Why agree with Yahtzee?

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

D&A has a good interpretation of what "Lord" Yahtzee's fanboys are like. Too many people blindly agree simply because they think he is funny. Anyway, sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree. Often I haven't played the game he is reviewing but I don't take anything he says to heart. Reviews are subjective and Yahtzee doesn't decide for me what games I want to play.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I take all of Yahtzee's reviews with a rather large grain of salt and believe that while he does make valid points about design flaws ultimately I have to play the game for myself to make a more educated decision of "yay or nay".

 

[WorthlessSix]

He's not afraid to make complaints where it's necessary. Sometimes when you're a fan of a game, it takes a person like Yahtzee to snap some sense into you. That's kind of what he does for me. Sure, he rips on every game I love but it's still funny... and often tragically true...

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I'm not on either side. If I ever take the time out to watch his reviews I do so because I find him funny, and it helps me recognise flaws, because when it comes down to it, I do have trouble finding the problems most other people do with things.

But because of that, I tend not to read reviews. A single well put-together negative review amongst hundreds of positive reviews is enough to stop me from buying something. Of course I don't wan't to buy bad games, but manage to overlook those subtle flaws anyway. Although that does have the added benefit of meaning that any game I think is bad via my own experiences, is 100% bad, because its badness is that glaring.

 

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

Yatzee has his own tastes in games and I don't agree on every point he makes, but he's on the ball with my thoughts more than half the time anyway (Too Human was practically the very words from my mouth). The points I disagree with I will still be happy to watch given the humour he puts behind it.

 

[Pielikey]

"Yahtzee the Critic" doesn't roll off the tongue because someone who enjoys nothing will tell you not to buy anything, while other critics that tell you everything is good will run you out of money quickly.

Opinion is when I'm right and you're not about what you think of something and only yours matters.

EDIT: I usually don't agree with Yahtzee but I stopped caring when he said he enjoyed HAWX and ran me out of Fifty bucks

 

[Sleekgiant]

Mass Effect having large blocks of text? It has a lot more spoken dialogue than text blocks if I remember.

Well I'll level with you and say it had waaaaaaaaaaaaay to much dialogue as well

...and the poor RPG elements of Bioshock

YES! YES! Someone give this man a medal.

Anyways I think yahtzee is ok, he seems to hate all the right things the right amount......x10.

I'm quite fond of this medal

 

[Loonerinoes]

I agree with many of his observations, particularly because they tend to be far more devoid of hype than what you would get anywhere else. It's also his lack of diplomacy that allows him to express himself more frankly and that definately helps. Having said that, I read Extra Punctuation moreso and find myself more immersed in that rather than Zero Punctuation (which I take with a far greater dose of salt).

However, a game critic is just that - a critic and nothing more. He can deconstruct the fallacies of games damn well by now, but having said that his criticisms often enough are uttered on subjects where to do anything else would be realistically speaking impossible.

As an example his proposal of a new form of dialogue system. It's pretty much become the industry standard that all dialogue must be voiced, yet his proposal of a dialogue system that would just switch around as a train of thought is utterly snooker loopy! It would be insanely hard to create the proper dialogue structure, code it and then present it properly within the confines of a game! Heck, it already takes sweat and tears to have a fully voiced RPG (even discounting the player voice) and his proposal of a new dialogue system would introduce at least twice as many production nightmares.

So why did I list this example? To show what I rely upon whenever considering his opinion. He is no doubt a great deconstructive critic (unlike most critics who are merely destructive ponces who do it to be hip and trendy). But having said that, his constructive opinions remain ideas - wether they can be executed properly or not within the real world however, that depends. Sometimes they can be and thus his suggestions have merit. Other times, they just plain suck.

Also another point to make is that as being part of a 'professional critic', his timetable is jam-packed with games that he needs to review in quick succession and order. For example, he slagged off EVE Online far worse than Age of Conan and guess what...the former is still doing okay-ish thanks to its community while the latter's supposed 'niche appeal' wasn't that very appealing at all. So yep...I don't really rely on his reviews of anything that has much to do with multiplayer since he's adamant on cutting himself off from internet 2-way communication heheh.

So no...I'd say he's pretty damn far from being God. But I would also say that when it comes to deconstructing the concepts behind games, he's better than most other critics and I find myself agreeing with him on a fair number of occasions.

 

[PixieFace]

I usually agree with him. I mean, he's pretty funny, but I watch his little shows for the information and opinions. We see eye-to-eye when it comes to the importance of quality storytelling and presentation in a game, something I think meat-headed HURRR GUNS AND TESTOSTERONE AND BOOBS type fellows tend to blow off too often as an unnecessary triviality.

I don't like the games he's designed though, or even his stories. We just agree on what's important and "good" at a concept level basis, which is fine. To each his or her own. You have to take every review you read with a grain of salt, whether it's from Yahtzee or some twat at IGN.

 

[Rensenhito]

Yahtzee can't help but be a force for polarization; his primary tools are sarcasm and hyperbole, which both serve to exaggerate. Wherever there is exaggeration, one can expect a schism to form within an audience.
In this way, Yahtzee's reviews serve as a filter of the Escapist's audience: many of the Escapist users are either militantly pro-Yahtzee or militantly anti-Yahtzee. That generates lots of posts on topics about Yahtzee, which generates traffic, which keeps the little money hamsters at a nice gallop on the exercise wheel that is the internet.
I may have just blown your mind. I am sorry.

 

[mrhappyface]

But this brings it to the ultimate question. Is Yahtzee a game critic first, or a comedian first?

 

[Hudson_sir_he's_Hicks]

I've usually made up my mind whether or not I'll buy a game before Yahtzee reviews it so I just tune in for the S & G's and a lot of his criticisms are pretty accurate and extremely funny.

I think I only totally agree with his view on 'Halo' (mainly cos I despise Halo) and JRPG's.

However, I don't think he's done a (relatively) positive ZP since 'Batman: Arkham Asylum'.

I don't tend to agree or disagree with what he says, just watch it for his brilliantly funny cynicism about pretty much everything in life!!!

 

[Warped Pixel]

People need to realize that Yahtzee is very critical with games. He even seems to denounce the game much farther then his own starting fault with the game. People should realize also that repeating comments are not a form of coolness. That is a problem with his fans tho.

 

[TheDuckbunny]

He's not afraid to make complaints where it's necessary. Sometimes when you're a fan of a game, it takes a person like Yahtzee to snap some sense into you.

Yea, because you're not allowed to have fun and be a fan of a game unless other people are too. That's just outrageous!

 

[veloper]

his points are usually valid

review or comedy, Yatzee does a better job informing about games than gamespot, ign, the lot

 

[V8 Ninja]

You're forgetting that a majority of the people who watch the show are 12-13 year-olds that have no clue what they're talking about or are just plain stupid. =P

 

[mrhappyface]

D&A has a good interpretation of what "Lord" Yahtzee's fanboys are like. Too many people blindly agree simply because they think he is funny. Anyway, sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree. Often I haven't played the game he is reviewing but I don't take anything he says to heart. Reviews are subjective and Yahtzee doesn't decide for me what games I want to play.

It's not just the humor that these people glom on to, although I'm sure it's a big factor. A lot of people come in here after seeing ZP and assume that the best way to get in good with community is to endlessly praise Yahtzee by lauding his opinions and attacking anyone who has a dissenting viewpoint.

ZP used to be a lot funnier when the jokes where more or less directed at overused cliches and uninteresting design features that continually get shoehorned in by game companies, as well ripping on games that are confusingly popular in a manner that was tactlessly accurate. Now it seems that Yahtzee concentrates mainly on attempting to insult the maximum number of potential viewers with every episode, as well as peddling his crappy merchandise. So not only has he become a totally unlikable jerk, he's also a complete sellout.

Well I watch his shows? Fuck yeah! Well I buy his merch? Fuck no! Yahtzee is a comedian, and while I find his antics and works to be amusing, I'm not willing to pay money to support him. Like all comedians, I consider them an interesting distraction, but not a benefit to society in the same sense doctors, policemen, firemen, teachers, and soldiers are.

 

[Conman94]

Wait, people take Yahtzee seriously?

Rule #1 of the Internet: If they have a British accent, they are to be laughed at.

 

[ntw3001]

Well, Yahtzee's very clear that his reviews aren't supposed to be in any way objective. So as long as you don't take them as objective criticism, that's fine. In a review of a game I've actually played, I find that the things he picks holes in are the same things that bugged me. And then, well, I already have an opinion. He'll say something is terrible, and I'll have noted it and judged for myself whether I consider it noteworthy. He sure as hell ain't going to convince me that Smash Bros Brawl is bad, although he did correctly pick up on some issues. The dude who owns a game is always going to be better at it; there's not really much a developer can do to solve these problems while keeping some kind of compelling skill curve. If I recall, Yahtzee blamed it on the unlocking system, but really that's not right. If there was nothing to unlock, the owner will still be more experienced with any game people might want to play, because he wants to play it.

Anyways, I digress. If, on the off chance, he reviews a game I might buy, I do think it's worth noting what he picks up on. There aren't a lot of reviews around that focus on what the developers have done wrong. Most reviews tell me how a game is awesome, and gloss over the problems in favour of 'excellent game, held back by some minor niggles'. Yahtzee, on the other hand, picks it to pieces and then might say 'given all that, it's still pretty good'. More often it'll be something along the lines of 'It's passable if unoriginal, and a useful purchase for people who want to play God of War but for some reason cannot own God of War'. Honestly, I find that more useful. Of course, me and Yahtzee, we do not look for the same thing in a game. I ain't interested in epic story and all that jazz; I don't want to be made to laugh and cry in turns. It is all about action and sometimes spreadsheets.