Yahtzee seems to have a lot of aesthetic criticisms of the game which is a more sticky area to objectively judge something (though that doesn't mean you shouldn't) whilst his gameplay criticisms are perhaps more measurable and less subjective but what I don't understand is his criticism 'its all a bit boring'. I find Halo rather compelling as far as video game based universes and stories go but Yahtzee remains seemingly unmoved. Different compositions I suppose.
Then again, he's rarely interested in the multiplayer aspects of any game which whilst understandable when multiplayer has been poorly tacked on as a way to tick a box, when it's as integral to the overall game and as large an aspect of it like it is in Halo, then its clear Yahtzee doesn't care too much for 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts' approach and philosophy. So as entertaining as Yahtzee is and as valid and justified as many of his criticisms are, at a fundamental level, I disagree with his reviewing approach and prefer a review that deals with the whole thing, not just one aspect of it.
I believe that looking at anything as a whole is very important, so whilst there will always be a place for Yahtzee to express his views on one aspect, that is, the single-player experience, the fact he doesn't weigh his judgement equally at all means you're only getting one piece of the larger puzzle, the larger experience. Multiplayer, often by its very nature, is a rather fleeting aspect of the game that gets largely replaced by the latest iteration (and sometimes even made null in certain game's cases- Battle For Middle Earth 2 for instance) so I understand why Yathzee isn't interested in it and he has every right to largely ignore it if he doesn't care for it and continue as he is. But at the same time, the multiplayer, despite its temporality, is to be enjoyed in the moment and time in which it exists, and reviews which judge it thus are more interesting to me and more informing than Yahtzee's narrower analysis.
The single-player will live or die on it's merits alone whilst the multiplayer will, whilst not necessarily die, feel less and less a part of the overall experience in the long run, which again, may be why Yahtzee doesn't care for it, but in the moment of time it exists, it's still an important aspect of that whole that gives the game a longer more constant life (even if that longevity or lack thereof is later provided by a good or bad single-player). Besides, online multiplayer may eventually wane, but so long as the game has a split-screen mode, it can live on in some fashion for much longer if you have those willing to play it. Yahtzee, despite his great support of video games as an art form that granted still has some growing to do and despite his pertinent observation that interactivity is one aspect which makes them so great and engaging, he misses out on certain games' social aspects which also distinguishes them in certain ways from other art forms (though not necessarily above them).
That, or he simply doesn't think what exists at the moment, regarding the social aspects, is all that worthwhile or integral to a games potential 'artistic merit', which, if that is the case, I understand and do believe is justified to a certain extent. Still, 'artistic merit' doesn't preclude entertainment value, nor do I think it should, as that which engages your more spirited, excitable side and is fun to experience can make any more 'serious' or heady stuff more effective and possibly powerful by contrast. Shadow of the Colossus is a case in point when it comes to games. Now that is obviously a purely single-player experience but multiplayer in other games can be the more 'light-hearted' and free-flowing aspects that can give a welcome distraction from the more directed, author-driven and possibly more 'serious' single-player experience. Of course, it is their distracting nature which some have a problem with on a basic level, distracting the player from what is arguably at the core of the experience, the single-player story. That and they can be seen to be taking away development time from the single player experience and thus possibly negatively affecting it. For the best of both worlds you must balance the development carefully giving neither weight over the other but letting the two inform each other in beneficial ways. Granted, doing this on a practical level is no doubt more difficult and I don't have the answers there, only ideas of my own, though those ideas are not informed by years of experience developing games.
I could go on but this has already spiralled out of control from a fleeting comment to a full-blown argument that needs more development and careful reflection and I'm feeling tired staring at this computer screen right now, so I'll come back to this in my own time and develop this roughly hewn argument further then.
