Zero Punctuation - Yahtzee reviews

[Hell Kitty]

His reviews are great, but they're entertainment. This sort of stuff isn't going to "improve the rate of innovation" in the industry, there's simply not enough to them.

 

Really, his reviews are just the same as everyone elses. If you agree with them, he's right, if you don't, he's wrong.

[Pidesco]

His reviews are great, but they're entertainment. This sort of stuff isn't going to "improve the rate of innovation" in the industry, there's simply not enough to them.

 

That's what I'm saying. More reviewers should harsher.

[Pop]

Really, his reviews are just the same as everyone elses. If you agree with them, he's right, if you don't, he's wrong.

See, it's when people say things like this that I'm glad I still frequent this forum. This is the reason why even if Yahtzee has the potential to create a dialogue concerning the state of gaming, he won't. The critical thinking skills of your average gamer (at least, the average gamer who hears something he doesn't like) are equivalent to those of a high schooler who totally knows the score, man, so don't come at him with your "opinions", man, because that's all argument really is, man, and opinions are like ****, man, and mine's just as good as yours, man, so, like, stop imposing and live and let live. Man. It's amazing how unassailable your preconceptions are when criticism is meaningless.

 

Some days, I dream of a world in which someone could both crack jokes and actually say things worth hearing and addressing. Maybe... maybe they could do both at the same time! That's a concept so heavy I can't even really fathom it. I can't imagine doing anything but choosing between the two.

 

Anyway, people tend to laugh at what Yahtzee says, so it seems pretty obvious that he's not really saying anything at all. I think I'm going to go turn on the Daily Show and watch Jon Stewart talk about nothing at all relevant or noteworthy, as he has for the last 10 years. Politics and the media are fraught with hypocrisy and insanity, but you'd never know that watching a show so obviously dedicated to comedy.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Pop

[Hell Kitty]

His reviews are great, but they're entertainment. This sort of stuff isn't going to "improve the rate of innovation" in the industry, there's simply not enough to them.

 

That's what I'm saying. More reviewers should harsher.

 

I think you misread "not enough to them." as "not enough of them."

 

What exactly is it in his reviews that you think could change the industry if more reviews said the same thing? Would Bioware change their successful formula if they received enough not-quite-so-positive reviews? Do negative reviews really have that much of an impact on sales? Last I heard Kane & Lynch made bucketloads of cash and a sequel is on the way.

[aries101]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/50713

 

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=c...16&Itemid=2

 

According to the above short articles Kane&Lynch has sold about 1 million units or games. However, sometimes publishers seem to confuse shipped units with sold units. Just because a game unit has been shipped does not necessarily mean that it also has been sold.

 

As A Dane, however, I'm happu with this, since it means that the Danish developer, IO Interactive, can get their expenses (& then some some ) re-imbursed. The best thing that could happen, imo, was in fact the controversy about this game, since it means that many people just are buying the game to check out for themselves if the game really is as awafull as Gamespot's Jeff Gerstmann claimed.

 

As for for Yahtzee's reviews, I have had a hard time taking them too seriously lately. I mean, the first one was still fun and all, but there seemed to be certain seriousness about the games he reviewed. Now it seems that he just most of all goes for the 'awe & shock' effect. This also can be seen in his most recent reviews of *the witcher* It is fine that he doesn't like the story etc. etc. and that he doesn't like the dialogue(s) in *the witcher*. But I have just one thing to say. It is an rpg - not an FPS game. Or in other words: It isn't Halo 3 or Half-Life 2. Complaining about dialogues in an rpg as well as choice & consequences etc. in an rpg seems just a bit silly.

 

As for Bioware getting highly acclaimed reviews, maybe their games just deserve this. I agree, however, that ratings in the 9.5-9.99 point range seems just a little bit (ok, a lot) silly, but it must be the journalists that have to look inward if this should change, imo. They need to be fair as well as balanced and apply their critical sense as well when they review a game. Then maybe we won't see ratings in the 9.70 to 9.98 range for games that don't deserve it, at least not when you read the text to the reviews.

Edited January 27, 2008 by aries101

[Nick_i_am]

What exactly is it in his reviews that you think could change the industry if more reviews said the same thing? Would Bioware change their successful formula if they received enough not-quite-so-positive reviews?

 

Yes, if those reviews translated into lost sales, and that's the real question.

 

Some of the best games ever made have recived great reviews, but have been let down by crappy marketing. Nexus is a prime example of this.

 

Likewise, Kayne and Lynch didn't need great reviews, because most of the people who heard about it saw only what the marketing people wanted them to see, which was the promise of a dark and gritty story of two psycholic badasses fighting the law.

 

There is, after all, a reason why games like Spiderman 3 and Transformers sell and it often seems to have very little to do with the actual gameplay and a lot to do with the surrounding media.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

*cough* Sonice the Hedgehog for the 360 *cough*

 

Everyone played that game, and it sucked.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know why people take reviews so seriously. They can be a useful source of information, but it's not serious journalism. The scores given are a matter of opinion, not some mathematical formula.

[Pop]

Totally, dude. I keep emailing all the gaming sites, imploring them to include some sort of text-based game review alongside their numerical scores, but they keep defying me. If only there was something I could read other than the numerical scores. This sucks.

 

Anyway, that's completely relevant to Yahtzee, who never fails to include a summary numerical score in every single one of his reviews.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Pop

[Calax]

It's Umbrella chronicles this week

 

 

Next week (if the ending is any indication) will be :dun dun dun: COD4.

[thepixiesrock]

It isn't him being funny that keeps people from taking it seriously, I think it's just that fact that almost all of his reviews show the games negatively, and how much he throws ****+word in to the review, that makes it seem more like gimmiky entertainment, and less like a review.

[Nick_i_am]

You might have a point there, but being that all his reviews DO have fair (if sometimes long winded_ points there's really not much basis for withholding that claim when the viewer is anybody with more than half a brain.

 

so approximately 3% of the gaming community.

[thepixiesrock]

I agree with that, I'm just saying that it's understandable for some people to disregard his reviews as a whole, and that if there really was some sort of intent to change something about games as a whole, then his approach cerainly isn't helping to make his case. I don't disagree with the notion that he is correct in his assesments of games.

 

I might be getting a little off track from what I was originally trying to say, which was in response to Pop seemingly saying something elitist about how the reason people shrug off what this Yahtzee guy says is because he's being funny, and how people who don't agree with Yahtzee do so because they can't understand that comedy can say something worthwhile. I'm saying that I'm more inclined to believe he is exagerating things, for the purpose of entertainment, and as such, he may have some basis for his complaints, but on a whole he exagerates, and throws in some swear words and allusion's to poop to get more views.

 

I'm just saying, I could understand why his reviews wouldn't hold a lot in the way of being constructive.

[Pop]

I think that most people who watch Yahtzee's videos are actually smart enough to realize that he's making valid points, it's just that they don't agree with him. The sad thing is that it seems as though some people aren't willing to really address what he says. Usually with game reviews, an aversion to honest argument is expressed as "he's biased" or "she obviously didn't play the game well / enough", although the latter can sometimes be apparent as true. With Yahtzee, it's also expressed as "he's just an entertainer" or "it's comedy". Such statements are obviously dismissive, not even tacit denials of points given, but denial that points can actually be made. It's an insult to discourse and thought.

[Pidesco]

^What he said.

[thepixiesrock]

I don't disagree about him having valid points. I'm not saying that because he's entertaining that his points aren't valid. I'm not taking Hell Kitty's stance and saying that there isn't enough to the arguments he's making. I'm saying that I don't think the way he presents his points is a good way to present the points he is making if his goal was to actually change something in the gaming market. As in, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinnegar. I agree, saying he's just an entertainer and as a result his points don't hold water is dismissive, and that's why I don't think more reviews should be like his, because it's easy for people to dismiss it. So if someone wanted to change something in the market, they would have to do so in a way that wouldn't outright offend the people making the games, by comparing the game to a diaper filled with whatever clever game related one-liner he comes up with.

 

That's all I meant.

[Hell Kitty]

I don't disagree about him having valid points. I'm not saying that because he's entertaining that his points aren't valid. I'm not taking Hell Kitty's stance and saying that there isn't enough to the arguments he's making. I'm saying that I don't think the way he presents his points is a good way to present the points he is making if his goal was to actually change something in the gaming market. As in, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinnegar. I agree, saying he's just an entertainer and as a result his points don't hold water is dismissive, and that's why I don't think more reviews should be like his, because it's easy for people to dismiss it. So if someone wanted to change something in the market, they would have to do so in a way that wouldn't outright offend the people making the games, by comparing the game to a diaper filled with whatever clever game related one-liner he comes up with.

 

I actually agree with this. My stance that there isn't enough to the arguments he's making is only in relation to Pidescos belief that more harsher reviews would increase innovation in the industry. As reviews they're fine, but take away the fun and the points he's making aren't new, they've been made by other reviews or gamers or developers. I wouldn't want to him to swap vinegar for honey, but then I don't think his goal is to change the industry any more than any other reviewer. The harshness isn't unique, and it isn't why people take more notice of his reviews, it's the humor and delivery and vinegar, and I'd hate to see people copy that because then it would just make that review style boring.

 

The real question, as Nick_i_am pointed out, is whether harsh reviews can translate into lost sales. A review being right if you agree with it and wrong if you don't can apply just as much to developers as gamers. If Random Developer X thinks his design is the best thing ever, and has the fans and sales that agree with him, why would he change? Gabe Newell, for instance, isn't interested in making non-linear games because he believes a player should be able to experience everything the game has to offer in one play through, and many, many gamers are obviously happy with this. Are reviews really so powerful that they can change the way gamers think?

 

I think innovation is something that happens by accident. A developer comes up with a game and if something about it hasn't been done before then it's innovative. It's something that comes from a desire to do something that just happens to be new, rather than a need to do something new because the old is getting harsher reviews.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The reason I started watching Yahtzee is that he used to be really dead-on about the flaws of games, and he was funny. Unfortunantly, it appears that he has less time playing the games lately so his latest reviews tend to only focus on the most superficial.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

The reason I started watching Yahtzee is that he used to be really dead-on about the flaws of games, and he was funny. Unfortunantly, it appears that he has less time playing the games lately so his latest reviews tend to only focus on the most superficial.

 

I have to agree, he often pointed out valid flaws in games. It's done in an entertaining way, infact he OVER does it, but if you take the comments lightly enough he's usually right to a certain degree... That said, its really not worth him reviewing alot of games on the grounds that if it's an RPG he actually complains about the fact it's an RPG, which frankly I find odd!

 

I think initially it was a funny approch but unless he actually starts to approch gaming genre's without a degree of bias "OMG it's an RPG and it's got like talking and text so it sucks", isn't really my idea of a decent review of a game... But he has done some noteable classic reviews:

 

Tomb Raider, Halo3, Fable, Psychonaughts, and Orange Box all spring to mind as funny and somewhat accurate reviews, where the reviews of Mass Effect and The Witcher just seem pointless, as they ended up being neither that entertaining or valid.

[Pop]

Usually with game reviews, an aversion to honest argument is expressed as "he's biased"

No, please, Mr. Yahtzee, don't degrade our precious precious babies.

 

The purpose of Yahtzee is to be funny and review games without regard for their pretensions, which is exactly what he's doing. And Yahtzee is painfully correct in that the Witcher is padded so hard it makes Neverwinter Nights 2 look like ****ing Portal.

See, most everybody here operates under the pretension that RPGs are "special" and "different" and you have to play them differently (and coincidentally, put up with all sorts of bull****) to really appreciate their true greatness. Yahtzee has no such illusions. He sees them as games, not works of beautiful, unique art. He holds them to the same standard he holds other games to, and if a platformer had all the pretension of an RPG, he'd fail it too.

 

Fact - Mass Effect has more dialogue than 20 average length feature films.

 

Fact - The Witcher is 90% grind, 1% "show-me-the-ring/let's-play-a-game" and 9% reminding the player what's happening. Incidentally, I've given up on the game after 12 hours of grinding before they tell me "oh, now, yeah, seriously, now you have to make choices that are going to matter. Now, if you would, kill 10 alghouls and bring their skulls to me!".

 

Also, 25% "**** me now, Geralt".

Edited February 1, 2008 by Pop

[Tale]

Pop hates the vidya. I think it's time we all came to accept that.

[Istima Loke]

Call of Duty 4. And he actually likes it. And it's true, he's funnier when he bashes games. Edited February 6, 2008 by Istima Loke

[Meshugger]

Pretty good review, as in entertaining review.

 

But i never cared for CoD 4 anyway, and this review didn't get me any more interested either.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I was disapointed with CoD 4, though no where near as disapointed as I was with CoD 2. For me, CoD 1 + United Offensive was the pinnacle of WWII shooters. It did nearly everything right in both single and multiplayer. Every CoD since has mucked up the formula, and removed numerous awesome extras in the UO expansion.

 

The American campaign was WAY too short and a complete rip off, which I wouldn't have minded except I bought the game based on the demo, which was from the American campaign.

 

CoD 4 still has the lame tension/realism breaking health regeneration. I really really hate it. It belongs in Halo, not a military shooter.

 

The multiplayer is a helicopter/air strike spam fest. It makes sure that the first team that aquires one of these abilities continues to dominate. There really should have been a better way to implement these abilities.

 

Yahtzee mentioned it as well, but the rap at the end of the game was... horrendous. I was almost tempted to ctrl+alt+delete out of it, but I'm glad I didn't as a cool final bonus airplane shoot out mission starts at the end of the credits. Loved the references to the movie 'Airplane' too.

 

On the positive the game has some absolutly fantastic moments. I absolutly loved the Chernobyl defense sequence. For those who don't know, don't shoot the dogs feasting on the dead russian in the pool room. During the final battle when the guns start blazing, the dogs will rush out and start mauling the Russians, as they walk through the claymore filled grassland... as I sniped them. It was beautiful.

Edited February 6, 2008 by GreasyDogMeat

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Hmmm... I see a lot of "poop" jokes in this one... wasn't too funny.