter videos) or more focused on the portion that you're trying to highlight (in cases where they're longer).

 

[A horse of course]

Spoiler

Crispy dies at 00:35:20 and 01:58:44

Finished it today and my thoughts:
1. All round very informative. I think the sections about the different versions and mods would be really helpful for anyone looking to buy a BG and doesn't know the compromises that come with getting the Beamdog edition.

2. I'm personally not a fan of learning about the development-side / ''making of'' kind of information but I think the video is enhanced by having it since it helps to put a lot of stuff in context. It'll be more appreciated by people in the game-dev scene though. It comes down to personal vision about how much of it to include but I think you could go ''the most important features of X game's development was this, this and this'' and stop there unless you have your own insight / opinion to add to it. I'm looking at it from a review-video fan's perspective though and I understand that a retrospective has its own shoes to fill.

3. I don't know about others but I don't like discussion of the critical reception. Critical reception was more important at the time of this game's release but I think you could easily go ''the main criticisms were 1, 2, 3 but IMO'' if you put that section in the beginning of the video or put a section at the end called something like ''reception and legacy'' or ''impact on future games'' and discuss just the criticisms (without outlet and critic names) and your take on them considering the things you've said in the review-portions of the video. You could also include info about how it inspired future games or its place and significance in the genre in such a section. The mentioning of the other games with the rtwp system is similar to what I mean.
I know its important to give names in a video that serves both an informational and critical purpose but IMO the dropping of so many names in a short time will make people confused and unable to remember any of them rather than being able to remember only the most relevant ones that were mentioned briefly but not succeeded by the names of 4 or 5 other people (ie game critics).

4. I think you should find your ideal balance between informative and critical content in your vids so you could keep them either more succinct(in the case of shorter videos) or more focused on the portion that you're trying to highlight (in cases where they're longer).

Thanks. Regarding some of the points, like you say it's very subjective - I've had other people say "I already know all this stuff and don't care, but the BTS was new to me" or "love the nostalgia trip with the old magazines" and such. Regarding certain stuff, as you noted I needed to set the groundwork for points I wanted to make later, like the RTS/AI. Other stuff I actually brought up because it becomes relevant in the BG2 video, like reviewers comparing BG1 to Final Fantasy VII, which influenced both PS:T and BG2. I personally find it interesting to note how a game was viewed in the context of its time, like Baldur's Gate being compared to Diablo and Fallout 2 by most reviewers, with some of the more learned rpg critics making comparisons to Ultima. In previews a LOT of reviewers also brought up Descent to Undermountain, which seemed to have seriously damaged Interplay's relationship with reviewers (several of them suggesting BG would be a broken piece of shit).

The names thing was basically unavoidable. When I was writing the script I actually tried to avoid giving names, as I wanted to distinguish the BTS section from other Baldur's Gate retrospectives, which tend to repeat a lot of information about Bioware as a company (medical stuff, the Oster infighting, the CGI studio etc.) but don't explain how that information is relevant to the game. But then I had to point out James Ohlen because of HoBG, then Ray because of the GDC talk and interviews, which clashed with the BTS stuff. I also think it's fair to give credit to specific creative staff like Sass or Gallagher because people watching the video might be interested in a specific artist, composer etc. It's a tough balance. I do try very hard not to make it a "tribute to the people of bioware"-esque vid. Some retrospectives are almost like documentaries - I was watching the noclip documentary on Thief and pretty much the entire first 30m seemed to be "here is life story of famous developer X, then Y, then Z". I'm not intereested in that stuff at all and I do try to keep those facts relevant to the game. But again, some of that stuff is important in the BG2 vid (Ohlen and the content bloat issue).

For me, the hardest and most tedious part of these vids is ALWAYS the gameplay section. I try to make the vids for a wide range of people - those familiar with the game, those who might've played it a long time ago, and those who've never touched it. That means spending a huge amount of time explaining how game systems work and trying to make it flow from one section to another reasonably logically. Absolutely detest writing these parts, but they're unavoidable. Regarding length....ehhhhh the cat's already out of the bag. I assume people willing to watch a 1hr30m vid aren't too bothered by having to watch a 2hr video so long as it's reasonably interesting. And I try to divide the long videos into chunks so that people can watch specific sections every time they're on a toilet break or whatever. I am aiming for, ideally, 1hr30m in the BG2 video as I don't have to set up the gameplay mechanics and can instead focus on analyzing them and how they affect the experience.

A big issue for me is going to be how to arrange the BG2 video with Throne of Bhaal. ToB is, in my opinion, not worth a video by itself (that said I wish I hadn't glossed by Balduran's Isle in the BG1 vid), as 90% of what there is to say about ToB is in story/writing/pacing, and gameplay mechanics are only really worth talking about in the context of BG2 (epic level abilities ruining high-level balance, Watcher's Keep items in vanilla BG2). However, making sure the ToB content fits with the SoA content is going to require a good hard think.

 

[Young_Hollow]

Spoiler

Thanks. Regarding some of the points, like you say it's very subjective - I've had other people say "I already know all this stuff and don't care, but the BTS was new to me" or "love the nostalgia trip with the old magazines" and such. Regarding certain stuff, as you noted I needed to set the groundwork for points I wanted to make later, like the RTS/AI. Other stuff I actually brought up because it becomes relevant in the BG2 video, like reviewers comparing BG1 to Final Fantasy VII, which influenced both PS:T and BG2. I personally find it interesting to note how a game was viewed in the context of its time, like Baldur's Gate being compared to Diablo and Fallout 2 by most reviewers, with some of the more learned rpg critics making comparisons to Ultima. In previews a LOT of reviewers also brought up Descent to Undermountain, which seemed to have seriously damaged Interplay's relationship with reviewers (several of them suggesting BG would be a broken piece of shit).

The names thing was basically unavoidable. When I was writing the script I actually tried to avoid giving names, as I wanted to distinguish the BTS section from other Baldur's Gate retrospectives, which tend to repeat a lot of information about Bioware as a company (medical stuff, the Oster infighting, the CGI studio etc.) but don't explain how that information is relevant to the game. But then I had to point out James Ohlen because of HoBG, then Ray because of the GDC talk and interviews, which clashed with the BTS stuff. I also think it's fair to give credit to specific creative staff like Sass or Gallagher because people watching the video might be interested in a specific artist, composer etc. It's a tough balance. I do try very hard not to make it a "tribute to the people of bioware"-esque vid. Some retrospectives are almost like documentaries - I was watching the noclip documentary on Thief and pretty much the entire first 30m seemed to be "here is life story of famous developer X, then Y, then Z". I'm not intereested in that stuff at all and I do try to keep those facts relevant to the game. But again, some of that stuff is important in the BG2 vid (Ohlen and the content bloat issue).

For me, the hardest and most tedious part of these vids is ALWAYS the gameplay section. I try to make the vids for a wide range of people - those familiar with the game, those who might've played it a long time ago, and those who've never touched it. That means spending a huge amount of time explaining how game systems work and trying to make it flow from one section to another reasonably logically. Absolutely detest writing these parts, but they're unavoidable. Regarding length....ehhhhh the cat's already out of the bag. I assume people willing to watch a 1hr30m vid aren't too bothered by having to watch a 2hr video so long as it's reasonably interesting. And I try to divide the long videos into chunks so that people can watch specific sections every time they're on a toilet break or whatever. I am aiming for, ideally, 1hr30m in the BG2 video as I don't have to set up the gameplay mechanics and can instead focus on analyzing them and how they affect the experience.

A big issue for me is going to be how to arrange the BG2 video with Throne of Bhaal. ToB is, in my opinion, not worth a video by itself (that said I wish I hadn't glossed by Balduran's Isle in the BG1 vid), as 90% of what there is to say about ToB is in story/writing/pacing, and gameplay mechanics are only really worth talking about in the context of BG2 (epic level abilities ruining high-level balance, Watcher's Keep items in vanilla BG2). However, making sure the ToB content fits with the SoA content is going to require a good hard think.

I understand what you mean. Its important to go in depth enough that even long-time fans of the game get to find something new. My main consumption are shorter reviews so consider it as the reason for my relative illiteracy on these topics and how they'll be relevant. Laying the groundwork for the next video is a good idea and I think its good to make these with this amount of forethought as you'll be able to refer to the relevant part of this video in the future one.

Yes, people-oriented vids about games are boring, they always tend to come of as pandering to the people they cover and have no nuance. But I see how including the relevant people and details are conductive to giving the people specifically interested in the creative process what they're looking for. To explain gameplay, you could explain general D&D combat and then explain how its different in this particular game. But then you'll run into the problem of having to explain basic D&D combat in every video and that'll be both a pain and a waste of time. So maybe you could make a short one-off video explaining D&D combat in CRPGs and then refer to it if people want more info (though it would clash with the review-only structure of your channel that you've built up). Yeah length is only an attribute that's relevant if you're speaking about the same thing for the whole while so its not as important as getting what you want to say across.

You could describe SoA in detail at the start and just refer to how ToB is different when you reach its section. Executing that will probably be difficult though so good luck.

 

[MuckMan]

 

[MuckMan]

 

[Pentium]

I haven't played a 20 years old game until now and I'm going to judge if it was actually good as objectively as I can.

I don't like the "immersive sim" term, which describes this game much better, so I'm just going to call it a stealth game and bitch about the absence of a stealth skill even though stealth is in no way mandatory in this game as I admit later on myself.

The game is 20 years old, I'm willing to forgive it some issues, I'm such a good, good, good boy.

I'm not able to figure out how to use the non-op crossbow with tranqs = shit weapon.

You've got 10 seconds to swallow your mic and bite your tongue off before I add you to the list of YT fag casualties.

 

[A horse of course]

"Immersive sim" is a retarded and completely useless label, and anyone who uses it should be beaten to death.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

"Immersive sim" is a retarded and completely useless label, and anyone who uses it should be beaten to death.

Fat... claim.

 

[Silverfish]

"Immersive sim" is a retarded and completely useless label, and anyone who uses it should be beaten to death.

It's a useless label, but everyone knows exactly what kinds of games you're talking about when using it.

 

[Bad Sector]

It's a useless label, but everyone knows exactly what kinds of games you're talking about when using it.

If everyone knows about the kinds of games you're talking about doesn't that mean it has a use?

 

[A horse of course]

"Immersive sim" is a retarded and completely useless label, and anyone who uses it should be beaten to death.

It's a useless label, but everyone knows exactly what kinds of games you're talking about when using it.

"Immersive Sim" has retroactively been applied to Thief, System Shock, Ultima Underworld, Deus Ex, Dishonoured, Prey(shock) and, last I checked, fucking Deathloop. It's worthless.

 

[HansDampf]

Warren Spector in the year 2000: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131523/postmortem_ion_storms_deus_ex.php

Conceptually, Deus Ex is a genre-busting game (which really endeared us to the marketing guys) -- part immersive simulation, part role-playing game, part first-person shooter, part adventure game.

It's an immersive simulation game in that you are made to feel you're actually in the game world with as little as possible getting in the way of the experience of "being there." Ideally, nothing reminds you that you're just playing a game -- not interface, not your character's back-story or capabilities, not game systems, nothing. It's all about how you interact with a relatively complex environment in ways that you find interesting (rather than in ways the developers think are interesting), and in ways that move you closer to accomplishing your goals (not the developers' goals).

As we brought on new people, we found ourselves to be a team of hardcore Ultima geeks, hardcore shooter fans, hardcore immersive sim fans, strategy game nuts and console gamers.

I put together two groups of people with differing philosophies -- a traditional RPG group and an immersive sim group.

 

[A horse of course]

Warren Spector in the year 2000: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131523/postmortem_ion_storms_deus_ex.php

Conceptually, Deus Ex is a genre-busting game (which really endeared us to the marketing guys) -- part immersive simulation, part role-playing game, part first-person shooter, part adventure game.

It's an immersive simulation game in that you are made to feel you're actually in the game world with as little as possible getting in the way of the experience of "being there." Ideally, nothing reminds you that you're just playing a game -- not interface, not your character's back-story or capabilities, not game systems, nothing. It's all about how you interact with a relatively complex environment in ways that you find interesting (rather than in ways the developers think are interesting), and in ways that move you closer to accomplishing your goals (not the developers' goals).

As we brought on new people, we found ourselves to be a team of hardcore Ultima geeks, hardcore shooter fans, hardcore immersive sim fans, strategy game nuts and console gamers.

I put together two groups of people with differing philosophies -- a traditional RPG group and an immersive sim group.

And?