Zero Punctuation: Game reviews

[Prophaniti]

Who else loves this guy? Even when I don't agree with his review of the game, he's still fun to listen to. Link here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation), to his main page on the Escapist Magazine website, and also links to his first two you-tube videos, here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWS9_nrKOPA) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYQLR7dE5k4&feature=related). And, heck, just for gits and shiggles, here's the link to the TVtropes page (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZeroPunctuation).

He does like to curse and carry on, so you should probably consider it NSFW.

Great, great stuff.

[Ego Slayer]

Oh, hell yeah. I love him. I love him enough that even if I haven't played the game in review, it's still funny. :smallbiggrin:

Great. TvTropes. I'm not going to leave the computer for hours now. >.>

[Cubey]

His gaming tastes are very different to mine, but he stays true to them and is not afraid to besmirch a game he considers crap only because it's popular. In fact, that's Yahtzee's major selling point - that and being 100% hilarious.

[warty goblin]

Oh, hell yeah. I love him. I love him enough that even if I haven't played the game in review, it's still funny. :smallbiggrin:

Which is a very good thing, as he hardly ever reviews a game I've played. I think Oblivion and the Orange Box are the only ones he's done that I've played so far.

[Destro_Yersul]

I've played a few of the titles he's reviewed, but I watch all the reviews anyway, because they are made of win. Some of the more recent ones seem to have seen a decline in quality, but the other recent ones have been fine. I particularly like the comments he leaves during the end credits.

[The Orange Zergling]

I've only played a few of the games he's reviewed but I still love him... although reviews after his Oblivion one are kind of going downhill IMO. I really do not take him seriously though; I'd not let his opinion of a game sway me one way or another if I was thinking of buying it.

[Cristo Meyers]

Prophaniti, I have only one thing to say to you:

I freakin' hate you...

I've spent the last 3 hours just watching this guy's reviews and laughing so hard I nearly choked on my drink...

I...I can't stop...it's just too funny...I don't even care what game he's reviewing...

*goes back to watch more*

[Prophaniti]

Bwa ha ha ha! My work here is done, then!
*disappears in a swirl of smoke and dramatically flourished cape*

[Pyro]

O yes...I too have wasted much time with those videos, but twas an afternoon well spent. That guy is just too funny. He should have to share his humor; it's not fair that he's hogging it all for himself.

I don't think the recent ones are worse than the early ones. Some are funnier than others granted, but I thought the lego indy review was hilarious.

[Haruki-kun]

I rarely agree with his reviews, but I always enjoy watching them. Some of them are funnier after you've played the actual game.

[Dairun Cates]

I enjoyed Yahtzee's reviews when they first came out, but it's lost a lot of its steam for me. He seems to slaughter sacred cows sometimes purely for the sake of controversy, he's gone a bit blue for my tastes, and I can't help but feel something bitterly ironic about touting innovation but having the majority of your games library consist of first person shooters.

Yeah. I know he's popular and a lot of people tout him as a champion of the medium, but I stopped believing his opinions should be taken with ANY grain of salt a long time ago. I guess I just miss the days where his arguments seemed a bit more legitimate and not just excuses for shock comedy.

[Tirian]

It's often hard to separate his actual opinions on game design and gameplay (which seem somewhat solid) from the statements of his "character" who is contractually bound to profanely hate everything. That isn't a problem for stand-up comedians, but it is when your "character" is trying to pass himself off as a critic, specifically one who seems to want to be an antidote to gamer magazine lovefest reviews. Which is a shame; like Dairun Cates, I want to take his comments as remotely legitimate, but I'm not sure that he wants that.

Oh well, I suppose that he decided that his paying audience is the kind of person who will sign up for Age of Conan based on a picture of a busty overly tattooed woman, and so he has to dive into the Weebl Memorial Cesspool of covering your fantastic talent with a shovelful of "Oh my God, can you DO that on the Internet?"

[13_CBS]

Note: Yahtzee's primary purpose is to entertain, not to make an accurate, objective review.

[Dairun Cates]

Note: Yahtzee's primary purpose is to entertain, not to make an accurate, objective review.

...And I think my point was that he's gotten to the point, in my opinion, that he's digging so hard for it, that he's kinda hit a slump. A lot of his jokey complaints are getting to be a little dumb, and he's stooping to more and more low-brow humor every month.

Also, seeing as the man has referred to himself as "part of the industry" at one point and has made games that reflect his own personal beliefs, it seems like he very much wants to be taken seriously as a critic and a scholar.

[BizzaroStormy]

Note: Yahtzee's primary purpose is to entertain, not to make an accurate, objective review.

Despite the fact that his reviews are accurate save for the Condemned 2 review. Frankly, reviews don't typically affect my game purchases because i'll usually just rent a game, beat it, and be done with it. Every so often a game with come out like Call of Duty 4 or BF: Bad Company that has really good replay or online value which will lead me to purchase it.

[hanzo66]

He's a funny person, but does have critical tastes. He's certainly no fan of Japanese RPGs for one or what he thinks of as "Anime Bulls***". His review of MGS4 was mostly just personal opinion it seems, being extremely annoyed with the overdose of dialog/rambling and whatnot.

[MeklorIlavator]

A) What was and about his condemned 2 review? I've heard others mention that this one was off before, but never got a response. Just curious here.

B) He also criticized MGS4 for poor controls and way too much crud, which I've seen echoed, so it did have some stuff thats a bit objectives as well.

[hanzo66]

Condemned 2 he stated that he didn't like how the story took a turn towards the supernatural towards the end.

[MeklorIlavator]

Right, and this makes it off how? I remember a previous time the person was remarking how it was obvious, but you (obviously) don't get that from his review. Is there any particular reason, or is it just normal difference of opinions.

[Turcano]

Condemned 2 he stated that he didn't like how the story took a turn towards the supernatural towards the end.

That is not why, and he clearly explains why he didn't like it:


Condemned 2 is a textbook victim of Indigo Prophecy Syndrome (that's Fahrenheit Syndrome in Europe). It's a disease that chiefly afflicts games with a grounding in reality but with a slight supernatural element, with sequels at increased risk. The main and most obvious symptom of Indigo Prophecy Syndrome is a plot which in the second half goes what is medically known as snooker loopy, with lesser symptoms including total abandonment of subtlety, the introduction of ancient mystical cults, and the main character pulling hitherto unknown superpowers out of their ass.

I imagine you would get the same result by taking the first game and replacing the second half with any given Metal Gear Solid game.

[BizzaroStormy]

Actually, I was referring to the his saying that in one of the boss fights, you run around in a maze-like house with a serial killer after you which didn't happen at all. The only time I was in a house was in the lodge and I was fighting gun-toting guards. While the only time I recall a serial killer is when I was chasing SKX thru the bowling alley and school.

I was suprised though that he didn't even mention FPS mode which made the game so much easier.

[Pyro]

Condemned 2 is a textbook victim of Indigo Prophecy Syndrome (that's Fahrenheit Syndrome in Europe). It's a disease that chiefly afflicts games with a grounding in reality but with a slight supernatural element, with sequels at increased risk. The main and most obvious symptom of Indigo Prophecy Syndrome is a plot which in the second half goes what is medically known as snooker loopy, with lesser symptoms including total abandonment of subtlety, the introduction of ancient mystical cults, and the main character pulling hitherto unknown superpowers out of their ass.

Did Yahtzee say that, because it's totally right. My brother and I played through the first half of Indigo Prophecy and loved it. Then the second half was...exactly as described. Sigh...it could have been an awesome game.

[banjo1985]

I absolutely love this guy, he makes me cringe and cry laughing in equal measure. In terms of his reviews I pay no attention to them when choosing to actualy buy a game or not, but they are exceptionally good value for entertainment.

And as it's the 23rd July, there should be a new one out today!

*runs off to the Escapist to check*

[Cristo Meyers]

Did Yahtzee say that, because it's totally right. My brother and I played through the first half of Indigo Prophecy and loved it. Then the second half was...exactly as described. Sigh...it could have been an awesome game.

That's taken verbatim from his Condemned 2 review.

I've played only 1 game that he's reviewed: Super Mario Galaxy (game's like crack, man...I lost an entire freakin' day to it...). I thought his review was pretty accurate. I won't speak for the others.

[Saurous]

Actually, I was referring to the his saying that in one of the boss fights, you run around in a maze-like house with a serial killer after you which didn't happen at all. The only time I was in a house was in the lodge and I was fighting gun-toting guards. While the only time I recall a serial killer is when I was chasing SKX thru the bowling alley and school.

I was suprised though that he didn't even mention FPS mode which made the game so much easier.

He was comparing the end of Condemned 1 to the end of Condemned 2. The maze-like house thing was from the first Condemned, not in the second. The Condemned 2 review seemed like more of a review of the Condemned series to me.

Anyways, I really like Yahtzee's reviews, although I agree with everyone else that said that they don't really take them seriously.

[Rogue 7]

Lessee: of the games he's reviewed that I've played seriously, he treated The World Ends With You and Mass Effect pretty well considering, Halo a little less so, and completely missed the point on Super Smash Bros.

With The World Ends With You (which I just beat last night- great game.), if you could get over that he doesn't like the fact that Neku is not, in fact, you, he gave it a balanced review.

Mass Effect- same deal. The man does not particularly like RPGs, which colors his perceptions, to his detriment when he's reviewing something. More on that later.

With Halo, he came in with a lot of preconcived notions- namely, Hype Aversion/Backlash. He knew this game was getting great reviews, and so he ripped it apart largely because he didn't like that, rather than a huge amount of flaws with the game. It irritated me that he said he couldn't follow the story. Here's the Cliff's Notes: Truth is digging for something on earth. Humans get attacked, then attack to try and stop him. Truth finds what he's digging for and heads through a portal. Some flood show up, then the elites show up. You kill the flood, then chase Truth to some big space station. You kill covenant until you find where truth is, more flood show up, you kill truth, you kill the flood, game over. Note the frequent uses of "kill", "find", and "show up". Someone like Yahtzee, who in his Alone In The Dark review claimed to be "the only person on the planet whose brain still works", should be able to follow that.
Disregarding multiplayer, which is fantastic and one of Halo's primary appeals, is another error he makes. Yes, he evaluates games from his perspective, but that shouldn't stop him from acknowledging that other people might like that (as he grudgingly did in his Mass Effect review.)

Super Smash: I'm not even going to start with the amount of stuff he got wrong on this one. Unlocking characters: easiest out of all the Smash games- just play through the single-player (and you can do that with a friend), and a staple of fighting games for years. Flashy gameplay- aside from the fact that Brawl doesn't take itself too seriously, that's flagrantly false. If you get distracted by some of the attacks, check your medication. Button-mashing: challenge me to a game and I'll show you how well that stacks up- and I'm nowhere close to an expert. "that guy"- true, but utterly off-topic and needlessly critical. It's not that I object to what he said so much that he got it wrong.

Yahtzee's problem is twofold. The first is that he's got a tremendous ego, and as a result increasingly comes across as a jackass who actively holds other people in contempt. The second is that he does not present an entirely fair perspective on games. He hates certain games and styles of storytelling in gaming (RPGs and noninteractive storytelling, mainly), and that means that he can't recognize that these are genuinely good games, if different from what he likes. Most people recognize that and accept it, but it's still a flaw. Intellectually he's aware of it, but he can't seem to get past the "I don't like it, therefore it sucks" mentality. And that's a flaw, as a lot of times it takes away from the funny.

[Jibar]

I dunno. There are some of us who totally agree with his Halo review.
Smash Bros, yeah, missed it entirely.
Halo. Nope. Bang on.

[Cybren]

Unlocking characters: easiest out of all the Smash games- just play through the single-player (and you can do that with a friend),
The arduously long and unfun single-player that doesn't even grant every character unless you are aware of how to find them?

[Tom_Violence]

I personally think he was bang on with the 'Brawl' review, and that's because I know exactly where he's coming from. My Wii exists mainly as a party tool for fun when the pubs have hoofed us out, and for the short period of time that we had 'Brawl' it was constantly slung aside in favour of more entertaining games. I think a large part of the reason for this is that none of us care about the game at all, we don't have the experience of dealing with its idiosyncrasies, and we don't have any reason to get to grips with it since it just doesn't strike anyone as that appealing. Sure, maybe it is great fun once you've gotten into it, but why bother when you can be having fun straight away?

Same deal with Metal Gear as well. If you're one of those people that is willing to trudge through the gameplay for the enjoyment of the cutscenes, more power to you. But if you're someone like me who hasn't already devoted a significant chunk of his life of his life to absorbing the backstory then there's really not a lot in this game for you. Like he says, if you're a fan then you're catered for. If not, then you'll wonder why you're there at all.

Rather than taking him too seriously (which I don't think is a problem - he is a credible reviewer) the problem people seem to be making is assuming he's reviewing for people like them, people who are already big fans of the games. But, if you'll allow me a little hypocrisy, he's actually reviewing for people like me, people who have little or no previous contact with these games. And given that said games often have huge, monstrous fanbases, its a mindset that mayhaps is getting rarer and rarer, especially in places like this. One more time, if you've got the patience to polish these apparent rough diamonds, or if you're already knee-deep in these franchises, then fine, good for you. The best thing to do is to not think that the first impressions of a man very much unlike yourself will be in any significant way relevant to you.

Oh, and one last thing. It sucks that he's finally had to stop putting copyrighted music into his reviews. That was one of my favourite things about them.

[Rogue 7]

The arduously long and unfun single-player that doesn't even grant every character unless you are aware of how to find them?

Now, admittedly, I'm something of a Smash diehard. It's the primary form of entertainment for my group of friends at college- we'd sit around and play lots of Brawl. Hell, I cut class the day it was released to play it. But I thought it was fun enough, and the ridiculously cool cutscenes made up for any boredom in gameplay. Just doing the linear story got you all but 3 characters. So subjective opinion is subjective.

And Tom- I've got to disagree. Mass Effect, Haze, Assassin's Creed, The World Ends With You, and several more I can't remember are all new games with no pre-established fanbase (admittedly, ME and TWEWY have the Bioware and Square-Enix fanbases to draw on). Also, Yahtzee himself is guilty of this with his review of The Orange Box- he came in with a love for Half-Life, and so enjoyed that part of the game quite a lot. Alright, it's inevitable, but a lot of times I wish he was a bit more objective is all. I know it's not his thing, but still.

[Tom_Violence]

And Tom- I've got to disagree. Mass Effect, Haze, Assassin's Creed, The World Ends With You, and several more I can't remember are all new games with no pre-established fanbase (admittedly, ME and TWEWY have the Bioware and Square-Enix fanbases to draw on). Also, Yahtzee himself is guilty of this with his review of The Orange Box- he came in with a love for Half-Life, and so enjoyed that part of the game quite a lot. Alright, it's inevitable, but a lot of times I wish he was a bit more objective is all. I know it's not his thing, but still.

Okay, so what I said only applies to those games that it applies to. And the revelation that he likes the games he likes is perhaps even less surprising, and doesn't really contradict anything I've said. He liked Half-Life, so when more of it came out, he liked that too.

I don't really think that expecting objectivity in a review is a realistic endeavour, nor is it even a meaningful one. Not only would it be nigh-on impossible to review a game without putting any of your own personal feelings into it, it would probably be a waste of time anyway. All you could ever get would be a straightforward description of the game, about as bland as can be. Was the game fun? Whoops, can't go there, fun is subjective. Was the level design good? Could be, but I can't tell you! How about the story? Well, that depends...

If you want a review to be in any way informative for you as a consumer, find a reviewer that matches closely enough to your tastes. But don't expect objectivity - that ain't gonna happen.

[Tirian]

Also, Yahtzee himself is guilty of this with his review of The Orange Box- he came in with a love for Half-Life, and so enjoyed that part of the game quite a lot. Alright, it's inevitable, but a lot of times I wish he was a bit more objective is all. I know it's not his thing, but still.

I don't agree with this. We can already gauge the objective mood of the public with sales figures and forum chatter. I don't think that we need more reviews of Halo 3 that say "You all love this game, so never mind about what I really thought." If what he actually thought is "You bought this game two years ago, don't be suckered into paying for it again," then he should stand up and say that even if he's the only one.

Hey, my fandom is right in his cross-hairs. I like (good) JRPGs. I like unlocking long story-full movies with a series of combats where the two sides are lined up like they're at a folk dance. I seem to have a rare mutated gene that allows me to easily determine the gender of the main characters just by looking at them. I appreciate that he is upfront that he wouldn't like the next Final Fantasy game even if it turned water into naked women. That doesn't mean (pay attention here SSBB fans) that I really want to see him review KH because OMG it would be soooo kewl to listen to more of his superficial criticisms because he can't get into the game enough to see its true weaknesses.

[Demented]

He's a glorified ranting blogger who reviews video games by accident. He also happens to have an excellent if somewhat straightforward sense of humor, and a willingness to express it with all the care and subtlety of a playground bully.

It's really no problem if he disses whatever game you like best because it's refreshing to know that there's something bad about it and that there is and will always be room for improvement. How horrible and dreary would it be to know that the games you played last week are as good as it will ever get and you may as well stop playing games now because it's never going to get any better?

[Dairun Cates]

I don't really think that expecting objectivity in a review is a realistic endeavour, nor is it even a meaningful one. Not only would it be nigh-on impossible to review a game without putting any of your own personal feelings into it, it would probably be a waste of time anyway. All you could ever get would be a straightforward description of the game, about as bland as can be. Was the game fun? Whoops, can't go there, fun is subjective. Was the level design good? Could be, but I can't tell you! How about the story? Well, that depends...

If you want a review to be in any way informative for you as a consumer, find a reviewer that matches closely enough to your tastes. But don't expect objectivity - that ain't gonna happen.

Yeah. The problem here is that this is pretty much the business plan for Fox news.

It's actually not impossible to be at least somewhat objective. The excuse about personal feelings is one given by people who don't want to bother to put the effort in. It's a given that some personal feelings will come out, but there's a difference between being a critic and a fanboy. There's nothing wrong with being a fanboy, but if you're getting paid for it, I damn well expect you to be able to step outside of yourself for a minute and see things from a different angle.

Sure, some of my personal spin is going to come into it, but I'm not going to come out bashing something I don't like without giving good reason for it. This is where Yahtzee fell apart with me. His complaints have become nonsensical and inaccurate. A lot of what he complains about often makes up a small portion of the game or is a twisted perversion of the truth.

Have you even noticed the fact that he give the Orange Box a glowering review of perfection while admitting that Half-life 2: Episode 2 adds nothing to the franchise and is a flat sequel. Now, how many times has he berated Nintendo or other companies for making a solid sequel that actually added more to the franchise than Half-Life 2: Episode 2 did? He's actually given games damning reviews based almost entirely off this. Is this because of some superhuman logic we don't understand, or is he a valve fanboy?

Saying that any objectivity is unrealistic is a cop-out. Reviewers should be thinking about things outside their own personal surface feelings. If I wanted a preacher to tell me the good word I already agree with, I'd go to church. That's his job. But the job of a journalist (and Yahtzee has gone as far to refer to himself as such) is one of objectivity and integrity.

So, what's wrong with finding a reviewer you agree with and sticking with it? Well, if you follow Yahtzee, you'll know one of his big complaints is people won't give inventive games a try and they fail, leading to sequels of sucessful games and few new IPs. Why do you think people don't try these? It's because they get only good reviews instead of outstanding ones, and people, unwilling to take a risk, don't go outside that protective zone and form their own opinions.

You can think he's funny. Like I said, he's a bit too blue for me now, but I can see his appeal. He's not a reviewer, a critic, or anything close to that though. He lacks fundamental professionalism. A Critic, by definition, provides criticism (something that at its roots tries to contain as little bias as possible).

[Kane]

Have you even noticed the fact that he give the Orange Box a glowering review of perfection while admitting that Half-life 2: Episode 2 adds nothing to the franchise and is a flat sequel. Now, how many times has he berated Nintendo or other companies for making a solid sequel that actually added more to the franchise than Half-Life 2: Episode 2 did? He's actually given games damning reviews based almost entirely off this. Is this because of some superhuman logic we don't understand, or is he a valve fanboy?


Well, I think he did post something in the credits for the OB review to the effect of "Can I have the money now?" but that aside; I remembered that he had some complaints about OB, which didn't concur with your statements, and since I think it's one of his better reviews, it doesn't take that much for me to go watch it.

Indeed, he has several complaints, and, I can visualize him handing out some caustic, bile-soaked award to another game, but for Orange Box he seems to cushion the impact somewhat. I concede that he often lambastes Nintendo games for bieng the same thing again, but that seems to be all Nintendo does. (Super Mario, LoZ, Paper Mario, Mario Party, you know, all the ones that are released about twice-per-platform).

Quite frankly, I'm not objective. I'm easily given to cutting him some serious slack in my judgement because most of his opinions coincide with mine. (Seriously, Nintendo, find some new games!)

[Dairun Cates]

Quite frankly, I'm not objective. I'm easily given to cutting him some serious slack in my judgement because most of his opinions coincide with mine. (Seriously, Nintendo, find some new games!)

Are we going first party, second party, or third party here? Because, in all fairness, Nintendo is the only console developer that heavily develops (not produces) games.

I also think it's a bit unfair to lambast them for using the same characters in a new-ish game, but I'll concede and only list franchises that are new to the US since 2000.

-Advance Wars
-Fire Emblem
-Nintendogs
-Warioware
-H.A.M.M.E.R. (Although, that one's been put on hold)
-Brain Age, Wii Fit, and the whole Self-improvement line
-Animal Crossing
-Elite Beat Agents/Ouendan
-Pikmin
-Electroplankton

This is, of course, ignoring ANYTHING with traditional Nintendo characters in it as solid spin-off games and ignoring ANY in-house developers except intelligent systems (which is a branch of Nintendo). This DEFINITELY includes no sequels to games with a strongly retooled system. I admit that some of these have been around longer in Japan than 2000, but if you don't give me that, you'd have to actually give me the Japanese exclusives that haven't come over to the US which is a longer list. The funny thing is all that took around 3 minutes to look up. I know for a fact that's not the entire list. Like them or hate them, it does seem to be an impressive number considering all the restrictions. If you actually take off all the restrictions and include everything that's a new series in the first party, it's actually a shockingly large number.

I try to stay away from fanboyism because of the people I work with, but I also think the whole re-release argument is a bit tired and ignorant. It's really easy to spin doctor things, and this is just another example of it.

[Turcano]

Have you even noticed the fact that he give the Orange Box a glowering review of perfection while admitting that Half-life 2: Episode 2 adds nothing to the franchise and is a flat sequel. Now, how many times has he berated Nintendo or other companies for making a solid sequel that actually added more to the franchise than Half-Life 2: Episode 2 did? He's actually given games damning reviews based almost entirely off this. Is this because of some superhuman logic we don't understand, or is he a valve fanboy?

The thing is that the big four or five Nintendo franchises tend not to be sequels, but remakes. It's kind of funny that you brought up the Orange Box, because he uses Valve in a thought experiment on the subject:


Since it raised a generation of latchkey kids and everything, it seems that Nintendo is the only company we allow to get away with kind of thing. Imagine if anyone else did it. Imagine if Valve released Half-Life, then a few years later, they released Half-Life again with exactly the same plot, but with better graphics, different level design and maybe one new gun, like a tube that shoots lemons. We'd think they'd gone raving mad! They'd be in drug rehab before Half-Life: Citrus Bazooka could even hit shelves!


I also think it's a bit unfair to lambast them for using the same characters in a new-ish game, but I'll concede and only list franchises that are new to the US since 2000.

-Advance Wars
-Fire Emblem
-Nintendogs
-Warioware
-H.A.M.M.E.R. (Although, that one's been put on hold)
-Brain Age, Wii Fit, and the whole Self-improvement line
-Animal Crossing
-Elite Beat Agents/Ouendan
-Pikmin
-Electroplankton

I believe those were covered with the phrase "cavalcade of mediocrity" in the Console Rundown.

[Dairun Cates]

I believe those were covered with the phrase "cavalcade of mediocrity" in the Console Rundown.

That's pretty impressive considering he was talking about the wii and half of those haven't been released on the wii yet. Half of those are DS titles. Wasn't that also the video subtitled, "an experiment in fanboy baiting"? That exact statement was also made nearly a year ago and was directly referencing the "meh" third party titles on the wii at the time as shown by the actual illustration on that line.

Also, all those titles have either had really good sales or critical acclaim at some point, if not both. You may argue that some are just hype and a brain-washed media, but you'd honestly have to be either an extreme fanboy or extremely jaded to not find one on that list that you don't find even a little bit fun.

I'm not even going to argue the sequel versus remake issue. I personally think calling Super Mario Sunshine and Super Paper Mario remakes to be a bit insulting and an oversimplification. One of those drastically changed up its own platforming genre and the other one wasn't even in the same genre of games.

I will point out that MOST of those titles I've listed have had releases in the last year or are going to have one in the next year.

The argument was that ALL Nintendo does is release remakes of its games. I backed my argument with data. All you've offered is black and white remarks with no backing. It's nice of you to reply, but I'd prefer you back your statements with something of a stronger substance than pithy remarks and the gospel of Yahtzee.

By the way, I remembered the Valve example, but without Yahtzee's usual style of hammering the sarcasm in, I mostly assume that's he's actually serious about that and was honestly saying that valve would never do that.

[Turcano]

That's pretty impressive considering he was talking about the wii and half of those haven't been released on the wii yet. Half of those are DS titles.

Fair enough.


Also, all those titles have either had really good sales or critical acclaim at some point, if not both.

I would like to point out that many of those examples are undergoing the same process as the mainstay franchises; Fire Emblem has almost as many titles as Legend of Zelda does. Nintendo is expanding its franchise pool, but they give every sign of following the same trend.


I'm not even going to argue the sequel versus remake issue. I personally think calling Super Mario Sunshine and Super Paper Mario remakes to be a bit insulting and an oversimplification. One of those drastically changed up its own platforming genre and the other one wasn't even in the same genre of games.

Paper Mario is technically its own series, and Yahtzee treats it as such, and Mario Sunshine is pretty much a more irritating version of Super Mario 64.


The argument was that ALL Nintendo does is release remakes of its games. I backed my argument with data. All you've offered is black and white remarks with no backing. It's nice of you to reply, but I'd prefer you back your statements with something of a stronger substance than pithy remarks and the gospel of Yahtzee.

You misconstrue rhetorical hyperbole as literal intent, and yet I'm the one who's unwarrantedly glib. Huh.

[Dairun Cates]

You misconstrue rhetorical hyperbole as literal intent, and yet I'm the one who's unwarrantedly glib. Huh.

Saying that Nintendo releases only sequels is not a "rhetorical" hyperbole when you keep saying it. Admitting that it's a hyperbole also is admitting that it's a gross exaggeration. Unless, you were talking about your joking remark to my argument. In which case, I would recommend the phrase, "I was kidding".

My argument was simply that Nintendo DOES introduce new franchises into the mix, not that it doesn't make sequels. It's a ludicrous claim to think that they wouldn't. Not one of the consoles DOESN'T have a major sequel that's come out on it. Grand Theft Auto 4, Devil May Cry 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Super Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Final Fantasy 13, Halo 3, etc. The Nintendo releases change just as much as the other sequels on other consoles. The truth of the matter is that people ENJOY these games and they sell. As much as you complain about it, there's probably at least one game you're going to buy a sequel to in the next 4 years. You as a consumer are as guilty as the companies. There's probably a lot of good games that deserved better sales, but you didn't want to take a risk on it. Even without sequels, how many of the games you have bought were rated highly by a magazine or a TV show? Do you think the hype effected your buying decision at all?

It's smart business to sell sequels. It keeps the companies running. I find it funny that Nintendo seems to catch the brunt of the insults for this though. EVERYONE is equally guilty of continuing it, and contrary to popular belief, you can trace the business model WAY past Nintendo. Do a little research on the history of the Atari and early arcades.

I agree that new content also needs to be released, and the companies do actually try to release new properties from time to time, contrary to what a lot of people think. Nintendo is no exception to this. Ignoring the fact that the Wii Mote and Dual Screens on the DS were risky endeavors on Nintendo's part, I have shown a rather sizeable chunk of FRANCHISES that have come out of Nintendo directly in the last 7-8 years. None of these were established franchises when they first came out and were not based on established franchises.

If they get sequels because they're good, doesn't that indicate that Nintendo suceeded in releasing a new franchise into the market? Are you telling me that if any of those games get sequels that it negates the fact that Nintendo DID create a new IP in the last few years? I see no reason to believe they won't continue to make new IPs like other companies. If you actually take a look at Nintendo's actual game catalog over the years, you'll find that the number of "remakes" isn't actually as large as you think it is percent wise. You just hear about the sequels because they're triple A titles and some of the tested franchises aren't. Still, there are new franchises coming out.

You hear the "Nintendo only releases games of their franchise characters" a lot. I honestly think that most of the people that say that can't make a coherent argument for it though. Save pointing out that Fire Emblem has almost as many titles as Zelda, all of your proofs are opinions, heresay, and anecdotal evidence.

By the way, I'd like to point out that some of the recent statements by Nintendo at E3 have led to people believing that Nintendo's "abandoned" them because they aren't currently working on sequels to any of their franchises this year and are trying to push the Wii mote and casual gaming thing. It's a double-edged sword.

There's the entirety of my argument. You've failed to really provide any solid evidence to the contrary. So, unless you actually come up with an argument instead of a joke or a nitpick, I'm going to leave it as is. I can't convince you of anything that you won't concede basic points on.

My point is that Nintendo does actually make an effort to release and introduce new franchises to the market, and that the releasing of a lot of sequels is standard for any company in the industry. People talk about Nintendo having the power and clout to change this business model, but so does Sony (number 1 home console sales last generation) and Microsoft (strong current console sales and strong PC software sales). Any of the companies would lose too much trying to change this model.

If you think "Nintendo only releases 'remakes' of their popular franchises" is a hyperbole, you should alter your argument and stop using such an obviously faulty statement like it's a reasonable argument. Hyperboles are best left to politicians and spin doctors.

[Tom_Violence]

Sure, some of my personal spin is going to come into it, but I'm not going to come out bashing something I don't like without giving good reason for it.

I've generally always found his reasons quite up to scratch. I don't think I've ever seen a review of his in which he just says 'this is rubbish' with no qualification.


This is where Yahtzee fell apart with me. His complaints have become nonsensical and inaccurate. A lot of what he complains about often makes up a small portion of the game or is a twisted perversion of the truth.

Sounds like your personal opinion is diving in here since for me a lot of what he complains about are significant failings of the games (MGS's yawn-inducing abilities, SSBB's suface dullness, Oblivion's banality, etc.).


Have you even noticed the fact that he give the Orange Box a glowering review of perfection while admitting that Half-life 2: Episode 2 adds nothing to the franchise and is a flat sequel. Now, how many times has he berated Nintendo or other companies for making a solid sequel that actually added more to the franchise than Half-Life 2: Episode 2 did? He's actually given games damning reviews based almost entirely off this. Is this because of some superhuman logic we don't understand, or is he a valve fanboy?

This one seems pretty easy to sift through. The Orange Box was full of criticsm of not just the game itself, but Valve as a whole. It wasn't as full of bile as his usual reviews, but then we're talking about the Unicorn Of Objectivity here so that shouldn't be an issue. He several times bemoans the lack of anything new and the repetitivity of the series. But he does say its more of the same awesomeness, and that's a good thing (unlike a lot of the Nintendo stuff, which is more of the same turd, and I agree with that. Even so, in his Nintendo reviews he still states that if you like this stuff then whoop-dee-do, go enjoy yourself). And it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise that Ze Box du Orange gets a great review because its a great product despite not adding much, which I can't really say about a lot of Nintendo stuff.


Saying that any objectivity is unrealistic is a cop-out. Reviewers should be thinking about things outside their own personal surface feelings.

Yep, he does that, often playing devil's advocate a lot just for the sake of it.


So, what's wrong with finding a reviewer you agree with and sticking with it? Well, if you follow Yahtzee, you'll know one of his big complaints is people won't give inventive games a try and they fail, leading to sequels of sucessful games and few new IPs. Why do you think people don't try these? It's because they get only good reviews instead of outstanding ones, and people, unwilling to take a risk, don't go outside that protective zone and form their own opinions.

[citation needed], etc. Honestly, I might as well say that actually the only reason people don't try new games is because more often than not they are unknown franchises that come from unknown developers and no amount of great reviews will change people's minds about that. Psychonauts, to use but one example, got amazing reviews and awards from everywhere, but still sold poorly.


You can think he's funny. Like I said, he's a bit too blue for me now, but I can see his appeal. He's not a reviewer, a critic, or anything close to that though. He lacks fundamental professionalism. A Critic, by definition, provides criticism (something that at its roots tries to contain as little bias as possible).

Does it? I don't see why it should go to extremems, nor can I find a definition that says objectivity to such a level is a requirement at all. Obviously any major biases should be extracted (I hate game X cos it was made by a woman, etc.), but I think most reasonable people can agree that even the simple act of experiencing something is so gigantically laden with personal biases that trying to remove them would be an exercise in futility. At the very least Yahtzee's biases are easily identifiable, and that's leagues ahead of an awful lot of other reviewers that I've come across.

[Turcano]

My argument was simply that Nintendo DOES introduce new franchises into the mix, not that it doesn't make sequels.

I think you may be misinterpreting Yahtzee's premise, because he's not seriously arguing that Nintendo doesn't release new content, as he has reviewed several Wii games that do not fall under the major franchises. He is arguing, rather, that the franchises in question keep recycling the same plot and have more or less played themselves out. Like slasher films, the same sequence of events gets tiresome after a while. I can't speak for Yahtzee, but I would imagine that they might have been better received had they been actual sequels instead of remakes.


If you think "Nintendo only releases 'remakes' of their popular franchises" is a hyperbole, you should alter your argument and stop using such an obviously faulty statement like it's a reasonable argument. Hyperboles are best left to politicians and spin doctors.

This may have been a wrong impression that resulted from my going off on a tangent, but I have never argued that that is all that Nintendo does.

[SAMAS]

I personally think he was bang on with the 'Brawl' review, and that's because I know exactly where he's coming from. My Wii exists mainly as a party tool for fun when the pubs have hoofed us out, and for the short period of time that we had 'Brawl' it was constantly slung aside in favour of more entertaining games. I think a large part of the reason for this is that none of us care about the game at all, we don't have the experience of dealing with its idiosyncrasies, and we don't have any reason to get to grips with it since it just doesn't strike anyone as that appealing. Sure, maybe it is great fun once you've gotten into it, but why bother when you can be having fun straight away?

Although one would say that not getting the fun of having Mario and Link beat the crap out of each other, Grabbing a Hammer and going to town with it (or running like hell when someone else does), or Metor smashing... in general, right off the bat, Smash Bros isn't the game for you. No shame or insult intended.

[Tom_Violence]

Although one would say that not getting the fun of having Mario and Link beat the crap out of each other, Grabbing a Hammer and going to town with it (or running like hell when someone else does), or Metor smashing... in general, right off the bat, Smash Bros isn't the game for you. No shame or insult intended.

None taken. That was kinda my point actually.

[Dairun Cates]

I've generally always found his reasons quite up to scratch. I don't think I've ever seen a review of his in which he just says 'this is rubbish' with no qualification.

I think the point was the same one made as earlier. In the case of the Condemned 2 reviews, along with a few others, he actually starts making things up if you've played the game. I guess that's not entirely fair. It's more along the lines that he combines multiple parts and babbles into mad hyperbole. I assure you that there's times where he complains about things that aren't actually in the game.

On top of that, he does contradict himself sometimes. He's gone on a couple of rants about linear plots only to say, "there's nothing wrong with it" in his No More Heroes review.

In other words, he always gives a reason, but sometimes there's no actual basis to the reasons.


Sounds like your personal opinion is diving in here since for me a lot of what he complains about are significant failings of the games (MGS's yawn-inducing abilities, SSBB's suface dullness, Oblivion's banality, etc.).

See point A. There are honestly comments he makes that have no basis behind them. Also, in the case of MGS and SSBB, both of those comments are ones that took up a whole sentence or two in the review. If they're the major obvious failings of the game, why not spend more time on them?


And it shouldn't really come as much of a surprise that Ze Box du Orange gets a great review because its a great product despite not adding much, which I can't really say about a lot of Nintendo stuff.

I actually own the Orange Box and like it, but it is a tad bit overrated at times. Still, it deserves good reviews.

I'd like to follow the logic here though. You're saying the orange box got a good review because it was excellent, but Nintendo gets good reviews only based on being Nintendo. Do you think Nintendo would have gotten a good name if it only released bad games?

I would ask what you've actually played from Nintendo in the last 10 years and ask how much of it recently you've watched a Yahtzee review for beforehand.

Either way, it's clear that you go into a valve game and a Nintendo game with different expectations. Valve releasing similar content after a long wait... More of the same goodness. Nintendo releasing similar content after a long wait... An attempt to cash in.


[citation needed], etc. Honestly, I might as well say that actually the only reason people don't try new games is because more often than not they are unknown franchises that come from unknown developers and no amount of great reviews will change people's minds about that. Psychonauts, to use but one example, got amazing reviews and awards from everywhere, but still sold poorly.

I found this out in an interview, but Psychonauts is actually a case of the producing company's fault. The story behind it is that the producers didn't think it would sell, but it got through marketing anyway. When it was finally released, they went out of their way to NOT advertise it. They figured there would be no return investment on the advertising. A very similar situation occurred with Beyond Good and Evil. Having been someone who managed to catch Psychonauts when it was out, I can tell you that the advertising WAS pathetic.

I was referring to games that don't get stellar reviews but hit their target demographic insanely well. These are the games that hit in a that 7-8 range with a lot of magazines. They didn't get perfect scores and didn't have a lot of hype. So, no one picks them up. Rise of the Kasai was actually a really solid action game, but it ended up getting 70% average because it was released within a year of God of War and therefore, no one could ever conceivably buy another action game that year. NO ONE played it. Certainly a lack of marketing is part of the issue, but I do believe the magazines made a very strong case on this point.

Let's face it, the consumers have made scores a huge deal. People have threatened to lynch-mob an EGM reviewer for giving Wind Waker a 9.5 before. As much as I love Wind Waker, I am actually one of the people that doesn't believe a 10 should be given out to every triple A title. Wind Waker had a few shortcomings that while not damning occasionally got in the way. In a more recent example, some people were throwing FITS over MGS4 getting a 9.3 with one reviewer. So yes, I blame reviewers and the scoring system to some degree for letting things get to this level. The gamers are, of course, also to blame.


Does it? I don't see why it should go to extremems, nor can I find a definition that says objectivity to such a level is a requirement at all. Obviously any major biases should be extracted (I hate game X cos it was made by a woman, etc.), but I think most reasonable people can agree that even the simple act of experiencing something is so gigantically laden with personal biases that trying to remove them would be an exercise in futility. At the very least Yahtzee's biases are easily identifiable, and that's leagues ahead of an awful lot of other reviewers that I've come across.

It's a concept called professional integrity. You understand that you have bias, but you bring as little of your personal opinion into it. A lot of game reviewers lack it as well. I don't like them either.

Yahtzee makes some reasonably complaints, but there's also a LARGE chunk of personal opinion in his reviews. He does this because he's trying to be funny. That's fine. The AVGN and a few others are paid to be funny, but Yahtzee has declared himself a critic as well. He's okay as an entertainer. Like I said, he's gone too blue for me recently. I can live without hearing ****, turd, or crude sexual innuendos every few sentences.

He doesn't stand up as a critic though. His reviews are too much flash and hyperbole. You really can't be both at the same time. I'd be fine to just be tired of the same joke over and over again, but he DOES consider himself to be a serious critic as well. It just doesn't work like that. Unfortunately, he's got a large following that constantly quotes him like everything he speaks is an honest truth on game design.

SHORT VERSION: His jokes got stale with me, and while perfect objectivity is impossible, Yahtzee has the objectivity of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.


I think you may be misinterpreting Yahtzee's premise, because he's not seriously arguing that Nintendo doesn't release new content, as he has reviewed several Wii games that do not fall under the major franchises. He is arguing, rather, that the franchises in question keep recycling the same plot and have more or less played themselves out. Like slasher films, the same sequence of events gets tiresome after a while. I can't speak for Yahtzee, but I would imagine that they might have been better received had they been actual sequels instead of remakes.

This is a different argument, but I think Nintendo actually DOES innovate in their main series. They just don't do it in story. Story's never really been Nintendo's deal. That's more of a Squaresoft or Bioware thing. I can concede that the plot is a remake (although, in the case of Fire Emblem, they actually DO do things quite a bit different in each game even if the basest plot is the same).

The truth is, though, that Nintendo does this because deep down, a lot of us like Mario. He's a simple character not burdened by the angst and sobby backstory. He's just a fun character. If Nintendo honestly dropped Mario or made him different in character, there would be a lot of pissed off people. Mario's just not the series they're going to change plots in. Neither is Zelda. Although, I would point out that the Metroid Prime series actually did take a serious turn from the plot of the originals.

In terms of gameplay though, I kind of find it insulting to say that they're remakes. There's actually a lot of interesting changes that have been made in the series that Nintendo makes throughout the years. Sure, their plots are a bit silly and tried, but I do honestly believe that most of the Mario games are quite different in some major way from each other. Nintendo HAS taken serious GAMEPLAY risks in their major series. I think that's where most of the Big N's innovation lies.

I think the characters don't change, but the games do, and that's what I play Nintendo games for.

[Turcano]

On top of that, he does contradict himself sometimes. He's gone on a couple of rants about linear plots only to say, "there's nothing wrong with it" in his No More Heroes review.

I honestly don't remember him ever taking a game to task just for being linear; it's almost always because the game is linear, but pretends otherwise.


I actually own the Orange Box and like it, but it is a tad bit overrated at times. Still, it deserves good reviews.

I'd like to follow the logic here though. You're saying the orange box got a good review because it was excellent, but Nintendo gets good reviews only based on being Nintendo. Do you think Nintendo would have gotten a good name if it only released bad games?

To be fair, Yahtzee's main complaint about the Orange Box is that the repetitiveness is beginning to show at this point. But the main difference between Valve and Nintendo is that Valve's new games are either spin-offs or actual sequels (a lot of the problem in this discussion is that you and I have different definitions of a remake -- see below), and that Nintendo has been doing this for over two decades. And it doesn't mean that Nintendo games are bad; that has to be decided on an individual basis. It just means that Nintendo gets score inflation because, as you point out, the fanboys demand it.


Let's face it, the consumers have made scores a huge deal. People have threatened to lynch-mob an EGM reviewer for giving Wind Waker a 9.5 before. As much as I love Wind Waker, I am actually one of the people that doesn't believe a 10 should be given out to every triple A title. Wind Waker had a few shortcomings that while not damning occasionally got in the way. In a more recent example, some people were throwing FITS over MGS4 getting a 9.3 with one reviewer. So yes, I blame reviewers and the scoring system to some degree for letting things get to this level. The gamers are, of course, also to blame.

Well, you'll be happy to know that Yahtzee feels the same way, which is why he doesn't use numerical scoring in his reviews.


It's a concept called professional integrity. You understand that you have bias, but you bring as little of your personal opinion into it. A lot of game reviewers lack it as well. I don't like them either.

Yahtzee has recommended games that he didn't like personally, but would be good for people who are into that sort of thing; The World Ends With You is a prominent example.


The truth is, though, that Nintendo does this because deep down, a lot of us like Mario. He's a simple character not burdened by the angst and sobby backstory. He's just a fun character. If Nintendo honestly dropped Mario or made him different in character, there would be a lot of pissed off people. Mario's just not the series they're going to change plots in. Neither is Zelda. Although, I would point out that the Metroid Prime series actually did take a serious turn from the plot of the originals.

Well, some of use would like to see Mario doing something else for a change. As bad as Mario Sunshine was, it was at least a step in the right direction, and the Paper Mario series is proof of what Nintendo's game writers are capable of if they make the effort to do so.


In terms of gameplay though, I kind of find it insulting to say that they're remakes. There's actually a lot of interesting changes that have been made in the series that Nintendo makes throughout the years. Sure, their plots are a bit silly and tried, but I do honestly believe that most of the Mario games are quite different in some major way from each other. Nintendo HAS taken serious GAMEPLAY risks in their major series. I think that's where most of the Big N's innovation lies.

I'm not talking about gameplay. As far as gameplay goes, Nintendo has been innovative to the point of gimmicky for pretty much its entire existence. It's the storyline that makes something either a remake or a sequel.

[Dairun Cates]

For the record, I loved Super Mario Sunshine. It was short, but I enjoyed every minute of it and pick it back up from time to time. I honestly don't know what the hatred for it was. I thought it was pretty cool how half of the objectives could be solved in alternate ways with the clever use of the FLUDD, and I thought the flatworld levels provided a nice bit of challenge without being frustrating (even though I think none of them were necessary for finishing the game). Really, the only thing that was off was Yoshi's Hydrophobia.

I guess that's the thing for me. Valve makes solid games, but the Half-life episodes did feel much of the same to me. I had fun, but I wouldn't really call them new content. It feels more like an expansion on the original (which is what Valve intended, but still, it can feel a bit flat). We get more story, but it just doesn't feel like they pushed the envelope for me.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE a good story. I can list off a million games that I think have AMAZING stories. I think when you get down to it, I can tolerate Nintendo's lack of new story because you don't get the Nintendo experience of gameplay too many other places, and as a lifelong gamer who's seen a lot of different games in his 23 years, it's nice to still see things changing the actual gameplay formula around a bit. To be honest, there are some games that some people love that I'm on the fence about because I've actually seen almost the exact same gameplay a million times now. I think it's also my background in game design. I've actually developed indie games with my fellow university students, and there's a certain desire to push the gameplay envelope. I can seriously respect people that do that.

The truth is, there's a lot of good plots out there, and I play a game with a good plot, for the plot. If it's enthralling enough, I'll sit through a bad game for it (hell, my friend FINISHED Okage). I can also enjoy a game for being a game. I think that's what Nintendo's always made, and I can honestly respect that. So Mario always saves the princess, but I know it's going to be a blast to do each time. I love Paper Mario for being fun AND having a plot, but in a Nintendo game, if I have to have one, it's going to be the gameplay. When you get the rare game that manages to do both, you'll hear me scream pure joy and sing its praises.

Consequently, I DO agree with Yahtzee on Okami and if you haven't played it, you need to go do so right now before I eat your soul.

By the way, this is why I tend to own at least 2 consoles every generation (take my first one when it comes out and pick up the other one cheap 2 years later). I don't think you can get the full experience on one console. The Gamecube had some really wacky and inventive games, the PS2 had the best RPGs, and the Xbox had some damn good shooters. I felt like all three of them were severely missing something though. That's kinda the curse of target demographics. Non-extremists are left in the dust.

[Turcano]

For the record, I loved Super Mario Sunshine. It was short, but I enjoyed every minute of it and pick it back up from time to time. I honestly don't know what the hatred for it was. I thought it was pretty cool how half of the objectives could be solved in alternate ways with the clever use of the FLUDD, and I thought the flatworld levels provided a nice bit of challenge without being frustrating (even though I think none of them were necessary for finishing the game). Really, the only thing that was off was Yoshi's Hydrophobia.

I think it's mostly due to the continual graffiti/diarrhea cleaning became really tedious after a while. But as the popularity of JRPGs shows, individual tolerance for that sort of tomfoolery varies dramatically.


Don't get me wrong. I LOVE a good story. I can list off a million games that I think have AMAZING stories. I think when you get down to it, I can tolerate Nintendo's lack of new story because you don't get the Nintendo experience of gameplay too many other places, and as a lifelong gamer who's seen a lot of different games in his 23 years, it's nice to still see things changing the actual gameplay formula around a bit. To be honest, there are some games that some people love that I'm on the fence about because I've actually seen almost the exact same gameplay a million times now. I think it's also my background in game design. I've actually developed indie games with my fellow university students, and there's a certain desire to push the gameplay envelope. I can seriously respect people that do that.

It's true that a major Nintendo franchise game can still be good despite its derivativeness, and Yahtzee does agree with that; he gave Super Mario Galaxy a fairly positive review.

[Dairun Cates]

It's true that a major Nintendo franchise game can still be good despite its derivativeness, and Yahtzee does agree with that; he gave Super Mario Galaxy a fairly positive review.

I honestly got a different impression, but maybe I need to go look at that review again.

[Turcano]

I honestly got a different impression, but maybe I need to go look at that review again.

Contrary to popular opinion, only about half of his reviews are actually negative. In this case, the only major problems with Super Mario Galaxy are somewhat awkward controls and piss-easy boss fights, but the game was actually fun. In contrast, Phantom Hourglass got a bad review largely because it was littered with bad game design.

[PanNarrans]

I'm just disappointed he's not ripping off copyrighted music anymore. It kept reminding me off great bands I hadn't listened to in ages.

[warty goblin]

Yahtzee makes some reasonably complaints, but there's also a LARGE chunk of personal opinion in his reviews. He does this because he's trying to be funny. That's fine. The AVGN and a few others are paid to be funny, but Yahtzee has declared himself a critic as well. He's okay as an entertainer. Like I said, he's gone too blue for me recently. I can live without hearing ****, turd, or crude sexual innuendos every few sentences.

He doesn't stand up as a critic though. His reviews are too much flash and hyperbole. You really can't be both at the same time. I'd be fine to just be tired of the same joke over and over again, but he DOES consider himself to be a serious critic as well. It just doesn't work like that. Unfortunately, he's got a large following that constantly quotes him like everything he speaks is an honest truth on game design.

SHORT VERSION: His jokes got stale with me, and while perfect objectivity is impossible, Yahtzee has the objectivity of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.



I for one actually deeply enjoy the complete and utter lack of effort to be objective in Yahtzee's reviews, and for one reason: It recognizes that the only opinion that matters about any given game is your own. All other opinions are precisely as relevant as you decide to make them. Clearly with the fury over certain review scores people can attach a lot of relevancy to them for whatever reason, but I've never really figured this one out. There is only one question about a game worth asking- did you personally enjoy it? If so, then it's a good game, if not than it's not. The fact that Frank down the street thinks our hypothetical example game is a harbinger of the apocalypse while Bob next door has named his firstborn son after the main character is, even of itself, only significant insofar as it is possibly a sign that you need new neighbors.

Now of course if more often than not you end up agreeing with Frank about games, then his opinion should carry some weight when it comes to buying the thing, since you could take his advice and save yourself $50 on a game you might well hate (although I'd probably ignore the bit about performing exorcisms on anybody who has played it before allowing them into your house). Taken without any past experience however, Frank's opinion is no more right than Bob's.

In the end I think there's only one way to really evaluate a game review, does it agree with your opinion of the game? To review a critic simply ask, has this person's past advice and commentary mostly agreed with mine? If so, it might be advice worth taking, but if not, it's pretty useless. This is, as I said, why I like Yahtzee's review, as he is fundamentally not trying to review a game for everyone, he's providing his own impressions, some reasons for them, and trying to make me laugh, all of which are admirable and worthy goals.

[Tom_Violence]

I for one actually deeply enjoy the complete and utter lack of effort to be objective in Yahtzee's reviews, and for one reason: It recognizes that the only opinion that matters about any given game is your own. All other opinions are precisely as relevant as you decide to make them. Clearly with the fury over certain review scores people can attach a lot of relevancy to them for whatever reason, but I've never really figured this one out. There is only one question about a game worth asking- did you personally enjoy it? If so, then it's a good game, if not than it's not. The fact that Frank down the street thinks our hypothetical example game is a harbinger of the apocalypse while Bob next door has named his firstborn son after the main character is, even of itself, only significant insofar as it is possibly a sign that you need new neighbors.

Now of course if more often than not you end up agreeing with Frank about games, then his opinion should carry some weight when it comes to buying the thing, since you could take his advice and save yourself $50 on a game you might well hate (although I'd probably ignore the bit about performing exorcisms on anybody who has played it before allowing them into your house). Taken without any past experience however, Frank's opinion is no more right than Bob's.

In the end I think there's only one way to really evaluate a game review, does it agree with your opinion of the game? To review a critic simply ask, has this person's past advice and commentary mostly agreed with mine? If so, it might be advice worth taking, but if not, it's pretty useless. This is, as I said, why I like Yahtzee's review, as he is fundamentally not trying to review a game for everyone, he's providing his own impressions, some reasons for them, and trying to make me laugh, all of which are admirable and worthy goals.

Exactly! Thank you for managing to say what I couldn't quite get the words for.

[Prophaniti]

Saying your an objective journalist is like saying your a safety-minded daredevil. Sure, you might take some precautions, but in the end it's not your priority, or you wouldn't be doing what you're doing. I've lost track of the number of times I've spoken with journalism majors who say they got into it because they want to "change the world" or similar nonesense. Ideally, journalism probably should be about objectivity and facts, just like ideally, polotics should be about making the world better. It's simply not what happens.

NO new corporation on the face of the world is half as objective as they claim to be, they merely use their loudly proclaimed objectivity to color public perception about their trustworthiness ('cause lets face it, by and large people will believe what you tell them is true). Indeed I place more credibility at the feet of those that are LESS vocal about their credibility.

This is, of course, a bit of a tangent rant, but the point is, even when it simply comes down to game reviews, the critic's opinion is the only thing being put forward. Claims of objectivity are a veneer at best. Yahtzee makes the point himself in the 'Mailbag Showdown' episode, where he lambasts emails he received about his SSBB review. It's toward the end, when he asks if the writer ever has his own opinions or if he must here other people's before he does anything. He reviews games for fun, and was lucky enough to find someone who will pay him for it. Don't go into any review expecting 'The Facts(tm)', it's simply not what reviewing games (or anything else) is about.

[Dairun Cates]

I for one actually deeply enjoy the complete and utter lack of effort to be objective in Yahtzee's reviews, and for one reason: It recognizes that the only opinion that matters about any given game is your own. All other opinions are precisely as relevant as you decide to make them. Clearly with the fury over certain review scores people can attach a lot of relevancy to them for whatever reason, but I've never really figured this one out. There is only one question about a game worth asking- did you personally enjoy it? If so, then it's a good game, if not than it's not. The fact that Frank down the street thinks our hypothetical example game is a harbinger of the apocalypse while Bob next door has named his firstborn son after the main character is, even of itself, only significant insofar as it is possibly a sign that you need new neighbors.

Now of course if more often than not you end up agreeing with Frank about games, then his opinion should carry some weight when it comes to buying the thing, since you could take his advice and save yourself $50 on a game you might well hate (although I'd probably ignore the bit about performing exorcisms on anybody who has played it before allowing them into your house). Taken without any past experience however, Frank's opinion is no more right than Bob's.

In the end I think there's only one way to really evaluate a game review, does it agree with your opinion of the game? To review a critic simply ask, has this person's past advice and commentary mostly agreed with mine? If so, it might be advice worth taking, but if not, it's pretty useless. This is, as I said, why I like Yahtzee's review, as he is fundamentally not trying to review a game for everyone, he's providing his own impressions, some reasons for them, and trying to make me laugh, all of which are admirable and worthy goals.

That's all good and well for you to decide you sympathize with some of his views and pick buying habits accordingly (eventhough, I think it's a tad bit better to actually do research and compare points in other reviews than to listen to 1 or 2 guys). That's fine for you, but you get that impression because you agree with him. It's also fine if you don't agree with him. Imagine you're in the middle though, where you want to agree with some points, but he goes out of the way to make an ass of himself at times. He's not helpful at all.

You can say that he makes a good reviewer for his audience, but choosing to follow just a few reviewers constantly really does nothing for you. You're probably going to know what you and he like ahead of time and you're going to buy that. I honestly don't think Yahtzee is going to ever actually convince someone to try something new which is ironically one of his biggest stances.

That was my point earlier. No two points of view perfectly coincide, and there's going to be games you like that your couple of favorite reviewers aren't going to like. You can either listen to them, or you can do your research. Numbers are a bit of a silly system, but if you look at the talking points for numerous reviews, you can actually get an accurate appraisal of what's good and bad about a game. Only YOU should be deciding what you like, not Yahtzee, and you're not going to be doing that by just listening to Yahtzee. In that way, I'm saying he's no help. I don't care who you are, your opinions are not 100% Yahtzee's. THAT is exactly why a reviewer is supposed to remove as much bias as possible; so that you can compare reviewers and get a solid understanding of the game's content. In that aspect, if you remove Yahtzee's bias, you have nothing to compare to other reviews.

On top of all that, he does claim to be a critic and a professional (see the Mailbag Showdown), and yet claims that nothing but subjectivity is possible. Because of this, he comes off as a really unfunny parody of some actual academics in the field of game design and interactive story-telling. They have a hard enough time already being taken seriously even when they make incredibly valid points, and they REALLY don't need Yahtzee as a fore-runner.* It's a lot like if someone came to an engineering job, started throwing hamsters against a wall, and cursed non-stop with little provocation, and declared that they were an expert and a professional in the field. Sure, you can find them amusing, but if you've actually known real engineers, you'd find it just a bit insulting.


Just pointing out that I'm referring to this post

Just because you're jaded doesn't mean you should actually put in an effort to do your job the way it was meant to be done. By saying, "it's just the way things are" you just enable the activity. Like I said, claiming objectivity is impossible in any degree is really just the phrase of a lazy person that doesn't want to try. It's completely possible, a lot of people just don't put in the effort. Yahtzee's a big boy who's smart enough to know that he could be objective if he wanted to, but he chooses not to and to declare himself a professional at the same time. Yes, I consider this to be a fairly direct insult.

It's dumb to think you can entirely change the system by yourself, but I consider it contemptable to continue with a system that you think is broken just because you don't think you'll have a noticeable impact.

*Fun Fact: The MLA doesn't have a citation for video games and interactive media and will ACTUALLY laugh in your face if you ask about it. It's happened.

[Tom_Violence]

I honestly don't think Yahtzee is going to ever actually convince someone to try something new which is ironically one of his biggest stances.

Well that's not true, for sure. I went to the effort of getting copies of both Painkiller and No More Heroes after seeing his reviews for them.


That was my point earlier. No two points of view perfectly coincide, and there's going to be games you like that your couple of favorite reviewers aren't going to like. You can either listen to them, or you can do your research. Numbers are a bit of a silly system, but if you look at the talking points for numerous reviews, you can actually get an accurate appraisal of what's good and bad about a game. Only YOU should be deciding what you like, not Yahtzee, and you're not going to be doing that by just listening to Yahtzee. In that way, I'm saying he's no help. I don't care who you are, your opinions are not 100% Yahtzee's. THAT is exactly why a reviewer is supposed to remove as much bias as possible; so that you can compare reviewers and get a solid understanding of the game's content. In that aspect, if you remove Yahtzee's bias, you have nothing to compare to other reviews.

Now it sounds like you're accusing Yahtzee's reviews of being nothing but pure bias, from start to finish, and I just don't think that's true at all. I personally have no trouble whatsoever separating the parts of his reviews that are just about the game, and the parts that are particular to his experience of it. I don't think that's a difficult task at all, and rather than accuse him of lazy critquing, I think that a lazy audience is to blame for that.

By saying that Yahtzee is no help because I am not him is to say that his reviews are litereally meaningless to anyone that isn't 100% exactly like him, and again I must disagree. I don't think we want to boil this thing down to a concept like "Even if you completely agree with a reviewer in 99.99999% of cases, you should still ignore everything they say and research every facet of every game that they review just in case they're wrong this time". Of course people should keep an open mind - that's just common sense - but I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater just yet.

[EvilElitest]

Mr. Crowshaw is actually one of hte most objective reviewers i know. I like most of his stuff. How about this, you name me a review, and i'll comment my option on it on weather he is objective or not, because apperently my option matters for something
from
EE

[warty goblin]

That was my point earlier. No two points of view perfectly coincide, and there's going to be games you like that your couple of favorite reviewers aren't going to like. You can either listen to them, or you can do your research. Numbers are a bit of a silly system, but if you look at the talking points for numerous reviews, you can actually get an accurate appraisal of what's good and bad about a game. Only YOU should be deciding what you like, not Yahtzee, and you're not going to be doing that by just listening to Yahtzee. In that way, I'm saying he's no help. I don't care who you are, your opinions are not 100% Yahtzee's. THAT is exactly why a reviewer is supposed to remove as much bias as possible; so that you can compare reviewers and get a solid understanding of the game's content. In that aspect, if you remove Yahtzee's bias, you have nothing to compare to other reviews.


This is where you are wrong- to demonstrate this I'm going to look at the field of history. Again, in history perfect subjectivity is impossible, and hence the goal isn't to be subjective, it's to use the known facts as evidence for your interpretation (which is basically just historian speak for opinion). What is the interpretation and what is the fact of a piece of historical writing should be clearly labeled, but one should never to try to be purely subjective, because:
A) you can't
B) Being so tells the reader nothing at all.

Porting this back to the world of game reviews for a moment, consider the following three reviews of a hypothetical game:

1) The second level features ice themed enemies in a mostly white color tone, many of whom are vulnerable to fire. Also in keeping with the cold theme is the large number of sources of cold damage. Owing to the low number of tool using creatures in the level, there is also significantly less loot than elsewhere in the game.

2) The second level of this game is filled with annoyingly themed enemies who, due to being white against the snowy background, are difficult to see. This leads to a lot of frustration since the player is often attacked without any warning. Exacerbating this is the overabundance of cold damage, which heavily penalizes the cold- vulnerable Dwarven Smith class without offering a compensitory damage increase or anything of that matter. Often playing as a Smith I was killed without even having time to respond since I could not even find where the attack was coming from. To make matters worse the entire freaking level seems to be experiencing some sort of loot famine, which meant I quickly ran out of healing potions and was unable to replenish them, or even find the ingredients to brew my own.

3) The second level of the game features a cold motiff, and, in a welcome break from the game holding the player's hand, all of the enemies are well camoflauged for their glacial enviorenment. This leads to deeper immersion as you begin to jump at any sign of movement and find your glance lingering on the shadows behind snowdrifts, double checking for enemies. Adding even more to this sense of immersion and danger was my choice to play as a Dwarven Smith, who takes extra damage from cold attacks. After the second or third encounter I was feeling every bit as paranoid and terrified as a dwarf at home around a lava forge would in this land of frost. The landscape also feels desolate, there are very few harvestable ingredients to be found, and since most enemies are some sort of wild animal, very little in the way of loot drops, which further enforced my feeling of truly being alone on a giant glacier.

The first 'review' tells you pretty much squat. Oh sure it says a bit about some of the stuff in the game, but it tells you nothing at all about what it is like to actually play the game, and hence whether or not you enjoy it. The second is written from the perspective of somebody who found the level to be frustrating and unfair, while the third found the exact things the second hated to be some of the level's better features. Both the second and third are based on the same set of facts, and still give a better sense of what it is like to play the game than the first, even though they are in complete disagreement with each other.

Now a fair criticism of Yahtzee's reviews is that it is sometimes difficult to tell when he is being serious and when he is making a joke, hence making it difficult for the reader to determine what is 'fact' (aka: thing that the game undeniably features, like an FPS involving guns) and what is opinion ("the guns in this FPS are boring," or "the guns in this FPS are fun and interesting to use"). Lack of subjectivity however I don't feel is, because in the end he's as subjective as any other reviewer, which is to say not very. He's just honest enough not to try to appear to be, which as I said, is something I appreciate.

[EvilElitest]

Yet again, i totally agree with WG. the explanation says so much more


Also numbers can't sum up a complex option as Mr. Crowshaw said, he just talks about the merits of the game
from
EE

[ObadiahtheSlim]

I think he is mostly objective. He is rather biased against fighting games and J-RPGs, but he admits to it. Most of his criticism is pretty well based. I love SSBB, but I understand most of his complaints. Sure it can be rather button mashing intensive, but its a far cry from the Soul Caliber and DBZ Budokai series.

I also subscribe to his general philosiphy about gaming in general. I also think the graphics aren't nearly as important as good game play. Perhaps thats because I grew up on the 8 bit consoles (NES) and used my imagination to fill in the gaps. Sure graphics are a nice thing, but game play is far more important.

[EvilElitest]

also, even his bias against JRPGs, is at least founded. He mentions the flaws of the genre instead of a specific game, but other wise he makes a good case. His latest review is a little hard to understand, but i really like the one before it
from
EE