When comparing AngryJoeShow vs Matthewmatosis, the Slant community recommends AngryJoeShow for most people. In the question“Who are the best game critics? ” AngryJoeShow is ranked 1st while Matthewmatosis is ranked 5th. The most important reason people chose AngryJoeShow is:
Joe adds sketches, original content, and a well rounded approach to his reviews. He brings in a character that can be a little tough to swallow at times, but says out loud what most of our internal dialogues say to us already about bad games. Joe comes with a wealth of knowledge, weighs the pros and cons of each game he reviews, and tends to take an objective, yet passionate approach to gaming reviews. While the sketches aren't perfectly crafted, it's authentic in the sense that Joe loves what he does, and it shows.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Funny and Informative
Joe adds sketches, original content, and a well rounded approach to his reviews. He brings in a character that can be a little tough to swallow at times, but says out loud what most of our internal dialogues say to us already about bad games. Joe comes with a wealth of knowledge, weighs the pros and cons of each game he reviews, and tends to take an objective, yet passionate approach to gaming reviews. While the sketches aren't perfectly crafted, it's authentic in the sense that Joe loves what he does, and it shows.
Pro In-depth (yet concise) videos
The videos are as long as he feels they need to be to address everything - the Devil May Cry & Dark Souls entries are entire playthroughs of several hours whilst discussing the games - far more analysis than a standard Lets Play video. His critiques are also concise and straight-to-the-point, instead of extensively rambling about a single point where it's not required.
Pro Discussion of atmosphere
One aspect of game design that often gets overlooked by other critiques is atmosphere, which is something that he is excellent at dissecting (as evidenced by his Majora's Mask, Team Ico and Demon's Souls videos).
Pro Strong focus on gameplay
Several critics tend to provide long detailed (often surface-level) descriptions of games without talking too much about the merits and pitfalls of the actual gameplay. As a programmer, he understands what goes behind-the-scenes in game design, useful for starting developers. Having played an extensive array of games that goes beyond the mainstream, he can effectively compare games to highlight a specific aspect of gameplay (such as combat, puzzle-solving or level-design).
Pro Great for starting game developers
If you're going to create a game, Matthew will sometimes provide behind-the-scenes stories about how a certain game was made or game mechanics worth improving or experimenting on. These videos make it seem like games are far more complex and exciting on the inside than they first appear.
Cons
Con Sometimes too heavy on sketches
Joe has been known to add more sketches to his material as of late, and while they add some fun to his reviews, they can turn some people off that are just coming to see a well balanced review.
Con Favors big titles over small indie games
Con Some videos can be mundane and dry
If you're looking for comedy or exciting gameplay, you will not find it here. His sense of humor is subtle and sporadic, but that boils down to personal opinion. Long videos are both a blessing and a curse, providing a lot of information, but some people just can't make it through.
Con Doesnt know anything about actual game design
He edits his critiques in a way that flows like an audio book. In terms of effective critiques there arent many to be found here. He uses reductive anaylsis, throws out opinions as if they explain anything like a journalist with quality research could.