Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:matthewmatosis [2025-04-30 17:33:54] – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
+++ lb:matthewmatosis [2025-04-30 18:41:46] (current) – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation 95.108.213.214
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Matthewmatosis ======
+**Matthewmatosis** is one of //**the**// legendary video game critics. Some of his critiques and reviews are so solid, like the //Bioshock Infinite Critique//, that even over a decade later...nobody has been able to prove him wrong. At least to my knowledge.\\ {{tag>creators youtube}}
+===== Personal Evaluation =====
+His first two videos are his most controversial (alongside the [[you>VdNhwb7iuI4|Bioshock Infinite Critique]]) as those are not quite to his same standards. Those were reviews of [[you>3q3JMdxx37Q|Portal 2]] and [[you>YT-AXU84UBs|Catherine]]. I actually (mostly) agree with him on Portal 2, though.\\  While I don't have direct proof of this, I'm about half-certain [[lb:thegamingbrit]] has taken inspiration from him, as he uses a similar method of classification and even gives videos similar-looking thumbnails.\\  I am a particular fan of his [[youp>PLdg60-UktzB7FOxFNrVBmNZN7jqhkQdIu|Zelda]], [[youp>PLdg60-UktzB6jzfCek2tm5sZe2q0_CK_e|Mario]] and [[youp>PLdg60-UktzB6NLg6C9-AVN1H5SXjo97xc|Metal Gear Solid]] reviews, which I think showcase his peak.\\  More recently, Matthewmatosis has fallen into the pretentious trap, where his newer videos tend to take a less blunt approach to reviewing/critique and...well, the language just comes off as pretentious to me, it's really hard to describe. His [[you>v=xa9oEroGDQc|Last of Us Part 2 Review]] came off as fence-sitting to me, or a bit dismissive of story issues.((:fn:>Granted, I don't care about the Last of Us as a franchise at all, but I know enough about the mess surrounding it to be surprised by Matthewmatosis' approach.)) The two more recent videos on [[you>pl9G4voWfDQ|Context Sensitivity]] and [[you>v=5NC0sW-t6oY|Extrinsic Motivation]] also focus a lot on semantics...which is fine, I guess, but it does take a while to get to the point of the video.
+==== Trivilinks ====
+  * [[youu>matthewmatosis]]
+  * I had mentioned the Bioshock Infinite Critique in the opening text - and it really is a great critique of the game - but I should elaborate a bit on it.
+    * When the video came out, Bioshock Infinite was basically showered with praise by professional journalists and gamers alike...so he released a video that was //incredibly// critical of it. This is basically the only video from that era that //is// critical of it, though.
+    * More recently (maybe starting around 2020), people starting turning against Bioshock Infinite (coinciding with more favorable views on Bioshock 2). This entire thing has been dismissed as some ‘hate trend’, with this (now) 12-year-old video being lumped in with this trend, which is absurd.
+    * Many of the critiques of this video that I've heard/read((:fn:>I had watched [[you>T2qeWQTGek4|this]] one, which tries to weasel around it, but is obviously responding to Matthewmatosis directly. Generally I'm referring to comments on Matthewmatosis' video though.)) completely miss some of the arguments that Matthewmatosis makes. The one I'm referring to in particular has to do with the portrayal of racism in the game, which Matthewmatosis argues is poor. Counter-arguments usually dismiss this outright by either calling him racist (ironically) or saying that wanting to hear more slurs is a weird critique. The argument is that the portrayal isn't //historically authentic// and that it lacks //bite//, whilst the game wants to be taken seriously. The slur is used as an example of the game flip-flopping between being Politically Correct and ‘serious business’.
+  * A similar ‘the point is missed’ in [[you>295hYfc5Inc|The Stanley Parable Review]], where Matthewmatosis explicitly points out that counter-argument. I'll want to write a dedicated article on this at some point, but the ‘that's the point’ or ‘it's bad on purpose’ argument is logically unsound in the first place. I'm mostly noting it here because I happened to re-watch his review.