Zero Punctuation - Yahtzee reviews

[Morgoth]

A .22 makes a little hole where some blood comes out. Far from ripping apart a tigh, sir.

[Xard]

It's not the calibre, it's the type of the bullet. Some rip you up bad

[Shryke]

where's Aram when you need him...?

[Gorth]

As Mkreku said, velocity is a factor too. It's probably a question of total kinetic energy in the projectile.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

It's not the calibre, it's the type of the bullet. Some rip you up bad

 

Regular bullets won't do it, though. You'll need something special... or lots of them.

Edited May 17, 2008 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[mkreku]

A .22 makes a little hole where some blood comes out. Far from ripping apart a tigh, sir.

Why are you even typing **** you apparently know nothing about?

 

If you type "high velocity bullet" in Google, the first thing that pops up is this:

 

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/scientific_to...high-speed.html

 

I don't know (or care) how legit it is, but it shows you how kinetic energy works when applied to flesh in a hurry.

[Calax]

Dum Dums will easily pop off a limb if they hit the limb.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

The point is, regular bullets rarely blow off a leg. There are many types of bullets and some WILL tear apart your limbs, but if you get shot, you should worry more about the blood loss than the possibility of losing your leg.

[Humodour]

Tell that to Gaeta.

[Morgoth]

Last time my neighbor shot his rabic dog he didn't explode. But Mkreku likes to play the smartass here, so I'll leave him at it.

[thepixiesrock]

Last time I saw my dad shoot a goose it did explode.

[kirottu]

Last time my neighbor shot his rabic dog he didn't explode. But Mkreku likes to play the smartass here, so I'll leave him at it.

 

What about all those other times your neighbor have shot his rabid dog(s)?

Edited May 17, 2008 by kirottu

[Morgoth]

Very funny. You think my neighbor is some sort of a psychopath? Me too (hehe). No seriously, that was like 10 years ago when I was a kid - he had to do it, the dog has gone mad. Now of course my neighbor is also dead, but that's another story. Still, can't remember any explosions.

 

What was this thread about again?

Edited May 17, 2008 by Morgoth

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

We were celebrating Yahtzee's awesomeness, I believe.

[thepixiesrock]

Or lack of.

[Sand]

There is no such thing of lacking in awesomeness when it comes to Yahtzee. I want to feel his amazing brain... nicely chilled... with a spoon.

[thepixiesrock]

It's the same reveiw every time.

[Pop]

Yes, he uses words to point out flaws and strengths. What a rote formula.

[thepixiesrock]

Yuk yuk yuk yuk

[thepixiesrock]

Every game ever made is too something. Too short or too long, too easy or too hard, too unoriginal or too weird, too violent or too kiddie. You don't ever have to define what "just right" would be and so you'll always have room to criticize. And I don't think he's funny.

[Tigranes]

He's just a pretty funny guy. He doesn't have a clearly defined or logical framework to build a perspective about game design on, but for the sake of entertainment borrows from a wild range of cultural tropes - in other words, taking him seriously would be silly (though I wager some would), just suspend and enjoy - and if you can't, you won't enjoy.

[Krookie]

His jokes were funny the first time I listened to him but now it's just sort of worn out and stupid.

[Pop]

Every game ever made is too something. Too short or too long, too easy or too hard, too unoriginal or too weird, too violent or too kiddie. You don't ever have to define what "just right" would be and so you'll always have room to criticize. And I don't think he's funny.

So your complaint is that he hasn't defined what "just right" is? How would that even work? He takes a game that works, like Psychonauts for example, and uses it as a control variable to be tested against? That's not a very smart way to go about giving criticism. At the end of the day all you can really say is "This game is not as good as Psychonauts" or "this game is as good or better than Psychonauts" which doesn't really mean anything. Especially if it's a review of something like Tetris or Gothic.

 

I'd love to get into the whole criticism spiel again, but this is a gaming forum just like any other. I could argue with a brick wall and provoke more thought.

 

Still though, as always

The purpose of Yahtzee is to be funny and review games without regard for their pretensions, which is exactly what he's doing.

He gave the most honest reviews of Mass Effect and the Witcher I've seen in their respective categories. Whether he's funny or not is beside the point. I remember when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and called that show out on cheapening political discourse. They called him "a comedian" as though it had some bearing on what he was saying.

 

There are a lot of Tucker Carlsons out there.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Pop

[thepixiesrock]

Every game ever made is too something. Too short or too long, too easy or too hard, too unoriginal or too weird, too violent or too kiddie. You don't ever have to define what "just right" would be and so you'll always have room to criticize. And I don't think he's funny.

So your complaint is that he hasn't defined what "just right" is? How would that even work? He takes a game that works, like Psychonauts for example, and uses it as a control variable to be tested against? That's not a very smart way to go about giving criticism. At the end of the day all you can really say is "This game is not as good as Psychonauts" or "this game is as good or better than Psychonauts" which doesn't really mean anything. Especially if it's a review of something like Tetris or Gothic.

 

I'd love to get into the whole criticism spiel again, but this is a gaming forum just like any other. I could argue with a brick wall and provoke more thought.

 

Still though, as always

The purpose of Yahtzee is to be funny and review games without regard for their pretensions, which is exactly what he's doing.

He gave the most honest reviews of Mass Effect and the Witcher I've seen in their respective categories. Whether he's funny or not is beside the point. I remember when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and called that show out on cheapening political discourse. They called him "a comedian" as though it had some bearing on what he was saying.

 

There are a lot of Tucker Carlsons out there.

 

I understand you think I'm less thought provoking than a brick wall, and I think you unrightfully arrogant and elitist, but please for my sake, just bare with me.

 

I'm not complaining that he hasn't defined what just right is. I can see where you've gotten confused. I'm saying that all of his reviews are negative, and that's his gimmick, and so he will always do that. I'm saying that even if a game is good and he has to review it, he will reveiw it negatively because it's what gets him views, and it's easy to make jokes when you're making fun of something that's bad. I'm mean, you can say they are honest reviews, and that he "reviews games without regard for their pretensions" but I just disagree. He will get things right on, but other times I think he's just saying something negative to get more lame jokes in.

 

I mean, obviously I firmly belive this because I don't like him or find him funny. And obviously you will disagree because you do like him and do find him funny.

[Sand]

His GTA4 review wasn't negative.