Poll: Is Yahtzee serious?

[Use_Imagination_here]

Well hes played 2 games a week for like 3 years now, it's no wonder he has different tastes than nearly all gamers.

I still don't think he hates nearly as many games nearly as much as he sayes he does though.

 

[Keepitclean]

He has said that he "praises by omission" if that helps anyone.

He is serious though.

 

[PingoBlack]

Not only serious, also very consistent.

ZP is not really producing reviews, it's an opinion piece or satirical criticism. But that very fact makes him way more honest than actual reviews, which are more often then not just silly hype making PR pieces with no real value.

Yes, sad as it is.

 

[Lhianon]

let me phraise it this way: i think he is honest, but not serious. ^^

 

[ssgt splatter]

It's his job to rip a new ass-hole for the game he's reviewing for that week whether it's for a serious bug in a gameplay mechanic or just nit-picking which is to say finding all the little "problems" that even when added up don't subtract from the over all expirence of the game itself.

A big problem/failed gameplay mechanic would be the camera having a mind of its own and it will focus on a crack in the floor as opposed to the giant mutant/robot/enemy coming toward you with the intent of turning you inside-out.

Nit-picking is basically saying that a Light Machine Gun takes so long to reload that you should just drop it or order a new one via mail order after you burn through the first magazine. The review of Call of Duty 4 mentions this.

I listen to his reviews for a good laugh and don't really take them seriously. I've played games that he seemed to hate but I absouletly loved and I've also played games that he seemed to like but I hated. What I view as fun and what Yahtzee views as fun and what you, the person reading this post, veiws as fun can all be totally different definitions of fun.

 

[Athinira]

This is something I have been thinking about for some time now, Yahtzee has stated to hate a lot of games and when I try to remember it all I recall him hating, third person shooters, first person shooters, real time strategies, RPGs JRPGs and just about everything the Wii churned out, and that's just off of the top of my head. I've seen a couple of people say that he's in character during his reveiws while others say they're his honest opinion and frankly I'm a little lost here. If he is in character I can't help but notice that he practically never breaks it on this website and quite a few people has begun to despise him. On the other hand if he isn't in character it's rather jarring that he honestly hates so many of the games out there and truly beleives them to be bland and unoriginal.

I get the feeling there is no right or wrong anwser to this so what do you think?

If that's the impression you've got from his videos (and perhaps Extra Punctuation), then i think it's time to go watch the whole library again, because you've got it wrong.

Yahtzee doesn't necessarily hate games, he might just hate some things about them which he then exaggerates in this review, since that's what makes them funny.

He has admitted to liking Mario Galaxy 1 + 2 for example, despite his critique of both of them (especially the second one).

Sure, he has way higher (or in some cases just different) standards than most other reviewers, but that's what i like about him. While other reviewers were busy showering Dragon Age 2 with good reviews, his review came and pointed out all the flaws that several people had pointed out on Metacritic already (along with a bunch of 0-4 scores) and on different forums. His ability to point out flaws actually makes him a more worthwhile reviewer than any other site, because they tend to explain the whole "experience" of the game instead, which may drastically differ from yours once you buy it. By pointing out flaws and gameplay mechanics in a more consistent way, it makes it easier to understand what the game is about, especially if you supplement with some gameplay footage, and it gives you are much better idea of the game.

 

[jboking]

Yahtzee always exaggerates, but it is still representative of his opinion on the game. He is honest when he says he likes a game or at least thinks it isn't bad. Which is why I view his recent Resistance 3 review as a compliment towards the game.

 

[Scrustle]

I think he over-emphasises things for comic effect sometimes, but mostly what he says is honest. But I still wouldn't say he's being "serious". I would also say he emphasises things that he thinks other critics should pick up on but don't. And yeah sometimes he contradicts himself, but he's human. He's not perfect. His opinions can change over time and depending on his current mood. It's not like his reviews are supposed to be taken as an infallible record, they are reviews after all. The majority of them are opinion, and he's entitled to change his opinion. And he's an entertainer, so he's entitled to hyperbole.

 

[Da Orky Man]

This is something I have been thinking about for some time now, Yahtzee has stated to hate a lot of games and when I try to remember it all I recall him hating, third person shooters, first person shooters, real time strategies, RPGs JRPGs and just about everything the Wii churned out, and that's just off of the top of my head. I've seen a couple of people say that he's in character during his reveiws while others say they're his honest opinion and frankly I'm a little lost here. If he is in character I can't help but notice that he practically never breaks it on this website and quite a few people has begun to despise him. On the other hand if he isn't in character it's rather jarring that he honestly hates so many of the games out there and truly beleives them to be bland and unoriginal.

I get the feeling there is no right or wrong anwser to this so what do you think?

The only reason I could possibly dislike him is because of his view on 40k. And even that article had praise for it. Sure, he may dislike it for it's obvious over-the-topness, but that's the whole point of it.

 

[DailonCmann]

Remember that his job is to entertain first and inform second. The reason that so many people prefer Yahtzee is because he's funny. A great way to be funny is to be overly critical of things and if it so happens that he thinks these are bad things to begin with, more power to him. He puts it best himself in one of his first reviews, Bioshock. "If there's one thing I've learned from my Psychonauts review, it's that nobody likes me when I'm being nice to a game." We watch his show because he dislikes things that most of us dislike. We can relate and therefor find it funny. He's gaming's Simon Cowell. He's only really nice to a game when it truly impresses him and he feels like it would go against what journalistic integrity he does have to call it utter shit. Most of the games he reviews negatively are mediocre games, so these are simply cannon fodder for him.

 

[Woodsey]

His points are what he thinks, but they're exaggerated. And unless a game's ball-ticklingly good, he'll usually only focus on its bad points.

 

[Xirema]

And you're automatically assuming that games are art. Not only art, but Art. Don't confuse 'a medium through which artistic merit can be portrayed' with 'a medium through which artistic merit is always portrayed'. Doom is not art. Descent is not art. Rise of the Triads is not art. Whatever happened to the days when games could get by just by being damn good fun?

It's a bit of a slippery slope when we're trying to draw lines between what is art and what isn't. Doom is Art. I don't necessarily appreciate it myself, or appreciate its aesthetic, or even think it's fun (I don't) but it's become clear to me that there are people who do, and I can't declare something "not to be art" simply because I don't personally appreciate it. Twilight is art. Stupid, poorly written, misogynistic, and immature Art, but Art nonetheless.

As to the more pertinent issue, there's a reason games used to be able to get by only on being fun: because that's all they could have. Video games have been limited by the technology that produced them, just in the same way that books struggled before movable type and movies struggled before we made affordable video camera technology. In the same way, video games were very limited before we produced the first +Mhz processor, or the first MB ram cards. Old games weren't well regarded on their own merits, they were well regarded because there wasn't anything better. Except that for the more artistically inclined, there were better things: actual movies and books and such.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

oh he's COMPLETELY serious, which is why I find it difficult to take him seriously as a reviewer or a comedian as of late.

 

[Scorpid]

I think Yahtzee looks at it from a much more holistic perspective. While most reviewers, review games by its individual components. "Are the graphics top notch?" "Are the mechanics balanced?" "Is the story interesting?" "What is the re-playability" and so forth. Yahtzee on the otherhand takes these into account as they apply to the larger game industry. I've seen him say over and over again that he hates shooters not because they're not gorgeous graphically, or pull off their realism aspect but because they represent a cookie cutter standard of how to make games. Usually harping on how there is very little difference between the like Modern Warfare and the Battlefield series.

 

[jaketaz]

The people that enjoy his videos - they like him because he is hilarious but also frank about the realities of games. It doesn't matter how much you enjoy games, you have to remove yourself from the situation to like his videos. Objectively, any sane person has to admit that, no matter how much they enjoy video gaming, there are so many completely retarded things about the medium and the industry. When he hates on space marines, RPG's or anything else, he gives valid and logical reasons - people that take offense don't take offense because of his swearing or hating on their games, they take offense because they know his complaints are totally legitimate. He doesn't need to be funny at all, his videos have enough insight to merit interest already, but he goes the extra mile to add laughs and lighten the mood. You have to admire that.

 

[Dash-X]

Yahtzee's views make sense if you think of it like this:

He's not a journalist or reviewer. He's an entertainer. He doesn't so much review games as he does roast them.

The main reason he seems to hate so much is that it's difficult for him to make something funny based on something he actually likes. If I remember correctly, he actually said as much in a review.

Real talk, if the Yahtzee we know wasn't just a character, I honestly don't think he would have made it to whatever age he is now. Not with those twigs he calls arms and legs. No one could tolerate a person like that for long.

 

[vivster]

you have to learn to read this persona
there has rarely been a game he completely hates
the slightest positive word on a game is a good pointer for "this game can be fun"

also it helps to read his column

 

[Lilani]

He's not a reviewer, he's a critic. A reviewer will take a balanced look at a game and deliver an unbiased report. A critic will examine a game and pick up on all its flaws, glossing over the good and emphasizing the bad.

Yahtzee exaggerates for comic effect, but he's pretty on the ball when it comes to finding a game's weak spots.

First of all, critics and reviewer serve the same purpose and so are the same thing. Secondly, because their feedback is based on their opinions of whatever they've experienced, there is no possible way for them to be "unbiased" or "objective." The very definition of an opinion is a subjective feeling about a certain subject.

Sure there are certain things they are expected to report on that can be addressed in an objective manner, such as bugs, poor writing, poor voice acting, etc. Those are things that are universally disliked. No one in their right mind would argue of the merit of those problems.

But as for the other aspects of the game? Those are very subjective. One critic may point out that a game's subject is cliched and thus automatically dislikes it, while another may have no problem with the cliche'd story because it's presented so well and the game was still fun. Of course the one who likes it would still likely notice the cliche (it is their job to notice these things, after all), they will be more likely to report it as not a big deal given the other parts which they see as redeeming values.

There is no absolute rubric that you can use to map out the exact fun:shit ratio of a game. And to report on games in such a robotic and totally objective manner would be completely ineffective. As humans, we are inherently subjective, especially when it comes to visceral experiences. Without those human touches of opinions and tastes, it would be harder to report on these experiences, and harder to divine anything meaningful from the reports.

So no, it isn't a critic or reviewer's job to be unbiased. It's their job to take their knowledge of games, mechanics, and art (yes, art. From aesthetics and design, to narrative and story delivery, to music and sound design, to overall plot and dramatic structure there are quite a few elements of art that come together to make a game), and combine those standards to their own personal standards and experiences to come up with their opinion of whether or not it's a good game. The only reason we call them a "critic" instead of a regular "gamer" is because of that extra stage of identifying the artistic elements and comparing the experience to their knowledge of games and game experiences (which, if they are a critic worth their salt, should be a pretty vast knowledge of games).

 

[Xirema]

Nope, not one tiny bit. Ever since he just did a fanboy rant for Portal 2 (he didn't review the story, graphics, gameplay or anything), I go to his reviews for teh lulz.

I'll give you that he didn't discuss the graphics (though since graphics are really not an essential aspect of a game I'm not sure what point you're making) but I seem to recall him harping on about the game play and story quite a bit. His complaints were, IIRC, about the puzzles taking a backseat to the story more often than he was comfortable, the connecting sequences not really having any challenging gameplay to speak of other than "search this room for the wall you have to portal to and then continue" and the actual gameplay itself being much too easy.

 

[theodosian]

It's generally somewhere in between. I'm certain that it would be a miserable existence to bear that much hatred for what is essentially a medium of entertainment. That being said, the triple A game pool has reached a point at which a lot of the market is down right stale and in most cases, that's what needs to be reviewed because that's what people want to know about, that's what goes on store shelves, and that's fine.

If you're coming to a reviewer or a critic to determine whether or not you're going to buy a game, I desperately hope you know this individual on a personal level because getting the opinion of a stranger on a game is like asking the first person on the street which shop has the best sandwiches. This isn't to say you can't get information to help make a more informed decision but the fact is everyone has tastes. We all have those few games we cherish that the world sees as crap but stay tucked away neatly with the weird secrets no one wants to face. When it comes down to it, he is an entertainer and a damn fine one. Do we have to know how he pulls Branston Pickle out of his hat every week? No. Shoot for the middle and you'll find your truth.