I totally disaggre on his Witcher 1 & 2 and Daemon's Souls Reviews, as they are all one of my favourite games of this gen. I still found the videos damn funny though.
What do you disagree with Yahtzee on?
- Thread starter Nazulu
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think that's... sort of true, but I'd say he is a reviewer.sanquin said:
If you've watched much Yahtzee, then it's not hard to sift through the purposeful exaggeration and nitpicking to find his real opinion of the game.
Unlike Yahtzee, I liked Nathan Drake. Even if he was a little too physically competent/superhuman to be the everyman he was portrayed as, his personality really helped him stand out from all the Marcus Phoenixes in gaming, which made him much more interesting as a character.
I disagree with Yahtzee on alot of things... I still like to hear his opinion every week cause even if I think he's completely wrong he's always entertaining.
It's fairly easy to tell what he really cares about and what he dosen't, when he does care he reliably offers some very interesting and intelligent opinions and when he dosen't he can at least wring a few good laughs out of it.
It's fairly easy to tell what he really cares about and what he dosen't, when he does care he reliably offers some very interesting and intelligent opinions and when he dosen't he can at least wring a few good laughs out of it.
I disagree with Yahtzee on most things. It would be easier to make a list of the things I agree with Yahtzee on. Yahtzee's reviews have only slightly more influence on my buying habits than they have punctuation. That being said, I still find ZP hilarious and he does usually make points worth thinking about even if 70% of the time or so I still disagree with him when all is said and done. That in itself makes ZP worth watching.
Capcha: 'exercise more' Now you're just being mean capcha bot, you know I'm sensitive about my weight...
Capcha: 'exercise more' Now you're just being mean capcha bot, you know I'm sensitive about my weight...
I disagree with him on the Metal Gear franchise though I do have the same feelings towards MGS4, Borderlands though I did play the game with friends so yeah I defiantly had a different experience from his, Brutal Legend which I was still able to have fun with, and on Walking Dead Survival Instinct (which I feel proves he is becoming a banana) other then that I tend to agree with him for the most part.
Yeah I was thinking more along the lines of disapproval, as in "Where do you think Yahtzee is wrong."Zachary Amaranth said:
Not very ZP related, but he hates Joss Whedon and nearly dismissed the Avengers, so I guess that.
The Halo franchise. He really doesn't hate or like it. I fucking love it.
Also the Half-life franchise. He loves it, I really don't care for it.
Also his opinion on Pokemon white was kinda bullshit. The game has changed ALOT over the course of time.
Also the Half-life franchise. He loves it, I really don't care for it.
Also his opinion on Pokemon white was kinda bullshit. The game has changed ALOT over the course of time.
I don't really take most of what he says seriously since his reviews are, for the most part, for comedic value. But have to half disagree with his thoughts on Bioshock Infinite's ending.
If it were a movie or a book it would have been alright. Something you sit down to enjoy without really getting involved and then there's a plot revelation/twist at the end. That's fine.
Spoilers!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For a game, the ending sucks the same cliched pair of balls that have barely had a chance to dry off. For something you're involved in, with choices, overcoming challenges, ect. ect. To just lie down and surrender after all that is just bullshit. It wouldn't fix anything anyway, given how fractally fucked time/space is at this point, saying that all of existence's multiple realities are linked to this one incarnation of one guy letting himself be drowned by multiple incarnations of his daughter in a pocket dimension is ludicrous. Getting fucked over or dying in some fashion happens so often nowadays that surviving or actually accomplishing the goal you set out for could be considered a twist ending.
If it were a movie or a book it would have been alright. Something you sit down to enjoy without really getting involved and then there's a plot revelation/twist at the end. That's fine.
Spoilers!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For a game, the ending sucks the same cliched pair of balls that have barely had a chance to dry off. For something you're involved in, with choices, overcoming challenges, ect. ect. To just lie down and surrender after all that is just bullshit. It wouldn't fix anything anyway, given how fractally fucked time/space is at this point, saying that all of existence's multiple realities are linked to this one incarnation of one guy letting himself be drowned by multiple incarnations of his daughter in a pocket dimension is ludicrous. Getting fucked over or dying in some fashion happens so often nowadays that surviving or actually accomplishing the goal you set out for could be considered a twist ending.
i disagree with his views on the third game in a series (where he claims by the third game everyone is tired and it will be inferior), sometimes the third is the best or at least still great my opinion such as:
Uncharted 3
morrowind - sure its different than the first too but isnt the point to find its identity in sequels and keep improving the mechanics and those who dont count the first 2 elder scrolls then skyrim can be another example
Bioshock infinite - ok it isnt the third in a story, but still the third bioshock and is still amazing, improving on the first two
Uncharted 3
morrowind - sure its different than the first too but isnt the point to find its identity in sequels and keep improving the mechanics and those who dont count the first 2 elder scrolls then skyrim can be another example
Bioshock infinite - ok it isnt the third in a story, but still the third bioshock and is still amazing, improving on the first two
Are you honestly fucking joking? Galloping Fuck Christ, use spoiler tags. Quote my post to see how they work.Jacksaw Jack said:
OT:
The PS4, mostly. He makes this huge deal about it not being backwards compatible and there being a share button on the controller and Sony not having actually shown the machine, but . . . really?
Of course it won't be backwards compatible. The Cell, though it allowed for great things, made the console wars (which he has called pointless on numerous occasions, a sentiment with which I agree) even more partisan than they would have otherwise been, and it's crushingly hard for independent studios to work with. They made the decision to move to PC architecture because it would allow indie developers more freedom and ease of access to develop for the PS4.
I mean, I don't know if you've been following Sony lately, Yahtzee, but literally almost everything they've been doing recently is to make indie games better for the PS4. If you disagree with that, it's one thing, but you could at least fucking acknowledge that there is a point to Sony's decisions.
Also, the share button is still mostly a mystery, and Sony have said that it won't be mandatory or a huge push with the console's games. Same thing with the touch pad on the back.
Also, does it really matter that we haven't seen the console itself? I don't think that seeing a glorified Blu-Ray player would assuage any of these fears, and, let's be honest here, who gives a shit what the console is going to look like? We've seen the specs in action (tech demos, the press conference videos), and we have an idea of what direction they want to go with the games. Nobody remembers a console because it looks pretty. They remember consoles because of the games on it, and the games are what define consoles.
Like, fuck. It's just a cavalcade of logical fallacies and deliberate ignorance of press coverage.
Uncharted 3 is arguably the weakest game of the series. The set pieces are great, but the characters are massively inconsistent and the narrative has no idea what it wants to do.flyer son of no one said:
The Elder Scrolls series aren't really your typical series of games, since they have almost nothing to do with each other. Calling them a trilogy/series/whatever isn't really accurate.
Again, there are only really two Bioshock games,[footnote]We don't talk about Bioshock 2.[/footnote] which, again, have nothing to do with one another and take place in explicitly separate planes of reality.
It's important to take into account the critic's bias. Critics, comedian or no, are exposed to a lot more material than the average audience, and so are generally much more well-versed in (and more easily annoyed by) common tropes, cliches, flaws, etc...
As a general rule, if Yahtzee likes a game, there's a pretty good chance I will too, but if he doesn't like it, that doesn't necessarily mean that I won't.
That being said, I played Silent Hill 2 based on his appraisal and thought it was pretty decent, but not the blowjob bacon sundae he made it out to be. He seems to have a fondness for linearity that I can't quite wrap my head around. Not that I think it's always automatically bad, but I felt SH2 was a game that was way more linear than it needed to be, and could have benefited from a little more open exploration.
As a general rule, if Yahtzee likes a game, there's a pretty good chance I will too, but if he doesn't like it, that doesn't necessarily mean that I won't.
That being said, I played Silent Hill 2 based on his appraisal and thought it was pretty decent, but not the blowjob bacon sundae he made it out to be. He seems to have a fondness for linearity that I can't quite wrap my head around. Not that I think it's always automatically bad, but I felt SH2 was a game that was way more linear than it needed to be, and could have benefited from a little more open exploration.
Love him most of the time, he's hilarious & a damn good critic. There is one thing that gets on my wick, though;
Now, it's fine for him to eschew multiplayer modes. That's personal preference.
But to review games such as Battlefield 3 super-badly, in which the multiplayer is the main purpose of the game (regardless of what EA says), is just a bit mad.
It's like reviewing Arkham Asylum purely on the challenge rooms, or reviewing FFX purely on the Chocobo-racing minigame. Personal preference against multiplayer is fine, but don't then purchase and very negatively review multiplayer-centric games after playing what is essentially a minor feature.
Now, it's fine for him to eschew multiplayer modes. That's personal preference.
But to review games such as Battlefield 3 super-badly, in which the multiplayer is the main purpose of the game (regardless of what EA says), is just a bit mad.
It's like reviewing Arkham Asylum purely on the challenge rooms, or reviewing FFX purely on the Chocobo-racing minigame. Personal preference against multiplayer is fine, but don't then purchase and very negatively review multiplayer-centric games after playing what is essentially a minor feature.