Poll: Do You Agree With "Yahtzee's" Reviews?
- Thread starter canadaowns
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's 50% for me but not because of only half of his opinions are true. In my opinion most of the points Yahtzee makes are valid but blown way out of proportion for humorous effect. For this reason I don't base my game shopping on his opinions.
Yahtzee has never said anything that I utterly disagree with, and in general I what he says is true. That said, his style of "review" is criticism, and often he has lambasted a game I enjoy. His valid points fail to detract from my enjoyment. His reviews have rarely (if ever) kept me from buying a game. In general, he provides no consumer service (the purpose of a review if you ever wondered), and as such I consider him a source of immense entertainment - nothing more.
You know, it's not like this topic hasn't been brought up a few thousand times since Yahtzee is one of the personalities well known on this site.
75%
I agree with his "conclusion" to the majority of his reviews.
Sometimes he comes across overly harsh but I consider his points to always be valid.
i.e. I had a great time with Oblivion. Yahtzee didn't. He took issue with the voice acting. I did too.
I agree with his "conclusion" to the majority of his reviews.
Sometimes he comes across overly harsh but I consider his points to always be valid.
i.e. I had a great time with Oblivion. Yahtzee didn't. He took issue with the voice acting. I did too.
I've agreed with him on some things, but then there are some games that I'd enjoyed that he didn't seem to care much for.
one thing I noticed is that game reviewers always tend to be more critical of games that the common gamer might just overlook the errors in. I suppose playing so many games, you kinda have to look for the good or bad in each of them, and whichever seems to stick out in the mind is probably what is used more in the reviews. Not to mention they probably have higher standards that need to be met based on the job. Same can be said about any type of critic or reviewer. Most movie reviews I see I strongly disagree with. Either the person writing the review is an over pretentious asshole looking for nothing but Oscar-worthy movies or just has no sense of humor.
I watch Zero Punctuation for the entertainment value. Everyone is going to have different and opposing opinions on something or another. So you can't really let what one person says about something effect your opinion of something completely. If your opinions match most of the time, then yes, chances are you can take what they say to heart. But if it's a bit more at a middleground, you just gotta try it for yourself and see what you think about it. doesn't mean you can't watch or read the reviews for the humor of it.
one thing I noticed is that game reviewers always tend to be more critical of games that the common gamer might just overlook the errors in. I suppose playing so many games, you kinda have to look for the good or bad in each of them, and whichever seems to stick out in the mind is probably what is used more in the reviews. Not to mention they probably have higher standards that need to be met based on the job. Same can be said about any type of critic or reviewer. Most movie reviews I see I strongly disagree with. Either the person writing the review is an over pretentious asshole looking for nothing but Oscar-worthy movies or just has no sense of humor.
I watch Zero Punctuation for the entertainment value. Everyone is going to have different and opposing opinions on something or another. So you can't really let what one person says about something effect your opinion of something completely. If your opinions match most of the time, then yes, chances are you can take what they say to heart. But if it's a bit more at a middleground, you just gotta try it for yourself and see what you think about it. doesn't mean you can't watch or read the reviews for the humor of it.
I believe the one thing that people get wrong about Yahtzee is that he doesn't review games he critiques them, there's a difference between weighing the pros and cons of a game and giving your opinion of it, and mercilessly nitpicking the hell out of something.
With that said sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't, I take into account the differences in taste when he reviews a game that I found enjoyable and he found annoying.
Anyways I don't watch ZP for advice on games in the first place, I watch it for the funny pictures and often times hilarious ways that he can find to make a game look like shit.
With that said sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't, I take into account the differences in taste when he reviews a game that I found enjoyable and he found annoying.
Anyways I don't watch ZP for advice on games in the first place, I watch it for the funny pictures and often times hilarious ways that he can find to make a game look like shit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... *whips tear from eye* no.
He has a few valid points but any review that serves only to tear out and share the worse pieces with absolutely no attention given to redeeming details isn't a good review. Not to mention the fact that he has an opposing tastes in games and thus thinks differently then I do. There fun and all, but I don't really agree most of the time.
He has a few valid points but any review that serves only to tear out and share the worse pieces with absolutely no attention given to redeeming details isn't a good review. Not to mention the fact that he has an opposing tastes in games and thus thinks differently then I do. There fun and all, but I don't really agree most of the time.
as some others, i do not really see them as reviews.
it is fun to watch though.
on the other hand , there are not many games i really like.
most games are too easy or to hard, or to hard to understand... the story i mean.
so sometimes he is right. but i would never take my opinion about a game to his level.
gothic 1 - 3 is great as a rollPlayGame. final fantasy is okay, but the fights are booring, because after figuring out which character is good against which enemy it becomes routine and you kill each enemy within one shoot.
the storry keeps it all entertaining, because it really is a good storry, a bit outa space confusing sometimes though.
hitman contracts is fine, pretty hard to get a level completed as high rank "silent assasin" but fun to figure it out... but after the 100st time trying the same level i used youtube for a solution-video.
warcraft 3 is a nice LAN game.
as is soldier of fortune 2 multiplayer test version... in which i got soo good after 7 years playing, they kicked me out of the server for cheating... so i started cheating, because it did not really matter if i was or not. cheats made it even more fun again, and i played another 3 years. now its lost, and i do not care.
batlefield 1942 ... yes nazis again, but i usually play the allys in order to kill them!
very good for LAN as well, against AI-bots in large numbers... with artillery you get a very high killing-rate while the other player tells you where to shoot as a scout.
when i bought my ps3 it included metal gear solid. i think i played it once and purchuased gta4 then.
hm, i hope this did not went too much off toppic, you can allways compare my opinion to yazees and see the difference or similarity.
it is fun to watch though.
on the other hand , there are not many games i really like.
most games are too easy or to hard, or to hard to understand... the story i mean.
so sometimes he is right. but i would never take my opinion about a game to his level.
gothic 1 - 3 is great as a rollPlayGame. final fantasy is okay, but the fights are booring, because after figuring out which character is good against which enemy it becomes routine and you kill each enemy within one shoot.
the storry keeps it all entertaining, because it really is a good storry, a bit outa space confusing sometimes though.
hitman contracts is fine, pretty hard to get a level completed as high rank "silent assasin" but fun to figure it out... but after the 100st time trying the same level i used youtube for a solution-video.
warcraft 3 is a nice LAN game.
as is soldier of fortune 2 multiplayer test version... in which i got soo good after 7 years playing, they kicked me out of the server for cheating... so i started cheating, because it did not really matter if i was or not. cheats made it even more fun again, and i played another 3 years. now its lost, and i do not care.
batlefield 1942 ... yes nazis again, but i usually play the allys in order to kill them!
very good for LAN as well, against AI-bots in large numbers... with artillery you get a very high killing-rate while the other player tells you where to shoot as a scout.
when i bought my ps3 it included metal gear solid. i think i played it once and purchuased gta4 then.
hm, i hope this did not went too much off toppic, you can allways compare my opinion to yazees and see the difference or similarity.
No-I actualy like games. The guy is either an appaling cynic garnering a career criticising a medium he largly loathes to an audience he largely despises, or an appalling comedian rehashing the same act week in week out.
Still, I bet he's got a couple more 0s on the end of his bank account than I do, which is admittadly quite impressive given he's achieved it with a copy of photoshop and a couple of swear-words...
Still, I bet he's got a couple more 0s on the end of his bank account than I do, which is admittadly quite impressive given he's achieved it with a copy of photoshop and a couple of swear-words...
