Poll: Is Yahtzee serious?

[vivster]

you have to learn to read this persona
there has rarely been a game he completely hates
the slightest positive word on a game is a good pointer for "this game can be fun"

also it helps to read his column

 

[Lilani]

He's not a reviewer, he's a critic. A reviewer will take a balanced look at a game and deliver an unbiased report. A critic will examine a game and pick up on all its flaws, glossing over the good and emphasizing the bad.

Yahtzee exaggerates for comic effect, but he's pretty on the ball when it comes to finding a game's weak spots.

First of all, critics and reviewer serve the same purpose and so are the same thing. Secondly, because their feedback is based on their opinions of whatever they've experienced, there is no possible way for them to be "unbiased" or "objective." The very definition of an opinion is a subjective feeling about a certain subject.

Sure there are certain things they are expected to report on that can be addressed in an objective manner, such as bugs, poor writing, poor voice acting, etc. Those are things that are universally disliked. No one in their right mind would argue of the merit of those problems.

But as for the other aspects of the game? Those are very subjective. One critic may point out that a game's subject is cliched and thus automatically dislikes it, while another may have no problem with the cliche'd story because it's presented so well and the game was still fun. Of course the one who likes it would still likely notice the cliche (it is their job to notice these things, after all), they will be more likely to report it as not a big deal given the other parts which they see as redeeming values.

There is no absolute rubric that you can use to map out the exact fun:shit ratio of a game. And to report on games in such a robotic and totally objective manner would be completely ineffective. As humans, we are inherently subjective, especially when it comes to visceral experiences. Without those human touches of opinions and tastes, it would be harder to report on these experiences, and harder to divine anything meaningful from the reports.

So no, it isn't a critic or reviewer's job to be unbiased. It's their job to take their knowledge of games, mechanics, and art (yes, art. From aesthetics and design, to narrative and story delivery, to music and sound design, to overall plot and dramatic structure there are quite a few elements of art that come together to make a game), and combine those standards to their own personal standards and experiences to come up with their opinion of whether or not it's a good game. The only reason we call them a "critic" instead of a regular "gamer" is because of that extra stage of identifying the artistic elements and comparing the experience to their knowledge of games and game experiences (which, if they are a critic worth their salt, should be a pretty vast knowledge of games).

 

[Xirema]

Nope, not one tiny bit. Ever since he just did a fanboy rant for Portal 2 (he didn't review the story, graphics, gameplay or anything), I go to his reviews for teh lulz.

I'll give you that he didn't discuss the graphics (though since graphics are really not an essential aspect of a game I'm not sure what point you're making) but I seem to recall him harping on about the game play and story quite a bit. His complaints were, IIRC, about the puzzles taking a backseat to the story more often than he was comfortable, the connecting sequences not really having any challenging gameplay to speak of other than "search this room for the wall you have to portal to and then continue" and the actual gameplay itself being much too easy.

 

[theodosian]

It's generally somewhere in between. I'm certain that it would be a miserable existence to bear that much hatred for what is essentially a medium of entertainment. That being said, the triple A game pool has reached a point at which a lot of the market is down right stale and in most cases, that's what needs to be reviewed because that's what people want to know about, that's what goes on store shelves, and that's fine.

If you're coming to a reviewer or a critic to determine whether or not you're going to buy a game, I desperately hope you know this individual on a personal level because getting the opinion of a stranger on a game is like asking the first person on the street which shop has the best sandwiches. This isn't to say you can't get information to help make a more informed decision but the fact is everyone has tastes. We all have those few games we cherish that the world sees as crap but stay tucked away neatly with the weird secrets no one wants to face. When it comes down to it, he is an entertainer and a damn fine one. Do we have to know how he pulls Branston Pickle out of his hat every week? No. Shoot for the middle and you'll find your truth.

 

[Conza]

This is something I have been thinking about for some time now, Yahtzee has stated to hate a lot of games and when I try to remember it all I recall him hating, third person shooters, first person shooters, real time strategies, RPGs JRPGs and just about everything the Wii churned out, and that's just off of the top of my head. I've seen a couple of people say that he's in character during his reveiws while others say they're his honest opinion and frankly I'm a little lost here. If he is in character I can't help but notice that he practically never breaks it on this website and quite a few people has begun to despise him. On the other hand if he isn't in character it's rather jarring that he honestly hates so many of the games out there and truly beleives them to be bland and unoriginal.

I get the feeling there is no right or wrong anwser to this so what do you think?

Actually there is a right or wrong answer, and he knows what it is, he can't be both a character and honest, unless all you are is a character, but then he'd be fictional.

He's being honest, and I think if he just got himself a gaming PC and played ANY FPS on there, he'd remember/realise, they are fantastic. On consoles? what the hell has come of this word, next you'll be doing RTS on consoles, and thats even more obsurd.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

There's a video floating around somewhere of Yahtzee doing a live Q & A session with some fans.

I watched it, and in that video he wasn't nearly as caustic or critical as the Yahtzee we hear during Zero Punctuation videos.

When asked a question during this Q & A about RTS, he quietly rolled his eyes and said something to the effect of, "Ungh, RTS... The thing is, I'd always rather be down there as a character in the battle as opposed to watching the battle from a bird's-eye view commanding troops around. RTS isn't a BAD genre, it's just not for me."

On the other hand, during a ZP video, he says stuff like: "Starcraft II can suck on a space tailpipe!" and "I've got nothing against real-time strategy except that everyone who plays them is obviously a massive coward!" (I'm quoting the "Shadow of the Colossus" video if you're curious.)

See the difference? The underlying opinion ("I really don't like RTS") is the same in both situations, but it's the WAY that they're expressed that makes them different. The first is a casual, non-confrontational expression of opinion. The second is exaggerated and caustic for comedic effect.

This is how I see Yahtzee:
-He is a critic, not a reviewer. He focuses on talking about the flaws of a game and the flaws of the game industry in general.
-His ZP persona is an exaggeration of his actual opinions. The opinions he presents in ZP are serious, but they are presented in a very exaggerated, not serious way.
-He actually does love video games in general and sees his unbridled criticism as something that can play a role in improving games. By pointing out the flaws (as he sees them) in games and the industry in general, he hopes that games will get better as time goes on.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

And you're automatically assuming that games are art. Not only art, but Art. Don't confuse 'a medium through which artistic merit can be portrayed' with 'a medium through which artistic merit is always portrayed'. Doom is not art. Descent is not art. Rise of the Triads is not art. Whatever happened to the days when games could get by just by being damn good fun?

It's a bit of a slippery slope when we're trying to draw lines between what is art and what isn't. Doom is Art. I don't necessarily appreciate it myself, or appreciate its aesthetic, or even think it's fun (I don't) but it's become clear to me that there are people who do, and I can't declare something "not to be art" simply because I don't personally appreciate it. Twilight is art. Stupid, poorly written, misogynistic, and immature Art, but Art nonetheless.

As to the more pertinent issue, there's a reason games used to be able to get by only on being fun: because that's all they could have. Video games have been limited by the technology that produced them, just in the same way that books struggled before movable type and movies struggled before we made affordable video camera technology. In the same way, video games were very limited before we produced the first +Mhz processor, or the first MB ram cards. Old games weren't well regarded on their own merits, they were well regarded because there wasn't anything better. Except that for the more artistically inclined, there were better things: actual movies and books and such.

It might be a bit of a slippery slope, but one I think is worth traversing. Maybe I'm coloured by my prejudices, but to me things like Tracey Emin's unmade bed are not art. When I think 'art' I think of Constable. Shakespeare. Donne. Anyone can produce works that provoke feelings. What artistry is is the ability to not only provoke feelings but thoughts, and not just 'WTF is that?'. If Hirst wants to chuck a shark into formaldehyde that's his business, but there's no way in hell he's ever going to convince me that it's in any way deep/meaningful.

 

[Xirema]

Sure there are certain things they are expected to report on that can be addressed in an objective manner, such as bugs, poor writing, poor voice acting, etc. Those are things that are universally disliked. No one in their right mind would argue of the merit of those problems.

I dunno, that "time freezing bug" in Fable I was a hell of a lot of fun to exploit. It, and the fact that the mana shield was so blatantly broken that it alone had a huge impact on how the game was played, probably had a net effect of increasing the replay value of that game by a factor of 2 or more. =D

But yeah. There's certain elements that a critic could possibly be expected to comment on objectively, but the critical process itself is pure subjectivity.

 

[Echo136]

I remember him saying at one point that people are more interested in his videos when he has something negetive to say about a game than positive, so he sticks to that. Makes sense to me.

 

[SIXVI06-M]

I think he believes pretty strongly in what he says, otherwise he probably wouldn't have cared to do these reviews in the first place - he just has a great way of delivering his opinions as opposed to an uninspired and tired lecturer going over the same syllabus for the 90,000th time

And I also think it's great he has such high and candid expectations of games. Unless you want to see more of those reviews you see in those mainstream corporatised gaming sites where virtually every huge-budget new release gets at least an 8 out of 10 because of PR hype rather than any actual objective and even subjective appraisal of the game.

If you're relatively socially adept, you can actually pick up on when to not take him too seriously and when to really actually consider what he says.

 

[Raika]

He takes his actual honest-to-goodness opinion, then inflates and glorifies all the negative opinions he has for the purpose of comedic effect. Just look at what he said when reviewing Arkham Asylum:

"But you don't call a sewage technician to redecorate your bathroom, and you didn't come to me to hear about how a game is good, not when every other review's done that already."

Or BioShock:

"If my Psychonauts review taught me anything, it's that nobody likes it when I'm being nice to a game."

He's mentioned it several times. He knows what his fan base wants and will give it to them, despite the fact that he claims to hate us.

I mean them.

>_>

 

[Zeriah]

Yahtzee's reviews are meant to show the flaws of games' in a humorous way, they have never and should never be taken as a serious review for them.

There's a fairly large portion of his review's where you can tell he genuinely likes a game (sometimes he will say as much, others you can tell by the way he presents the game) but will still crap all over it because his show is meant to show the negative aspects them. He actually has liked a lot of the FPS's, third person shooters and RPG's that he has reviewed. Go watch New Vegas, CoD4, The Orange Box, Just Cause 2, Saints Row, Bioshock, Painkiller, WoW, Mass Effect, Crysis and even GoW2 plus plenty more where he is far more subtle about it or I can't think of at the moment.

He is serious about the points he makes but his stance on the game as a whole by the end of his video can sometimes be very ambiguous. Regardless his hate is a lot funnier than his love, he has admitted as much before.

I tend to think of his videos as more of a roast of games rather than a review =)

 

[repeating integers]

I think he tries to be, at least in is XP articles. But I don't think he succeeds - I find his opinions on gaming too... odd.

 

[JasonKaotic]

He's kind of serious, kind of not. He exaggerates because it's because of his ripping on games that we watch ZP, but at the same time he's serious about his opinions.

 

[Hazufrazen]

yahtzee has done a good job of nullifying fanboys by telling us that no game is without its flaws and in spite of that they can still be good. on top of that there is his quote that i remember verbatum. "...but i am a critic, so i crticise things. if i sucked dick for a living i would be a prostitue or possibly a gamespot employee." its important to remember that a game's success depends only on the player itself not nessecarily on the gaming community as a whole. as for yahtzee i think he has both his serious moments and his not serious moments you just need to be attentive to pick them out.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

He's not a reviewer, he's a critic. A reviewer will take a balanced look at a game and deliver an unbiased report. A critic will examine a game and pick up on all its flaws, glossing over the good and emphasizing the bad.

Yahtzee exaggerates for comic effect, but he's pretty on the ball when it comes to finding a game's weak spots.

There is no such thing as an unbiased report. There is also no difference between a critic and a reviewer in real terms.

Seriously, I get really tired of every time someone disagrees with one of Yahtzee's videos, they trot out one of two lines. 1) "Yahtzee's just a critic; it's his job to hate everything, so therefore it can't be as bad as he says." 2) "Yahtzee's a comedian; it's his job to exaggerate flaws for the jokes, so therefore it can't be as bad as he says." Both of these lines are basically a carte blanche to avoid having to engage with his arguments and just dismiss them outright as part of his attempts to get more traffic.

The amount of times I hear someone come out with a third line, ie: "I personally liked the game, but he's entitled to his opinion, now I'm going to do something productive with my life instead of telling him why he's wrong for not liking it," is ridiculously small.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

He is serious about his own opinion, but extraordinarily open-minded. He's creative and talented and knowledgeable about the world of video games and digital entertainment--scholastically as well; he's learned a few names and read a few books, that's for sure! And he's successful.

And it's weird that there's actually a topic with a bunch of random dots on an internet forum putting up pixels attempting to analyze his psychological profile--on the very site where he uploads his creations. Just sayin', kinda odd.

 

[jthm]

His hatred is exaggerated to comical points, but he makes valid criticisms. As a lifelong gamer and a game store retail employee some years back, I often play and played titles before he reviewed them and in most cases noticed the same problems. I think the only criticism I've ever strongly disagreed with him on was his hatred of the game WET.

 

[Zach of Fables]

Really he's an entertainer, not a serious reviewer. So you have to look at his videos with that knowledge in mind. When he truly dislikes a game, it's obvious. When he likes a game it's less obvious, but the example I always use is "Arkham Asylum," a game I really like. Yes he made fun of the flaws, and it was funny because it was true, but the review in general was still positive and the game was a good one. So I think if you apply a bit of brainpower to the review, and don't take it in a vacuum, it can be useful.