Yahtzee Wrote a Book

[MrSpectabular]

Hey guys, we should stop this squabbling. It's not really fair to the Escapist or Yahtzee to be squabbling and arguing with each other and hijacking this thread, we should keep the comments purely about the sample chapter.

It sucks.

You are an anti-fanboy. You said it yourself: you have issues with Yahtzee, to the point of registering here to post your rant. Thus, your opinion is worth exactly the same as a fanboy's opinion.

Oh undoubtedly, just as I said in my original tl;dr post.

My point is that whether I personally find him funny or not, or whether I dislike or like his persona, there is a lot more non-subjective evidence in this sample chapter that his writing sucks than can be gleaned from a much more subjective thing like Zero Punctuation. Like him or dislike him, the writing in this sample chapter is palpably bad. Just because I happen to notice these same naff similes in his ZP stuff just goes to validate it personally for me, is all.

Whether you personally find something funny or someone likeable is one thing. Being able to tell, subjectively, that writing is poor is another completely.

And for anyone to take offence in people harshly critiquing Yahtzee, who they like because he's a harsh critic, is bordering on the ridiculous and is beyond hypocritical. It's like Issac Hayes getting all offended when South Park had a go at the Scientologists despite being a willing participant in mocking every other faith.

Would our criticisms of Yahtzee's book be better received if we delivered them in sound file clips with the silence removed? Perhaps if we threw in some random similes involving monkeys with hand grenades or a big cock flying at us or something to make it 'witty' and 'biting'?

From what I've seen, the majority outside Escapist seem to think this book looks awful, and that Game Damage was cringe-worthy. These are his two big endeavours since Zero Punctuation, and simply go to show exactly what you get when the punctuation is added back in. Complete guff. I'm just glad I could tell it was complete guff, punctuation or no. ;D

 

[DayDark]

But that doesn't answer the question of what is flamboyant about it. Is it curved in a flame like pattern? What? What is it?

We don't know how it is flamboyant, it's given for you to imagine, but than again, why is it important? Is the signs flamboyans worth elaborating on? I think it managed what was intended.

 

[OANST]

But that doesn't answer the question of what is flamboyant about it. Is it curved in a flame like pattern? What? What is it?

We don't know how it is flamboyant, it's given for you to imagine, but than again, why is it important? Is the signs flamboyans worth elaborating on? I think it managed what was intended.

It isn't important other than to show that this guy doesn't know how to write.

 

[feather240]

The whole thing.

oh come on there's got to be somewhere in it where you went "this is poor writing, it would have been better phrased like this".

Come on, I've read this argument. They like it and won't except "it's bad" without examples. Just give some examples, don't pull a Brutus! All you have to do is explain, work them down to a point where their excuses are too elaborate to gain anyone's' support. If you can't find them then you probably just don't like the writing style and it's making you come off as a troll. Please, just give detailed examples. Tear it apart, but don't give those earlier one sentence attacks. Decimate it until it's irreparable beyond all but the most pious fanboy.

 

[DayDark]

It isn't important other than to show that this guy doesn't know how to write.

To me it almost shows the opposite. If he had elaborated on it, I would say it would take away from the point of even mentioning the sign at all, it would shift focus unto the sign itself, instead of it's message, basically he would be a worse writer, if he had gone ahead and described the sign further.

 

[OANST]

It isn't important other than to show that this guy doesn't know how to write.

To me it almost shows the opposite. If he had elaborated on it, I would say it would take away from the point of even mentioning the sign at all, it would shift focus unto the sign itself, instead of it's message, basically he would be a worse writer, if he had gone ahead and described the sign further.

You and I have a serious difference of opinion. I think we shake hands and go our separate ways at this point.

 

[DayDark]

It isn't important other than to show that this guy doesn't know how to write.

To me it almost shows the opposite. If he had elaborated on it, I would say it would take away from the point of even mentioning the sign at all, it would shift focus unto the sign itself, instead of it's message, basically he would be a worse writer, if he had gone ahead and described the sign further.

You and I have a serious difference of opinion. I think we shake hands and go our separate ways at this point.

Indeed, at least we can agree on that

 

[MrSpectabular]

I should also point out that, in the scheme of things, I'm pretty open to changing my opinion on someone or something I dislike. Perfect example would be Russell Brand. First time I saw him I thought he was king of all the unfunny pricks.

I didn't find him funny in the slightest, and everything about him just irritated the life out of me whenever I saw him. Someone I worked with said they liked him, and I couldn't believe it. "What, you like HIM?" He introduced me to his stand up, and after that point I began to appreciate him more and more, up until the point where now I can appreciate that actually he's a very clever and witty guy.

This works in reverse too.

I didn't come out of the box hating Yahtzee. I was charmed by the first couple of Zero Punctuations, and he also once strolled amongst the AGS community of which I was a a casual member for a while (though he was before my time) so I was all supportive and hoped he'd do well with it.

But I soon came to realise that it was a one joke thing, and in his pressure to keep his crown as the 'guy on the net who hates games fast with no punctuation' led him to just come up with more wildly unjustifiable or flippant reasons to hate games, my enthusiasm quickly waned. Along with the self-congratulatory posing photos and his awful and unlikable performance on Game Damage. It became abundantly clear that if he was, for example, some guy at your school, you'd probably think he was a bit of a dick. "Oh take that hat off and stop making all those pithy comments like you're Oscar Wilde, you dick". He made me hate him. I didn't want to hate him.

And it's not like I don't like that kind of humour. I love Charlie Brooker so hard I can barely convey, and there's so much crossover in their style, character, target audience and potential appeal that for Yahtzee to fail to rise a smile in me cannot purely be down to taste in humour or because I dislike grumpy misanthropic critics.

I welcome you to present me with the definitive masterpiece of his Zero Punctuation collection that will change my mind. I've changed my mind before. But unlike Russell Brand, who I just decided pretty much that I hated him purely off his first appearance on TV, I gave Yahtzee more than a fair chance, and he squandered it by revealing himself to be a one trick pony with one joke up his sleeve and a seriously out of whack ego and fanbase.

To the point where I'm reading on the Escapist 'oh Yahtzee's wrote a novel'...

Of course he has.... Of course he bloody has.

 

[tautologico]

But I soon came to realise that it was a one joke thing, and in his pressure to keep his crown as the 'guy on the net who hates games fast with no punctuation' led him to just come up with reasons to hate games, my enthusiasm quickly waned. Along with the self-congratulatory posing photos and his awful and unlikable performance on Game Damage. It became abundantly clear that if he was, for example, some guy at your school, you'd probably think he was a bit of a dick. "Oh take that hat off and stop making all those pithy comments like you're Oscar Wilde, you dick". He made me hate him. I didn't want to hate him.

Sorry, but this last part is quite funny. It's like those rapists who say "she dressed provocatively! she made me do it! it's her fault!"

I welcome you to present me with the definitive masterpiece of his Zero Punctuation collection that will change my mind. I've changed my mind before. But unlike Russell Brand, who I just decided pretty much that I hated him purely off his first appearance on TV, I gave Yahtzee more than a fair chance, and he squandered it by revealing himself to be a one trick pony with one joke up his sleeve and a seriously out of whack ego and fanbase.

I don't care very much if you like him or not. But you could start by telling us what game dear and near to your heart was slaughtered by Yahtzee to make you hate him

 

[DayDark]

He made me hate him. I didn't want to hate him.

- he said to the judge, thinking it would make him understand why he did what he did. Sorry I just had to do that

And it's not like I don't like that kind of humour. I love Charlie Brooker so hard I can barely convey, and there's so much crossover in their style, character, target audience and potential appeal that for Yahtzee to fail to rise a smile in me cannot purely be down to taste in humour or because I dislike grumpy misanthropic critics.

I welcome you to present me with the definitive masterpiece of his Zero Punctuation collection that will change my mind. I've changed my mind before. But unlike Russell Brand, who I just decided pretty much that I hated him purely off his first appearance on TV, I gave Yahtzee more than a fair chance, and he squandered it by revealing himself to be a one trick pony with one joke up his sleeve and a seriously out of whack ego and fanbase.

To the point where I'm reading on the Escapist 'oh Yahtzee's wrote a novel'...

Of course he has.... Of course he bloody has.

I don't think we can give you any masterpierce, as you've said you like that kind of humor, which means your problem really is with Yahtzee himself, it's not what he does, but more that it is him who are performing it, at least that is what I get from you.

Even if we could give you some masterpiece, it would not have a chance of changing your mind, simply because it would still be Yahtzee.

 

[MrSpectabular]

- he said to the judge, thinking it would make him understand why he did what he did. Sorry I just had to do that

Sorry, but this last part is quite funny. It's like those rapists who say "she dressed provocatively! she made me do it! it's her fault!"

Well... yeah, that's kinda what I was going for.

I don't care very much if you like him or not. But you could start by telling us what game dear and near to your heart was slaughtered by Yahtzee to make you hate him

Oh you won't find me getting all offended on a game's behalf. The only thing that winds me up more than Yahtzee is the culture of offence where people whine about someone making a tasteless joke or poking fun at someone else. Boo hoo! They insulted my home town or my football team. People who get offended by satire are the worst.

Oh no, I've got a pretty thick skin when it comes to people mocking things I like or places I'm from or opinions I have or peer groups I belong to. That's not what offends me. they are only games, and he's never reviewed anything I personally worked on (probably) so why would I care that much what he said about a particular game?

I'm not 'offended' by his opinion on games, I just value journalistic integrity somewhat and while I enjoy reading cutting reviews of bad games, as soon as your aim is to pick apart games for comedy irrespective of their quality you're on shaky ground. It's the equivalent of chasing ratings and is not a pretty thing.

An example of his poor reviewing though, would be EVE Online. I haven't played it that much because of time, and am certainly not what you could describe as a fanboy, so really I'm not bothered what he says about it, but I couldn't help notice he said (paraphrased):

"I didn't get involved in the player run corporations because they are nerdy not got enough time for it whatever"

and....

"Those people who say 'it's different from other MMO's are talking out of their arses"

DING DING. Hellllooo!

"I didn't get involved with one of the main aspects of the game that makes it different to other MMOs, but people who say it's different from other MMOs are talking out their arses"

Basically from what I can gather, he's saying is he booted it up, created a character, and zipped around on his own for a while doing the tutorial missions killing a few NPC ships, logged off then written and recorded his review of how boring it is.

Shoddy, sloppy review. Who cared? No one. Cause it was all for LOLZ.

Well it's only a bit of fun, isn't it....? not like anyone could get dragged over the coals for bad journalistic integrity for something like this, is it?

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46811/Darkfall-Devs-Fight-Back-Against-Bad-Review

SOUNDS FAMILIAR?

Pretty much exactly the same thing Ed Zitron is accused of doing. That however, is a SCANDAL, It's okay tho Yahtzee gets away with it cause he's a 'rebel' and he does videos and no punctuation LOL, even though it was probably watched by and influenced the opinions of 10x/20x/100x/1000x the amount of people that read that Darkfall review (before the scandal, obv) and let's not dwell on the fact Ed Zitron's got more talent in his little finger.

so yeah, apart from not being funny, he also gets away with bad journalism.

 

[DayDark]

Snip

Well he isn't the escapist official reviewer, and doesn't give ratings. So really he can say everything is shit, be comepletely wrong, and still get away with it. It's not about giving the game a fair trial on all its aspects, it's simply about he's personal experience with the game. His opinion is not the Escapist opinion.

There's always two kinds of reviews on this site, there's ZP and there's the escapist magazine review.

 

[MrSpectabular]

You're employed and paid by a magazine (online or otherwise) to give critical opinion on products for public consumption, you're a reviewer, to suggest otherwise just because it's got a seperate tab on the home page is ridiculous. And the suggestion that a review needs to have a score is a pretty silly one. If anything reviews are at WORST when they're boiled down to a score and there have been pretty convincing arguments raised in the past why review scores should be abolished.

To say he's immune to the rules of journalistic integrity because his video is not officially in the 'reviews' section is rather irresponsible. You have a large viewer base who come to hear your opinions on games, that is power you wield, and as the Spiderman quote goes... well, you know what that is. Journalistic integrity is not something written into a contract. It's the measure of a man who makes a living doing such a thing.

Of course, on balance he can't really ruin any fledgling developers with his sledgehammer wit, even though he could potentially have the power to, but that's only because he would only review something that's already extremely popular and well known because... well, we all know why...

 

[tautologico]

Oh you won't find me getting all offended on a game's behalf. The only thing that winds me up more than Yahtzee is the culture of offence where people whine about someone making a tasteless joke or poking fun at someone else. Boo hoo! They insulted my home town or my football team. People who get offended by satire are the worst.

Very well then, I quite agree with this last statement. But you may be getting worked up over little things.

I'm not 'offended' by his opinion on games, I just value journalistic integrity somewhat and while I enjoy reading cutting reviews of bad games, as soon as your aim is to pick apart games for comedy irrespective of their quality you're on shaky ground. It's the equivalent of chasing ratings and is not a pretty thing.

I'm not going to say "it's just a humor show about games" as some people do. I think he tries to convey his opinions about games in a humorous way, so it's as much game opinion as it is game humor. However, it's definitely not a traditional, objective, fair-and-balanced review. ZP videos are opinion pieces. And as opinion pieces, they don't need to be fair and balanced, objective reviews. If you need one of those, there are tons of other publications where you may get them, but the truth is, most game reviews are quite boring. Besides, he's a nitpicker, as he himself says in some videos, so he tries to find flaws to pick apart, but it's not like he says he hates every game reviewed. He even said he liked some games after pointing a lot of flaws in them.

An example of his poor reviewing though, would be EVE Online.

(snip)

Shoddy, sloppy review. Who cared? No one. Cause it was all for LOLZ.

Well, let me tell you my story with EVE. It was almost two years ago, I decided to try a sci-fi themed MMO, and downloaded the EVE trial. I played it exactly as Yahtzee did. No one told me I had to look for a player-run corporation, and the game certainly didn't tell me. I stopped playing before the 14 days of the trial were up, bored out of my skull with the game.

Nowadays I would do it differently, I'd join EVE Academy, and I even thought about trying it again sometime. But I think Yahtzee did what many players do when they decide to try EVE. So it a valid commentary on the game.

Well it's only a bit of fun, isn't it....? not like anyone could get dragged over the coals for bad journalistic integrity for something like this, is it?

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46811/Darkfall-Devs-Fight-Back-Against-Bad-Review

SOUNDS FAMILIAR?

As I said before, ZP videos are quite different to the kind of review above. And they're meant to be so, and I don't think ZP would be fun if it tried to go the fair-and-balanced route.

I read the thread on the EVE forums about this ZP. Most people found it funny and admitted that it was a failure of the game to not make it clear what was the optimum way to play it.

In recent reviews people have complained about Yahtzee playing "only X hours" of the game when he should have played Y hours to "get" it. He is entitled to his opinion after however time he spent with the game, isn't he? Now, if someone gives up thinking for himself about the game and says "I was thinkint about getting this, but now I won't, thanks Yahtzee!", it's their problem, not Yahtzee's fault. He is just expressing his opinion in a humorous way.

 

[MrSpectabular]

I don't think ZP would be fun if it tried to go the fair-and-balanced route.

See Charlie Brooker for details. Exactly the same kind of shtick. Where he excels though is picking something that his viewers haven't heard of and probably wouldn't watch if they had a gun at their head, but still makes the reviews MASSIVELY entertaining. And the kicker, he can be all loved up by something he loves and STILL it's massively entertaining. This distinction is exactly what I'm talking about...

There are plenty of bad games he could rip to shreds, and if he was talented enough it would be hilarious, perhaps doubly so, without the seemingly necessary benefit of viewer familiarity. Sadly they wouldn't get the number of views so he has to go with popular games, mostly good ones, to garner the interest.

 

[tautologico]

To say he's immune to the rules of journalistic integrity because his video is not officially in the 'reviews' section is rather irresponsible. You have a large viewer base who come to hear your opinions on games, that is power you wield, and as the Spiderman quote goes... well, you know what that is. Journalistic integrity is not something written into a contract. It's the measure of a man who makes a living doing such a thing.

In every jornalistic medium there are spaces for fair-and-balanced objectivity, and there are spaces for personal opinion. This is not a violation of journalistic integrity. If people hears his words as the word of God, it's not his fault. At all.

 

[MrSpectabular]

In every jornalistic medium there are spaces for fair-and-balanced objectivity, and there are spaces for personal opinion. This is not a violation of journalistic integrity. If people hears his words as the word of God, it's not his fault. At all.

All reviews are completely and utterly personal opinion, silly. (unless bought) the point is that it appears his reviews are not so much personal opinion, unless he's the most miserable game hating person in the world, but desperate hunts for 'personal opinions' that fit with what he thinks his audience expects.

If it were all his true personal opinion I very much doubt he'd ever play video games in the first place. If it were all true personal opinion, and he does indeed have a gamer's heart pumping away in his chest, then every so often a ZP would be a love filled sonnet how utterly spectacular a game was and how everyone should go out and buy it immediately. I may be wrong, but this has probably never happened. At most he'll concede 'oh well it's actally quite fun' after whinging about the expression on the protagonist's face for 4 minutes.

If you find that whining about the expression on the protagonist's face for four minutes funny, then all the power to you. But IMO if you take away the 'removing silence from audio' gimmick, there's little else there apart from whining about the expression on the protagonist's face for six minutes.

There are surely better people out there that would be more deserving of this attention?

 

[DayDark]

You're employed and paid by a magazine (online or otherwise) to give critical opinion on products for public consumption, you're a reviewer, to suggest otherwise just because it's got a seperate tab on the home page is ridiculous. And the suggestion that a review needs to have a score is a pretty silly one. If anything reviews are at WORST when they're boiled down to a score.

I agree that reviews boiled down to a score are the worst, but he's still not the official reviewer, I'm pretty sure that if someone attacked the site for his viewpoints it would not hold up.

To say he's immune to the rules of journalistic integrity because his video is not officially in the 'reviews' section is rather irresponsible. You have a large viewer base who come to hear your opinions on games, that is power you wield, and as the Spiderman quote goes... well, you know what that is. Journalistic integrity is not something written into a contract. It's the measure of a man who makes a living doing such a thing.

He's not immune, and he usually justifies his critiques with an argument, he doesn't just blatantly say something is bad and then be done with it. Now it can be discussed whether does arguments are any good. Should he censure himself though, and not say his opinion because it might hurt someones business? should anyone do that?

Of course, on balance he can't really ruin any fledgling developers with his sledgehammer wit, even though he could potentially have the power to, but that's only because he would only review something that's already extremely popular and well known because... well, we all know why...

He reviewed Nier, which I didn't even know existed until he reviewed it. As well as psychonauts, which is practically a forgotten gem, so it's not all popular stuff.

Most people that watch ZP, already have an opinion of the game when they see ZP, so naturally most people want to see him review those (popular) games. It's not really about the game, but more about Yahtzee, or Yahtzee in combination of said game.

It's kind of like the show, Will It Blend?

 

[MrSpectabular]

Well you're probably right in that most people go in with their own expectations anyway, though I'm confused by your assertion that Psychonauts is not a popular game.

re: his justification of his critiques with an argument. If your critique is so flippant, picking up on things just for LOLs then surely the only real justification is 'this doesn't really make the game any worse, I'm just saying this to get you all coming back to watch my video every week to see what I'll say next.' I'm not sure he's ever said this, let alone in every episode.

He's still a dick though, but people like dicks I guess. I get it. I like arrogant and smug people who genuinely have a right to be arrogant and smug. Ricky Gervais. He has every right to be arrogant (and yet I think a lot of it is act I suspect it's not all for show)he's done like a bunch of stuff and it's all been very good and critically acclaimed. Yahtzee's done this one thing that's proved popular, and subsequently (and previously) proved time and time again that anything else he does is naff. Yahtzee may be smug and self-assured now, but he's in for a shock now he's venturing out of the gaming sphere and into the grown up world of literature where people aren't going to be charmed by Gordon Freeman references and dick jokes.

I can't wait!

I'm tired, I think I'll end it here. Point made, I think. And how!

Also it's not just Yahtzee. Penny Arcade sucks balls as well, but that's an argument for another day!

Thanks all, it's been fun.

 

[Misterian]

very nice, and very creative.

I haven't read anything like that sense the novel 'Another Fine Myth'.