None of the above really suit me, as I do take his criticisms on board, but then weigh them up against my own tastes and opinions. If he bashes a game I like, I'm a little disappointed but I don't let it bother me. I treat it like any other review, albeit one with a wildly different style.
Poll: Do you take Yahtzee's reviews seriously?
- Thread starter Lenin211
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've watched them all mostly for entertainment value but I agree with him on most things and I do consider his criticism before buying a game, also I bought prince of persia sands of time on his recommendation and I loved it.
Yes.
It's not like I agree with everything he says, because as he himself has said any review is always going to be a subjective opinion at the end of the day, but when all is said and done I actually take him more seriously than almost any other reviewer for two reasons.
- he has a genuine investment and passion for the industry he is critiquing.
- despite (maybe even slightly because of) reason number one, he does not have any reason to be anything other than completely and brutally honest about his own opinions.
It's not like I agree with everything he says, because as he himself has said any review is always going to be a subjective opinion at the end of the day, but when all is said and done I actually take him more seriously than almost any other reviewer for two reasons.
- he has a genuine investment and passion for the industry he is critiquing.
- despite (maybe even slightly because of) reason number one, he does not have any reason to be anything other than completely and brutally honest about his own opinions.
Oh, wait. I should have read this before voting. No. I don't use ZP as purchasing advice, that would be silly. I take ZP seriously in that i don't ignore its claim to (and is think I should stress this more) be criticism instead of reviews. Optimally I'd watch the relevant ZP episode only once I've played the game, but since I choose to not buy most of the games he does, that is not an option.Lenin211 said:
Of course there's still a huge way to go to make it high quality critique, but that's a collective road. On the one hand it's not strayed too far from the review format, on the other hand, most games that come out don't have the content to warrant a critique that is readable by non-ludologists. So this might be a matter of wanting more deconstructions of ideology from a book critic when half of the books in the column are instruction manuals.
It does. He's not likely to convince me against buying, because complaining about everything is sorta his job and what's expected of him at this point, but if he praises something it's usually worthy of that praise and that will get me to try it out.
Do I take ZP seriously? I guess the most accurate answer is 'sort of'. I'm sure that what he says is true, but some of the things that really get under yahtzee's saddle don't bother me. besides, I don't buy tons of games and I usually don't base my decision on any one review.
I do enjoy ZP a whole lot though.
I do enjoy ZP a whole lot though.
While I take his videos with a grain of salt, I do take some of his criticisms in mind when looking at a game.
Typically, he will pick out bits of a game that should have been handled better, even if the game is brilliant, and will give his honest opinion on them without fanaticism that paints so many professional reviewers' writings. His comment about the "hunt the white wall" in Portal 2 is a perfect example of this and is rarely mentioned in other works.
Just don't take everything at face value. Often he will overstate something for comedic effect. However, he is still fun to watch.
Typically, he will pick out bits of a game that should have been handled better, even if the game is brilliant, and will give his honest opinion on them without fanaticism that paints so many professional reviewers' writings. His comment about the "hunt the white wall" in Portal 2 is a perfect example of this and is rarely mentioned in other works.
Just don't take everything at face value. Often he will overstate something for comedic effect. However, he is still fun to watch.
Go to:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/926-Batman-Arkham-Asylum
and go to time:
1:25
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/926-Batman-Arkham-Asylum
and go to time:
1:25
"You don't call a sewer technician to redecorate your bathroom, and you don't come to me to hear about how a game is good."
-Yahtzee
So no, I don't come to watch zero punctuation to take him seriously, it's just to get a good laugh. If I wanted serious material I'd go over to extra credits which is conveniently located next door.
-Yahtzee
So no, I don't come to watch zero punctuation to take him seriously, it's just to get a good laugh. If I wanted serious material I'd go over to extra credits which is conveniently located next door.
he makes some interesting points sometimes which I tend to agree with but 9/10 times I just watch them to be entertained rather than looking for some in depth review.
Though his taste in games tends to mesh with mine to a degree. I think that earthbound and silent hill 2 are two of the best games ever made
Though his taste in games tends to mesh with mine to a degree. I think that earthbound and silent hill 2 are two of the best games ever made
I don't take him that seriously. I think he makes some valid points at times, but I've seen too many reviews where it's clear that Yahtzee either didn't pay attention to the game, nor even played it properly. The review he did for Mirror's Edge was, in my opinion, very poorly done.
Sort of yes, and sort of no. He's able to point out glaring flaws in any game, but he also has incredibly high standards.
These standards ARE nessicary, mind you, and they help us appriciate what is TRULY good in the games we play. Heck, hearing his oppinion on Halo made me re-think my own.
I've had people come up to me and tell me how 'Halo's story is amazing!', and immidiately think, "Are you nuts?"
Halo, in my oppinion, is a fun game nonetheless. The weapons are balanced and fun to use, the asthetic choices appeal to the eye and are decidedly non-brown, and its a great game to socialize with. (Seriously, I made some of my best friends over games of Halo 2 at my local church.)
Getting back to Yhatzee....if I listened to his reviews as to wiether or not I buy a game, I'd...never buy any games. Heck, I have my fair share of games that I loved, that the 'world' didn't. Rayman 3....Final Fantasy XIII.....you get the idea.
Basically, one should use reviews as a guideline, but not a final verdict. If YOU'RE having fun with a game, then it shouldn't matter what other people think. Thats your personal decision.
As for Yhatzee, he's an intelligent man, who knows what he's talking about, but at the same time, he's a cynic.
These standards ARE nessicary, mind you, and they help us appriciate what is TRULY good in the games we play. Heck, hearing his oppinion on Halo made me re-think my own.
I've had people come up to me and tell me how 'Halo's story is amazing!', and immidiately think, "Are you nuts?"
Halo, in my oppinion, is a fun game nonetheless. The weapons are balanced and fun to use, the asthetic choices appeal to the eye and are decidedly non-brown, and its a great game to socialize with. (Seriously, I made some of my best friends over games of Halo 2 at my local church.)
Getting back to Yhatzee....if I listened to his reviews as to wiether or not I buy a game, I'd...never buy any games. Heck, I have my fair share of games that I loved, that the 'world' didn't. Rayman 3....Final Fantasy XIII.....you get the idea.
Basically, one should use reviews as a guideline, but not a final verdict. If YOU'RE having fun with a game, then it shouldn't matter what other people think. Thats your personal decision.
As for Yhatzee, he's an intelligent man, who knows what he's talking about, but at the same time, he's a cynic.
His reviews certainly has a humourous tone; however, the specifics of his complaints are almost always valid. Granted, there are some matters that are personal taste and I take that into account, but I treat his reviews as seriously as any other review.Lenin211 said:
I listen to his opinions to a point but i'll still buy some games that he didn't enjoy. And also he isn't a comedian, he is a critic as he says in "Mailbag Showdown" it's just a good thing that he is hilarious...
I take certain points seriously. I listen when he makes a well reasoned argument. I think he's a little to hung up on narrative, aesthetics and originality and not concerned enough with good design(I don't care what anybody says, Mario Galaxy 2 was a masterpiece and I'll have one of those over 50 O.K.ish attempts at something new any day). But otherwise he has some very interesting things to say in-between all the dick jokes.
Oh, as well, I think he knows and caters to his audience and their expectations too much. So you need to be watching with a eye as cynical as he makes his out to be.
Oh, as well, I think he knows and caters to his audience and their expectations too much. So you need to be watching with a eye as cynical as he makes his out to be.
I pay attention and listen to each criticism and think about how much I care about each point. It's his view of a game and his preferences are different than my own. So yeah I take him seriously but that doesn't mean he's the only thing I use to decide my game choices.
Yes I take them seriously, no the review very rarely affects my decision to buy a game. He's not trying to help you decide if you should buy a game; the point is more to raise aspects of the game for discussion with other people who've played the game. Its primarily game criticism in that sense, not a 'buy it or don't' way.
p.s. there is a lot of leeway in that definition; the Portal 2 review says that the game is worth your time, kind of implying a degree of consumer advice, as did Psychonauts waaay back. But Red Dead Redemption was criticised in some quite scathing ways but was his 3rd best game of the year, implying more of an attempt to raise issues amongst others who've played it.
p.s. there is a lot of leeway in that definition; the Portal 2 review says that the game is worth your time, kind of implying a degree of consumer advice, as did Psychonauts waaay back. But Red Dead Redemption was criticised in some quite scathing ways but was his 3rd best game of the year, implying more of an attempt to raise issues amongst others who've played it.
If it's a game I'm considering buying I will tend to take his views more seriously, although it is good to keep in mind that he is pointing out mainly negative aspects to a game. In the end, I make my own mind up based on if I think I would like the game, usually helped with this by watching a few reviews. For example he got me to buy Just Cause 2 and pushed me away from the Halo series a little.
Basically it all comes down to your decision and if the flaws he points out are small enough for you then fine, add a point in that game's favour.
Basically it all comes down to your decision and if the flaws he points out are small enough for you then fine, add a point in that game's favour.