... What? Taking a grain of salt means that you don't fully trust him, not that you take him seriously. How can you not understand this allegory?allnorweiganwood said:
Do you take yahtzee's reviews with a grain of salt?
- Thread starter Mr.Lucifer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I sometimes use him for the same reason people use EncyclopediaDramatica.Souplex said:
I hate a game, and I want someone to hate it with me.
I take everyone's views with a grain of salt, particularly those of critics. I might enjoy watching or reading their critiques, but I'll make my own mind up based on my own experience of a game/book/movie.
Well, like he said in his video for the first BioShock, "no one likes it when I'm nice to a game", and he elaborated in an Extra Punctuation column that any aspect of the game he doesn't trash in a video should be assumed to be fine.
Yahtzee is banging the "games are art" drum, and it's no wonder that would be a disappointing position to take. Most games aren't art. Quite a large number are uninspired, derivative trash [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law#.E2.80.9CNinety_percent_of_everything_is_crud.E2.80.9D]. That doesn't mean they can't be fun to play.
Every other medium is also full of trash, some of which is absolute dreck and some of which is still entertaining. I would never hold up G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra to the same evaluation as The Godfather or The Seven Samurai, and it will probably be all but forgotten in a few years, but it sure was a fun way to spend 2 hours. So yeah, Yahtzee's correct that most of these games are derivative, have crappy writing and poorly-designed characters. But they can still be fun to play, even if they won't be remembered a few months down the road.
?Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.? -Winston Churchill
Yahtzee is banging the "games are art" drum, and it's no wonder that would be a disappointing position to take. Most games aren't art. Quite a large number are uninspired, derivative trash [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law#.E2.80.9CNinety_percent_of_everything_is_crud.E2.80.9D]. That doesn't mean they can't be fun to play.
Every other medium is also full of trash, some of which is absolute dreck and some of which is still entertaining. I would never hold up G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra to the same evaluation as The Godfather or The Seven Samurai, and it will probably be all but forgotten in a few years, but it sure was a fun way to spend 2 hours. So yeah, Yahtzee's correct that most of these games are derivative, have crappy writing and poorly-designed characters. But they can still be fun to play, even if they won't be remembered a few months down the road.
?Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.? -Winston Churchill
Sort of. i think he's getting paid because of his humor, and not entirely because of his opinion.
if this is some thread you made because you actually liked bioshock 2, he was right on the money with that review today.
if this is some thread you made because you actually liked bioshock 2, he was right on the money with that review today.
Ok this is tricky to explain but it comes right down to why I refuse to listen to any other reviewers. most movie reviewers don't actually care about whether or not a movie is funny/entertaining but only about whether or not they can waffle on about its finer points for 5-10 minutes and if not they will just can a perfectly good movie. Now Yahtzee on the other hand uis supposed to be a 5-10 minutes hatefest, as he said in his bioshock 1 review we hate him when he's nice to a game, and if you can find even a few good points in one of his reviews then you know it might actually be a decent game
A grain of salt means you don't trust it, what are you talking about?allnorweiganwood said:
I just watch for entertainemnt, I don't really trust most reviews to begin with
So yes, I use a grain of salt.
He holds Quater Life 1 up as what a good sequel should be. The game that takes out all the atmosphere, tolerability in writing, and fun from quater life 0.5, removes it, and then feeds us a depressing piece of average. However, due to Newell having reached the "Whedon threshold" (A point in your career, where due to relying on niche markets, you don't come under mainstream scrutiny, and your work is similar enough to your original work they will act like it is an amazing masterpiece out of misguided loyalty to you. I wish I could reach that.) people still act like it's brilliant.Hubilub said:
Then again, his points on sequels are kind of broken anyway.
Game X is a sequel to game Y. Game X is basically game Y with some cool new stuff tacked on. Game Y is awesome. Therefore: Game X = Awesome with some cool new stuff tacked on.
This.Falseprophet said:
Besides, the games he actually finds good (SH2, Portal, Psychonauts) are spectacular games, and I have yet to find anyone who can say something bad about them, or at least, something constructively bad about them. with his attitude towards gaming today, if he says something remotely good about a game, I find it's usually worth checking out. That being said, a lot of the games he dismisses as drek are sometimes pretty good as well.
The point is, he's funny, and sometimes right. Most critics can't come close to either of them. So. Is he a critic? Yes. Is he right about everything he reviews? No. But it's up to us to make our own opinions.
Take his reviews with a grain of salt, but not much more.
To quote Yahtzee from his video Mailbag Showdown, "All reviews are subject to personal opinion, and if you personally enjoy the game, then they really shouldn't get to you."
I still love Oblivion, completely disagree with him on the similarities of Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and I don't mind quick-time-events.
That said, I tend to understand his side. The negatives just aren't as detrimental to me as I would assume from watching the review, and if he hadn't pointed them out, I could go a few more playthroughs without even really noticing the flaw.
I still love Oblivion, completely disagree with him on the similarities of Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and I don't mind quick-time-events.
That said, I tend to understand his side. The negatives just aren't as detrimental to me as I would assume from watching the review, and if he hadn't pointed them out, I could go a few more playthroughs without even really noticing the flaw.
A grain of salt? I don't even take them period. I just like to hear a witty yet low brow rambling satirizing the games I like. I personally have a hard time following his logic anyway. "A game should stand on single player alone. That said, I love Team Fortress 2." What?
he makes good points that I agree with most of the time however he is more likely than others to let those point ruin a game for him. He wants games to be taken to a new level where all game companies actually put effort into making their games which is never going to happen. He wants better quality entertainment and to make people laugh at his reviews.
Not at all. From the games I've played that he's reviewed, he points out all the flaws, and they are in fact true.
I don't really like salt too...salty. For the most part I find myself agreeing with yahtzee on his critiques. And yes he's a critic not a reviewer, simply put critics try to find the bad in games so nitpicking is halfway required for a critic. Although that's not to say they only remark on the bad. I also like his distaste for numerical rating systems. I feel it gives it a more personal word of mouth feel. I would say the only way we differ is personal tastes when it comes to games. I may love JRPGs but I agree with him on the points he brings up against them, I still love what I love though.