Poll: How Long Would Yahtzee Last at Gamespot?
- Thread starter Rjak
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Strangely enough, he could be made to last a particularly long time there.
You see, everyone and everything has their purpose in life. Gamespot's and their managers' purpose is to make gobs of money.
Yahtzee's purpose is to be as big a dick as possible.
You'd be surprised how well they'd work together. They could use him. All they need to do is hand him exclusively BAD games. Games that probably weren't going to sell well in the first place, and (as a sideline in blackmail) didn't spend enough in advertising on their site. Take a look at some book reviews, if you don't believe me. http://www.nplusonemag.com/situation_1.html
The wholly negative ones tend to stand out as being "honest" or "having a high standard". Every so often, they'll throw out a negative game review as well in the hopes of maintaining their credibility, or something to point to when things like this hit the fan.
So, as I said, he could be an invaluable asset to them, if they were capable of controlling his rants to games that they particularly select. They wouldn't want him to give a good review, or a bad review of a good game, or a game that paid well. As even Yahtzee said, "nobody likes it when I'm being nice to a game." Keep him reviewing exclusively bad games and he'd be funny as hell, making the site more popular and giving them their precious integrity.
You see, everyone and everything has their purpose in life. Gamespot's and their managers' purpose is to make gobs of money.
Yahtzee's purpose is to be as big a dick as possible.
You'd be surprised how well they'd work together. They could use him. All they need to do is hand him exclusively BAD games. Games that probably weren't going to sell well in the first place, and (as a sideline in blackmail) didn't spend enough in advertising on their site. Take a look at some book reviews, if you don't believe me. http://www.nplusonemag.com/situation_1.html
The wholly negative ones tend to stand out as being "honest" or "having a high standard". Every so often, they'll throw out a negative game review as well in the hopes of maintaining their credibility, or something to point to when things like this hit the fan.
So, as I said, he could be an invaluable asset to them, if they were capable of controlling his rants to games that they particularly select. They wouldn't want him to give a good review, or a bad review of a good game, or a game that paid well. As even Yahtzee said, "nobody likes it when I'm being nice to a game." Keep him reviewing exclusively bad games and he'd be funny as hell, making the site more popular and giving them their precious integrity.
I think he would last until his first review, at which time Gamespot will finally realize that he isn't Alex Navarro in a cool new hat.
I'm betting his critical intelligence/opinion wouldn't get him very far reviewing on Gamespot, but I'm sure he'd make a lasting impression with some of the mature users there; they are there, they're just hard to find.
This gamespot story seems to have gotten legs and ran about fantasy land.
According to the Gamespot Podcast today, it might have had nothing to do with the K&L video review after all. And even if it does, it doesn't necessarily mean that past or future reviews would contain tilt for/against certain titles.
But yea, im gonna go with TheDarkArchon on this one.
According to the Gamespot Podcast today, it might have had nothing to do with the K&L video review after all. And even if it does, it doesn't necessarily mean that past or future reviews would contain tilt for/against certain titles.
But yea, im gonna go with TheDarkArchon on this one.
And Gamespot has no reason at all to lie. It's not like they've lost masses of subscribers, compromised their integrity in an increasingly fickle web culture, or become a gaming industry laughing stock. I'm sure any piece of information we get from Gamespot from now on can be considered a marvellous beacon of mighty, mighty truth.dannyodwyer said:
