A review of Yatzee's ZP reviews of anything multiplayer

Recommended Videos
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
YAHTZEE DOES NOT REVIEW GAMES HE CRITIZES THEM FOR COMEDIC AFFECT LOUD NOISES I LIKE PIE.

Ok now I have that done with he doesn't review games he critizes them and they are not serious in any way shape or form and should not be accept as such and as with everything on the internet his critical videos should be taken with a grain of salt
 

Siegreich

New member
Jun 24, 2008
321
0
0
Yahtzee is not a true reviewer, he's an entertainer and a comedian, his reviews tend to have inaccuracies that show that he has spent very little time with some of the games in question, as such it doesn't matter what he reviews as long as it's funny.
 

Mr.Black

New member
Oct 27, 2009
762
0
0
So I read maybe half of the replies to this thread, and I'm genuinely surprised at how many Yahtzee fanboys there are. In conclusion, Yahtzee is funny in his reviews and that's it. That Washington DC clip was the most un-funny piece of comedy I've ever seen. Kinda makes me lose respect for the guy if he tries to make dick jokes while sight-seeing, all with poor delivery and a monotone voice.

Stick to ZP imo.
 

Sparecash

New member
Dec 24, 2008
68
0
0
I really do understand where you're coming from, and I somewhat agree that when a game has multiplayer as a crucial part of its entertainment value, Yahtzee should take a look at it. But unfortunately that just isn't going to happen.

The thing that makes people watch ZP is how unique and hilarious it is; if he ended up going through a checklist of things to review his videos would become boring and mainstream. I think what makes ZP so watch-able is that it is just so... casual, so becoming different than everyone else is much appreciated. So making him review multiplayer when he really doesn't want to, will probably just hurt his videos.

Also, to everyone claiming that games should be around single player, and thus ZP should just focus on single player, you guys need to get a reality check. Thousands of games are based around multiplayer, hell, modern warfare is about one ounce of coke away from becoming an MMO. Yea some games are single player-focused, but some are also multiplayer-focused, and since the OP already said to only review multiplayer "where applicable" you guys don't need to get on his ass.
P.S. Not trying to offend anyone. =P
 

Emilin_Rose

New member
Aug 8, 2009
495
0
0
I could care less if a game's based around multiplayer as long as they point out that fact in the advertising. something like "Greatest Multiplayer Experience of the 21st century" or something like that to warn the rest of us who hate multiplayer to buy something else. Otherwise, its like your elementary school bullies asking if you "want a sandwich". That's part of the reason i bought a wii, because my cousin and half brother had 360's, and all the big name games had incredibly short "beat it in a day and only did so to unlock the ultimate gun/vehicle" single player campaign and the rest of the games' use were multiplayer. No games are more guilty of this than Halo and CoD. You see all these epic commercials for them, promising the "gaming experience of a lifetime". Never once mentioning multiplayer in their commercials, which makes the general public think that the game overall is epic, and not just the multiplayer.

an overall epic game is like Portal, which i watched a friend play to completion, or Sands of Time. Notice that at least the latter has no multiplayer.

The point is that games can be good or bad without multiplayer, and if a games only good feature IS the multiplayer, then we need a new genre for them. Kind of like how online RPG's are now known as the MMORPG genre. Why can't we have a genre called MFPS(Multiplayer First Person Shooter)? in order to seperate games for different tastes.

I can't really imagine people back in the days of the atari had to classify their games in genres other than adventure or shooter. Remember Pong? did they need a genre for it? no.

Games as they diversify to satisfy different tastes, need more genres to categorize them. Time travel back to 1994 and ask yourself back then if there was such thing as an "mmorpg". You will find them looking slightly confused before holding out a copy of Legend of Zelda and asking something along the lines of "did you mean this kind of game?".

Over the years there have been many subgenres created. From casual games to the ever popular FPS to the ever devotedfanhoarding MMORPG. We don't even need to call them MFPS. at some point after wolfenstein the distinction was made between first and third person and even over the shoulder shooters. The original blueprint for the horror genre has been labeled "Survival Horror" while the genre of "horror" is left to you with a machine gun and squishy monstrosities in between you and the end credits.

So try this one: SPFPS, Single Player First Person Shooter. A way to label games so that the general public has a clear distinction about a game made for online playing and a game made for single player campaigns.

This would also boost profits for games both "FPS" and "SPFPS", because the design teams for the former wouldn't have to create a single player campaign at all, and the latter won't be desperately pouring every bit of excess funding they have into a shoddy multiplayer in an attempt to be more like widely popular halo.

This works with other genres too. Basically anything with a strong focus on single player campaigns can tack on the letters "SP" to the front of their genre and call it a day without wasting money on multiplayer.

This seems to be the only solution i can find to gaming's future. You see, the more games based on multiplayer with bad SP campaigns come out, the more jaded someone who likes at least a BIT of alone time with their controller will get frustrated, and eventually turn to other means of entertainment. When that happens, I imagine it will only take about a decade for a mass exodus to have occured, leaving gaming itself to be defined by two classes of gamers, Online Gamers and their multiplayer, and Casual Gamers and their PopCap.

Now before you get all /\/3V4R 6U/\/U HAP3N /\/0013|=461 on me, yes, i do know there will still be hundreds of gamers who won't give it up no matter how horrible they get. But for every gamer that's too determined to give it up there are ten more who'd rather put their time into something other than whiny 14 year olds screeching "FAIL NOOB" into their earpieces. and of that 10, in the timespan of a decade i guarantee you 8 will give it up for either Peggle or researching for the American Cancer Society, or whatever your country's variant thereof, or robbing a bank, or getting onto the local and/or foreign government's most wanted criminals list.

Maybe i'm a chicken little here, but all the bullshit i and my friends have dealt with from the game companies lately creating worse and worse single player games has us at the point of swearing off all but Rock Band, DDR, and Minesweeper and doing something else with our lives. The only thing that stopped us from making said pact is that we really don't know what else we'd do with ourselves. Given time to think however we're starting to come up with some scenarios.

the point of this overly long post meant originally to only contain paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 is to point out that this multiplayer thing IS NOT for everyone. I, personally, trust yahtzee's opinion enough to factor it in, along with my friend's opinions of the game and opinions of some of the guys at the counter(who are suprisingly honest about a games quality outside of multiplayer), before i buy a game. If he started focusing on the multiplayer aspects over the single player, he'd lose the trust and loyalty of the vast amount of us in the gaming community who'd rather play their little cousin's Animal Crossing game than deal with the 14 year olds aforementioned 2 paragraphs.

On top of that, part of yahtzee's charm is that the only greater talent he has than for picking out a game's flaws is exploiting them in windows movie maker. Something that is not so easily done without adding in certain players screennames in a rage unquenchable until one hears on the news that a 13 year old boy named Willis Thomson killed himself last week after 4chan got a hold of his xbox live username xXN0013CRU5H3R1337Xx. (DISCLAIMER:Not a real name i just made it up. Actually it might be but i don't use xboxlive so i wouldn't know.)

tl;dr: Yahtzee is a hairy jesus defending the silently lurking hordes of Single Player gamers from the zergling rush of Multiplayers until they can form a perfect strategy to successfully nuke them without losing their fellow brothers/sisters in the battle.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
What is this hideous new mainstream school of thought that has arisen which claims that a game's underwhelming single-player is justified by its multi-player?

Multi-player should always be considered an add-on; something for you to do once you've piled through the main campaign. To consider multi-player to be the central crux of the game is akin to claiming that DVD extras are more important than the films themselves (although a notable exception to this is purely multi-player games).

The fact is, if developers are not willing to produce an excellent single-player experience, in the knowledge that people are only buying their game for the multi-player, you should rightfully call them up on it.

Not everyone has online capabilities, so its wholly discriminatory to leave these people with a crap single-player campaign on the basis of an excellent multi-player section which they will never be able to use.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
RyVal said:
What is this hideous new mainstream school of thought that has arisen which claims that a game's underwhelming single-player is justified by its multi-player?

Multi-player should always be considered an add-on; something for you to do once you've piled through the main campaign. To consider multi-player to be the central crux of the game is akin to claiming that DVD extras are more important than the films themselves (although a notable exception to this is purely multi-player games).

The fact is, if developers are not willing to produce an excellent single-player experience, in the knowledge that people are only buying their game for the multi-player, you should rightfully call them up on it.

Not everyone has online capabilities, so its wholly discriminatory to leave these people with a crap single-player campaign on the basis of an excellent multi-player section which they will never be able to use.
With all due respect (no flamewars xD), I disagree. I have not problem with multiplayer-oriented games. It's not a hideous trend, it's just that there are loads of people who like playing with real people better.
 

Nova5

Interceptor
Sep 5, 2009
589
0
0
Yeah, this doesn't really matter. Yahtzee's offered his own opinion and nothing more from the start. If he doesn't like multiplayer, that's fine. I love HALO 3's multiplayer - doesn't mean I got sand in my vagina after he said "The only thing remarkable about HALO is the degree to which its stuck up its own ass."

Fact of the matter is, they're opinions. Entertaining opinions. If it really bothers you that much, don't watch, or get over it.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
Journeythroughhell said:
With all due respect (no flamewars xD), I disagree. I have not problem with multiplayer-oriented games. It's not a hideous trend, it's just that there are loads of people who like playing with real people better.
I have no problem with multi-player oriented games, either, but I still don't want the single-player campaign to be an afterthought.

As the single-player portions of games with multi-player add-ons are becoming shorter and shorter, I fear we'll eventually reach a time where developers will expect all gamers to have online by default, alienating those who cannot afford it or who cannot use online for various reasons.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
RyVal said:
Journeythroughhell said:
With all due respect (no flamewars xD), I disagree. I have not problem with multiplayer-oriented games. It's not a hideous trend, it's just that there are loads of people who like playing with real people better.
I have no problem with multi-player oriented games, either, but I still don't want the single-player campaign to be an afterthought.

As the single-player portions of games with multi-player add-ons are becoming shorter and shorter, I fear we'll eventually reach a time where developers will expect all gamers to have online by default, alienating those who cannot afford it or who cannot use online for various reasons.
Good point. Still, one question.
Are you referring to MW2 here?
 

Iconoclasm

New member
Nov 25, 2009
63
0
0
Perhaps my conception of a good video game is off, but I was under the impression that the single player campaign in anything was the priority of the project. The multiplayer gives a person the ability to use the various skills and awesome weapons from the story on poor, unsuspecting noobs in maps similar in theme and design to those found within the game itself.

An example would be like a long book. You read the book by yourself to gain some kind of insight or enlightenment or enrichment (single player) and then you hide in a corner in the dark and wait for your roommate to get home from work at which time you throw the book hard at his face and run away (multiplayer)... or something like that... my similes always fall apart for some reason.

Excused from this are games where multplayer is the purpose, and you get crappy bots for single player (Battlefield, Quake III Arena etc).
 

AcacianLeaves

New member
Sep 28, 2009
1,197
0
0
I agree with Yahtzee, the only online experience I tend to enjoy is when I'm playing an MMO with an established group of gaming buddies who know the rules. Online play for shooters and fighting games don't have this, and therefore suffer from an overabundance of simpletons and assholes who use the anonymity of the network to screw up other people's gaming. And then you have the people who have been playing the game since pre-alpha and following it for the last decade who know all the tricks, hiding spots, moves, cheap attacks, etc - and the only way you can enjoy even the best of competitive online multiplayer is to play the same game for many years just to be able to compete.

It's not fun.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
Journeythroughhell said:
RyVal said:
Journeythroughhell said:
With all due respect (no flamewars xD), I disagree. I have not problem with multiplayer-oriented games. It's not a hideous trend, it's just that there are loads of people who like playing with real people better.
I have no problem with multi-player oriented games, either, but I still don't want the single-player campaign to be an afterthought.

As the single-player portions of games with multi-player add-ons are becoming shorter and shorter, I fear we'll eventually reach a time where developers will expect all gamers to have online by default, alienating those who cannot afford it or who cannot use online for various reasons.
Good point. Still, one question.
Are you referring to MW2 here?
I haven't played Modern Warfare 2, but from what I hear, its essentially a microcosm for this whole issue; a short, lacklustre campaign being justified by its superb multi-player (though aspects of the multi-player seemed to cause more grievance with the PC gamer crowd than the single-player did).
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
RyVal said:
Journeythroughhell said:
RyVal said:
Journeythroughhell said:
With all due respect (no flamewars xD), I disagree. I have not problem with multiplayer-oriented games. It's not a hideous trend, it's just that there are loads of people who like playing with real people better.
I have no problem with multi-player oriented games, either, but I still don't want the single-player campaign to be an afterthought.

As the single-player portions of games with multi-player add-ons are becoming shorter and shorter, I fear we'll eventually reach a time where developers will expect all gamers to have online by default, alienating those who cannot afford it or who cannot use online for various reasons.
Good point. Still, one question.
Are you referring to MW2 here?
I haven't played Modern Warfare 2, but from what I hear, its essentially a microcosm for this whole issue; a short, lacklustre campaign being justified by its superb multi-player (though aspects of the multi-player seemed to cause more grievance with the PC gamer crowd than the single-player did).
I disagree with that.
I essentially enjoyed the "short lackluster" campaign. I thought that it was short to keep things from being stale and repetitive.
But, yeah, you've got something there.
 

Ryuk2

New member
Sep 27, 2009
766
0
0
Well i kind of agree, if the game is meant to be played online, ranting on multy-player is kind of silly. It's like saying Left 4 Dead is bad, because there's not much guns and the AI is stupid, it's just meant to be played online.
Nobody is reviewing a movie by looking at the trailer and some screenshots of the movie...except the Distressed Watcher.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
Journeythroughhell said:
RyVal said:
Journeythroughhell said:
RyVal said:
I have no problem with multi-player oriented games, either, but I still don't want the single-player campaign to be an afterthought.

As the single-player portions of games with multi-player add-ons are becoming shorter and shorter, I fear we'll eventually reach a time where developers will expect all gamers to have online by default, alienating those who cannot afford it or who cannot use online for various reasons.
Good point. Still, one question.
Are you referring to MW2 here?
I haven't played Modern Warfare 2, but from what I hear, its essentially a microcosm for this whole issue; a short, lacklustre campaign being justified by its superb multi-player (though aspects of the multi-player seemed to cause more grievance with the PC gamer crowd than the single-player did).
I disagree with that.
I essentially enjoyed the "short lackluster" campaign. I thought that it was short to keep things from being stale and repetitive.
But, yeah, you've got something there.
I'm just going on what I've heard; I can't form a first-hand opinion until I actually play the game myself, which won't be happening till December.

The original Modern Warfare was an excellent single-player game which - as a compliment - had some good multi-player action as well.

Yet its follow up seems to have ignored single-player in favour of multi-player.

Hell, there even seemed to be more articles covering MW2's multi-player and more controversy generated over IW's decision to use a match-making system on the PC than over anything in the single-player campaign.

This really seems to be validating my fears; people are so busy masturbating over the exemplary multi-player to notice the fact that the single-player campaign is (allegedly) shorter and inferior to that of the first game.

And really, while I enjoy multi-player, the single-player is what really concerns me; no matter how thrilling it is, multi-player will never be able to recreate the epic set-pieces and pitched firefights of single-player fame.
 

RyVal

New member
May 19, 2009
156
0
0
Ryuk2 said:
Well i kind of agree, if the game is meant to be played online, ranting on multy-player is kind of silly. It's like saying Left 4 Dead is bad, because there's not much guns and the AI is stupid, it's just meant to be played online.
L4D is essentially an online-only game, though.

That's a little different to Halo 3.

Ryuk2 said:
Nobody is reviewing a movie by looking at the trailer and some screenshots of the movie...except the Distressed Watcher.
I cannot imagine how the single-player portion of a game is in anyway comparable to the trailer and screenshots for a film.