Halo 2 has a completely different plot.atomicmrpelly said:
But he did review Gears of War 2 and said it wasn't that bad.Akalabeth said:
Scribblenauts
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Halo 2 has a different plot?
I heard it was along the lines of "Oh crap, another space ring. Well blowing up the ship's reactor thingy worked out well last time so why don't we do that again?" I even heard it had an end scene along the lines of "Oh look, a bunch more space rings, what are the chances!?"
I heard it was along the lines of "Oh crap, another space ring. Well blowing up the ship's reactor thingy worked out well last time so why don't we do that again?" I even heard it had an end scene along the lines of "Oh look, a bunch more space rings, what are the chances!?"
You lost me at the part (on extra punctuation) where you link social incompetency to mental retardation; maybe it's another reference to British culture, idiom, things would be nearly impossible to understand for those whom wasn't native English speaker. Which is why I would also like to add some comment about you, Yahtzee Croshaw's technique in game review: to tell the truth, I would agree with you on most part, in fact (once again) for the most part those comment is probably what I would have said about those games if I were in your shoe. But I do however have to complain about your use of idioms and some other culturally based content, because that will forbid foreign viewers from understanding your review, and that would be a terrible lost to the world (well, maybe a considerable lost to say the least).
For arbitrary reason, I would also like to add that if we met under a different circumstances, we might get along just fine. Oh well, no point crying over spilled milk.
For arbitrary reason, I would also like to add that if we met under a different circumstances, we might get along just fine. Oh well, no point crying over spilled milk.
I really do enjoy the "extra punctuation", it's a great insight to Yahtzee's true manner and thoughts.
Thanks for the read Mr Croshaw.
-Joe
Thanks for the read Mr Croshaw.
-Joe
I disagree with the bit he says about "Is it designed by a professional games designer etc."
Doesn't that basically mean that indie developers who make games in their spare time should all be ignored? Or that the only people who have any creative skill in games are the people who work at games comapnies?
Just because you don't get paid to do something, doesn't mean you aren't good at it.
Doesn't that basically mean that indie developers who make games in their spare time should all be ignored? Or that the only people who have any creative skill in games are the people who work at games comapnies?
Just because you don't get paid to do something, doesn't mean you aren't good at it.
They don't blow it up (although they were thinking about it) and the chances are 100% as 343 Guilty Spark said in the first game: "This installation has an effective range of 25,000 light-years, but once the others [his emphasis] follow suit, this galaxy will be quite devoid of life, or at least any life with sufficient biomass to sustain the Flood."atomicmrpelly said:
Does anyone else find it funny that his whole article was a response to a forum post that essentially insulted his intelligence? The sarcasm is so thin in the article that I can't tell if this was done on purpose (thus bumping Yahtzee up a few notches in my book) or if he really is just as insecure and hypocritical as the very people he's railing on about.
Ah well, either way it was a good read.
Ah well, either way it was a good read.
At the risk of being sneered at, abused, violated or just shunned forever, Scribblenauts is actually very good. Sorry those of you who didn't actually bother playing it yet still decided to comment on it, but you are all misguided in your assumptions. Yes, Yahtzee, even you. I feel, having spoken to several normal, sensible, CoD- Halo- Uncharted- etc. playing friends, colleagues and siblings, that a lot of the nay sayers are missing the point somewhat. Missing it by a magnitude akin to NASA trying to land on Jupiter by firing a potato into the Sun. Or something.
Put plainly, Scribblenauts is a game that sets a simple goal then tasks you with coming up with a method of accomplishing it by creting things to aid you. "So what?" Say the nay sayers, "we know that already." It has two different types of puzzle, and a level creation tool. "Yeah, and? As you an put anything you like you can beat all the levels easily, often without even much of a challenge."
You are both right and at the same time manage to ignore the underlying principle of the game. The levels are quick, sometimes simple mind-benders that always have an easy way out. Even the harder ones can be solved by killing everything in the 'room' and then leisurely making a tower out of bridges and refrigerators, if you wanted to. But that is the point of it. Pare it all back, look at it objectively, THINK about what you are being asked, and for all the 'freedom' in the world, you have the basic, oldest-school of games thinking since Pong.
The real challenge is set by you, the player. Not in a Littlebigplanet 'how do I make this level near Prince-of-Persia (2D) impossible?' kind of way, but in the simple fact that each level is done for score. The fewer objects you create, the better, the 'par' score sometimes deceptive. Not only that, but bonuses are awarded for creative thinking, original creations and other things that simply putting 'machine gun' 'jetpack' and 'cthulu' won't ever help you achieve. Sure, sometimes it just boils down to coming up with yet another different word for something that can lift you up the level, but at least there is that to fall back on. If you WANT to, you can go for the easy option and go back to what you know works, but also, if you WANT to, you can experiment and challenge yourself, push yourself harder.
Sure, I come off as a fanboy, but in the whole DS-based market of brain-training fare, even Layton cannot compete with the sheer logical reasoning and memory recall that you can put yourself through with Scribblenauts. The amount of times I've resorted to hitting 'try again' and restarted the level just because I tried something that didn't work and didn't want it harming my score at the end is starting to make me worry if I have a form of OCD, but still, this is what we used to DEMAND from games. The commonest complaint about a lot of puzzles in modern games is they are a little too simple (Res Evil 5, hang your head in shame!) so it therefore makes very little sense to comdemn an actual puzzle game that actively ALLOWS you to make it harder for yourself. Sure, if you are the kind of guy who sprints through a game while barely paying attention to the game world around you, you know, those people who treated ODST like a sprint, rather than an Orienteeting exercise, or those people who thought Oblivion, Metroid and Fallout were boring because they required you to go out and do stuff in a non-linear fashion rather than in Sonic the Hedghog A-B style, then YES, Scribblenauts is boring, restrictive and way too easy to beat.
But then, like we already know, you're missing the point of it entirely. 5 minutes on the bus, or 3 hours on the couch, it'll happily do either, something not a lot of games these days can boast being able to do easily, and for those people who actually play games like we used to play games, with friends, swapping the cartridge, trying to beat Fred's score, discussing how to beat level 3-1 and all that, Scribblenauts is both evolution and homage.
I'm not saying the nay-sayers don't have some substance to their complaints, every game has cracks in places, some larger than others, but is the amount of almost one-line put-downs aimed at Scribblenauts really justified? Games and Edge and other 'respectible' sources gave out 8s in reviews, it won awards at E3 from people who genuinely know what they are talking about, and everyone I have spoken to in person who has actually had hands-on with the game in question all agree its a great little piece of work.
Its just a shame those people who can't be bothered to really play it have the most time on their hands to type out an opinion.
Anyway, I'm off to make God and Satan have a fight with Cthulu and see what the outcome is. Because I can. Then I'll probably try to beat my brother's scores in world 3.
'Ziki.
Put plainly, Scribblenauts is a game that sets a simple goal then tasks you with coming up with a method of accomplishing it by creting things to aid you. "So what?" Say the nay sayers, "we know that already." It has two different types of puzzle, and a level creation tool. "Yeah, and? As you an put anything you like you can beat all the levels easily, often without even much of a challenge."
You are both right and at the same time manage to ignore the underlying principle of the game. The levels are quick, sometimes simple mind-benders that always have an easy way out. Even the harder ones can be solved by killing everything in the 'room' and then leisurely making a tower out of bridges and refrigerators, if you wanted to. But that is the point of it. Pare it all back, look at it objectively, THINK about what you are being asked, and for all the 'freedom' in the world, you have the basic, oldest-school of games thinking since Pong.
The real challenge is set by you, the player. Not in a Littlebigplanet 'how do I make this level near Prince-of-Persia (2D) impossible?' kind of way, but in the simple fact that each level is done for score. The fewer objects you create, the better, the 'par' score sometimes deceptive. Not only that, but bonuses are awarded for creative thinking, original creations and other things that simply putting 'machine gun' 'jetpack' and 'cthulu' won't ever help you achieve. Sure, sometimes it just boils down to coming up with yet another different word for something that can lift you up the level, but at least there is that to fall back on. If you WANT to, you can go for the easy option and go back to what you know works, but also, if you WANT to, you can experiment and challenge yourself, push yourself harder.
Sure, I come off as a fanboy, but in the whole DS-based market of brain-training fare, even Layton cannot compete with the sheer logical reasoning and memory recall that you can put yourself through with Scribblenauts. The amount of times I've resorted to hitting 'try again' and restarted the level just because I tried something that didn't work and didn't want it harming my score at the end is starting to make me worry if I have a form of OCD, but still, this is what we used to DEMAND from games. The commonest complaint about a lot of puzzles in modern games is they are a little too simple (Res Evil 5, hang your head in shame!) so it therefore makes very little sense to comdemn an actual puzzle game that actively ALLOWS you to make it harder for yourself. Sure, if you are the kind of guy who sprints through a game while barely paying attention to the game world around you, you know, those people who treated ODST like a sprint, rather than an Orienteeting exercise, or those people who thought Oblivion, Metroid and Fallout were boring because they required you to go out and do stuff in a non-linear fashion rather than in Sonic the Hedghog A-B style, then YES, Scribblenauts is boring, restrictive and way too easy to beat.
But then, like we already know, you're missing the point of it entirely. 5 minutes on the bus, or 3 hours on the couch, it'll happily do either, something not a lot of games these days can boast being able to do easily, and for those people who actually play games like we used to play games, with friends, swapping the cartridge, trying to beat Fred's score, discussing how to beat level 3-1 and all that, Scribblenauts is both evolution and homage.
I'm not saying the nay-sayers don't have some substance to their complaints, every game has cracks in places, some larger than others, but is the amount of almost one-line put-downs aimed at Scribblenauts really justified? Games and Edge and other 'respectible' sources gave out 8s in reviews, it won awards at E3 from people who genuinely know what they are talking about, and everyone I have spoken to in person who has actually had hands-on with the game in question all agree its a great little piece of work.
Its just a shame those people who can't be bothered to really play it have the most time on their hands to type out an opinion.
Anyway, I'm off to make God and Satan have a fight with Cthulu and see what the outcome is. Because I can. Then I'll probably try to beat my brother's scores in world 3.
'Ziki.
Probably not. If Yahtzee's experiences with Modern Warfare is anyhting like my own, every time he actually tries to play the single-player to see what it's like he'll be bombarded with game invites from all and sundry on his friends list.Jsnoopy said:
Even that guy who only plays Forza.
'Ziki
God forbid someone might actually try to find out for themselves by playing it and walk away pleasently surprised eh?Quadtrix said:
Well said. Scribblenauts is actually a very good game despite its flaws; it's just not for the "play to win" crowd. Sure, every level can be beaten with wings and a dragon, but the fun in the game comes from experimentation with the game's systems, not simply completing a level.Tzatziki3301 said:
Pardon me for not reading through the whole argument, but despite what I said about Yahtzee on my other comment. I would agree that Scribblenauts isn't all that good; I'm barely through world three and I'm already frustrated with the physics and movement. One of the challenges, probably 2-1, requires you to break many pottery and glassware, and I find it very hard to control the character to get on to the chair and behave himself properly.
But that's not even my biggest complain, most of the character that you could think of do't have a specific action to carry; at one point I purposely poisoned one of my spawned creature, and proceed to spawn a medic, I was expecting the medic to heal that person but instead he just walks around like an alien face sucker had liquefied his brain and drank it. I mean, all the creature seems to do is to either sit idle or smash into each other in this unintuitive, stone age style combat; I thought we're through with that already? Isn't that same system that were used back in the good old days when people are playing Pac-man?
Oh, another interesting bug that I noticed, for some odd reason the creature "priest" seems have unlimited health point.
But that's not even my biggest complain, most of the character that you could think of do't have a specific action to carry; at one point I purposely poisoned one of my spawned creature, and proceed to spawn a medic, I was expecting the medic to heal that person but instead he just walks around like an alien face sucker had liquefied his brain and drank it. I mean, all the creature seems to do is to either sit idle or smash into each other in this unintuitive, stone age style combat; I thought we're through with that already? Isn't that same system that were used back in the good old days when people are playing Pac-man?
Oh, another interesting bug that I noticed, for some odd reason the creature "priest" seems have unlimited health point.
Tzatziki3301 said:
I'm not so sure if there's any real comparison between a game like Heavy Rain and games like Scribblenauts and Littlebigplanet.
And as for the "choose your own adventure" thing I would assume you're referring to his "The World ends with you" review. Let me just say that Visual Novels are really more books than they are games, although some people may consider them to be games perhaps at least in part because they often get released for video game platforms like the Playstation 2 in Japan.
But Yahtzee may actually understand the appeal of Visual Novels without knowing that he does and the reason is IMMERSION, or the ability of a game or product to pull you into another world. Well it would seem that video games have only acquired the ability to do that within the last decade or two. But books have been doing that to people for centuries. Heavy Rain is not a visual novel but it does seem to have the promise of immersion. So I guess we will see.
And as for the "choose your own adventure" thing I would assume you're referring to his "The World ends with you" review. Let me just say that Visual Novels are really more books than they are games, although some people may consider them to be games perhaps at least in part because they often get released for video game platforms like the Playstation 2 in Japan.
But Yahtzee may actually understand the appeal of Visual Novels without knowing that he does and the reason is IMMERSION, or the ability of a game or product to pull you into another world. Well it would seem that video games have only acquired the ability to do that within the last decade or two. But books have been doing that to people for centuries. Heavy Rain is not a visual novel but it does seem to have the promise of immersion. So I guess we will see.
If you subscribe to Will Wright's ideas about player driven storytelling then the games are fairly similar. Then again, I'm pretty sure Yahtzee does not, so you probably have a point there.A1 said:
Also, I doubt Yahtzee thinks very much of visual novels because he's never been one to care about immersion unless it's in a survival horror game.