We need more Zero Punctuation's

[stevesan]

Entertainment is subjective. You can't deny it. This is why I personally find Yahtzee's game reviews to be more helpful than any others.

Other game reviews attempt to be "objective" about their reviews. But because games are subjective, they inevitably fail. This means most reviews tend to be an uneasy mix of subjective and attempted objective (ie. letting others influence their decision) statements about the game. Such reviews are more or less useless to anyone. By the way, if you want to reply intelligently to this post, please use the phrase "On the other hand" naturally in your reply, so I know you actually read my post. Even if you state objective facts about the game, your selection of what facts to talk about is a subjective choice that affects your depiction of the game. And since enjoyment of a game is pretty damn subjective, trying to be objective about it is pretty futile. Sure, you can say some things objectively, like "very few load screens", but then you may as well put up a video of you playing the game (which, actually, Kotaku has started doing). And when you start mixing the objective with the subjective, it's hard to tell what is what - and your review becomes sterile.

But with Zero Punctuation, there is a clear bias towards the subjective. His opinions are undeniably his, and his personally. Why is this helpful? Well, it is only helpful if you agree with his taste in games. If you do, then you can be more confident that any game he likes, you will like. This is different from most reviewers, who do not make their _personal_ tastes and preferences clear in their reviews in an attempt to be objective, and at the end of the day end up saying nothing really useful at all.

So in my opinion, we need more game reviews that are personal, by people who are not afraid to express their own distinctly subjective opinions. There is a good reason why Roger Ebert is a successful critic: He is personal. If you don't agree with him, then fine, don't listen to him. But if you do agree, then he's a valuable resource, because you know that your subjective views will often fit with his. So enough with GameSpot, IGN, and GameTrailers - we need more Old Man Murray's, Zero Punc's, Angry Video Game Nerd's. More people that we can actually agree AND disagree with and build trust with - not "objective" corporations.

 

[PurpleRain]

It's fine the way it is. If everyone reviews a game like Yahtzee, then it'll stop being entertaining anymore. Just ignor the dull ones.

 

[sammyfreak]

On the other hand i actually tend to agree more with objective corporations. Call me a sellout if you must. Those opinions are tailored for the majority, aparently i belong to it.

 

[stompy]

It's fine the way it is. If everyone reviews a game like Yahtzee, then it'll stop being entertaining anymore. Just ignor the dull ones.

Purple, I think the OP means that game reviewers should become more subjective, instead of trying to be objective, and in the OP's eyes, failing.

With my understanding of this thread, I like what you're saying, OP. Most critics now-a-days in other forms of entertainment review subjectively, and people listen to them. It also seems to work, as they have a nice blend of subjective and objective.

But, as Purple mentions, if everyone tries to be like Yahtzee, then it won't be funny. So, it'll only work if they don't try and be funny... uh, I seem to have lost it, huh?

- a procrastinator

 

[stevesan]

On the other hand i actually tend to agree more with objective corporations. Call me a sellout if you must. Those opinions are tailored for the majority, aparently i belong to it.

I suppose the IGNs of the world do tend to appeal a certain group of people, which you are a part of. That's fine too - I guess I've just been burned by those reviews too often myself. In short, I don't agree with them But I think you'll agree, more diversity of strong opinions never hurts.

And thanks for reading.

 

[RobotLiberationArmy]

Describing a review as objective only proves that you don't know what objective means (or that you don't understand reviews).

On the other hand, I stopped reading after your stupid little code word out of spite.

 

[stevesan]

Describing a review as objective only proves that you don't know what objective means (or that you don't understand reviews).

On the other hand, I stopped reading after your stupid little code word out of spite.

OK next time I'll put it later in the post. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[PurpleRain]

It's fine the way it is. If everyone reviews a game like Yahtzee, then it'll stop being entertaining anymore. Just ignor the dull ones.

Purple, I think the OP means that game reviewers should become more subjective, instead of trying to be objective, and in the OP's eyes, failing.

With my understanding of this thread, I like what you're saying, OP. Most critics now-a-days in other forms of entertainment review subjectively, and people listen to them. It also seems to work, as they have a nice blend of subjective and objective.

But, as Purple mentions, if everyone tries to be like Yahtzee, then it won't be funny. So, it'll only work if they don't try and be funny... uh, I seem to have lost it, huh?

- a procrastinator

Too much of a good thing is my point.

 

[RobotLiberationArmy]

Or you could, you know, not have it all and just trust people...

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I don't find Yahtzee's reviews useful at all. Entertaining, sure. But it is clearly more a rant of things he doesn't like about games or what he does like about games, and not a clear weighing of pros and cons.

In other words, listening to one of his reviews never makes me lean any more in one direction of whether to get a game or avoid it than I did before listening to it.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

When I check user reviews, I always start by reading the negative ones. Reading a whole bunch of negative reviews gives me a good idea what sort of person dislikes the game. If it's the kind of person who thinks like I do, it means I probably won't like it either. If it's totally the opposite, then I start reading the positive reviews.

Which means Yahtzee is usually a good place for me to start.

I mean, assuming I want serious information. If I just want to laugh, that's even better.

 

[Cameoflage]

I find that Yahtzee's tastes line up in large part with my own (they're not identical, but there's a lot of similarities), but the subjectivity of his reviews means that I can easily locate and discard the points raised about problems that I wouldn't mind as much as he does. However -- not that this was actually the point the OP was making, but it's an easy conclusion to jump to from the title of the thread -- nothing good can come of simply imitating Yahtzee rather than coming up with something original, except maybe by sheer chance if you're particularly bad at the "imitation" part.

As a side note, I didn't mind using "on the other hand", since I say that a lot to begin with, but I didn't find any point in that paragraph where the phrase would naturally occur and couldn't be arsed to shoehorn it in.

 

[Saskwach]

I see your point, stevesan. I'd support some more clear, instead of veiled, subjectivity. However, I have two philosophical kinks with totally subjective views, if that's what you want. Firstly, I dislike that because pure objectivity is impossible that people say "fuck it, let's go subjective". That way lies post-modernism and relativism. Second, if reviewers go the whole hog with their opinions then they will lose the high ground and cache of trust they would normally have if they ever said "this mechanic/game/idea/story is shit." Sometimes a game is just shit and anyone who likes it, though not a bad person or tasteless, likes a shit game.

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

we dont need more sero punctuations we need like 2 a week then it would be awesome

(it already is though so more aweesome)

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Firstly, I dislike that because pure objectivity is impossible that people say "fuck it, let's go subjective". That way lies post-modernism and relativism.

Which is bad because... ?

Second, if reviewers go the whole hog with their opinions then they will lose the high ground and cache of trust they would normally have if they ever said "this mechanic/game/idea/story is shit." Sometimes a game is just shit and anyone who likes it, though not a bad person or tasteless, likes a shit game.

Yahtzee pretty much said that about No More Heroes. As in "This is a shit game, but you should buy it anyway because it's awesome".

A review by itself is useless. A review combined with an understanding of the reviewer's quirks and biases is useful. The more overtly subjective the review, the more transparent the reviewer's mindset becomes, and consequently the more useful the review becomes.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

I don't even take him seriously, he makes some good points and uses humor to show it but overall I don't take any reviews seriously, it's someone else's opinion, not mine.

 

[x434343]

He's a lazy wanker. He cranks out one a week for you bastards to enjoy. It's fine. Besides, he prolly spends the other 6 days playing the game.

EDIT: Also haha at the topic name. GRAMMAR FAIL THERE. If you can point it out, I'll give you a point.

 

[stompy]

If you can point it out, I'll give you a point.

He's placed a " ' " (I forgot its name, alright) instead of just adding the 's'. This is incorrect as what the OP has used denotes possession, when, it actually refers to plural.

Now, where's my point?

- A procrastinator

 

[Markness]

If you can point it out, I'll give you a point.

He's placed a " ' " (I forgot its name, alright) instead of just adding the 's'. This is incorrect as what the OP has used denotes possession, when, it actually refers to plural.

Now, where's my point?

- A procrastinator

I'm pretty sure its called a quotation mark.

To the OP, on the other hand, I think people need a mix of subjective and objective to gain a complete understanding of the thing thats being reviewed.

Objective reviews are really only useful If you think along the same lines as the reviewer. If you didn't like the things the reviewer liked you could 'tricked' into buying the game by the reviewer's positivity to an aspect of the game.

 

[x434343]

If you can point it out, I'll give you a point.

He's placed a " ' " (I forgot its name, alright) instead of just adding the 's'. This is incorrect as what the OP has used denotes possession, when, it actually refers to plural.

Now, where's my point?

- A procrastinator

Umm, have a cookie point. with 3, you get a shortbread cookie. With 5, you get a sugar cookie. Wit 10, a Chocolate Chip cookie, with 100, a box of Samoas.