Jim & Yahtzee's Rhymedown Spectacular: Confessions of a Game Reviewer

[BunnyKillBot]

I think this segment has peak replaced the ZP reviews as my new favourite. Amazing work, keep it up guys

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I think this one was Yahtzee's best thus far, topping even the "Cover Lover" episode. I had to pause at 1:34 because I couldn't hear the words over my laughter.

 

[Two-A]

Ms. White Phosphorus turned me off of military shooters, thought I think it was for the best.

Also, Jim poem was awesome

As for Jim, what's his review style like? When most other critics like a game, he says he hates it, just to be contrarian?

Not really, he's just honest. And he uses 5 as the average score instead of 7.

I think he gave The Last of Us a 9 or a 10, so he's not a contrarian.

 

[Lyvric]

I enjoyed the gun/weapon personification. Great job. This episode has been refreshing.

 

[impocalyptic]

Thank you Yahtzee for reminding us all about how we chose to do a bad thing.

We didn't choose shit. The game basically said, "Now dump tons of incendiary chemicals on these baddies, or you don't get to continue." So I do it and then the game goes, "Psyche! There were civilians down there the whole time, and even though you can clearly see them even through your thermal scope, the WP artificially expands to kill them anyway! Trollolol!" And then I yelled, "Bullshit," and threw the game across the room.

Even if you knew they were civilians or not, you still made the conscious decision to fire the launcher. You could've turned off the game. There is always a choice. Every one of us who completed spec ops chose it whether we knew what was coming or not.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Both were great, but I liked Yahtzee's more.

The last line with white phosphorus really had me thinking back at that scene in Spec Ops that shook me quite a bit. I tend not to be emotionally involved when playing military shooters, but that one scene really elevated the game for me. That and end mindfuck of an ending.

 

[DataSnake]

No Jim, I assure you that your biggest mishap by far was indeed Vanquish, which is objectively good at the very least. Don't worry though, I can't even get angry at your reviews any more.

"Objectively good"? What, did it have an unusually high StC time [http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/39.html] or something?

 

[tardcore]

Thank you Yahtzee for reminding us all about how we chose to do a bad thing.

We didn't choose shit. The game basically said, "Now dump tons of incendiary chemicals on these baddies, or you don't get to continue." So I do it and then the game goes, "Psyche! There were civilians down there the whole time, and even though you can clearly see them even through your thermal scope, the WP artificially expands to kill them anyway! Trollolol!" And then I yelled, "Bullshit," and threw the game across the room.

Even if you knew they were civilians or not, you still made the conscious decision to fire the launcher. You could've turned off the game. There is always a choice. Every one of us who completed spec ops chose it whether we knew what was coming or not.

The problem with your logic of just turning off the game is that you've already killed tons of bad guys by other means, but suddenly its wrong to kill some more with a different kind of weapon. Killing bad guys is what these kind of games are about. For them to suddenly throw in some kind of moral quandary about it is utter horse shit. To avoid killing the civs would have required clairvoyant abilities to know the civs where there beforehand so there was no moral choice there. The soldiers and unknown civilians could have just as easily been killed by artillery, but the game forced you to use a method of destruction they felt is morally wrong. I felt the whole phosphorus event was bullshit on so many levels.

First, it was a prime example of the game writers story once again usurping the free will of the player so said writer could make a dramatic point. Second, I feel it cheapened the true horror of white phosphorus in combat as in game it looks as if most of the casualties died quite quickly, while in reality white phosphorous injuries offer a gruesome lingering agony. Third, how dare a game franchise that has the player mowing down thousands of faceless adversaries as a form of fun suddenly try to get moralistic and preachy on the player, by adding some unavoidable and surprise genocide of civilians. I'm not sure what picture perfect reality the game makers live in but war is rarely if ever like two teams on a football pitch where everyone else is just an uninvolved spectator. The sad reality, especially when urban combat is involved, is civilian casualties as usually quite high. For games that attempt to make war a fun past time to ignore this most of the time, and then railroad their players to face it in a "surprise son you done fucked up" way, I find completely disingenuous and self serving. Not to mention self defeating to whatever moral message they are trying to convey.

Scripted gritty realism isn't realism at all. And a game that has you essentially happily murder thousands for entertainment value to then turn around and try mindfuck you by putting you in a situation where accidental murder is somehow suddenly a bad thing, is a game that badly needs to pull is pretentious head out of its own ass.


Anyway, I totally understand Ben's gritty realistic shooter fatigue. Seen the real thing, and these so called realistic shooters don't have a fucking clue. Games are supposed to be about fun, if game makers want to try to add an element of self regret and give the player a case of PTSD in a game where the objective of entertainment is mass carnage, then I feel that game maker needs to move on to some other genre, because you can't have it both ways.


And Jim, you not being afraid of telling people what you really think is the main reason I like you. Don't go a changin.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Thank you Yahtzee for reminding us all about how we chose to do a bad thing.

We didn't choose shit. The game basically said, "Now dump tons of incendiary chemicals on these baddies, or you don't get to continue." So I do it and then the game goes, "Psyche! There were civilians down there the whole time, and even though you can clearly see them even through your thermal scope, the WP artificially expands to kill them anyway! Trollolol!" And then I yelled, "Bullshit," and threw the game across the room.

Even if you knew they were civilians or not, you still made the conscious decision to fire the launcher. You could've turned off the game. There is always a choice. Every one of us who completed spec ops chose it whether we knew what was coming or not.

Bullshit. "Turning off the game" doesn't solve shit. I didn't choose to burn the civilians; I chose to burn the humvee that was shooting at me and they burned anyway.

 

[impocalyptic]

Thank you Yahtzee for reminding us all about how we chose to do a bad thing.

We didn't choose shit. The game basically said, "Now dump tons of incendiary chemicals on these baddies, or you don't get to continue." So I do it and then the game goes, "Psyche! There were civilians down there the whole time, and even though you can clearly see them even through your thermal scope, the WP artificially expands to kill them anyway! Trollolol!" And then I yelled, "Bullshit," and threw the game across the room.

Even if you knew they were civilians or not, you still made the conscious decision to fire the launcher. You could've turned off the game. There is always a choice. Every one of us who completed spec ops chose it whether we knew what was coming or not.

The problem with your logic of just turning off the game is that you've already killed tons of bad guys by other means, but suddenly its wrong to kill some more with a different kind of weapon. Killing bad guys is what these kind of games are about. For them to suddenly throw in some kind of moral quandary about it is utter horse shit. To avoid killing the civs would have required clairvoyant abilities to know the civs where there beforehand so there was no moral choice there. The soldiers and unknown civilians could have just as easily been killed by artillery, but the game forced you to use a method of destruction they felt is morally wrong. I felt the whole phosphorus event was bullshit on so many levels.

First, it was a prime example of the game writers story once again usurping the free will of the player so said writer could make a dramatic point. Second, I feel it cheapened the true horror of white phosphorus in combat as in game it looks as if most of the casualties died quite quickly, while in reality white phosphorous injuries offer a gruesome lingering agony. Third, how dare a game franchise that has the player mowing down thousands of faceless adversaries as a form of fun suddenly try to get moralistic and preachy on the player, by adding some unavoidable and surprise genocide of civilians. I'm not sure what picture perfect reality the game makers live in but war is rarely if ever like two teams on a football pitch where everyone else is just an uninvolved spectator. The sad reality, especially when urban combat is involved, is civilian casualties as usually quite high. For games that attempt to make war a fun past time to ignore this most of the time, and then railroad their players to face it in a "surprise son you done fucked up" way, I find completely disingenuous and self serving. Not to mention self defeating to whatever moral message they are trying to convey.

Scripted gritty realism isn't realism at all. And a game that has you essentially happily murder thousands for entertainment value to then turn around and try mindfuck you by putting you in a situation where accidental murder is somehow suddenly a bad thing, is a game that badly needs to pull is pretentious head out of its own ass.


Anyway, I totally understand Ben's gritty realistic shooter fatigue. Seen the real thing, and these so called realistic shooters don't have a fucking clue. Games are supposed to be about fun, if game makers want to try to add an element of self regret and give the player a case of PTSD in a game where the objective of entertainment is mass carnage, then I feel that game maker needs to move on to some other genre, because you can't have it both ways.


And Jim, you not being afraid of telling people what you really think is the main reason I like you. Don't go a changin.

It was hyped and hinted at vehemently. Most knew something bad would happen and the horror of the WP grenade was shown earlier in the game. For the most part, I do agree with you though. Most shooters make the killing to be fun when we all know that war is ugly regardless of the cause.

 

[impocalyptic]

Thank you Yahtzee for reminding us all about how we chose to do a bad thing.

We didn't choose shit. The game basically said, "Now dump tons of incendiary chemicals on these baddies, or you don't get to continue." So I do it and then the game goes, "Psyche! There were civilians down there the whole time, and even though you can clearly see them even through your thermal scope, the WP artificially expands to kill them anyway! Trollolol!" And then I yelled, "Bullshit," and threw the game across the room.

Even if you knew they were civilians or not, you still made the conscious decision to fire the launcher. You could've turned off the game. There is always a choice. Every one of us who completed spec ops chose it whether we knew what was coming or not.

Bullshit. "Turning off the game" doesn't solve shit. I didn't choose to burn the civilians; I chose to burn the humvee that was shooting at me and they burned anyway.

Ok. Then you'd be one of the few I've heard who genuinely didn't aim for the trench. That is still part of the point the game was trying to make though; that civilians do get caught in the crossfire regularly in war. Games are ultimately a choice though. None of us need to play games, but we do. We like to enjoy ourselves. We can turn off the console and read or watch a movie or hang out with people (yeesh), but we play games. Sorry, I'm a gamer myself, but I acknowledge that I made a decision to pull the trigger and I don't like it one bit.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Thank you Yahtzee for reminding us all about how we chose to do a bad thing.

We didn't choose shit. The game basically said, "Now dump tons of incendiary chemicals on these baddies, or you don't get to continue." So I do it and then the game goes, "Psyche! There were civilians down there the whole time, and even though you can clearly see them even through your thermal scope, the WP artificially expands to kill them anyway! Trollolol!" And then I yelled, "Bullshit," and threw the game across the room.

Even if you knew they were civilians or not, you still made the conscious decision to fire the launcher. You could've turned off the game. There is always a choice. Every one of us who completed spec ops chose it whether we knew what was coming or not.

Bullshit. "Turning off the game" doesn't solve shit. I didn't choose to burn the civilians; I chose to burn the humvee that was shooting at me and they burned anyway.

Ok. Then you'd be one of the few I've heard who genuinely didn't aim for the trench. That is still part of the point the game was trying to make though; that civilians do get caught in the crossfire regularly in war. Games are ultimately a choice though. None of us need to play games, but we do. We like to enjoy ourselves. We can turn off the console and read or watch a movie or hang out with people (yeesh), but we play games. Sorry, I'm a gamer myself, but I acknowledge that I made a decision to pull the trigger and I don't like it one bit.

My point is that it's trying to shame me for stuff I A) had no control over and B) deliberately knackered me into doing.

And I blame the developers for making it, and the games journalists for giving this crap a review blowjob when it didn't deserve it.

Fuck this player hating pile of fauxlisophic shit.

 

[VinLAURiA]

Yahtzee's poem was fun and the ending reference nailed it. I respect Jim for sticking to his guns on his poem, but I still disagree with him on Sonic Colors. That game kicked ass.

 

[mrjoe94]

Is there somewhere that has a transcription of these poems?

 

[RolandOfGilead]

edit: it was actually a 5/10 for Vanquish.

The David Cage callback was great.
Did Jim really give Vanquish a 4/10? Dude. Still, I'm only 1/4 the way through.