Poll: yahtzee not considered a critic/reviewer

[sephiroth1991]

When ever i look at a game he has reviewed on Wiki, most of the time it does not include him in the reseption page, when i go to discussion i'm not the only one who's notice this but he's on some of the pages such as Silent Hill V and The Orange box.
My question is, why does he appear on the positive games but not on the negative ones?

Do you consider him a critic?

Is it just fanboys don't want their game slandered?

 

[BonsaiK]

I consider him a critic because he reviews things and criticises them. To me, this meets the definition of a 'critic'.

Arguably he doesn't do a great job objectively, but then objectivity doesn't always equal entertainment. He might be a poor critic in some cases (see Torchlight review where he gets simple, objective facts about the gameplay completely wrong), but he's still a critic.

I see why some people say he's not a critic. Ignore them, they don't know what they're talking about. It's like that argument "that's not art because I hate it". Of course it's art, if the artist says it's art, it's art. If you don't like it, or it requires no talent to make, that might mean it's BAD art. But it's still art, whether people realise/like it or not. People attach a "value of judgement" to the term "art" and this is why they make the mistake that bad art is not art. The same applies to the word "critic".

 

[Batfred]

A critic, yes.
An entertainer, yes.
A fair reviewer of games who allocates point systems that can be used by metacritic or whoever, don't kid yourself (by his own admission).

 

[NyteRaven]

Personnaly, hes about the only games reviewer I ever bother with nowadays... because he doesn't pull any punches, if a game is shit, he calls it shit, if its good, he tries to work out why, and then picks apart the bad bits. That is what a critic does he picks up on the flaws, and calls them out.

There's my two pence of opinion, and if you don't like it, well you can go and just fuck off. Its my opinion, I accept that others may have a different one, but don't try and lecture me into accepting your opinion as the most important one in the room, if you do that, it turns into the LEAST important opinion in the room. That is all.

 

[Zacharine]

Yes. He's an entertainer and a critic: He takes a game, says quickly if it managed to do something notable right and then beging nitpicking about every single flaw he can find. And usually he even gives reasons for disliking a particular aspect, veiled under insults and dubious character references.

He also has a personal taste for certain kinds of games (what is this multiplayer you speak of? Back, heathen!) and is not afraid to declare those preferences (both for good and bad).

 

[cynicalandbored]

He's DEFINITELY a critic, whatever else it might be fair to call him...

I like him though. Provides a nice counterbalance to all the reviews that're largely far too favourable towards bland and flawed games. Polemics are fun.

 

[Revolution Evolution]

No he is more like an entertainer. He doesn't use a set criteria when he examines videogames. Instead he judges them based on personal opinion and personal likes. He also lampoons the games in the most colorful fashion, rather than the most objective manner.
As a result however his focus is nearly entirely on the negative aspect of the game -by contrast most other game reviews focus on only positives. So when you combine a ZP review with let's say, an IGN review -you get a more complete picture of what the game will be like.

 

[WildFire15]

i think Yathzee's approach to game reviews are better then most 'mainstream' game sites, dispite not being particually objective about it. But that's Yahtzee, this is his opinion and if you don't like it you can gas yourself to death with your own farts.

 

[Kollega]

He may be a critic, but he is not by any measure a reviewer.

As for Wikipedia mentioning his positive reactions but not negative ones - the reason is simple. Yahtzee accentuates the negative. When something gets praised by him, it means that the thing praised is extraordinarily good.

 

[Jaranja]

Did you really need to ask this?

He criticises games, therefore, he's a critic.

 

[Kathinka]

he reviews games and presents his results, so that makes him a reviewer. and though i don't agree with each and every oppionon of him and rather enjoyed a coupple of games he called completely crappy, he does it extremely funny and entertaining. some people are just pissed because he insulted their beloved console, game or u.s. of a.^^

 

[Queen Michael]

He's paid to criticize games; thus, he's a critic.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

Yes, he is a critic. Why? He criticizes games in an entertaining way.

 

[rex922]

Yes, he is a critic. Why? He criticizes games in an entertaining way.

well pretty much this.
although his reviews are always geared at showing all the bad points

 

[aPod]

I dont care what he is as long as he continues to make me smile on Wednesday.

 

[Pielikey]

He's a critic, but his opinions are absolutely bullshit imo.

 

[Altorin]

Of course he's a critic, but he's a comedian first and foremost. I wouldn't say he reviews games as much as he hilariously pans them.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

Yes, he is a critic. Why? He criticizes games in an entertaining way.

well pretty much this.
although his reviews are always geared at showing all the bad points

Well, it wouldn't be entertaining if he focused on what was good, would it?