23 réponses à ce sujet

[LordParbr]

So, in the final stretch(I think 3 days until I have the game in my hands qualifies as a final stretch), I decided to watch a bunch of video review for the previous 2 games. Yahtzee isn't always on, for me. When he's reviewing a genre with which he isn't entirely familiar, the video really suffers for it(*cough*Injustice:GodsAmongUs*Cough*), but I think he was pretty spot on for these ones. I'm actually looking forward to his Inquisition review. Even when he's wrong, he's still funny.

DA:O

DAII

[Catastrophy]

Zero puncture is good for making Quarian friends!

[10K]

I think Yahtzee is fun to watch, but I can't take his reviews seriously. AngryJoe is the only reviewer I can trust.

[New Kid]

He is good for entertainment, but terrible if you want an informative review.

[Zatche]

I like Yahtzee. He usually won't dissuade me from buying a game, because I know how negative he is. But I like hearing his opinion, he's funny, and every once in a while, he'll turn me onto a game I wasn't planning on playing, like Bastion.

[Travie]

"A hero piddles about for awhile, gobbing off his handsome friend."

 

Forever will this be the critique that I remember for DA2. 

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Atleast now you have a new word to add to your Vocabulary. 

"Oh hello Vicar lovey day for a picnic in Scunthorp and Gobbing off isnt it?... more tea? "

[berrieh]

Yatzhee hates almost everything; that's his schtick. He finds the worst in things. And he doesn't pretend otherwise. (When he does truly like something so much he finds it hard to rag on, it's an impressive feat for that game, I imagine.) He and I also have very different taste. But he's hilarious. 

 

Yatzhee isn't really a reviewer though. He provides commentary and comedy, not real objective reviews. 

[blussi]

Who watches ZP for 'recommendation' anyway? To me it's just a pure entertainment lol. I love his character in video and all snarky comments. Obviously his reviews are not for everyone but I personally enjoy it immensely. Can't wait for his DA:I review.

[Kel Eligor]

See, interestingly I find that while ZP started as a comedic, if not completely satirical, take on video-game reviews, but his more recent work has been right on the money. His reviews always have a lot of snark, but it's done very intelligently. He is not above enjoying video games - he likes many of them in fact - but he never shy's away from saying what its faults are. Take his Shadow of Mordor review for instance; he blatantly says the game is FUN and that he loved playing it. He also mentions that the hero is totally unoriginal and that the story leaves quite a bit to be desired; something that was echoed almost universally across the internet. He isn't negative for negativity's sake, and while I may never watch his reviews to gauge my purchase-decision for a game, I appreciate his opinion. 

 

EDIT: He definitely has an aversion to multiplayer games though, so don't judge him based on that. He's a good SP game reviewer though.

[Petedj06]

I don't watch his reviews anymore. I feel there is enough snark and negativity in the gaming community as it is. I grew tired of it. It's one thing to point out a games faults, and give feedback. it's another to rag on it endlessly, or take cheap shots at the dev team.

[TheGusWho]

I don't watch his reviews anymore. I feel there is enough snark and negativity in the gaming community as it is. I grew tired of it. It's one thing to point out a games faults, and give feedback. it's another to rag on it endlessly, or take cheap shots at the dev team.

The dev teams can handle it. 

[Petedj06]

The dev teams can handle it.

I have no doubt that they can, but I don't think that should have too. Especially when a game was lacking due to budget/time constraints.

[TheChris92]

Yatzhee hates almost everything; that's his schtick. He finds the worst in things. And he doesn't pretend otherwise. (When he does truly like something so much he finds it hard to rag on, it's an impressive feat for that game, I imagine.) He and I also have very different taste. But he's hilarious. 

 

Yatzhee isn't really a reviewer though. He provides commentary and comedy, not real objective reviews. 

He's a critic, so it'd be weird if he didn't point out the bad parts, it's also quite easy to tell when he actually likes or recommends a game. Overlooking the games he loves like Silent Hill 2 (love it as well) or Portal 2, there have ben a LOT of games he's recommended which seems to fly over a lot of heads I suppose.

[Sister Goldring]

I love this guy! I've just wasted most of my morning watching old reviews. His Witcher review is my favourite so far, freaking hilarious. I hadn't seen the series before, so thank-you OP, you have made my day.

[slimgrin]

Can't stand his shtick. He's not a serious critic at all, just snark on crack.

[Meatbaggins]

I don't watch his reviews anymore. I feel there is enough snark and negativity in the gaming community as it is. I grew tired of it. It's one thing to point out a games faults, and give feedback. it's another to rag on it endlessly, or take cheap shots at the dev team.

 

Agreed. The online gaming community has become such a cynical circlejerk these days and Yahtzee is a prime example.

[Drasanil]

Can't stand his shtick. He's not a serious critic at all, just snark on crack.

 

There are serious game critics? Last I checked most of the people who got paid for this stuff were just paid praise/word-whores. I'd sooner trust amateur reviewers or funny/spoof critics like Yatzhee.

[berrieh]

He's a critic, so it'd be weird if he didn't point out the bad parts, it's also quite easy to tell when he actually likes or recommends a game. Overlooking the games he loves like Silent Hill 2 (love it as well) or Portal 2, there have ben a LOT of games he's recommended which seems to fly over a lot of heads I suppose.

 

I consider him more providing commentary than reviews not because he points out their flaws but because he has no organized system of reviewing a game. He doesn't utilize scores, categories, or any kind of criteria you can really follow. It's just what he likes, and he doesn't even bother to really defend it. He has very obvious biases he's not afraid to admit (this is not a bad thing), he has running jokes based on those biases, etc. He has perhaps anchor games - games that serve as "good" anchors for him in criteria, but he doesn't feel the need to explain himself a lot of the time.  Yatzee loves some games, hates some games, and recommends games even while basically telling you much more about why they're flawed than why they're fun. But he's providing commentary and entertainment more than any kind of fixed critical perspective.

 

I like Yatzee, as I said. He's funny. He can also say he's very happy to have played a game one moment and then tell you 20 reasons why it sucks, but that he'd play it again. But at no point do I feel like he provides any kind of organized review. 

[Decaps86]

i think Yahtzee is awesome. I'd say his reviews are good but very biased. I wouldn't take them too seriously but when he grudgingly respects a game that's a very solid recommendation.

[slimgrin]

There are serious game critics? Last I checked most of the people who got paid for this stuff were just paid praise/word-whores. I'd sooner trust amateur reviewers or funny/spoof critics like Yatzhee.

He's kind of the Rush Limbaugh of game reviewers then. With a tad more wit. 

[Drasanil]

He's kind of the Rush Limbaugh of game reviewers then. With a tad more wit. 

 

I guess it all depends on how amusing/take seriously Lumbaugh then 

[LordParbr]

He's kind of the Rush Limbaugh of game reviewers then. With a tad more wit. 

haha, no, Rush usually seems to actually believe his bull****. Yahtzee's just taking the ******

[TheChris92]

I consider him more providing commentary than reviews not because he points out their flaws but because he has no organized system of reviewing a game. He doesn't utilize scores, categories, or any kind of criteria you can really follow. It's just what he likes, and he doesn't even bother to really defend it. He has very obvious biases he's not afraid to admit (this is not a bad thing), he has running jokes based on those biases, etc. He has perhaps anchor games - games that serve as "good" anchors for him in criteria, but he doesn't feel the need to explain himself a lot of the time.  Yatzee loves some games, hates some games, and recommends games even while basically telling you much more about why they're flawed than why they're fun. But he's providing commentary and entertainment more than any kind of fixed critical perspective.

 

I like Yatzee, as I said. He's funny. He can also say he's very happy to have played a game one moment and then tell you 20 reasons why it sucks, but that he'd play it again. But at no point do I feel like he provides any kind of organized review. 

Scores are overtly pointless as they feel misleading because a number can't really determine something as complex as an opinion of whether a game is good or not -- You don't need a guy to tell you 'It's an 8/10' based out of some ridiculous spectrum to conclude on whether a game's worth your time or not -- The thing is that human beings are complex, and they'll find quality in games where some might find none. The combat might not be great, maybe not even the story, but then there might be an aspect that actually carries the entire game enough for him to call it a 4/5. To me, KOTOR 2, MGS2, among others, are peerless games, there's something they do better than their predecessor which is something that could be summarized nummerically -- I would only be able to elaborate on that through words, and I'd also say that The Last of Us certainly can't be a 10/10, because it would imply there's nothing that drags the game down at all. Just what he likes is a bunch of bull, and it leads me to the conclusion that you don't really pay attention to him, which is just as well, because he certainly goes out of his way to explain himself. You can choose to not find his way of conveying wit into the analysis to draw out the point as useful, if you wish, but they do carry merit just as much any other. Calling it 'commentary' is a bit insulting, as you don't need a novel's worth of tired elaborate rhetoric or anecdotes to explain a game's merit.

 

Also, everybody have game's that anchors quality like no other -- That's not really different from anyone else it's just not as transparent for some.

It's not like I agree with him, always -- In fact, there's a lot of games he wasn't as impressed with, where I'd beg to differ but he'd always starkingly point out valid flaws that might drag the game down for some people, which I can respect and even consider critically, myself, but perhaps not always agree. This is how it goes for any 'review'