Not invalid, but there is a difference between the two. Ideally, a critic should approach a work as objectively as possible, judging it on its own terms outside of personal preference or prejudice. That's not 100% possible, but in contrast, an entertainer's primary duty is to entertain. There's far less to be gained from being objective and impartial than taking the micky out of the subject. Yahtzee is one such example, Cinema Sins is another.Drathnoxis said:Ummm, does being an entertainer mean that your opinions on games are invalid or something? Because that seems to be a pretty commonly held opinion here.
Even if Yahtzee was trying to be impartial, at this point, I think most of us know his general preferences/dislikes. Off the top of my head, I can name:
-He generally dislikes JRPGs.
-He prefers Doom-esque shooters (emphasis on movement, weapon variety, lack of realism, etc.) and generally dislikes MMS shooters (a.k.a. "spunkgargleweewee")
-Generally prefers background storytelling rather than conventional storytelling in games (i.e. Half-Life and Dark Souls rather than Metal Gear)
-Has no interest in RTS games, but has some interest in turn-based strategy (e.g. XCOM)
-No interest in multiplayer.
That's off the top of my head, not even getting into specific series or companies.
Now, everyone has their own preferences, but the point is that if Yahtzee tried to objectively review a JRPG for instance, it's a given from the start that it's going to be an uphill battle, because it's a genre he generally dislikes, whereas a JRPG fan might see cons he lists as pros. As I stated, the ideal critic would try to be as impartial as possible, but Yahtzee not only has partiality, he makes no attempt to hide it. As I stated earlier, that's part of ZP's charm, but also why I wouldn't use it as a guide for purchases. Especially since, having just listed those above points, our tastes are pretty much opposites.