Left is better...

Have you tried communicating in sentences?
Please explain how left has a higher "quality" than right.

Matosis gives a big picture analysis, he doesn't use his time going in depth on mechanics, but rather looks at the game as a whole. Anderson spent 20 minutes explaining exactly how the game calculated armor damage absorption.

They're both entertaining, Anderson has pure autism, and Matosis has pure based critique.

It's like you think you're saying something but you really aren't.
Explain how, this is how discussion works. Right now you're just posing your opinion as fact.

Joseph is literally a manchild who never goes outside because hes that ugly anyone within his radius would immediately be disgusted at him. It feels as if he's doing these videos because he so desperately needs a fanbase since he's that lonely and depressed to the point where he has no real friends, online or in real life. He also needs to feel like he is a "intelligent person" all the while he is actually autistic. Anyone who actually watches all of it is retarded aswell.

Matthew on the other hand is based and redpilled because he isnt autistic.

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 8.02K)

it doesn't, joseph just repeats the same thing over and over again because he knows his viewers are too dumb to understand anything without repeating it constantly. His video length adds absolutely nothing to his videos because they could be 8 times as short without anything being lost in the process.
Matthew knows his viewers aren't clueless bafoons and by viewing the video and being able to agree with him requires at least some knowledge of the content he's talking about.

based

Anderson doesn't understand video game plots, why should anyone listen to his videos?

>It's like you think you're saying something but you really aren't.
>JA fans need an essay to explain the self evident

Attached: 1585604712122m.jpg (1016x1024, 63.85K)

UH BUT THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION BRO VIDEO GAME REVIEWS ARE SUBJECTIVE
>braincel.png

That's to Matthew's detriment though, since everything he says is already known to someone who played the game. I'll use Zelda as an example since it's in the OP, everything in mathew's video will be apparent to someone who played the game, but I debut most players know how armor absorbtion is calculated for example. Joseph has something to offer to those that just don't want simplistic opinions parroted at them.

>LEFT BAD RIGHT GOOD
>why?
>DURR CANT SAY WORDS MAKE HEAD HURT

You do know the OP is making fun of the fact that they both say the same exact thing but that joseph takes 8 years to make the point come across while matthew only needs 1 sentence?
Intellectuals aren't going to be watching joseph because his content is written for low IQ viewers.

Matt is just the cliffnotes version of Joseph

post bad.
>mathew

But they're not saying the same since Joseph backs his assertions up with experiences and multiple examples, explains why it is/isn't important, how it factors into bossfights ect. If you shorten it to one sentence you leave a lot out. Any idiot could just pause a Joseph video every half hour and write down his most significant conclusions then just list those, but they're not saying the same. Joseph backs his stuff up, Matthew just hopes you trust him.

>Intellectuals aren't going to be watching joseph because his content is written for low IQ viewers.
me smart
opponent? stoooooopid

Attached: ngm5(3).jpg (480x320, 58.52K)

Why the fuck do I need some rat faced retard to tell me for 8 hours that a mechanic doesn't work consistently when I already know it's inconsistent? Again, retards prefer joseph, intellectuals prefer Matthew

Matt shows a quick example in the video and then moves on.
The example served its purpose so no need to linger, you'd have to be really stupid if you tried to argue against his statement if you have played the game. It's more like an essay about the game as a whole.

Joe on the other hand likes to go REALLY in depth on everything, which is entertaining in its own way. Like it's fascinating to see how gears in a clock works or whatever, even if the point of a clock can quickly get lost in the three hour runtime.
The feeling I tend to get when watching him is that he is afraid that people will argue his points in ANY way, so he drills the point so hard that it should be impossible to dispute.
I feel he is in many ways a contrarian by nature, like the way he aggressively argues points about things like the dragon bridge on DS1 or that the key to DS2 is not using the lock-on, because he doesn't like discussion and mainly just wants to convince people he is right.
You can see it in his streams when his opinion is different than chat's he locks up and gets defensive.
He might say stuff like "I want to be wrong here" but he rarely ever admits it when he is.
In all though I think he definitely has his place, but comparing him to Matt is kinda pointless.

Because you might know it's shit but you may not know HOW or to what degree, that or you might have thought you were doing something wrong.
Very "high IQ" of you to resort to insulting his appearance, mind posting a picture of yourself?

>matt good, joe bad

>Joe
>I call him that because I gave him $ 5000 on patreon as well as my wife's virginity... We're close like that! :)

>Because you might know it's shit
But I do, because I am not some retard who watches a critique of a game I haven't even played yet. Matthews videos are clearly written around the fact his viewers should have already played the game in question, as he says in almost every one of his videos that it's recommended to have played it before watching the video. Only in his videos like Kula World does he not write his video in that way because he knows that's an obscure game nobody has played, and instead is more of a recommendation video.

Joseph however writes all his videos as if his viewers are braindead retards who want to watch 8 hours of someone critiquing a game they will never play. What kind of fucking retard would do that? He doesn't care, he knows there are plenty of idiots who would so he does it anyway.

Nah they're both all right. I do prefer Matt's content all in all, but like I said, Joe has his place. It's fun stuff.

stfu lol

You can tell Josephs scope of games are quite limited, it's why he is blown away by the combat in bloodborne and god of war.

At the same time, I feel like Anderson makes the mistake of trying way too hard. If Matt says something, shows a clear example, that's fairly cut and dry, but when Anderson just drones on and on and on and on about stuff, he ironically ends up opening himself up to a lot more scrutiny, precisely because of the volume. Odyssey is a good example, where his bench autism is an attempt at being thorough, but quickly fizzles into pure ridiculousness. I really think he could cut back on the fat and still lose very little in terms of overall meaning or quality, but he won't do it now, because both he and his fans have convinced themselves that the longer you go on, the more correct you are, when all you've really ended up with is an argument nobody will pick up due to the sheer fucking volume of it.

And that's before going into his actual non-meme autism. Not even as a joke, I honestly think there's something off in his head, because he does not seem to understand any kind of abstract thought, which becomes even more obvious if you read any excerpts from his books.

Attached: 4356.png (601x520, 122.89K)

You can recognize the educated fool by how many words he uses as to ensure everyone around him knows that he is as such.

Let's say you have a mechanical clock that's running late.
Matthew will point to the clock and say "it's running late" while Joseph would bring in several clocks all synchronised and compare them to the mechanical one to prove it is indeed running late than take it apart, explain what each relevant part does and tell you exactly why the clock isn't running as it's supposed to. If you want to just confirm what you already know without any additional understanding, by all means watch Matthew instead.
And again, very "high IQ" of you to call everyone you disagree with retards.

I don't see why anyone would want to pick joseph over matthew in that comparison.

Words = bad
me smarter

It's almost like Matt knows he is making a VIDEO and that he doesn't always have to go into minute detail about things that are conveyed efficiently via the medium he is working in.

I guess if you're interested in the subject matter?

If you are interested in the subject matter you would already know how clocks work, in which case joseph is just wasting your time by telling you shit you already know.

One is at least bringing some new information to the table where as the other is just telling you what you should already know if you have functioning eyes

>have functioning eyes
>but yes I need to have someone tell me exactly how a clock works when I already know that and I don't give a shit just fuck off so I can synchronize my clock already.

Same can be said with Matthew
I guess don't watch either then?

Very low iq of you to not want to understand anything beyond the very basic.

Sometimes I'm just unsure on whether it's late or not and just want confirmation, because everything else I'm curious about are far more important to me, than the deep dive into one specific thing I was unsure about and needed confirmation. Sure, feel free to go into absolutely autismal display, but eventually my eyes will just start glazing over because compared to the overall picture, that is such a massively tiny portion that I didn't need more than a few seconds devoted to it.

But you like being told that the clock is broken, even though you already know that.

I don't know how a clock works nor how to take one apart then put it back together, but I do know when a clock is running late. One is bringing in new information that can be somewhat entertaining if you're at least mildly interested in clocks where as the other just says something you know already.

>when all you've really ended up with is an argument nobody will pick up due to the sheer fucking volume of it.
Yeah I can agree with that. I guess the part that bothers me about it is his motivation rather than the actual content. It reminds me of opinionated people in old friend circles, you know like someone who bases their identity on being an intellectual in high school or something? Arguing to feel right and superior.
I can't really say that's a completely fair comparison in all, but I keep getting that vibe you know?

>which becomes even more obvious if you read any excerpts from his books.
Sounds fun, do you have any examples?

>Sure, feel free to go into absolutely autismal display, but eventually my eyes will just start glazing over (...)
ADHD confirmed

You'd have to be low iq to not already know that shit if you are interested enough to want to watch a fucking video about someone CRITIQUING something.
Yes, the true answer is to just play the video games without needing some retard to validate thoughts you didn't even have before.
Yeah and I rather have one guy tell me that and then fuck off instead of some absolute retard waste 2 hours of my life doing the exact same thing.
Why the fuck would you want some retard to drone on about how clocks work when all you wanted to know is if it's running late? again you fucks seem to WANT to watch critiques about shit you have no knowledge about, completely destroying the fucking point of a critique.

You can spot a fuckwit when they try to call someone else stupid for simply trying to provide in-depth looks at things rather than a HOT TAKE

Go back to twitter, nigger. It's got a character limit that's more suited to your speed.

>when all you wanted to know is if it's running late?
If that's all you want you can easily check yourself. This isn't what people watch these for.

The structure of OP's post is a counterpoint to his own point.
It would have been idempotent to write "being thorough is better than being terse", but OP elected to spend 80% of his post attacking the viewers of the opposite party instead of furthering his point. Much like how Anderson makes longs video with very little value.

seethe more Yas Forums

Attached: file.png (207x94, 4.18K)

>if you can't listen to my 20 minute explanation of something you don't care about, you have ADHD
I know you're forced to be polite in face-to-face communication, but if I just don't care about the specific thing, why would I listen to the excruciating detail?

People watch a video telling their clock is running late when they already know their clock is running late? Do you not realize how fucking retarded this metaphor is?

>People watch a video telling their clock is running late when they already know their clock is running late?
Yes, dude.

why

Positive affirmation feels good and nice and comforting.
"I have a thought, and another well known guy I like has that thought too, so that thought is good"

>suspect clock is running late
>instead of just looking at your phone and comparing the time, you call Matt the clock-looker to confirm it's running late for you
What's the logic there? It should be self-evident. With Joseph you're at least getting some new information.

In that case Matthews content is preferred by the viewer, as he actually gets to that point instead of wasting your time on shit you don't need to know.
Why the fuck would I want joseph the time waster to confirm it's running late for me and then repeat for 8 hours that it's running late while spouting random unrelated garbage I already know as well?

The point they're trying to make is that the video explains WHY the clock is running late. Of course that is probably boring to you, but evidently a lot pf people enjoy that sort of stuff. Like some people enjoy watching documentaries on how clocks get made. Come on dude, this is not that complicated.

So you just want someone to tell you that the thing you think is bad is bad. You don't want to learn anything. You just want your bias confirmed.

>but if I just don't care about the specific thing
If you don't care about videogames don't watch the video I guess.
But last time I checked he has timestamps in his descriptions so you can skip to later parts like a DVD scene select menu

If you need a definitive answer on who is the better analyst just look at both their videos about Return of the Obra Dinn.
They both liked the game, also both videos are equally long.
Matthew talks about how some of the solutions might be too easy to cheese, about how the deductive process need improvement, how some of the answers are not empyrical, and some of the death scenes might not be definitive.
Andreson spends 5 minutes bragging about how he brute forced trough the puzzles

>In that case Matthews content is preferred by the viewer, as he actually gets to that point instead of wasting your time on shit you don't need to know.
What posted indicates otherwise.

>Why the fuck would I want joseph the time waster to confirm it's running late for me and then repeat for 8 hours that it's running late while spouting random unrelated garbage I already know as well?
that's not at all what I described earlier. he'd tell you things you didn't know before like the mechanism of the clock. if you find that boring then I don't see why you'd find Matthew's take interesting

people like confirmation bias. They like others telling them that they thought the right though. These people don't want to learn anything new.

Why else would you want to watch a CRITIQUE video? Again are you so retarded you watch a video of someone critiquing something you never experienced before?
Then why not go to a channel dedicated to that stuff exclusively instead then.
>most people are dumb
wow shocking!
Yeah and those people would also prefer watching Matthews content then over Joseph.

>Yeah and those people would also prefer watching Matthews content then over Joseph.
What posted indicates otherwise.

If they had any brain cells they would yeah

>Then why not go to a channel dedicated to that stuff exclusively instead then.
That's kinda what they are doing though? Anderson's content is about exactly that, so that's what they're watching.
I mean he tries to make larger points that to me kinda fall flat, but by and large his videos are about deep diving into different systems and game mechanics. Which is something you rarely find to this degree of detail in other channels.

>i go to a CRITIQUE video to know how a clock works
no

So the concept of learning is foreign to you that you don't even understand the concept of it. And yes, more people are stupid idiots like you who just want to be told how smart they are, without having to do any actual thinking.

>I can't really say that's a completely fair comparison in all, but I keep getting that vibe you know?
I agree. I don't think he's bad by default, but the success of his early content and his fanbase very likely nudged him to believe that more = better, in every possible instance. There are many people who could respond to various points, but even if you feel like he got many things wrong, very few people will have the fortitude and free time to try and respond to a video of such lengths, only to be met with "but he went into more detail than you did, so you're wrong". And this sadly goes on further, as people will end up taking his word as gospel (barring genuinely dumb stuff like his horror game video) and it all just morphs into this awful feedback loop.

>Sounds fun, do you have any examples?
Sure, pic related is one of them.

Attached: 1539662947246.png (1490x803, 245.91K)

>I need to watch videos that teach me stuff I already know
Sure I do you fucking retard